CAPTIONING OCTOBER 21, 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. WELCOME BACK TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. AT THIS TIME, MS. BEAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE FIRST ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: YES. THE FIRST ITEM THIS AFTERNOON IS ITEM B-1. THIS IS AN ITEM BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT. LORI HUDSON IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, LORI. >>LORI HUDSON: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. LORI HUDSON, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR. WHAT WE'RE BRINGING BEFORE YOU -- AND WE HAVE ORLANDO PEREZ FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH US WHO HAS BEEN WORKING WITH US VERY CLOSELY, BUT WHAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD IS ACTUALLY SOME TERM SHEET AGREEMENTS. IT'S A STARTING PLACE FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPECTRUM, LLC, FOR THE SALE OF THE BRS LICENSE. THIS IS A LICENSE THAT WE NO LONGER USE. IT IS LOW POWER, AND IT'S NOT OF ANY VALUE NOW THAT WE ARE ALL DIGITAL, AND SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH SPECTRUM, LLC, WE WOULD BRING THAT BEFORE THIS BOARD AT A SEPARATE DATE, A LATER DATE, BUT WE HOPE TO BRING SOMETHING OF A VERY POSITIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MS. HUDSON. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM B-2, WHICH IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS ON AN ITEM RELATED TO FUNDING THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL PHASE IV C-1 PROJECT, AND MIKE KELLY IS HERE TO PRESENT THIS. >>MIKE KELLY: COMMISSIONERS, MIKE KELLY, REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT. YOU'LL RECALL BACK IN MAY OF 2009 THE BOARD APPROVED EXPANDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL PHASE IV, SEGMENT "C" PROJECT TO INCREASE THE LENGTH FROM 1.5 MILES TO 4.2 MILES FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2.7 MILES. THE NEW SEGMENT "C" WILL NOW EXTEND FROM THE SUNCOAST PARKWAY WESTWARD ALONG LUTZ-LAKE FERN ROAD AND THEN INCLUDE A SEGMENT THROUGH THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BROOKER CREEK HEADWATERS PRESERVE TO GUNN HIGHWAY, NORTH OF VAN DYKE ROAD. THIS ACTION WAS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FUNDING PLAN, AND WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS A FUNDING PLAN TO PRESENT TO YOU. PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S DIRECTION, THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT AND PARKS AND RECREATION MET WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GREENWAYS COMMITTEE AND THE MPO BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND HAVE PREPARED A FUNDING PLAN TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPANDED TRAIL SYSTEM. THE FUNDING PLAN CONSISTS OF THREE COMPONENTS. THE FIRST COMPONENT IS THE USE OF EXISTING PROJECT FUNDS, AND THAT AMOUNTS TO $2,437,000. THE SECOND COMPONENT IS A LEASE AND A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH SWFWMD. WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE $630,000 FROM SWFWMD FOR THE USE AND THE TRAIL PROJECT. THE THIRD COMPONENT WAS THE CLOSE-OUT OF EXISTING PARKS PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIMARILY COMPLETED, AND THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FROM THE CLOSED OUT PROJECTS IS $1,924,036. THE CLOSE-OUT PROJECTS INCLUDE SOME CIT MONEY, SO, OF COURSE, WE WILL BE FOLLOWING ALL THE CIT RULES FOR THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS. SO THE NEW PROJECT BUDGET THAT WE PRESENT YOU TODAY IS $5,011,036. MARK THORNTON AND I ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I JUST WANTED TO, MIKE -- BOTH YOU AND TO MR. THORNTON -- REALLY THANK YOU FOR WORKING THIS PROJECT. I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS AND ALSO A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST, THE BIKING COMMUNITY AND THOSE WHO ARE JUST OUTDOOR ENTHUSIASTS AND SUCH. IT'S GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY, IT'S GREAT FOR ALL OF US, AND SO I JUST APPRECIATE IT, AND I'LL CERTAINLY MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: AGAIN, JUST TO -- AND MAYBE MIKE THORNTON MIGHT BE THE GUY TO TALK TO THIS, BUT THIS IS A LONG-TIME PROJECT, AND IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS A LONG TIME, AND WHEN IT WAS ALL MASTER-MINDED AND DOING ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS, A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES WEREN'T ESTABLISHED AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF. WE'VE HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WE'VE LET PEOPLE KNOW -- ON THE RECORD SAY THIS -- THAT IT'S A BUY-IN, THE COMMUNITY'S 100% BEHIND IT? YES, YES, AND YES. >>MARK THORNTON: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. IN FACT -- I'M SORRY, MARK THORNTON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND CONSERVATION. WE DID HOLD A MEETING AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DIALOGUE WITH ALL THE USER GROUPS THAT ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL, SO THE REPORT AND PLAN, FUNDING PLAN, AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMES REALLY DIRECTLY FROM THOSE MEETINGS WHERE WE WERE STRICTLY IN THE -- BEFORE PURSUING MOSTLY LAND ACQUISITION, THEY SAID, LOOK, YOU KNOW, BUILD - - WE'VE GOT THIS FUNDING HERE, CAN WE BUILD DOWN TO -- THROUGH THE BROOKER CREEK, AND SO THAT'S WHERE THIS WAS DEVELOPED FROM, THAT -- THAT DISCUSSION. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. AGAIN, JUST WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE IMPACT AND THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS IT AND ALL THAT? >>MARK THORNTON: RIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HAGAN, RECALLING BACK WHEN YOU FIRST GOT ELECTED, YOU KNOW THE UPPER PIECE AROUND VAN DYKE AND ALL OF THAT, THE GUNN HIGHWAY THING. >>KEN HAGAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: ONE TIME BEFORE THEY WERE GOING TO DISSECT CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE. ALL OF THAT OCCURRED. IT ALL CAME -- BUT IT WAS ALL WORKED OUT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND HAVING PEOPLE'S INPUT, SO -- >>MARK THORNTON: AND THIS IS NORTH OF THAT AREA. WE'RE NOT THROUGH THERE. >>JIM NORMAN: I KNOW THAT, BUT JUST AS LONG AS THE COMMUNITY WAS 100% INVOLVED. >>MARK THORNTON: YES. >>JIM NORMAN: YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. >>MARK THORNTON: EVERYBODY THAT WANTED TO BE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT. THERE IS SOME, YOU KNOW, UNPLEASANT HISTORY INVOLVING THIS TRAIL, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK, MR. THORNTON, AND MR. KELLY'S. ACTUALLY LAST EVENING I SPOKE AT AN ANNUAL MEETING OF THE EAGLES COMMUNITY, A BIG COMMUNITY OUT THAT WAY. THIS WAS A MAJOR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. THEY WERE -- I CAN TELL YOU THE LEADERSHIP THERE WAS CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS. >>MARK THORNTON: GREAT. >>KEN HAGAN: I LOOK FORWARD TO COMPLETING THE SOUTHERN PHASE AND COMPLETELY CONNECTING THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL, SO APPRECIATE THE WORK. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: YOUR NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM B-3, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, RENEE LEE, WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM. >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A NEW POLICY PROHIBITING SEXUAL HARASSMENT THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TO THE BOARD'S APPROVAL. WE'VE SPOKE WITH MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND RECEIVED YOUR INPUT INTO THIS POLICY, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THIS POLICY IS NARROWLY TAILORED TO ADDRESS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEES, INTERNS, OR VOLUNTEERS, AND WE WOULD REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TODAY. >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. COMMISSIONER BECKNER, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >>KEVIN BECKNER: I WILL ACTUALLY VOTE ON THIS, AND THEN I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS AFTER THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RENEE LEE: THANK YOU. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IN THE CASE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OGDEN V. WHITE THAT THE JUDGE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD THAT WAS A GAP IN ONE OF OUR POLICIES THAT DIDN'T - - THAT DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD OBVIOUSLY IMPACT A LAWSUIT. MY -- MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS THAT WE PERHAPS ADDRESSED ONE PORTION OF A POLICY THAT MAY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR MULTIPLE POLICIES, AND MS. LEE, IS -- IN YOUR OPINION, ARE THERE OTHER POLICIES THAT ARE NOT IN PLACE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OPEN US -- YOU KNOW, COULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER LAWSUITS? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE AN ANTIDISCRIMINATION POLICY IN PLACE FOR THE BOARD, DO WE HAVE JUST A REGULAR ANTIHARASSMENT POLICY? IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN I'VE DONE RESEARCH THAT SOMETIMES THOSE POLICIES ARE -- A LOT OF TIMES ARE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY CAUSE LAWSUITS. >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, TO -- TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THERE -- AND I THINK PROBABLY YOU'RE CONTRASTING THE POLICIES OF THE BOARD AGAINST THE POLICIES -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: CORRECT. RIGHT. >>RENEE LEE: -- SOME THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MAY HAVE IN PLACE, AND TRADITIONALLY THE BOARD HAS NOT MIRRORED THOSE POLICIES. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DOES HAVE IN PLACE THE POLICIES THAT YOU'VE REFERENCED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: CORRECT. >>RENEE LEE: -- ANTIDISCRIMINATION POLICY AND ANTI -- A GENERAL ANTIHARASSMENT POLICY. THOSE POLICIES HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO AS FAR AS BOARD POLICIES GO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT ADDRESS THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. SO KIND OF -- WHERE THIS ISSUE HAD ARISEN FOR A LAWSUIT WAS OUT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. IF THERE WERE AN ISSUE THAT CAME ABOUT THAT WERE WITH REGARDS TO HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION, WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES AS A BOARD? >>RENEE LEE: THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THIS IS ONE OF MY CONCERNS. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE TAXPAYERS AS WELL AS THIS BOARD, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AND, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPENDING NEARLY A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ALREADY ON THIS CASE. I WOULD THINK THAT OUR TAXPAYERS AND THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ELECTED US TO OFFICE WOULD HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD DO EVERYTHING THAT WE FEEL IS POSSIBLE TO CLOSE THOSE GAPS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT POLICIES IN PLACE TO THWART OFF ANY POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE LAWSUITS. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT WHEN I'VE READ THROUGH THIS THAT -- ALSO THAT WE HAVE -- WE TRY NOT SEPARATE OUR EMPLOYEES OUT -- IN MY OPINION -- I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PROCEDURES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE GENERAL POLICIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S STANDPOINT AND THEN ALSO THE BOARD, AND -- AND THE LAST THING IS I THINK ALSO, AS -- AGAIN, AS WE CONTINUE -- OR OUR ORGANIZATION CONTINUES TO GROW, AGAIN WE MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE THAT ARE GOING TO HELP PROTECT US FROM LAWSUITS BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VALUING THE DIVERSITY OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND THAT -- MAKE SURE THOSE POLICIES REFLECT AND ENSURE THAT EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE IS TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY AND THAT THERE'S NO DIFFERENCES IN THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS IN OUR ORGANIZATION. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO DO IS -- AND WHAT I WOULD MOVE TO DO IS TO HAVE -- TO GET -- TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH HR, TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO DEVELOP A -- ACTUALLY A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL OF OUR POLICIES FROM AN HR STANDPOINT AS WELL AS FROM BOARD POLICIES THAT COULD LEAD TO POTENTIAL LAWSUITS OR THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY TREAT EVERYBODY ON EQUAL AND FAIR BASIS AND COME BACK WITH PROPOSED POLICIES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY FILL THOSE GAPS AND HELP US AGAIN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO PROTECT OUR EMPLOYEES AND OUR TAXPAYERS, AND AS PART OF THAT, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD COME BACK PERHAPS BY DECEMBER 1st TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST GIVE US THE IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THOSE POLICIES AND THEN THAT WE BRING THIS UP AT OUR DECEMBER 16th BOARD MEETING FOR FULL DISCUSSION OF THOSE POLICIES. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A -- >> IS THAT A MOTION? >>KEVIN BECKNER: YES. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: GOING DOWN THIS ROAD AGAIN, HOW DOES THIS INTERFACE WITH THE ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE PASSED? >>RENEE LEE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE, COMMISSION -- COMMISSIONER? >>JIM NORMAN: CORRECT. >>RENEE LEE: I THINK THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING BACK SOMETHING THAT MIRRORS THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE -- >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>RENEE LEE: -- FOR THE BOARD. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ENUMERATE THE CATEGORIES THAT I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER BECKNER IS TRYING TO CAPTURE FOR -- TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE. >>JIM NORMAN: I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE -- WE NEED TO BE OPEN, WE NEED TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, WE SHOULD PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO -- TO ADDRESS THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING, AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO. AND IN FACT -- I'M SORRY. >>JIM NORMAN: I THINK THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF US TRYING TO PLAY GAMES ABOUT IT AND SKIRT AROUND IT, WE JUST NEED TO -- LET'S -- LET'S BE HONEST WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS, LET'S BE HONEST WITH WHERE WE ARE, AND LET'S EITHER -- LET'S PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND QUIT TRYING TO SKIRT AN ORDINANCE TO A POLICY, TO A THIS, TO A THAT. LET'S DON'T FOOL ANYBODY, LET'S BE HONEST AND BE UP FRONT. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, AND THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CALL AN ORDINANCE A POLICY AND KIND OF -- I JUST THINK WE JUST OUGHT TO BE OUT FRONT AND FAIR AND OPEN WITH WHAT WE'RE PASSING. THAT'S ALL. AND DON'T -- DON'T SKIRT IT WITH THAT WORD OR THIS WORD OR -- IT EITHER MIRRORS THIS POLICY -- THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE OR WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND LET'S MAKE REALLY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING AN ORDINANCE, WE'RE ADDRESSING A BOARD POLICY. THIS POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY INTERFERE OR -- OR ACTUALLY INTERTWINE WITH OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS MAKING A STATEMENT AS AN ORGANIZATION, NUMBER ONE, TO OUR TAXPAYERS THAT WE -- WE ARE MAKING A STATEMENT THAT WE HAVE LEARNED OUR LESSONS, THAT -- ABOUT THE COSTS THAT WE HAVE JUST INCURRED, AND WE ARE SENDING A MESSAGE TO OUR EMPLOYEES THAT WE CARE ENOUGH ABOUT YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY WITH HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT IN THIS ORGANIZATION. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH AN ORDINANCE, IT DOES NOT IMPACT THAT ORDINANCE, IT HAS TO DO WITH A BOARD POLICY THAT IT'S IN OUR PURVIEW AS A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE THAT POLICY, AND I WOULD REFER BACK TO MS. LEE, IS THAT -- IS THERE A HISTORY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARD POLICIES OF HAVING THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? >>RENEE LEE: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, COMMISSIONER. I DON'T RECALL A POLICY THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING, ALTHOUGH -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THAT'S -- I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. >>RENEE LEE: I WAS JUST GOING TO GO ONE STEP FURTHER TO SAY IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S DESIRE TO PUT THEIR POLICY TO A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU COULD CERTAINLY VOTE TO DO THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, WE COULD, BUT THE POINT IS THAT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, AND WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING AN ORDINANCE, WE ARE ADDRESSING A BOARD POLICY, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD ALL HAVE RESPECT FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON, EMPLOYEE THAT WE EMPLOY INSIDE THIS ORGANIZATION, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, AGAIN, WE NEED TO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE TAXPAYERS THAT WE HAVE LEARNED OUR LESSONS, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE ALL THE LOOPHOLES THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY CLOSE, AND TO MAKE SURE AGAIN THAT WE CAN AVOID THIS TYPE OF EXPENSE AND ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE LACK OF POLICIES ON THE BOARD'S SIDE, AND AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT THOSE POLICIES EQUALLY REFLECT THROUGHOUT OUR ORGANIZATION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BECKNER, I WAS HAPPY TO -- TO SECOND THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOUR POSITION, AND I THINK YOU JUST WANT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO EXPLORE -- ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXPLORE ANY STOPGAP MEASURES THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN COUNTY POLICIES AND BOARD POLICIES AND BRING THOSE BACK, IF ANY OF THOSE NEED TO BE TIGHTENED UP ANY FURTHER, IS THAT CORRECT, OR -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: THAT'S PART OF IT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE POLICIES IN PLACE ON THE BOARD'S SIDE. WE MAY HAVE THOSE GENERAL POLICIES IN PLACE ON THE COUNTY'S SIDE, AND HAD WE HAD THOSE POLICIES IN PLACE HERE, THE RESULT MAY HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT IN THE OGDEN V. WHITE CASEMENT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANTIHARASSMENT POLICY ITSELF, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANTIDISCRIMINATION POLICY. THESE ARE ALL POLICIES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OPEN US UP FOR FURTHER LAWSUITS, SO WHAT I'M ASKING THE ATTORNEY -- OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DO IS TO, NUMBER ONE, DRAFT AN ANTIHARASSMENT AND ANTIDISCRIMINATION POLICY THAT -- AGAIN THAT WOULD BE -- WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT'S BEING REFLECTED ON THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S SIDE BUT ALSO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALSO REFLECTING THE DIVERSITY OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND THAT WE AGAIN -- THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY WITH HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT, THERE ARE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, EVERYBODY IS TREATED THE SAME IN THIS ORGANIZATION, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE SEND A MESSAGE THAT WE VALUE EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING IN OUR ORGANIZATION AND VALUE THE WORK THAT THEY PROVIDE TO US AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO STATEMENTS - - NO EMPLOYEE IN THIS ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE JUDGED OTHER THAN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR WORK AND THE -- AND WHAT THEY BRING TO THE TABLE IN THIS ORGANIZATION. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. SO MS. BEAN, ON THE COUNTY SIDE, THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW, THE WORDING OF THAT POLICY, DO YOU FEEL THAT THE COUNTY SIDE POLICY MIRRORS AND ECHOES THE CONCERN OF COMMISSIONER BECKNER AT THIS TIME? >>PAT BEAN: COMMISSIONER, WE'VE NEVER HAD A CHALLENGE OR A PROBLEM IN RESPONDING TO AN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT BASED ON THAT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: NOT CHALLENGED. IS THE WORDING OF OUR POLICY ON THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SIDE -- DO YOU FEEL THAT THAT HAS ANSWERED THE -- DO YOU FEEL -- BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER BECKNER SAY IS HE WANTS THE BOARD TO HAVE A POLICY BASICALLY MIRRORING AND THAT WOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW -- A BOARD POLICY MIRRORING THE COUNTY POLICY, SO IF THE COUNTY POLICY THAT'S IN PLACE NOW MIRRORS EXACTLY WHAT HE'S ASKING -- I DON'T SEE THERE BEING A PROBLEM JUST SAYING THERE'S A BOARD POLICY AND CREATING A BOARD POLICY THAT SAYS THAT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EXPOUNDING OR -- OR EXPANDING OR -- I'M -- THAT'S WHERE I'M -- THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFIED. >>PAT BEAN: AS FAR AS I KNOW, OUR POLICY IS ADEQUATE. >>KEVIN WHITE: ADDRESSES HIS ISSUES? >>PAT BEAN: AND WE'VE NOT HAD ANY ISSUE WITH ANY EMPLOYEE SAYING THEY WEREN'T COVERED OR WEREN'T PROTECTED BY IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THEN LET ME ASK -- I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. MS. BEAN, CAN SOMEBODY IN OUR ORGANIZATION BE FIRED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION? >>PAT BEAN: NO, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY COULD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHERE DOES THAT STATE THAT IN THE POLICY? >>PAT BEAN: IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A HARASSMENT ISSUE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, I FAIL TO SEE THAT IN THE POLICY, AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT WE CAN EXPLORE BECAUSE IT'S LEFT OUT -- IN THE OPINIONS THAT I HAVE SEEN, IT'S LEFT OUT OF THE POLICY. AND MS. LEE, YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT TOO BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION. LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. CAN SOMEBODY IN OUR ORGANIZATION BE FIRED BECAUSE OF THAT TECHNICALLY? >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, THE HR POLICY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE ONLY COVERS THOSE PROTECTED CATEGORIES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1974, SO THEY DO NOT -- SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THAT'S PART OF MY POINT. WE DON'T NEED A HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE TO SEND A MESSAGE AS A BOARD THAT WE VALUE EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS ORGANIZATION, THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY, AND THESE ARE THE GAPS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND THIS IS WHAT I THINK THAT WE NEED AS AN ORGANIZATION TO EXPLORE AND THIS IS WHAT I'M ASKING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH. AGAIN, I WANT POLICIES THAT ARE THE SAME -- THAT -- FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SIDE AS WELL AS FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S SIDE. PROCEDURES MAY BE DIFFERENT ON REPORTING, BUT THE CONCEPTS AND THE SPIRIT OF IT SHOULD -- SHOULD BE THE SAME AND SHOULD BE CONSTANT THROUGHOUT OUR ORGANIZATION. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M NEXT. >>PAT BEAN: COULD I SAY ONE MORE THING? COMMISSIONER, I WOULD NEVER AGREE TO DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE IF THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE DISMISSAL BASED ON THE CURRENT HARASSMENT POLICY. AS -- AS COUNTY ATTORNEY RENEE LEE JUST SAID, CURRENTLY THAT IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS, BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S NOT A BASIS FOR TERMINATION OF ANYONE, AND IN MY 33 YEARS HERE, I DO NOT KNOW OF ANYONE WHO'S BEEN DISMISSED FOR THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, AND HOW MANY -- HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HAD A CASE LIKE WE JUST EXPERIENCED? AND THIS IS THE DIRECTION THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION WOULD PROBABLY ALSO REFLECT WHAT THESE POLICIES WOULD SAY THAT'S COMING UP IN THE FUTURE. AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU WOULD. THE THING IS IS THAT THAT GAP EXISTS TODAY, AND I THINK AS A BOARD, AS FAR AS OUR POLICIES GO, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, UNLESS -- IF THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WHY SOMEBODY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN OUR ORGANIZATION, LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE, AGAIN, IN MY MIND, EVERY EMPLOYEE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IS VALUED IN OUR ORGANIZATION. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GAPS ARE FILLED IN TO RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE ARE VALUED HERE FOR THEIR WORK AND THEY'RE NOT JUDGED ON ANY OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION WOULD, BUT THE ISSUE IS IS TODAY THAT GAP REMAINS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: IT'S MY SENSE THAT WE -- WE HAVE AN ISSUE HERE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BOARD SIDE POLICY REFLECT THE COUNTY SIDE POLICY, AND I THINK THAT'S A SIMPLE STEP. THE COUNTY SIDE POLICY REFLECTS THE FEDERAL POLICY, WHICH WE'VE ADHERED TO. IF WE TRY TO GO FURTHER, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP DOING IS EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER NORMAN THEN SAID. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE -- I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF MAKING SURE THAT ANY RULE, POLICY, PROCEDURE, OR ORDINANCE THAT ALL THE EMPLOYEES ADHERE TO WE ADHERE TO. I'M ALSO FULLY -- AND I'VE LONG STATED I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE ABSOLUTELY, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY AND THE SAME. >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: I STRUGGLE WHEN WE START DOWN THE ENUMERATION LINE. WE'RE GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN TO ENUMERATE WHO WE PROTECT, WHICH THEN LEAVES INTO QUESTION THOSE NOT ENUMERATED THAT THEN FEEL MAYBE THEY'RE LESS THAN SPECIAL BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LISTED OUT. IF WE'RE GOING TO -- WE WILL HAVE A -- WE WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. IT WILL PROBABLY GO ON FOR A YEAR. I THINK THAT IF WE MOVE FORWARD, AS YOU'VE SUGGESTED, IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE IN TOTAL LINE BOARD WITH COUNTY, THAT MAKES SENSE, AND I THINK THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT OUR COUNTY POLICY IS IN ABSOLUTE ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL POLICY. THAT MAKES SENSE, AND IF THE FEDERAL POLICY CHANGES, WE CAN THEN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW FEDERAL POLICY, BUT -- BUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GO IS EXACTLY WHERE COMMISSIONER -- IF ALL WE'RE DOING IS MAKING OUR POLICIES REFLECT THE COUNTY ORDINANCES, ABSOLUTELY. WE SHOULD DO THAT. BUT BEYOND THAT, NOW WE'RE STARTING TO -- WE'RE GETTING INTO THE FEDERAL REALM OF ARGUING WHAT THE FEDERAL -- WHAT THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES ARE, AND THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES AT THIS POINT ARE PRETTY CLEAR AND DO PROVIDE PROTECTION, AND THAT'S WHERE -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AT A TIME WHEN WE'VE GOT A MILLION ISSUES ON TOP OF US, I'M NOT SURE IF ARGUING THE FEDERAL -- WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY ARGUING IN WASHINGTON MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE, BUT I WILL SUPPORT YOU IF WE CAN PLEASE PROCEED WITH TRYING TO MAKE OUR POLICIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR EXISTING COUNTY ORDINANCES. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TWO ISSUES HERE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SOLVE, ONE SHORTER-TERM AND ONE LONGER-TERM. IN -- IN THE EVENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH SIMILAR MIRROR IMAGE POLICIES, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THAT'S DOABLE AND IT'S DOABLE PRETTY EASILY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK HAS SUPPORT. THE SECOND ISSUE I BELIEVE THAT MR. BECKNER'S GOING TO IS, IN FACT, ENUMERATING SOME OF THE CATEGORIES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO SEPARATE THESE TWO DISCUSSIONS. AND MS. BEAN, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU SAID -- SAY -- HE ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND YOU SAID IN YOUR OPINION, THAT WOULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR TERMINATION. >>PAT BEAN: NO, IT WOULD NOT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT THEN WE'RE TAGGING A POLICY TO YOUR OPINION AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A POLICY THAT'S A POLICY, AND THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM AS WE GO DOWN THE ROAD. SO I THINK IF MR. BECKNER WANTS TO ELABORATE ON THAT, THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE OPINION FROM THIS ONE, A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, AND I THINK MR. NORMAN IS RIGHT IN HIS CASE TOO, THAT IF WE DO THAT, WE HAVE TO ENGAGE THE INPUT FROM CITIZENS THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS, ET CETERA, BUT I SEE THAT AS THE ISSUE IF THERE, IN FACT, IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE IF YOU SAY, WELL, NO, I DON'T SEE THAT'S A BASIS FOR TERMINATION - - BUT SUPPOSE SOMEBODY ELSE DOESN'T SEE THAT OR SUPPOSE SOMEBODY INTERPRETS IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU AND THEN YOU HAVE TO -- TO STRUGGLE WITH YOUR OPINION AS THE ADMINISTRATOR AND SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULDN'T START A MOVEMENT TOWARDS SOME SORT OF LITIGATION. SO FOR THE SHORT-TERM, I THINK WHAT -- WHAT MR. SHARPE REFERENCED IS -- IS SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT, AND THE SECOND PORTION OF YOUR CONCERN, MR. BECKNER, IS IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT, IT'S NOT AS CLEARLY DEFINED, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ELABORATE PROCESS, A BROAD-SPECTRUM PROCESS, TO BRING THAT TO DISCUSSION, BOARD, CONSTITUENTS, AND THEN THE OUTCOME IS WHAT IT IS, BUT I THINK HE'S MORE LOOKING AT IT AS A POLICY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS AN OPINION, AND THAT'S GREAT FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW, BUT AS WE GO FORWARD, IF HE'S UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT NOT BEING CLARIFIED, YES, WE RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF ENUMERATION OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, BUT RIGHT NOW HE -- FROM HIS COMMENTS, HE HAS A PROBLEM WITHOUT THAT ENUMERATION, SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT, BUT I THINK THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. >>RENEE LEE: AND MR. CHAIR, WE COULD CERTAINLY BRING BACK THE POLICY WRITTEN IN GENERAL LANGUAGE SO THAT IF -- WHEN - - IF AND WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES THE PROTECTED CLASSES THAT THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE INCLUDED IN WHATEVER POLICY THAT WE WRITE. WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR -- >>ROSE FERLITA: EXCUSE ME LANGUAGE -- MY IGNORANCE ON THAT, MS. LEE, BUT IS THAT CLOSE TO BEING RE-REVIEWED? >>RENEE LEE: WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THREE BILLS THAT ARE PENDING IN CONGRESS OR WILL BE INTRODUCED AND CONSIDERED. THEY CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE AND NOT PASSED, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS WILL BE AT THE END OF THE SESSION, THE CONGRESSIONAL SESSION, BUT WE'LL KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON THAT AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, BUT IF THE FEDERAL LAW CHANGES AND INCLUDES SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A PROTECTED CLASS, WE WOULD MOST CERTAINLY HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT IN OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCES, IN THE HR POLICIES, AS WELL AS ANY POLICIES THAT THE BOARD MIGHT PASS. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO IF THE FIRST PORTION OF HIS CONCERN IS BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW, IF HE'S ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK, CAN YOU ALSO JUST FOR DISCUSSION -- I MEAN, I KNOW WE CAN'T PREDICT WHAT'S GOING TO PASS AND NOT PASS IN SESSION, BUT WOULD YOU ALSO INCLUDE THOSE THREE POTENTIAL BILLS JUST FOR OUR REVIEW? >>RENEE LEE: ABSOLUTELY, YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, LET ME GO ON THE RECORD TO JUST SAY, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT, BUT I VALUE EVERY PERSON, I'VE TREATED EVERYONE THAT WAY IN THE COUNTY AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, BUT LET ME SAY WHAT -- IT'S NOT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICIES, IT'S NOT ANY -- WHAT I SUPPORT IS WHAT THE LAW OF THIS COUNTY IS. THIS -- THERE IS A LAW OF THIS COUNTY THAT PROTECTS EVERYONE AND EVERY BUSINESS THE SAME. IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT, IF WE'RE GOING TO PILE THINGS ON THE ADMINISTRATOR OR OURS OR -- IT'S GOT TO BE WHATEVER THIS COUNTY HAS AS A LAW IS WHAT IS DEFENSIBLE AT THIS TIME AND WHAT -- EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THIS COUNTY AND EVERY BUSINESS IS THE SAME. NOW, IF -- IF MS. BEAN HAS ALL DIFFERENT THINGS IN THERE THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY -- I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WHAT OUR LAW OF THE COUNTY IS, AND IF THAT LAW CHANGES THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT TOO. I MEAN, IT'S -- IT'S REAL SIMPLE. IT'S NOT -- I'M NOT GOING TO PLAY THE POLICY GAME AND THE ORDINANCE GAME AND THE -- WHAT HERS SAYS, WHAT SHE SAYS. IT'S THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTY, THAT'S OUR LAW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING. COUNTIES SHOULDN'T BE DIFFERENT, BUSINESSES SHOULDN'T BE DIFFERENT. IT SHOULD ALL BE THE SAME, AND THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING BACK, MS. LEE, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUPPORTING. IF YOU'RE BRINGING BACK WHAT EVERY OTHER BUSINESS IN THIS WHOLE COUNTY HAS THE PROTECTIONS, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUPPORTING. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER NORMAN. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS BUT WOULD CERTAINLY RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT THE POLICY REFLECTS WHAT THE CURRENT STATUTE IS OR WHAT THE LAW IS THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED EQUALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT THAT WAY, AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY I BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE EVEN ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WHEN -- WHEN THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE ONCE PASSED AND THEN THE SECOND TIME WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY REVERSED BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO TAKE OUT THOSE PROTECTIONS, SO TO SAY THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS -- >>JIM NORMAN: I WASN'T, BY THE WAY. I WAS NOT PUT ON IT WHEN IT WAS PASSED. I WAS -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: THE SECOND TIME. >>JIM NORMAN: I WAS ON IT WHEN IT WAS REVERSED. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND SO WHY WERE THOSE -- WHEN SOMEBODY WAS PROTECTED AT THE LAW WHEN IT FIRST PASSED, WHY DID THIS COMMISSION TAKE A STANDPOINT TO REMOVE THEM? >>JIM NORMAN: BECAUSE IT WAS -- IT IS A -- IT WAS A VIEW OF THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A MINORITY CLASS. IT WAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT EVERYONE IS CREATED EQUAL, IS EQUAL, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT A MINORITY CLASS LIKE AFRICAN AMERICAN, LIKE WHATEVER. THAT IS NOT A PROTECTION CLASS, A SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT SET UP AS A PROTECTION CLASS. IT'S ALL PEOPLE WERE CREATED EQUAL AND TREATED EQUALLY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THEN -- BUT THAT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE THEN BECAUSE IF IT WAS, THAT WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THERE, AND IF -- >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] MISUNDERSTOOD ME. I SAID IT WAS TAKEN OUT BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE WERE CREATED EQUAL AND ALL PEOPLE ARE TREATED EQUAL UNDER THAT ORDINANCE. SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PROTECTED CLASS AS A AFRICAN AMERICAN AND GROUPS SUCH AS THAT. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: BROWN HAIR. YEAH, EXACTLY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: BUT YOU SEE, THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. IF THIS WAS -- IF EVERYBODY -- LAWS WOULD NEVER, EVER CHANGE. WE'D PROBABLY STILL HAVE SEGREGATION IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T STEP FORWARD AND SAY THE CURRENT LAW IS NOT CORRECT AND IT'S WRONG. AND AGAIN, LET'S NOT DEFLECT THE SUBJECT, WHAT WE'RE TALKING -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE. IF THIS WERE ALL ABOUT FEDERAL LAW, WE WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE THAT ARE PASSING INCLUSIVE POLICIES TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED EQUAL. WE WOULD NOT HAVE FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES THAT WOULD BE PUTTING TOGETHER COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES THAT MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE ENUMERATED, AND YES, THERE IS A WAY THAT YOU CAN ENUMERATE, BUT YOU CAN ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE OTHER CLASSES THAT, IF THEY'RE NOT IDENTIFIED, ARE PROTECTED. THIS COUNTY HAS HAD A HISTORY OF -- OF NOT INCLUDING EVERYBODY, AND THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE DAYS OF SEGREGATION, SO LET'S NOT GO AHEAD AND SIT UP HERE AND PRETEND THAT WE'VE GOT POLICIES THAT ARE INCLUSIVE OF EVERYBODY BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS NOT THE CASE. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS NOT AN ORDINANCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- WE HAVE THE PURVIEW TO SET AN EXAMPLE AND TO TELL OUR EMPLOYEES THAT EVERYBODY IS VALUED HERE, YOU'LL ALL BE TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY, AND TO ALSO MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN THAT WE'RE CLOSING THOSE -- THOSE LOOPHOLES. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE DO IS THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, ALONG WITH THE -- WITH OUR ATTORNEY, COME BACK WITH POLICIES THAT WOULD REFLECT -- IF WE WANT TO HAVE -- WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT POLICY'S APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION, SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T COME BACK WITH A POLICY THAT WOULD ENUMERATE AND ONE WITHOUT, AND THEN LET'S HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHICH IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION, BUT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMENDING AN ORDINANCE, I'M TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE SET A -- A CLEAR STATEMENT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES THAT EVERYBODY IS VALUED HERE AND TO DISCUSS AND SAY THAT EVERYBODY IS BUT LET'S NOT MAKE SURE THAT WE -- THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT OR LET'S NOT SPELL IT OUT, THAT'S - - THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT BEING TOTALLY INCLUSIVE, THAT'S FOOLING OURSELVES AND MAKING A POLITICAL STATEMENT THINKING THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND BE INCLUSIVE WITHOUT HAVING THOSE CLASSES NAMED BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE LEGAL RESEARCH THAT I HAVE DONE, WE'VE GOT ISSUES THAT PROBABLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND -- AND WHAT I'M ASKING THE ATTORNEY AND YOUR SUPPORT IS LET'S GO AHEAD AND COME BACK WITH A COUPLE OF POLICIES AND LET'S HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS TO FIND OUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. THAT WAS MY MOTION, NOT TO DECIDE WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE GOING TO DO TODAY, BUT AGAIN, GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE BOARD DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>KEVIN WHITE: I JUST WANT TO -- >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIR -- I'M SORRY, MR. WHITE. I NEED FOR YOU TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION, JUST THE MOTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: MY MOTION IS TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND HUMAN RESOURCE -- RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO DO A THOROUGH REVIEW FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SIDE OF HER HR POLICIES, FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF THE BOARD POLICIES, AND IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR GAPS OF POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE AMENDED OR IF THERE ARE NEW POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE -- NEED TO BE PUT IN PLACE SUCH AS AN ANTIHARASSMENT POLICY, AN ANTIDISCRIMINATION POLICY ON THE BOARD SIDE AND BRING BACK TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS. ONE WOULD BE THAT WOULD ENUMERATE AND BE CONSIDERED FULLY INCLUSIVE, THE OTHER ONES AS THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS DESIRED WITHOUT THOSE, AND THEN TO HAVE THEM BRING THAT BACK BY DECEMBER 1st FOR REVIEW WITHOUT -- NOT -- YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE -- THE -- THOSE POLICIES TO BOARD MEMBERS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND THEN TO HAVE FULL BOARD DISCUSSION THEN ON DECEMBER 16th. >>KEN HAGAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FERLITA? >>ROSE FERLITA: NO. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. SO YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO LOOK AT THAT, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, AND BRING IT BACK FOR OUR DISCUSSION. WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTUAL ACTION TODAY BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT THOSE -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: CORRECT. AND LET'S BRING BACK TWO DIFFERENT -- EACH SIDE -- IF WE'RE ENUMERATING CATEGORIES, LET'S BRING BACK DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, ONE WITH ENUMERATION, ONE WITHOUT, AND LET'S HAVE BOARD DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH ONE IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND YOU WANT THIS DONE BY DECEMBER 1 AS I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS MOTION -- AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE YET -- IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE'RE TRYING -- WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN A REWRITE -- WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE OUR BOARD POLICY IN COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY POLICY AND THEN TO SEE IF WE HAVE GAPS WHERE WE NEED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE? >>KEVIN BECKNER: IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT ONE MOMENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES. THIS SEEMED LIKE A PRETTY BIG TASK FORCE DECEMBER 1 AND THEN A VOTE IN DECEMBER 16th, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO COME UP RELATED TO THE TAX. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO GET THIS THROUGH YOUR STAFF WITH A TAX ISSUE DECEMBER 1, OR DOES THIS NEED TO GO FURTHER INTO THE YEAR? AND I WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMMENT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER FEELING FOR THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, THAT YOU CHOSE DECEMBER 1? IS THERE A SENSE OF URGENCY? >>KEVIN BECKNER: I DON'T HAVE -- I JUST CHOSE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT IF WE CAN WRAP THIS UP AT THE END -- BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND THE GAPS OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY FROM THIS RESULTING CASE, THERE WAS AN URGENCY TO GET THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY DONE, AND I ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREED WITH THAT, BUT ALSO WITH THE LACK OF TWO PARTICULAR POLICIES IN PLACE ON THE BOARD'S SIDE, I LOOKED AT THAT AGAIN AS A LEGAL GAP, AND IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE TREATED JUST AS EQUAL TO MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE. BUT I'LL LET THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ATTORNEY KNOW IF THIS IS A TASK THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THEN. >>JIM NORMAN: I GUESS I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT HERE. WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION CLASS BEING ADDED INTO THE POLICIES? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHAT I AM ASKING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DO IS TO PROVIDE A FULLY INCLUSIVE -- >>JIM NORMAN: YES OR NO? >>KEVIN BECKNER: THAT'S PART OF IT. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE -- THE ONLY -- I SECONDED THAT, AND I'M STILL -- I STILL WANT TO CONTINUE TO SECOND IT, BUT THE AMBIGUITY THERE IS FOR US TO CREATE A BOARD POLICY THAT MIRRORS THE COUNTY POLICY. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: WE DON'T HAVE ANY ENUMERATED COUNTY POLICIES, SO THEN WE WOULD BE CREATING NEW COUNTY POLICIES AS WELL, BUT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS JUST FOR BOARD POLICIES TO MIRROR OUR EXISTING COUNTY POLICIES, WHICH I WAS IN SUPPORT OF, AND I'M ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF -- OF THEM DOING A DIFFERENT POLICY WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS, BUT THAT'S GOING TO ALSO MEAN COUNTY POLICIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE CHANGED, SO -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHAT I WOULD ENVISION IS THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK WITH THE SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE AND THAT WE WOULD DECIDE AS A BOARD WHICH POLICY IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ORGANIZATION. WHATEVER POLICY THAT WE DECIDE AS A BOARD IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION, THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE ON BOTH SIDES. >>KEVIN WHITE: I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. IF YOU COULD ACCEPT THIS AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I WILL -- I WILL SECOND THE -- THEM TO BRING BACK -- AND I THINK THIS WILL BE EASY ENOUGH FOR DECEMBER 1st -- A POLICY -- A BOARD POLICY THAT MIRRORS THE COUNTY POLICY AS STATED, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON SOME DRAFTS AND BRING BACK FOR BOARD DISCUSSION OF THE ENUMERATION AND EXPANSION IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE -- THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE TIME, AND WE'RE CHANGING -- AND THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MEAN CHANGING COUNTY POLICY AS WELL, AN THAT'S GOING TO BE -- THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: AGAIN, I THINK IF WE BRING BACK A POLICY, WE CAN -- AND LET'S JUST TRY TO SEPARATE THE TWO HERE FOR A MOMENT FROM BOARD AND COUNTY. IF WE BRING BACK THE POLICIES THAT -- ON THE BOARD SIDE WE HAVE TO HAVE A POLICY I THINK THAT MIRRORS THE COUNTY POLICY AS FAR AS THE DISCRIMINATION AND ALSO HARASSMENT, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN THEY BRING -- >>KEVIN WHITE: WE CAN DO THAT QUICKLY; CORRECT? >>PAT BEAN: UH-HUH. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHAT I'M ASKING WE DO, WHEN THEY BRING THAT BACK, THEY CAN BRING BACK AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR -- FOR OUR ORGANIZATIONS, AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE WOULD BE -- WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE BOARD SIDE AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION SIDE, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING -- >>KEVIN WHITE: WE CAN AGREE UPON THAT AT THAT TIME? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WE CAN HAVE -- AND LIKE I SAID, IF WE CAN'T COME TO A CONSENSUS OR DISCUSSION, WE CAN HAVE -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AN APPROVAL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A POLICY IN PLACE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT'S MORE -- MOST APPROPRIATE TO REFLECT OUR ORGANIZATION. >>JIM NORMAN: SPLIT THEM OUT. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M GOING TO MAKE -- >>JIM NORMAN: SPLIT THEM OUT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. I WILL -- I WILL -- YOU KNOW, I WASN'T INTENDING ON MAKING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, I WAS INTENDING ON SUPPORTING THE MOTION UNTIL I SEE WHERE WE'RE HEADING, RIGHT INTO JUST A SLEW OF LEGAL LAND MINES, AND WE'RE -- THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE US A -- A YEAR AT LEAST TO GET THROUGH. I'M FULLY PREPARED TO SUPPORT AN EFFORT AND AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUR POLICIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY POLICIES. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>MARK SHARPE: AND -- AND -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S AS FAR AS I'LL GO. IF WE NEED AT A SEPARATE TIME TO DISCUSS -- BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. I AGREE WITH THE BROAD DEFINITION THAT WE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER NORMAN WITH REGARD TO THE PROTECTION OF ALL INDIVIDUALS IRRESPECTIVE OF OUR DIFFERENCES, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE, AND I WILL STAND BY MY STATEMENT THAT ONCE WE BEGIN THIS -- WHAT I BELIEVE IS A POLITICAL -- POLITICAL PROCESS OF ENUMERATING WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE, LEGITIMATELY SO TO YOU AND PERHAPS TO OTHERS AND PERHAPS TO EVEN MYSELF, AS A NEW CLASSIFICATION, WE'LL HAVE AN ENDLESS SERIES, I BELIEVE, OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE GOING TO FOLLOW AND SAY, BUT WAIT A MINUTE, I WANT TO BE INCLUDED, AND IF WE CAN SAY -- AND IF AT SOME POINT -- AND I'VE ASKED OUR ATTORNEYS. IF WE COULD HAVE A VERY STRICT POLICY WHICH SAYS NO HARASSMENT, NO DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND TO ANYONE, I WOULD -- I'D SUPPORT THAT, AND LET SOMEONE STEP UP, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, AND SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE THIS INDIVIDUAL OR THAT TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL, LET THEM SAY THAT. LET THEM TELL US WHO WE CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST. I HAVE LONG SAID I WILL NOT TOLERATE NOR STAND FOR ANY DISCRIMINATION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OF ANY TYPE FOR ANY REASON. INDIVIDUALS OUGHT TO BE AFFORDED PRIVACY AND RESPECT AND NOT HAVE TO START ENUMERATING ALL THEIR INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. THAT -- THAT'S PERSONAL AND PRIVATE. THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE -- THE PROTECTION WE HAVE. MALE AND FEMALE, WHICH I THINK INCLUDES US ALL, AND ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S THERE, THE PROTECTION EXISTS, SO MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO -- TO LET US AT LEAST BEGIN THIS PROCESS, AT LEAST -- AND -- IS THAT WE WOULD SIMPLY MAKE SURE THAT OUR POLICIES REFLECT THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IF WE CHANGE OUR POLICIES AND GO BEYOND, THEN WE MUST CHANGE OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A WHOLE NEW AGENDA THAT WILL TAKE US TO INFINITY AND BEYOND, SO I'M [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE US TO INFINITY AND BEYOND, SO LET'S JUST ADD ONE MORE. FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT THE SECOND PART OF MY QUESTION HERE OR MY SUPPORT HERE, IF WE DID THAT AND THAT'S DONE -- I GUESS, MS. LEE, IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU -- DOES MR. BECKNER NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COME BACK AND MAKE A COMMISSIONER'S AGENDA ITEM A DISCUSSION OF THIS? >>RENEE LEE: ABSOLUTELY, COMMISSIONER. I MEAN, THAT'S YOUR PRIVILEGE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO I WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH A -- IF I FELT THAT -- AND LET ME JUST -- COMMISSIONER SHARPE, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THIS ON PART OF YOUR MOTION SHOULD THIS PASS, THEN WHY NOT -- WHY ENUMERATE ANY CLASSES? WHY DON'T WE JUST HAVE A POLICY THAT JUST STATES THE ALL INCLUSIVENESS OF ALL PEOPLE? CAN THAT BE DRAFTED, OR IS THERE LEGAL ISSUES? THERE'S -- >>MARK SHARPE: IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT WE SHOULD -- AGAIN, THIS GETS BACK TO -- AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. I -- AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHERE THEY'RE GOING, AND I'VE SAID THAT AT SOME POINT IF WE NEED TO START DESIGNATING, THEN I WILL THEN -- YOU KNOW, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS THAT WE JUST EXACTLY STATE THAT EVERYONE'S PROTECTED, WHICH I BELIEVE WE ALL ARE. I THINK IT'S ALREADY CLEAR, BUT LET'S -- LET'S -- I THINK IF WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS THAT I'VE LAID OUT, THEN YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT AND EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK LATER, PUT IT ON WITH A COMMISSIONER ITEM, WE CAN HAVE A FULL LEGAL DISCUSSION AND REVIEW, BUT MY MOTION IS STRICTLY THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE BEGIN TO CLOSE ANY LOOPHOLES THAT MIGHT EXIST BETWEEN OUR POLICIES AND THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO START. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THEN I -- I JUST WANT TO -- FOR CLARIFICATION, I WOULD HAVE THE BOARD APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION ALONG WITH THIS TO BE -- IF I CAME BACK FORWARD WITH AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY THAT I THINK THAT - - THAT COULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE TO HAVE A SAME DISCUSSION WITH THE POLICY THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BRINGS BACK? >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. BECKNER, I'M NOT THE AUTHORITY TO ANSWER THIS, BUT HE HAS A MOTION. IF THAT PASSES, THAT'S FINE. YOURS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN CONCERT WITH ANYTHING. THE TIMING COULD BE THE SAME, IT COULD BE DIFFERENT. YOU DO NOT NEED THE BOARD'S MOTION TO BRING IN ANY AGENDA ITEM, WHAT YOU NEED IS THE BOARD'S APPROVAL IN TERMS OF SUPPORT IF THAT, IN FACT, OCCURS, BUT WE ALL PICK ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO -- MR. TOUCHTON'S ISSUE THIS MORNING. >>KEVIN BECKNER: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, I BELIEVE; RIGHT? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THE REASON WHY I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE THERE WERE POLICIES THAT WERE COMING FORWARD THAT I WANTED TO HAVE DISCUSSION AND WAS TOLD BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD NECESSARILY WANTED AND THAT WE'D HAVE TO HAVE BOARD APPROVAL FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DISCUSSION AROUND ALTERNATIVE POLICIES, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING FORWARD AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY TO ALSO -- YOU KNOW, TO DISCUSS AND TO HAVE -- AND TO BE ABLE TO -- TO DISCUSS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD, BUT I THOUGHT WHEN SHE -- SHE HAD TOLD ME WE COULDN'T COME FORWARD WITH THESE ALTERNATIVE POLICIES -- BECAUSE SHE WAS ON THE PATH OF -- >>RENEE LEE: CAN I -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: LET ME JUST FINISH IF I COULD. >>ROSE FERLITA: WHO'S SHE? >>KEVIN BECKNER: I'M SORRY. MS. LEE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD POLICIES THAT I THOUGHT WERE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THIS ORGANIZATION NEEDED TO BE AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY, BUT THEN SHE SAID THAT WE COULDN'T -- THAT THAT WASN'T THE BOARD'S WILL OR DESIRE TO REVIEW THESE POLICIES, SO -- SO EVERYTHING -- YOU KNOW, THOSE WERE WITHDRAWN. >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER -- AND TO SOME EXTENT, COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. THE BOARD -- WHEN WE -- WE DID DO AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING POLICY OF ANTIHARASSMENT AND ANTIDISCRIMINATION THAT WE PRESENTED A DRAFT TO THE BOARD. WE LATER REALIZED THAT WE HAD GONE BEYOND WHAT OUR DIRECTION WAS AT THE PRIOR BOARD MEETING, WHICH WAS TO COME BACK WITH A POLICY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT HAD STATED, WHICH WAS THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY. SO WE DID PULL BACK THAT POLICY. WE HAD MADE IT FAR TOO BROAD FOR WHAT THE BOARD HAD REQUESTED, AND WE CAME FORWARD WITH THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE OBJECTION FROM BOARD MEMBERS FOR ME TO BRING FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POLICY THAT THE -- THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S -- OR I'M SORRY -- THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AN OBJECTION THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN, HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT -- ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE POLICIES. >>MARK SHARPE: YOU CAN BRING FORWARD ANY AGENDA ITEM YOU WISH. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MARK SHARPE: ABSOLUTELY, AND WE'D BE FULLY RESPECTFUL. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA STILL HAS THE FLOOR. >>ROSE FERLITA: WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THIS. YOU CAN BRING ANYTHING FORWARD, WE CAN ALL BRING ANYTHING FORWARD. WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS OR ALL OF THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR NONE, WHATEVER -- IF THEY CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE, THEN OBVIOUSLY IF THEY DON'T, THEN THE INTEREST IN THAT DIES INFORMALLY. I THINK WHERE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION IS EARLY ON IN YOUR TENURE, YOU TRIED TO BRING SOMETHING BACK THAT WAS -- WAS FIRMED UP WHEN COMMISSIONER STORMS WAS HERE, AND THERE WAS A MOTION AT THAT -- AT THAT BOARD GROUP, WAS THERE NOT, THAT -- THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE WAS NOT GOING TO BE -- WAS NOT GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT IN PERPETUITY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU TRIED TO BRING THAT UP? AND THE REASON YOU COULDN'T WAS BECAUSE IT REQUIRED -- >>JIM NORMAN: PARTNER BENEFITS. >>ROSE FERLITA: YES, A SUPERMAJORITY BECAUSE -- BUT THAT WAS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO YOU COULDN'T BRING THAT UP BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET THE VOTES TO REVIEW IT AGAIN. THEY HAD CLOSED THAT -- THEY MEANING THE SITTING COMMISSIONERS, THEY HAD CLOSED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WHICH I'VE NEVER AGREED WITH. I THINK EVERYBODY THAT COMES HERE SHOULD LOOK AT STUFF AND REVIEW IT AND RE-REVIEW IT IF THEY WANT TO. BUT THIS IS DIDN'T. JUST DON'T PIGGYBACK IT TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. YOU CAN BRING BACK YOUR DISCUSSION ON THAT SECOND PORTION OF WHAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION FOR US TO DISCUSS. YOU DON'T NEED ANYBODY'S PERMISSION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO JUST DO IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND I DID -- AND, YOU KNOW, FOR CLARIFICATION, I WASN'T GOING BACK TO WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED BEFORE, IT WAS JUST THE DISCUSSION THAT I HAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, SO I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION HERE THAT WHEN THIS PASSES WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT I'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD WHAT I THINK WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE POLICY OR POLICIES BECAUSE ACTUALLY THERE ARE MULTIPLE POLICIES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR, SO I'M NOT BEING TOLD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE -- THIS ISN'T PART OF WHAT THE BOARD DECIDED TO DO. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. JUST MY CLOSING COMMENT, AND THEN I'LL RELINQUISH THE FLOOR. THE POINT IS YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT, BASED ON YOUR AGENDA ITEM, SOMETHING THAT INCLUDES AND ENUMERATES SEXUAL ORIENTATION? NOW, COMMISSIONER SHARPE SAID, WELL, STARTING TO ENUMERATE SOMETHING CAUSES A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN YOU NEED TO ENUMERATE EVERYTHING. WELL, IN YOUR OPINION AND IN THE OPINION OF MANY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS -- IS HELD AS PREJUDICED NOW. RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE ABOUT PEOPLE FEELING THEY'RE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BLOND HAIR OR BROWN HAIR, SO YOU BRING UP WHAT'S IMPORTANT, AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A HEALTHY DISCUSSION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: ABSOLUTELY. AND LET'S MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR, I'M NOT FOCUSED ON THAT ONE CATEGORY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN THAT AS THIS ORGANIZATION WE HAVE -- WE MAKE SURE THAT OUR EMPLOYEES ARE VALUED, ARE RESPECTED, AND THAT WE DON'T EXCLUDE ANYBODY, AND THERE IS LANGUAGE AND THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT DON'T CAPTURE NECESSARILY COVERED CLASSES RIGHT NOW THAT CAN BE ADDED AS PART OF THE POLICY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HAVE HEALTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE POLICIES AND HEAR THE ARGUMENTS, AND AS A BOARD, WE'LL DECIDE WHAT DIRECTION OR WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ORGANIZATION. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THEN -- >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WHEN YOU COME BACK WITH YOUR ITEM, WOULD YOU THEN CONSIDER BRINGING FORWARD AN ITEM WHICH IS VERY BROAD AND MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE DON'T TOLERATE IT OF ANY SORT, OF ANY TYPE? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FOR THE SAKE OF PICKING OUT ONE PARTICULAR CLASS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, NUMBER ONE, ARE LEGALLY PROTECTING OURSELF, NUMBER TWO, ARE VALUING THE DIVERSITY OF OUR ORGANIZATION, AND WHAT IS THE BEST POLICY THAT REFLECTS THAT, SO I'M NOT SINGLING OUT ANY ONE PARTICULAR CATEGORY. I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE CATEGORIES THAT ARE KNOWN THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE BRING BACK THAT AGAIN IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT DIVERSITY, AND WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. AND AGAIN, WITH THIS I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING -- HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING BACK MY IDEAS AS AN ALTERNATIVE AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF HOW IT COMPARES TO -- TO WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THIS BOARD DISCUSSION. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE TO REVIEW POLICIES -- BOARD'S POLICIES TO SEE IF THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH COUNTY POLICIES. IS THAT ACCURATE? OKAY. THE MOTION'S BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. NO OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS THE ITEM BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, ITEM F-4. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: BOARD MEMBERS, HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THIS RELATIVELY QUICKLY. THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 1% MERIT INCREASE, AND IT'S BEEN MY CONCERN -- WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS, DIRECTED THIS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, I BELIEVE I SPOKE TO HER AFTERWARDS BUT ALSO DURING THE DISCUSSION THAT I WAS SURPRISED THAT WE HAD THE PROGRAM OR THAT -- THAT THE -- WE WERE -- WE HAD A PROGRAM FOR A 1% MERIT INCREASE AS WELL AS THE -- THIS EXTRA MILE PROGRAM OR THAT WE WERE DESIGNATING AS PART OF THE EXTRA MILE PROGRAM A 1% INCREASE, AND IT WAS -- IT WAS IMPRESSED UPON ME DURING THE MEETING THAT WE HAD, THE BOARD MEETING, THAT WE HAVE INDEED A PROGRAM, EXISTING PROGRAM, AND THAT -- AND THEY'VE BEEN ENUMERATED IN THE PAST. MY CONCERN HAS BEEN -- AND ALTHOUGH I DID RECEIVE FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -- I THINK IT WAS DURING THE LUNCH PERIOD -- A KIND OF REVIEW OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO BRING TO THE FULL BOARD TODAY BUT I FELT LIKE I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO THIS BOARD MEETING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF GOTCHA, I JUST WANT THE INFORMATION. I THINK ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WANT THE INFORMATION. DO WE HAVE AN EXISTING PROGRAM? HOW IS THE PROGRAM MANAGED? HOW LONG BACK HAVE WE -- HAVE WE HAD THIS PROGRAM? WHAT'S THE RECORDS -- THE -- YOU KNOW, THE RECORDKEEPING, THE MINUTES? WHO MADE THE SELECTIONS AND WHO APPROVED THE SELECTIONS? SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I -- AND I BELIEVE -- AND I'M SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -- THAT THE PROGRAM, WHILE THERE ARE SOME POLICIES AND PROCEDURES-STILL REQUIRES SOME TIGHTENING. I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR AN AUDIT BY OUR CLERK'S OFFICE TO -- TO KIND OF GO BACK AND LOOK -- OR TO LOOK AT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE DATE OF THE PROGRAM, DESCRIPTION AND GUIDELINES OF THE PROGRAM, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, CHRONOLOGY OF HOW AND WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS USED FROM INCEPTION DATE UNTIL PRESENT, LIST OF ANNUAL AWARD RECIPIENTS FROM THE INCEPTION DATE UNTIL PRESENT. I BELIEVE THAT YOU -- IF YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ALL THAT INFORMATION HAVE GONE DOWN THAT PATH. >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: THAT IS ONE THING I WANT, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO ASK WITHOUT THE FULL BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT. IT'S MY SENSE THAT THE BOARD -- OR THAT YOU HAVE BEGUN THAT PROCESS, AND I WILL JUST ASK -- AS I MOVE TOWARDS A MOTION I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE BOTH TO ME, TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, AS WELL AS TO ANY CITIZEN THAT MAY REQUEST OR INQUIRE BECAUSE IT'S THEIR RIGHT. THIS IS, THOUGH -- NOW YOU START TREADING INTO CONCERNS I HAVE, AND I BRING THIS TO BOTH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND TO OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. IT'S THE ISSUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RECEIPT OF RAISES, THESE BONUSES, WHICH WE -- I -- I THINK WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS, BOTH FOR WHAT OCCURRED BUT ALSO WHAT MIGHT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. THE ISSUE OF INDIVIDUALS, EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR THE COUNTY, HIGH LEVEL INDEED, WHO WERE RECIPIENTS OF THE -- THE -- BOTH THE CERTIFICATES AS WELL AS THE MONETARY AWARDS. I THINK WE -- WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THAT IS VALID. I BELIEVE SO. BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK I HAD THE DAY THAT I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS OR THAT THE MONETARY AWARDS HAD BEEN MADE WAS THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HERSELF AND OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY -- ANYONE WHO'S A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE RECEIVING NOT A BONUS -- AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY LOOK AT THESE MONETARY AWARDS AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INDEED A BONUS OR INDEED A SALARY INCREASE, AS I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS. IF IT WAS A SALARY INCREASE, THE -- THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE -- AND I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE ISSUE -- IS THAT I BELIEVE IT VIOLATES STATE STATUTES. THERE ARE THREE, 125.01, BONUS PAYMENTS MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN AN EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR BASE RATE OF PAY AND MAY NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FLORIDA STATUTE 125.733, THE COMPENSATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE FIXED BY THE BOCC. FLORIDA STATUTE 215.425, NO EXTRA COMPENSATION SHALL BE MADE TO ANY EMPLOYEE AFTER THE SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED OR THE CONTRACT MADE. SO I BELIEVE THAT -- AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT -- THAT THESE STATUTES AND POTENTIALLY OTHERS WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY -- AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO WHO ACCEPTED THE -- THE INCREASE, THE 1% INCREASE -- ACCEPTED THOSE AWARDS. AND SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY OF DETERMINING IN A FAIR WAY -- AND I WOULD -- I WOULD -- I WAS GOING TO ASK OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK THAT SOME WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO OPINED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO NOW GO BACK AND TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A VALID APPROACH, AND SO MY QUESTION TO THE BOARD -- AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO ASK EVEN THE ATTORNEY TO GET A CONTRACT -- I MEAN, THIS IS NOT A -- AGAIN, I THINK THE -- YOU TWO SHOULD REALLY WANT THIS, THAT WE GET A CLEAR, QUICK RENDERING BY A -- A -- WHETHER IT'S A CONTRACT ATTORNEY OF THE CHOOSING OF OUR -- OF OUR STAFF THAT CAN TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT BECAUSE -- AND THIS TAKES ME TO A POINT WHERE -- I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS WHERE I'M LEADING, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT AND AN INDIVIDUAL WERE TO BE TERMINATED, THAT THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR SEVERANCE, AND I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE FULLY ADDRESSED AND BY THE FULL BOARD WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS SO THAT THERE ARE NO SURPRISES. NOT TO SUGGEST IN ANY WAY THAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IS A QUESTION THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED. AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED THE -- THE CLERK TO -- TO WEIGH IN IN LIGHT OF THE RESPONSE THAT I'VE RECEIVED THIS AFTERNOON. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE FULL RESPONSE. MAYBE I'M WRONG, MAYBE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WILL THINK WE DO NEED THE CLERK. I FELT THE CLERK WOULD BE A -- A -- BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE CLERK IS SOMEONE THAT WOULD BE ASKED TO REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. I WOULD ASK AS WELL -- I THINK I'VE -- I'VE GONE THERE, BUT I WOULD ASK AS WELL THAT OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MAKE SURE THAT WE NOW HAVE FOR THE FUTURE A VERY CLEAR SET OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR HOW WE MANAGE BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS. I THINK THAT IT OBVIOUSLY -- BASED UPON MY READING OF YOUR CONTRACT AND STATUTE, THAT ANYONE WHO IS A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE THAT AT THE LEAST IT MUST COME BACK TO THE FULL BOARD FOR THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO -- TO SIGN OFF SO THAT YOU ARE NOT UNWITTINGLY IN VIOLATION OF A STATUTE. THAT COULD CREATE A WHOLE HOST OF PROBLEMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. >>RENEE LEE: WE DID ADOPT THAT POLICY, COMMISSIONER. THE BOARD ADOPTED THAT ONE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO MY -- MY EARLY MOTION IS SIMPLY THAT -- AND I WOULD ASK THE ATTORNEY -- OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY IF YOU WOULD HAVE -- BECAUSE I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU HOW WE WOULD DO THIS, BUT IF YOU WOULD HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW OTHER THAN US HIRING A CONTRACT ATTORNEY FOR WHAT I HOPE WOULD BE A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME TO DETERMINE AGAIN THE -- THE LEGALITY OF A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE ACCEPTING WHAT IS A -- AND IN FACT, THE SECOND PART WILL BE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS INDEED A BONUS AND/OR PAY INCREASE, AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS A PAY INCREASE, THE LEGALITY OF THAT ACTION, AND THEN TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF THE SEVERANCE, AND I'M POSING THAT TO THE ATTORNEY. THAT'S GOING TO BE MY MOTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR BACK HOW YOU THINK WE COULD DO THIS IN A -- IN PROMPT FASHION SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THIS QUICKLY, IT'S NOT LINGERING OVER OUR HEADS, WE COULD -- I MEAN, IT IS WHAT IT IS. LET'S DEAL WITH IT, LET'S PUT THE FACTS OUT, AND LET'S MOVE ON. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YOU'VE HAD A BURNING QUESTION THAT YOU WANT TO -- OR ARE YOU JUST BURNING UP? [LAUGHTER] I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR MOTION. YOU'RE ASKING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO HIRE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT THIS ACTION, IS THAT WHAT I -- OKAY. I KIND OF THINK -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >>MARK SHARPE: NO, NO, THAT -- UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER -- UNLESS THERE'S A BETTER WAY. IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE PROCESS. I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT WE CAN SATISFY OURSELVES AND SATISFY THE CITIZENS THAT WE'VE INDEED REVIEWED THESE QUESTIONS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK IT'S WRONG TO GO TO THE CLERK. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE IPA. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GO AT THIS POINT, BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT THIS HINGES ON IS THAT YOU ACTED AND DR. GARRITY DIDN'T ACT ON AN OPINION THAT YOU GOT INTERNALLY, AND MY QUESTION REALLY IS NOT WITH YOU BUT WITH COUNSEL. WAS THIS -- YOU KNOW, IN ISSUING AN OPINION, WAS THIS -- WAS THIS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD IN TURN REFER THIS TO THE -- TO SAY -- FIRST OFF, THE FIRST STEP HERE IS DID WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN MOVING FORWARD AND GET THAT RESOLVED BEFORE WE GO THROUGH ANY OTHER STEPS TO MAKE -- MAKE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR. AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE ETHICS ISSUE THAT WAS FILED BY A CITIZEN. LET THAT RUN ITS COURSE. >>MARK SHARPE: THAT'S NOT ANY, YOU KNOW, RELATION TO US. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WILL RUN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET -- HEAR BACK FROM THAT, HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THAT SYSTEM AND PROCESS. IT TYPICALLY DOESN'T TAKE A LONG TIME. BUT MY FIRST CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR COUNSEL, MS. LEE, IN RENDERING THAT OPINION DIDN'T HAVE A CONFLICT SINCE YOU'D BENEFIT FROM IT AND HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS AND LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. AND MAYBE THERE'S A WAY WITHIN THE BAR ASSOCIATION THAT YOU -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROCESS IS. IF ANYONE -- NOBODY'S LOOKING AT ME, SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE KNOWS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN GO THAT PROCESS FIRST AND THEN TAKE STEPS -- >>MARK SHARPE: I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW THE FINALITY. I JUST KNOW THERE WAS A LEGAL OPINION RENDERED BY OUR ATTORNEY THAT IT WAS OKAY. THEN THERE WAS A CHALLENGE TO THAT, AND THAT CHALLENGE WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY CITIZENS. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO JUST MY OWN READING AS A LAYMAN. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY LOOK AT THAT TO TELL US BOTH FOR CURRENT ACTIONS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT ON OUR -- OR A RENDERING ON THE JUDGMENT THAT WAS MADE BY OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND OUR ATTORNEY, BUT ALSO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR -- AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SURE. >>RENEE LEE: [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M NOT DONE ON THE FLOOR YET. NO -- BUT I WANTED TO HEAR THAT. MR. NORMAN, THEN I'LL GO TO YOU. BUT I'M NOT CHAIRMAN. IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>KEN HAGAN: I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS EPC. [LAUGHTER] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BUT I JUST WANTED TO FINISH. AGAIN, I FEEL MAYBE WHERE OUR FOUNDATION STARTED WAS WITH THE OPINION, AND IF THERE'S A PROCESS TO EVALUATE THAT OPINION AND MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE -- >>RENEE LEE: AND I CAN ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT. BUT I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR TO THE CHAIRMAN TO RECOGNIZE WHOEVER HE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE NEXT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ROSE FERLITA: THEN YOU CAN GET BACK IN LINE. HIT THE BUTTON AGAIN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WELL, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY LITTLE DISAGREEMENT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS BIG CLOUD OVER OUR ORGANIZATION, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAS TAKEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT TURNS, AND AS EVERY TURN IT SEEMS TO MAKE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CLOUD GETS A LITTLE BIT DARKER, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING EXPEDITIOUSLY TO TRY TO GET THIS CLOUD LIFTED FROM THIS ORGANIZATION SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO MORE PRESSING ISSUES. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS MATTER, I THINK NOW THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT -- THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. THERE'S BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD -- AND I UNDERLINE -- ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES, SO YOU'VE GOT A SIDE HERE THAT CAN TURN TO POTENTIAL -- ON THE -- ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, YOU'VE GOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE TO DECIDE -- TO THINK ABOUT -- WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OF HOW WE ADDRESS THIS AS AN ORGANIZATION FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE. WHEN EACH OF US TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE, WE ALL TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO ALSO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND I DON'T TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY LIGHTLY. I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY, AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT WHEN ALLEGATIONS COME FORWARD THAT SPEAK OF THE VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTES, IT'S VERY SERIOUS, AND THIS HAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE MOST DIRECT WAY AND TO -- TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY NEEDS TO BE DONE AT AN ARM'S LENGTH AWAY FROM THIS ORGANIZATION. I PERSONALLY HAVE FULFILLED MY RESPONSIBILITY TO UPHOLD THAT OATH AND TO DO WHAT I THINK IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR CITIZENS AND THIS ORGANIZATION. DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR REVIEW. THAT WILL HANDLE THE SIDE OF THE CRIMINAL ISSUE. WHAT WE NEED TO DECIDE AS A BOARD -- AND I WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT -- IS THAT WE TALK ABOUT -- IT MAY BE WISE TO HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THIS ORGANIZATION TO REVIEW -- A THOROUGH REVIEW AS FAR AS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, THE REVIEW OF THE COMPENSATION PROGRAM. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT I THINK THAT NEEDS TO GO BEHIND THAT, AND I FORESEE THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE GOING ON FOR A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, SO THOSE -- WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT SIDE. I MEAN, WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION HERE WHERE TYPICALLY WE -- WE WOULD TYPICALLY GO TO OUR -- TO OUR ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT THIS, BUT OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY IS CONNECTED WITHINSIDE THIS ORGANIZATION, SO I THINK AGAIN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK OUTSIDE HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT -- THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS IS PRESERVED AND THAT -- AGAIN, THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONSPIRACY ISSUES THAT SOMEBODY'S HAVING A NEGATIVE OR A POSITIVE RESPONSE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A CONNECTION TO THIS ORGANIZATION, SO ADMINISTRATIVELY I THINK WE NEED TO HEAD INTO THAT DIRECTION, AGAIN SO THAT WE CAN HAVE -- TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT -- ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE DIFFERENT TACT. THIS HAS BECOME SO DYNAMIC. YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING THIS THING -- YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP. THERE'S AN ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED, AND IT'S AS SIMPLE AS IF YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH WHAT HAPPENED, I THINK THIS BOARD SHOULD SUSPEND EITHER ONE OF THEM, TWO, THREE WHATEVER DAYS WITHOUT PAY, END OF STORY, MOVE ON, GET ON WITH COUNTY BUSINESS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS DRAGGING, WE'RE DOING THIS, INVESTIGATION. THIS IS GOING TO GO ON FOR SIX MONTHS, FOLKS. LET'S GET ON WITH THE -- LET'S GET ON WITH THE REAL BUSINESS. LET'S -- IF WE'RE UNHAPPY WITH WHAT THEY DID, LET'S -- LET'S TAKE QUICK ACTION. THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION INTO ETHICS OF ALL THE THINGS YOU- ALL WANT LOOKED AT FROM THE ETHICS STANDPOINT, IT WAS RIGHT. THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT. FROM AN EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER STANDPOINT, SUSPEND THEM WHATEVER DAYS THIS BOARD SEES APPROPRIATE. LET ME JUST TELL YOU THIS. YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SHARPE YOU GO DOWN THE ROAD, EVERYTHING, I'M HAPPY, I'M THIS. FIRE YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY NOW, FIRE YOUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT? YOU'VE GOT A COUNTY WITH NO LEADERSHIP FOR OVER A YEAR BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE COUNTY MAYOR PUT ON THE BALLOT. NOBODY'S GOING APPLY HERE. NOBODY'S GOING TO RISK THEIR CAREER TO COME TO THIS COUNTY BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BE. WE ARE SETTING -- I MEAN, THIS IS THE TITANIC, MAN, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE CAPTAINS RIGHT NOW, AND WE'VE GOT TO START BEING DECISIVE, AND WITH ALL THIS -- THIS STUFF ABOUT, OH, LET'S -- COME ON, FOLKS. LET'S BE REAL HERE. IF WE'RE UNHAPPY WITH WHAT WENT ON, SUSPEND THEM A COUPLE DAYS WITHOUT PAY AND GET ON WITH BUSINESS. >>KEN HAGAN: MS. LEE, YOU WANT TO COMMENT? >>RENEE LEE: YES. COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM GIVEN TO ALL THE EMPLOYEES, ALL THE MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES THAT WERE HERE BEFORE THE BOARD THAT DAY, I WAS HONORED AS WELL, I DID RENDER OPINION ON THAT, AND I RENDERED THE OPINION BASED ON FLORIDA LAW, WHICH ALLOWS ME TO DO SO. SECTION 112.313(5) OF FLORIDA STATUTES SAYS THAT, NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERING ANY MATTER AFFECTING HIS OR HER SALARY, EXPENSES, OR OTHER COMPENSATION AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY. SO THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ME TO RENDER AN OPINION ON THAT. THE LAW PROVIDES THAT. WHO WOULD I GO TO ASK THAT? WOULD I HAVE GONE TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW WHAT CHRISTINA SWANSON HAD TOLD ME ABOUT? I MEAN, THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED MORE EXPENSE. THE LAW PROVIDES FOR ME TO RENDER OPINIONS ON MY COMPENSATION AND THE COMPENSATION OF ANYONE IN THIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT. SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE. IN TERMS OF REVIEWING ANY STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IF IT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE ETHICS COMMISSION, THEN IT WOULD CERTAINLY FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK THAT MARK OBER'S OFFICE WOULD BE CERTAINLY ABLE TO TELL YOU WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAVE BEEN ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTES THAT YOU'VE HE ENUMERATED HERE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THE -- THE -- WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH REGARD TO YOUR MAKING -- RENDERING OPINIONS, THERE'S -- THERE'S A COMMONSENSE CONFLICT WHEN YOU RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE RENDERING AN OPINION ON SOMETHING THAT YOU YOURSELF MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED, WHICH WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN JUST THE FACT THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING IT, THAT YOU MIGHT RENDER THE OPINION FAVORABLE TO YOUR RECEIVING IT AND OTHERS WHO ARE UNDER CONTRACT FOR RECEIVING -- FOR RECEIVING -- WHO ARE UNDER CONTRACT FROM NOT RECEIVING THAT AWARD, AND TO COMMISSIONER NORMAN, I WANT TO MOVE ALONG AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SUSPEND SOMEONE -- WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY WHO RENDERED THAT IT WAS OKAY AND TOLD THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IT WAS OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: I MEAN, I RECOGNIZE THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH IT, SUSPEND THEM. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I AM NOT HAPPY WITH IT. I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN GET QUICKLY A QUICK -- BEFORE WE TAKE STEPS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO WALK FORWARD AND NOT -- NOT DO -- REPLICATE SOME OF THE ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST WHERE YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS NOT BASED ON FIRM POLICY BUT ON WHAT YOU THINK OR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I'D LIKE TO GET A RENDERING. I BELIEVE IT'S THE SMARTEST DIRECTION TO QUICKLY GET A RENDERING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION OF YOUR CONTRACT, WHICH IS I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. WE HAVE A CONTRACT. THE STATUTE JUST SETS THE -- THE CRITERIA FOR WHICH A -- A CONTRACT IS ESTABLISHED AND HOW YOU CAN RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PAY THROUGH THIS BOARD, AND SO I -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE AS BEST WE CAN DETERMINE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT AND STATUTE, AND THEN WE CAN QUICKLY MOVE FORWARD WITH WHATEVER ACTION WE MIGHT DEEM APPROPRIATE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I GUESS ONE THING THAT -- WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, MS. LEE, BEFORE IS THAT WHILE SOMETHING MAY STATE THAT YOU CAN RENDER THAT OPINION, WE MAY -- WE HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS AS FAR AS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT. THERE'S A SALARY AND THERE'S A BENEFIT SECTION, AND I THINK FROM THIS -- YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS EVER A TIME WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF OR, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT -- THAT'S CONNECTED IN THE ORGANIZATION ABOUT RECEIVING A SALARY BENEFIT THAT'S A CONTRACT WORKER -- IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET OUTSIDE COUNSEL, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THAT -- AND THAT A DECISION ON RECORD IS MADE SO THAT THERE'S NEVER, EVER A DISPUTE THAT PUTS YOUR INTEGRITY OR ANY OTHER THING IN QUESTION, AND TO -- >>RENEE LEE: WE'VE AGREED TO THAT, COMMISSIONER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: YES. >>RENEE LEE: YES. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE FDLE GOT INVOLVED BECAUSE I CONFERRED WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEIR AGENCY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE. THEY WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO GO FORWARD. SO THIS WAS REFERRED TO THE FDLE, AND THAT'S THE PROCESS WE'VE GONE -- YOU KNOW, THIS HAS TAKEN OUR OFFICE EVERYWHERE FROM TALLAHASSEE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND FINALLY WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT -- FROM THE SIDE IS EITHER GO TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INSPECTOR, OR FDLE AS THE AGENCY THAT CAN AT LEAST ON THE STATUTE SIDE MAKE SOME DETERMINATION. THAT'S STILL -- AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN, I -- WE NEED -- WE DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, IF WE JUST SUSPEND SOMEBODY AND SAY WE'VE DONE OUR JOB AND WE'VE ADDRESSED IT, I DON'T -- IT'S KIND OF LIKE GOING IN FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT. WHEN YOU'RE -- IF YOU'VE GOT A HEADACHE AND YOU TAKE AN ASPIRIN FOR IT AND YOU DON'T GO TO THE DOCTOR AND DO A FULL EXAMINATION TO TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL AILMENTS, WE'RE JUST TREATING THE SYMPTOM, WE'RE NOT TREATING THE REAL ISSUE AT HAND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T WIND UP IN THE SITUATION AGAIN. AND SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW -- SOMEHOW -- WE'RE LOOKING -- WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE FOLLOWED, BUT ALSO WE NEED TO -- LIKE YOU MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, A FULL EVALUATION OF OUR COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT AN IPA THAT'S ALSO -- THAT WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THAT COULD AT LEAST DO THE INITIAL RESEARCH AND MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS AS FAR AS HOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF COMPENSATION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE ARE ALWAYS IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING POLICIES. I THINK WE JUST DID THAT ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF OUR LEGISLATIVE AIDES. WE JUST HAD A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. SO EVERY PROGRAM WE HAVE, EVERY POLICY WE HAVE PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME TO -- TO MAKE IT CURRENT WITH WHAT THE ISSUES ARE TODAY. WE HAVE AN ETHICS OPINION THAT WE -- THAT A CITIZEN REQUESTED, AND IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME IS FROM THAT. THE IPA IN HIS COMMENTS IN HIS REPORT SAID, FOR THE MOST PART, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO VIOLATIONS OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCES OR THE CHARTER OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. MS. BEAN JUST REFERENCED WHAT SHE THOUGHT WAS AN OPINION ABOUT WHY THEY HAD NOT VIOLATED STATUTE. I THINK EVEN EDITORIALS TALK ABOUT ASKING THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT PAT FRANK OR STATE ATTORNEY MARK OBER TO FERRET OUT THE TRUTH AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPEARS TO BE A VIOLATION OF COUNTY POLICY. CLERK'S OFFICE WOULD BE FINE, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR PAT FRANK, BUT PROBABLY THIS IS OUT OF THE AREA OF EXPERTISE FOR THEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN AUDIT, AND MR. KLEIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO AGREE, DISAGREE. >>DAN KLEIN: THE ONLY THING I CAN STATE -- BECAUSE BASED ON THAT SAME EDITORIAL, WE DID DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL REQUEST TO PERFORM AN INVESTIGATION ON THE ISSUE. AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT AN AUDIT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS WITHIN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE OF COUNTY AUDIT WITHIN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. INVESTIGATIONS TYPICALLY ENTAIL TESTIMONY, SOMETIMES OF WHICH ARE UNDER OATH, SO WE JUST DIDN'T SEE IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. THAT'S -- THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MOUs WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS IS PROBABLY OUT OF THE REALM OF THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE NEVER JUMPED TO DECISION- MAKING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US. I THINK, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, YOU REQUESTED OF MS. BEAN'S OFFICE SOME PUBLIC RECORDS STUFF AS RECENTLY AS MONDAY AFTERNOON. WE RECEIVED ALL OF THIS STUFF, WHETHER OR NOT IT ADDRESSES EVERYTHING OR SOMETHING OR PART OF IT, THIS AFTERNOON, AND I UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, THAT -- WE HAVE TO EXPECT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME OF TURNAROUND BECAUSE SOME OF THIS STUFF WAS PROBABLY ARCHIVED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE NEED OR DON'T NEED. I THINK THE FIRST STEP IS FOR US TO HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT ALL OF THIS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STUFF WITH INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME THAT MIGHT REFER TO WHY IT WAS DONE, HOW IT WAS DONE, WHAT PROGRAMS WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME, AND SO I AM A LITTLE BIT AT A LOSS FOR DOING MY HOMEWORK, FOR DOING THE RESEARCH, FOR READING THIS STUFF THAT YOU-ALL WERE ASKED TO BRING, AND HAD IT BEEN EARLIER, THEN PERHAPS I WOULD HAVE PREPARED, BUT WE JUST GOT IT. WE ALL OF US -- ALL OF US JUST GOT IT, SO THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE -- IF WE'RE ASKING AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT THIS AND THEN SOME, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A SHORT INVESTIGATION. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EFFICIENCIES IN DOLLARS, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT EFFICIENCIES IN TERMS OF DECISIONS WE MAKE THAT WILL COST OUR -- OUR CONSTITUENTS DOLLARS. I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE GOING TO THAT AT THIS POINT. I THINK -- I THINK I WOULD BE BETTER PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THIS AND SUPPORT YOUR MOTION OR NOT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. IN THE MEANTIME -- THAT'S THE NEXT MEETING. I DON'T KNOW -- DID I SAY SOMETHING FUNNY, MR. HIGGINBOTHAM? I DON'T THINK -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: NO, I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. GOOD. SO IN TWO WEEKS MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE WHAT IS THE FAIREST WAY FOR US TO COME BACK AND DEAL WITH THIS. AS MR. NORMAN SAID, WE ARE YOUR BOSSES. YOU TALKED ABOUT STATUTES. MR. BARNES TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T FIND ANY VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES OR CHARTERS OR ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. THEN SOMEBODY ELSE TALKED ABOUT COMMON SENSE. WELL, YOU DON'T JUDGE SOMEBODY BY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE EXERCISING GOOD COMMON SENSE. THAT WAS IN 2007. MAYBE RIGHT NOW I BETCHA NEITHER ONE OF YOU WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT, BUT THAT'S WATER UNDER THE DAM. I JUST REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, DETERMINE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I AGREE WITH YOU ON SUSPENSION FOR WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME, MR. NORMAN. I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, A WILLINGNESS TO RETURN THIS, BUT MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT THIS COUNTY COMMISSION WILL NOT TAKE ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE THAT IS IN CONFLICT OR -- OR GIVES THE PERCEPTION THAT IS IN CONFLICT OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF WE HAD A PROBLEM NOW -- AND I THINK, MR. SHARPE, YOU CAN APPRECIATE THIS MORE THAN ANYBODY. IF WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE A FINAL DECISION LED US TO NO CURRENT COUNTY ATTORNEY, NO CURRENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, NEXT MONTH AT OUR BACKS WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, PARTICULARLY TO YOU AND PARTICULARLY TO MANY OF US, AND THAT IS THE REFERENDUM. WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS GOING AT THE SAME TIME THAT I THINK WE -- WE OUGHT TO DEAL WITH THAT, GIVE THIS SOME TIME TO -- TO BE DISCUSSED, AND -- I MEAN, IF WE ARE GOING OUT THERE AND TALKING ABOUT A UNIFIED FRONT TO ASK OUR CITIZENS TO SUPPORT A REFERENDUM AND WE HAVE NO ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP AND NO ATTORNEY LEADERSHIP AT THE TIME, THAT'S GOING TO SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DISTRACTED, AND THE MORE DISTRACTIONS THAT WE HAVE, THE LESS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT REFERENDUM WOULD - - WOULD PASS. AND LET ME IN CLOSING SAY THIS AND SAY IT VERY CLEARLY SO CITIZENS WHO ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ME, NEWSPAPERS THAT MIGHT QUOTE ME DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT I'M SAYING IN TERMS OF INTENT, I DO NOT JUSTIFY WHAT WAS DONE, BUT I DO SAY THAT WE HAVE MADE THIS AN ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME, AND I THINK BOTH MS. BEAN AND MS. LEE ARE SMART PEOPLE. THEY UNDERSTAND. THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SANCTION, BUT I DON'T WANT SOME ATTORNEY, SOME OUTSIDE ATTORNEY LOOKING AT ALL THIS AGAIN, LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF STUFF AGAIN TO TELL US THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED. WE ARE THEIR BOSSES, WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. IF WE DISAGREE ON WHERE WE NEED TO GO, SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION AND SEE IF IT PASSES. IF NOT, I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THIS SYSTEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THROUGH THEM THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS NOT RIGHT, WAS NOT THE RIGHT DECISION AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, BUT WE CAN'T PROVE THAT ANYTHING ILLEGAL HAD OCCURRED, SO I -- I THINK OUR EFFORTS RIGHT NOW ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION BECAUSE WE'VE GOT BIG-DEAL STUFF TO DO. >>KEN HAGAN: AND I WANT TO JUMP IN HERE AND JUST SAY THAT I FULLY SUPPORT INVESTIGATING THIS ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS PLEASED THAT A -- A CITIZEN COMPLAINT, YOU KNOW, TRIGGERED THIS ETHICS INVESTIGATION. I MEAN, ETHICS COMPLAINT HAS BROAD INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY, THEY HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS, SO I'M -- I'M CONFIDENT THEY WILL COME TO AN ACCURATE CONCLUSION ON THAT. YOU KNOW, I'VE -- I'M SURE LIKE EVERY OTHER COMMISSIONER HERE, I'VE RECEIVED A STACK OF INFORMATION FROM -- FROM A COUPLE OF CITIZENS THAT HAVE ACTIVELY FOLLOWED THIS. WE'VE SEEN THE VOLUMES OF INFORMATION THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DROPPED OFF OVER LUNCH. I'M -- RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT INCLINED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THIS. I THINK IT'S THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD. IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO DO ANOTHER INVESTIGATION, I WOULD - - I WOULD SUGGEST ASKING FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION BEFORE PAYING ANOTHER ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THIS PERSONALLY. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FERLITA, I WAS SMILING BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT HERE, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY BOARD POLICY THAT SAYS THAT EVERY TIME WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT TODAY. I'VE EXPRESSED MY CONCERN WITH OUR COUNSELOR THAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT OPINION THAN I AM THE ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE I THINK THAT KIND OF GOT THE BALL ROLLING, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING TODAY THAT I WANT TO TAKE ACTION ON. THERE'S MUCH MORE IN DECEMBER WITH THE REFERENDUM AND THE TAX THAT WE'VE GOT TO FACE. THERE IS AN INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION -- THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS, AND LET'S LET THAT TAKE ITS COURSE AND THEN COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT THEN, BUT I DON'T -- I JUST AM NOT INCLINED TO TAKE MY EYES OFF THE BALL RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S THE ISSUES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE PLATE, SO I'M -- I DON'T SEE ANYTHING TO VOTE ON. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST COMMENTS TO ADD TO MY OTHER COMMENTS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL ABOUT ASKING FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION. I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT BINDING, BUT IT'S MORE INFORMATION AND IT'S FREE. MARK OBER'S OFFICE, ALTHOUGH MR. BECKNER SAID THEY WOULDN'T, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T ASK MR. OBER AGAIN WHAT HE CAN SHED IN TERMS OF INFORMATION ON THIS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, LET'S USE SOME GOOD ENERGY TO LOOK AT THE POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE, JUST LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THAT WE HAVE DONE WITH OTHERS. SOME OF THESE TYPES OF -- AND MAYBE IT'S DEFINED IN HERE, BUT AGAIN, I HAVEN'T READ IT -- SOME OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF AWARDS ARE A ONE-TIME BONUS. THE OTHER ONE WAS A 1% BONUS THAT IS -- IS IN PERPETUITY WITH SALARIES. LET'S LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN TERMS OF ADJUSTING THE POLICY THAT WON'T AFFECT THE BOTTOM LINE HERE FORWARD IN TERMS OF SALARY. YOU GET A BONUS FOR DOING A GOOD THING AND YOU GET MONEY BECAUSE YOU SAVED THE COUNTY MUCH MORE MONEY -- NOT YOU PARTICULARLY BUT ANYBODY -- THEN THAT'S FINE, BUT LET'S MAKE IT ONE-TIME MONIES -- I ALMOST SOUND LIKE ERIC JOHNSON NOW -- ONE-TIME MONIES SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ONGOING EFFECT ON OUR BUDGET IN TERMS OF INCREASES IN SALARY. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF POLICIES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND REFINE SO WE MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THEY -- THEY NEED A FACELIFT AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEM SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN OR FUTURE COUNTY COMMISSION BOARDS DON'T HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS AGAIN. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M TRYING TO ABSORB THE -- THE COMMENTS FROM EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. MY SENSE IS THAT THE BOARD IS NOT EITHER GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION WHERE WE WOULD BE DOING A -- OR ASKING AN ATTORNEY TO -- TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED. I THINK IN SOME WAYS -- AND I WILL CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION OF, YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. FOR ME THIS WAS A FAIRLY SIMPLE QUESTION. I WAS NOT LOOKING TO TRY TO GET -- I DID NOT WANT A BOARD SEEKS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, YOU KNOW, OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT CONTRACT WAS VIOLATION TYPE OF STORY. WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS JUST AN UNDERSTANDING, BUT THE PROBLEM IS IN THIS WORLD THAT WE OPERATE UNDER, ALL UNDERSTANDINGS HAVE TO BE GIRDED BY LAW, AND BY -- AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I BELIEVE, AS I STATED BEFORE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION, BOTH OF THE CONTRACT AND THE STATUTE. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE. BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO OFF STATING THAT WITHOUT AN OPINION AND/OR AN ATTORNEY'S RENDERING THAT WOULD -- JUST LOOKING AT THE -- YOUR CONTRACT, LOOKING AT THE STATUTES, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR. I DO AGREE WITH OUR CHAIRMAN, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER FERLITA HAS INDICATED THERE IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION, SO WE WILL BE -- AND THERE WILL BE A THOROUGH OPPORTUNITY WITH THAT INVESTIGATION TO -- TO -- TO DETERMINE WHAT HAS OR HAS NOT OCCURRED. I WOULD ASK, BEFORE I CLOSE, THAT WE MAKE SURE AS YOU MOVE FORWARD THAT THERE BE A CLEAR POLICY AND A CLEAR PROGRAM WHICH MAKES IT -- WHICH WE ALL CAN UNDERSTAND -- AND I STILL STRUGGLE WITH THE ISSUE OF HOW THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IN THE END GETS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHO DOES -- WHO RECEIVES A 1% MERIT INCREASE, SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT FOR A FUTURE BOARD DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW. WITH REGARD TO COMMISSIONER NORMAN'S POINT, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY GOOD POINT -- I'VE -- I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH. WE'VE GOT SOME BIG ISSUES, YES, SIR, AND TO HAVE A -- A RUDDERLESS GOVERNMENT WHERE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR POTENTIALLY AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ARE GONE WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME ISSUES WHICH I BELIEVE FERVENTLY IN, IT COULD POTENTIALLY INJURE THE SUCCESS OF THOSE ISSUES, I RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT WHAT I THINK WILL CALL INTO QUESTION OUR SUCCESS ON EVERYTHING WE DO IS THE PUBLIC LACKS CONFIDENCE IN THE LEADERSHIP OR BELIEVES THAT IN ANY WAY WE'VE GOT INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATED CONTRACT, RULES, PROCEDURES, AND HAVE OPERATED IN A WAY THAT MIGHT IN SOME WAY I THINK CAUSE THEM TO CALL INTO QUESTION FUTURE DECISIONS AND JUDGMENTS, AND SO I'M JUST -- I WOULD LIKE TO SLOWLY PURSUE SO THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST CONFIDENCE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE THOROUGHLY ADDRESS THIS. I THINK THAT WE'RE -- WE'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT THE -- THE -- THE ETHICS COMMISSION INVESTIGATION PERHAPS CAN SATISFY THAT. I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FERLITA THAT WE'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF INFORMATION TODAY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO BRING IT BACK, COMMISSIONER FERLITA, EVEN IN A COUPLE WEEKS' TIME. IT MIGHT BE THAT I WILL BRING IT BACK WHEN WE HAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW, WHICH I BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE IN DECEMBER. >>PAT BEAN: UH-HUH. >>MARK SHARPE: SO AT THAT TIME DISCUSS IT. AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I'LL JUST -- JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT. I'VE BEEN UP THE -- TO THE -- WELL, I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND THEY HAVE REMANDED IT AGAIN BACK TO THE LOCAL LEVEL, SO, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THAT PATH, YOU'RE WELCOME, BUT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WHO SENT ME BACK TO THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHO THEN REFERRED ME TO FDLE, AND THAT'S -- THAT ISSUE IS BEING ADDRESSED. I DO BELIEVE, THOUGH, WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, THAT WE DO NEED TO CONTINUE TO TAKE A FULLER LOOK AS FAR AS -- ESPECIALLY AROUND A THE COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND HOW THEY'RE STRUCTURED AND CONTINUE TO LOOK IN THAT MATTER, AND AGAIN, THE IPA HAS DONE A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORK RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THAT HE COULD POTENTIALLY DO IF IT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD, AND SO I -- IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO UTILIZE OUR TIME, OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PERHAPS GET BACK TO OUR IPA TO LOOK AT. SO WHERE THIS GOES WE'LL SEE, BUT I'LL PUT THE MOTION THAT WE HAVE THE IPA RE-ENGAGE IN EVALUATING THE EXAMINATION OF AWARD PROGRAMS WITH THEIR -- HIS SCOPE TO EVALUATE AND ASSESS THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS PROVIDED TO UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES. THE EXAMINATION OF LAWS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHES GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTION FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS FOR UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES; THE COMPARISON OF H -- OF HC POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN IMPLEMENTING EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS WITH OTHER FLORIDA JURISDICTIONS AND THE EXAMINATION OF AWARDS OR REMUNERATION TO EMPLOYEES UNDER EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS SINCE 2000, AND THIS WILL AGAIN ALLOW US TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PROGRAMS. >>MARK SHARPE: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: WHY 2000? >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND WHAT TIME FRAME ARE YOU PUTTING THIS IN? >>JIM NORMAN: 2000. GO BACK TO THE YEAR 2000. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I DIDN'T SPECIFY IN THE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: 2000? >>ROSE FERLITA: GO BACK TO THE YEAR 2000. >>ROSE FERLITA: GO BACK TO THE YEAR 2000? >>KEVIN BECKNER: TO THE EXAMINATION OF AWARDS REMUNERATION TO EMPLOYEES UNDER EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS SINCE 2000. I BELIEVE THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST COMPARED TO WHAT CURRENT POLICIES ARE TODAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. YOU TWO CAN GIVE US WHAT THE CURRENT POLICIES ARE. >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO IF WE HAVE REVISED CURRENT POLICIES, WHY DO WE NEED TO SPEND TIME GOING BACK TO 2000? WE WANT -- I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT POLICIES. I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS HERE IN 2000, 1998, OR 1996. LOOK AT THE CURRENT, MAKE A DISCUSSION ABOUT -- OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO US OF WHAT'S GOOD AND WHAT'S NOT. LOOK AT THE CURRENT POLICIES AND DON'T SPEND ALL THAT TIME ON WHAT IS NOT EVEN CURRENT ANYMORE. LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON NOW. WHO'S GOT THE RIGHT -- WHO'S ELIGIBLE, WHO DECIDES WHAT THE POLICY IS, HOW DOES IT NEED TO BE REVISED? PERFECT SUBJECT MATTER FOR OUR RETREAT. BUT TO GO BACK TO POLICIES THAT ARE NOT HERE ANYMORE AND YOU FIND SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS SAME DISCUSSION AGAIN, GOSH, THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. I CAN'T HELP WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO MY DUE DILIGENCE AS WELL AND MAKE SURE THAT IF THE CURRENT POLICY IS NOT GOOD, WE STOP THOSE GAPS HERE FORWARD. THAT'S GOING TO -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, MR. BECKNER -- AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I APPRECIATE THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THAT, BUT MY GOD, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE HIM FOREVER, AND SOME OF THOSE POLICIES ARE NOT CURRENT ANYMORE, SO JUST EXPLAIN TO ME SO I BETTER UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING, IF SOMETHING IS NOT IN PLACE ANYMORE, WHY DO WE NEED TO REVIEW IT? >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND LET ME JUST MAKE A CLARIFICATION. I'M NOT SPEAKING OF THE POLICIES, I'M SPEAKING OF EXAMINATION OF THE AWARDS OR REMUNERATION TO EMPLOYEES UNDER EXTRA COMPENSATION PROGRAMS SINCE 2000. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE MAKING A COMPARISON TO SEE WHAT EMPLOYEES HAVE RECEIVED AWARDS, AND IS THERE CONSISTENCY DURING THIS TIME FRAME OF HOW AWARDS WERE GIVEN OR ARE THERE INCONSISTENCIES, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING BACK. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT REVIEW EVERY SINGLE POLICY SINCE 2000 THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED. WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT AWARDS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN UNDER EXISTING POLICIES SINCE 2000. SO THEREFORE, YOU CAN MAKE SOME TYPE OF A BASIS OF HAVE WE BEEN CONSISTENT IN AWARDING -- MAKING MONETARY AWARDS AND OTHER AWARDS THROUGHOUT THAT TIME FRAME. I'M NOT -- LIKE I SAID, THAT'S -- THAT'S THE INTENT OF THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE POLICIES IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING POLICIES. IF WE STUMBLE UPON SOMEBODY WHO GOT IT AND WE DON'T AGREE HOW THEY GOT IT, WHAT WE CAN DO IS CHANGE THE POLICIES TO AGREE WITH OUR STANDARDS, SO IF IT'S LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE GOT IN PLACE -- I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND -- IF SOMEBODY RECEIVED IT IN A WAY THAT I DON'T THINK WAS A GOOD POLICY, THE ONLY THING I CAN DO IS CHANGE THE POLICY OR ASK FOR SUPPORT TO CHANGE THE POLICY, BUT TO GO BACK TO OTHER POLICIES AGAIN, I WON'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME, AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE PRODUCED HAS NOTHING -- WE WOULD BE RIGHT BACK TO NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICIES AND THINGS THAT THEY EXERCISED IN 2007 THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH, SO WHATEVER SANCTIONS ARE SANCTIONS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, DO WITH THOSE POLICIES AND AWARDS PROGRAMS WHAT WE DO WITH EVERYTHING ELSE, AND I THINK THAT IF WE IN SOME WAY MERGE THE REWARD AS A ONE-TIME AWARD REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CRITERIA IS AND WE CAN SEPARATE DIFFERENT AWARDS FOR DIFFERENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, THAT'S FINE, BUT I'M SORRY, I UNDERSTAND THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE TOO LABOR INTENSIVE AND IT'S GOING TO BRING US BACK TO TODAY. WE CAN'T HELP WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, BUT I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT POLICIES TODAY AND MOVE FORWARD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, AND ACTUALLY IF ALL THE RECORDS ARE IN PLACE, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT -- THAT SHOULD TAKE AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME UNLESS THERE ARE RECORDS MISSING. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WE'RE NOT, AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE REEVALUATION OF POLICIES SINCE 2000. WE WANT TO KNOW WHO RECEIVED THE AWARDS SINCE 2000, AND THAT SHOULD BE -- UNLESS THERE'S DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS THAT ARE MISSING FROM HR, ARE NOT PRESENT, OR THERE WASN'T A TRACK -- THERE WASN'T A RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM, THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD THINK THAT HR WOULD BE ABLE TO -- TO REPRODUCE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THIS. IF WE GO BACK ONE OR TWO YEARS, WE CAN'T SEE AND WE CAN'T TRACK WHAT HAS HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THAT TIME FRAME TO JUDGE CONSISTENCY. WE ONLY HAVE A TWO-YEAR TIME FRAME WINDOW, AND IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLEAR UP THE CLOUD AND CLEAR UP THE AIR IN THIS ORGANIZATION TO LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME FRAME OR THE APPROPRIATENESS OF IT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE EXTENSIVE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON OFF THIS TOPIC. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: BELIEVE ME, I'M READY TO MOVE OFF OF THE TOPIC, AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU PERSONALLY, I DON'T CARE IF COLUMBUS GAVE OVERTIME OR NOT. MY POINT IS I'M READY TO -- I WILL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE REVIEW THE CURRENT COMPENSATION POLICIES IF WE AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT, END OF STORY. THAT'S MY MOTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHO'S GOING TO DO IT? >>JIM NORMAN: I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT THE IPA. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SECOND. [LAUGHTER] >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, NOW WE COME BACK -- AND I DON'T MEAN TO INTERJECT TO PEOPLE THAT MAY BE IN TURN, BUT WHAT ARE WE INSTRUCTING HIM TO DO? WHAT ARE WE INSTRUCTING HIM TO COME BACK -- WHAT I'M OUTLAYING -- WHAT I'M GOING THROUGH, I'M GOING THROUGH THE EXPECTATION OF THE IPA. I'M LAYING OUT SPECIFICALLY SO WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING BACK. IF WE JUST TELL HIM LET'S REVIEW THE POLICIES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >>JIM NORMAN: I'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT TO -- EVERYONE'S GOT TO GET IN LINE. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK WE NEED FOR HIM TO REVIEW THE POLICIES. BRING THE POLICIES TO US AS THEY -- AS THEY PERTAIN TO AWARDS AND MERIT INCREASES AND STUFF, AND WE GET TO MAKE THE DECISION. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT -- >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH, OKAY, I ACCEPT THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT RECOMMEND, BUT WE ULTIMATELY HAVE TO -- REMEMBER, YOU SAID WE'RE THEIR EMPLOYERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S, SO -- >>JIM NORMAN: I'M SAYING I JUST WANT TO REVIEW THEM. ARE THEY RIGHT OR WRONG? >>ROSE FERLITA: YOU LIKE IT, YOU DON'T LIKE IT, AND MOVE ON. LIKE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THAT I THOUGHT WAS VIOLATED, IT WAS UNDER MY WATCH, I MADE THAT ISSUE, AND WE RESOLVED IT. I CAN'T GO BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. SAME THING HERE. IF ALL SEVEN OF US LIKE THE POLICIES LIKE THEY ARE, FINE. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T. CHANGE THEM, CHANGE THEM AND MOVE ON OR KEEP THE SAME, MODIFY IT, AMEND IT, DO WHATEVER, BUT I DON'T NEED FOR THE IPA TO TELL ME WHAT I THINK I SHOULD DO. SO ARE YOU REMOVING YOUR -- REVISE YOURS. THAT'S FINE. >>JIM NORMAN: I WANT TO MOVE ON. I JUST WANT TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT POLICIES, WHOEVER -- YOU KNOW -- >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO REMOVE YOUR OTHER MOTION, MAKE THAT MOTION AS A SUBSTITUTE SUBSTITUTE. HE GAVE THE SECOND. ARE YOU STILL DOING IT? LET'S GO. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. I JUST WANT TO HAVE -- OKAY -- OUR CURRENT POLICIES REVIEWED, BRING THEM BACK FOR A BOARD AGENDA ITEM. WE LIKE THEM, DON'T LIKE THEM. AMEND THEM. JUST BRING THAT OVER, AND I'LL REFER OVER TO PAT BEAN TO BRING THAT BACK. WE DON'T NEED THE IPA FOR THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: BUT DO WE WANT TO DO THAT AT A REGULAR AGENDA? IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME. LET'S DO A WORKSHOP OR LET'S DO SOMETHING. >>JIM NORMAN: WORKSHOP. >>ROSE FERLITA: SOMEBODY WHO'S WAITING FOR ANOTHER ITEM IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT. OR AT OUR BOARD RETREAT, FINE. >>KEN HAGAN: MS. BEAN, YOU HEAR THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? >>PAT BEAN: YES. AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT -- >>KEN HAGAN: QUICKLY. >>PAT BEAN: -- THE LIST OF WHO HAS GOTTEN THE 1% SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS INITIATED IS IN YOUR PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED TODAY. THERE IS ALSO OTHER INFORMATION IN THERE REGARDING THE THREE PROGRAMS, THE EXTRA MILE PROGRAM IS A SEPARATE PROGRAM, THE PRODUCTIVITY AWARD PROGRAM IS A SEPARATE PROGRAM WHICH YOU HAVE ADOPTED A BOARD POLICY THAT GOVERNS, AND THEN THERE IS A PACKAGE THAT -- OR A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THAT THE PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD BACK IN 2000 INITIATED THE 1% INCREASES, SO IT IS A PROGRAM THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD BACK IN 2000. I GOT AS MUCH INFORMATION TOGETHER AS I COULD IN THE SHORT TIME SINCE I GOT THE TWO REQUESTS, AND I PROVIDED IT TO YOU TODAY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FERLITA, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >>ROSE FERLITA: NO, THAT'S IT. ONCE WE REVISE THE POLICIES, TO YOU, TO YOU, AND TO ANYBODY ELSE, IF WE HAVE CURRENT POLICIES AND THEY'RE VIOLATED, YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS BE TERMINATED. IT'S SIMPLE, BUT UNTIL WE REVISE THEM AND UPDATE THEM, THAT'S NOT A MECHANISM I WANT TO LOOK AT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THERE'S JUST ONE WORD THAT ACTUALLY IS MISSING FROM THIS WHOLE MOTION. IT'S CALLED "ACCOUNTABILITY," AND THAT IS WHAT WE DON'T -- WHAT WE'RE MISSING HERE. WE CAN COME BACK AND SAY WHETHER WE LIKE A POLICY OR DON'T LIKE A POLICY, BUT IF WE CAN'T GO BACK AND SEE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND HOW THEY WERE ADMINISTERED, THEN HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW IF A POLICY HAS BEEN HELD CONSISTENTLY OR IF THERE WERE TIMES WHERE A POLICY WAS NOT NECESSARILY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE POLICY SHOULD HAVE BEEN? THAT'S -- THIS IS WHAT IT'S LACKING. JUST TO COME HERE AND DISCUSS, OH, DO WE LIKE A POLICY OR NOT LIKE A POLICY, THIS ISN'T WHAT THE CITIZENS EXPECT OF US. THEY WANT US TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, THEY WANT THIS BOARD TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, AND THAT'S THE EXPECTATION THAT I WOULD PUT FORWARD THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IS CLEAR. OTHERWISE THIS CLOUD CONTINUES TO LOOM OVER US IF WE CAN'T CLEAR THAT UP. IF THERE'S ALWAYS A QUESTION OF WHETHER THESE -- THESE RAISES WERE ADMINISTERED APPROPRIATELY, THAT CLOUD WILL NEVER, EVER GO AWAY. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF LIKING A POLICY OR NOT, IT'S A MATTER OF -- OF BEING ABLE TO CLEAR UP WHAT -- WHAT MANY ARE SAYING WERE -- WERE THE -- WERE INCONSISTENT APPLICATIONS OF A POLICY, AND WE WON'T GET THAT BY JUST SAYING WE LIKE A POLICY OR NOT. SO I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS ISN'T ABOUT NOT SUPPORTING THE INVESTIGATION, THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE THOROUGHLY LOOK AT THIS SO WE CAN CLEAR ALL OF THE AIR AND THERE'S NO SMOKE REMAINING, AT LEAST FROM OUR OPINION, IN THIS ROOM AND THAT WE CAN ADEQUATELY AND ACCURATELY ANSWER THE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS AND A THE ISSUES THAT -- THAT FACE THIS BOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA, THEN WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. MR. BECKNER, ALL THIS HOMEWORK HERE THAT MS. BEAN MADE AVAILABLE TO US, THAT WILL GIVE US SOME GOOD BASIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT THE OLDER POLICIES ARE APPROPRIATE OR NOT. I MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE. IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME LIKING OR NOT LIKING POLICIES. I JUST THINK THAT ONCE WE LOOK AT THAT, I CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHETHER OR NOT -- BECAUSE OF OR WHETHER OR NOT I REVISE THE POLICIES THAT WILL BE FAIR, THAT WILL BE EFFICIENT, THAT WILL BE GOOD GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S THE REASON I'M SAYING WE SHOULD GO FORWARD AND REVISE THEM IF WE WANT. LIKING OR NOT LIKING, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A POLICY WHILE AGO I MAY NOT LIKE -- I MAY LIKE OR DISLIKE IT, BUT IF IT'S A POLICY THAT'S NEEDED, I'LL SUPPORT IT. DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY LIKING IT. AND SO ONCE WE LOOK AT THIS, IF WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, WE DO; AND IF WE DON'T, WE DON'T. AND THERE YOU BETTER BELIEVE WE WILL BE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY IF WE DON'T DO THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 4-3. COMMISSIONERS BECKNER, SHARPE, AND WHITE VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS AN ITEM BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, ITEM F-5, DIRECTING OUR ADMINISTRATOR TO ACQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW FOR CONSOLIDATED WATER DELIVERY SYSTEMS. >>JIM NORMAN: BOARD MEMBERS, LET ME JUST SAY THAT I'VE MET WITH THE MAYOR, I MET -- I SPOKE WITH THE TEMPLE TERRACE MAYOR. I'M NOT ASKING FOR MUCH OF AN ACTION TODAY EXCEPT TO REFER THIS OVER. GENERAL CONCEPT IS WE TALKED ABOUT CONSOLIDATION, COST SAVINGS, DIFFERENT COOPERATIONS. GENERALLY WE HAVE FIVE WATER SYSTEMS IN THIS COUNTY, FIVE, FIVE DELIVERY WATER SYSTEMS, WATER, WASTEWATER, AND RECLAIMED WATER. THIS IS NOT CENTERED AROUND UNIONS, THIS IS NOT CENTERED AROUND ANY COMPLEXITIES LIKE THAT, THIS IS WATER DELIVERY. IF YOU THINK OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW IN THE WATER DELIVERY IN THIS COUNTY -- AND AGAIN, LET ME GO BACK AND EMPHASIZE THIS IS NOT CHANGING ANY RELATIONSHIPS WITH SWFWMD, WITH TAMPA BAY WATER, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS BASICALLY TAKING FIVE -- FOUR DEPARTMENTS, COMBINING THEM INTO ONE, AND HAVING ONE WATER SYSTEM DELIVERY. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A CITY WATER -- A CITY SERVICE AREA, AND IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT WE HAVE UNINCORPORATED AREA PAYING 25% MORE FOR WATER THAN THE CITY CUSTOMERS. WE DO NOT HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORRIDORS THAT WE CAN SUPPLY BECAUSE OF TEMPLE TERRACE AND PLANT CITY'S DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITIES TO REALLY BOOST UP AND SUPPLY THE WATER AND SEWER ALONG I-4. I MEAN, IF WE HAD A -- A SINGLE SUPPLY SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY FOLDED INTO ONE, THE ULTIMATE GOAL WOULD BE A SEAMLESS SYSTEM THAT WOULD LOWER THE COST OF SERVICE DELIVERY AND LOWER THE RATES FOR WATER CUSTOMERS. THAT'S WHAT THE GOAL WOULD BE, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO -- AND ACTUALLY -- AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MORE AND MORE, AND I HELPED -- I ASKED OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO HELP ME WITH A -- SOME LANGUAGE HERE THAT WOULD TRY TO SEEK THE MOST INDEPENDENCE POSSIBLE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO SEEM LIKE IT'S A COUNTY -- A COUNTY TAKEOVER, A COUNTY -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THEIR SYSTEM, TRYING TO GET THEIR RECLAIMED WATER, TRYING TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S -- IT'S MERELY TO TRY TO CREATE A WATER BOARD THAT WOULD HAVE CITY APPOINTMENTS, COUNTY APPOINTMENTS, WE WOULD STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE YET, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD FOR A COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE TO ASK RENEE LEE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE AND ASSIGN TO RENEE LEE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVESTIGATING AND PROVIDING A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE COUNTY OF CONSOLIDATING ONE OR MORE AS FAR AS WATER, SEWER, WASTEWATER SYSTEMS WITHIN THE COUNTY -- >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND IF THAT'S YOUR MOTION. >>JIM NORMAN: -- AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M SENDING OVER, AND LET HER BRING BACK WHAT A -- A CONSOLIDATED LOOK WOULD COST, AN INDEPENDENT -- FOLKS, THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. >>KEVIN WHITE: DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT? >>JIM NORMAN: WE COULD. [LAUGHTER] >>JIM NORMAN: ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS I'VE INVESTIGATED, IT COULD BE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF LIKE CREATING AN AVIATION AUTHORITY OR A TAMPA -- YOU KNOW -- OR CHILDREN'S BOARD, THAT KIND OF THING, BUT TO DELIVER WATER IN OUR COUNTY, HOPEFULLY TO SAVE MONEY, AND THAT'S THE GOAL, SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. JUST SEND IT OVER. AND THE REASON I DIDN'T PUT IT TO PAT, I'VE TALKED TO THE GENERAL. HE'S -- HE'S THRILLED ABOUT THE IDEA. HE SEES ALL THE GOALS OF -- OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SAVING WATER AND THE NEED, SO -- BUT HE'S -- HE'S A PARTICIPANT, SO I WANT TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND SEND IT OVER TO MS. LEE. WE HAVE CONTRACT PEOPLE THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THAT SHE HAS ONBOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FERLITA, I SAW ON THE ROTATION OF SEATING THAT I'LL BE NEXT TO YOU NEXT TIME AROUND, AND IN UNISON I SUPPORTED WITH A SECOND, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING AND GETTING MORE INFORMATION -- I'M SORRY. >>ROSE FERLITA: I WAS TALKING TO OUR CHAIRMAN. [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BUT ANYWAY, FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER THROUGH THE LIMITS OF SUNSHINE AND THE MEDIA ARTICLE, I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING MORE INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING THIS ALONG WITH THE SECOND MADE BY MS. FERLITA. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO THIS WOULD OBVIOUSLY THEN -- YOU SAID THE CITY OF TAMPA WOULD BE INCLUDED? >>JIM NORMAN: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: TEMPLE TERRACE, PLANT CITY, CITY OF TAMPA, AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THERE'S FIVE COMPLETE WATER SYSTEMS THERE, AND THE -- THE GOAL IS TO CONSOLIDATE THEM INTO ONE FOR A WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM. >>MARK SHARPE: AND I THINK IT'S A FANTASTIC IDEA. I -- I WOULD ASK THAT WE LOOK AT -- I MEAN, INCLUDE IN THIS INFORMATION ABOUT HOW OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE THIS, THE LONG-TERM IMPACT AND IMPLICATION. I MEAN, I WASN'T SURE BECAUSE I HAD VERY LITTLE TO LOOK AT. ARE WE -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO SELL THE EQUITY IN THOSE ASSETS TO A THIRD PARTY THAT -- >>JIM NORMAN: NO. >>MARK SHARPE: -- AT SOME POINT -- >>JIM NORMAN: MY GOAL WOULD BE IF AT ALL, THE BOARD WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME BONDING AUTHORITY, AND THERE'S A COMBINATION OF -- LIKE TAMPA BAY WATER IN A WAY, A COMBINATION WITH THE ASSETS VERSUS A BUYOUT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: I WOULD THINK THAT THE CITY OF TAMPA IN PARTICULAR IN THE FUTURE AS YOU LOOK AT THE -- THE -- THE DIRE NEED TO UPGRADE WATER SYSTEMS AND THE LACK OF RESOURCES, THIS MIGHT PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY. >>JIM NORMAN: AND IT'S -- IT TAKES POLITICS OUT OF WATER DELIVERY. IT REALLY IS A -- IT'S A -- AND IT ALSO BLENDS INTO ECONOMICS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE RECLAIMED WATER. YOU WOULD -- IT'S NOT GOVERNMENTS FIGHTING OVER RECLAIMED WATER OR WHAT TO DO WITH IT, BUT THE BEST INVESTMENT THAT WOULD LOWER WATER RATES. THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT. >>MARK SHARPE: THAT WOULD BE -- TAMPA BAY WATER'S BEEN DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE OF RECLAIMED WATER, AND IT'S NOT THE JURISDICTION OF TAMPA BAY WATER TO DEAL WITH RECLAIMED, SO YOU'VE GOT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WHICH -- LIKE THE CITY OF TAMPA, THEY'VE GOT THE WATER, THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE PIPES, SO IF YOU COULD -- >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. >>MARK SHARPE: AND THIS ENTITY MIGHT -- >>JIM NORMAN: YOU KNOW TOO, DURING THE DROUGHT PERIOD, THERE IS A CONNECTION POINT THAT WOULD ASSIST IF THE OVERALL SYSTEM CONNECTED TO TAMPA CUSTOMERS WITH SOME OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TAMPA BAY WATER WATER DURING DROUGHT TOUGH TIMES. REMEMBER THE RIVER WENT WAY DOWN? >>MARK SHARPE: ABSOLUTELY. >>JIM NORMAN: THEY HAD TO GO TO WATER RESTRICTIONS THAT THE COUNTY DIDN'T HAVE. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT IF YOU HAVE A SEAMLESS SYSTEM LIKE THAT, AND IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL AND THEY DO BRING THIS BACK -- AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING AND ALL PARTIES INVOLVED -- I'D LIKE TO PULL -- WHEN THERE IS A DRAFT REPORT BEFORE -- I'D LIKE TO BRING ALL THE -- THE CITY, COUNTIES AROUND THE TABLE, IF YOU-ALL WOULDN'T MIND, LET THEM DISCUSS THE REPORT, AND SEE IF WE CAN ALL COME FORTH TOGETHER INSTEAD OF HAVING ANY CONFLICT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IF -- IF THE REVIEW IS SUCCESSFUL, SO I WANT TO KEEP EVERYBODY INFORMED, EVERYBODY WITH THE SAME INFORMATION. >>MARK SHARPE: AND I DON'T THINK THERE -- I'M NOT TRYING TO CONNECT THESE ISSUES, BUT I THINK THAT THE -- THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING WITH ALL GOVERNMENTS SUFFERING, WE DON'T HAVE REVENUE, WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO BETTER COORDINATE AND EVEN SOMETIMES WE TALKED ABOUT PERHAPS CONSOLIDATE CERTAIN TYPES OF SERVICES. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A MODEL THAT COULD BE USED FOR LIKE LOOKING AT OUR PARKS AND OTHER THINGS, BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, I BELIEVE, TO BRING ALL OF THE PARTIES TOGETHER THAT MIGHT THEN NEGATE THE NEED FOR MASSIVE RESTRUCTURING OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THESE TYPE OF THINGS, SO -- >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. THIS IS A BIG-TICKET ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: THIS IS HUGE. >>JIM NORMAN: THIS IS BILLIONS, BUT THE IDEA OF WATER DELIVERY AND NOT POLICE AND NOT FIRE AND WHATEVER, THIS IS CONCRETE AND WATER THAT WE SHOULD -- WE SHOULD ALL BE ON THE SAME PAGE ON, AND IF WE COULD WORK OUT THE LIABILITIES WITH EACH GROUP AND -- IN OTHER WORDS THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM STARTED EARLIER, SO THEIR BOND -- YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN AND PAID THEIR BONDS, BUT YET THEY'VE BORROWED FOR UPGRADES. WE'VE BEEN PAYING ON OURS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, SO OUR BOND DEBT'S DOWN. ALL THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT TO COME UP WITH A RATE THAT ALL CUSTOMERS WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE CONSOLIDATION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. MR. NORMAN, THIS WAS AN INCREDIBLE IDEA. I'LL TELL YOU WHY. AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONSOLIDATION OR COLLABORATION, THAT BECOMES TERRITORIAL LIKE TPD VERSUS SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND FIRE RESCUE, ET CETERA. HERE IT WOULD BE VERY EASY GIVEN THE PROBLEMS THAT A LOT OF US HAVE, PARTICULARLY THE CITY OF TAMPA, IN TERMS OF WATER CONSTRAINTS TO LET GO OF THAT TERRITORIALISM BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT NOT ONLY THE GOVERNMENTS IN TERMS OF REVENUE, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO BENEFIT THE -- WELL, THE AVAILABILITY OF RECLAIMED WATER CERTAINLY, BUT THE CITIZENS TOO. LIKE TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, I HAVE RECLAIMED WATER IN SOUTH TAMPA. I'M CONNECTED TO IT. I PAY AS MUCH FOR RECLAIMED AS PEOPLE PAY FOR REGULAR POTABLE WATER. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNINCORPORATED CITIZENS DON'T PAY VERY MUCH -- >>PAT BEAN: THAT'S RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY USE. SO THAT RIGHT THERE IS HUGE, AND YES, I AM IN SOME WAY HERE SIDING WITH SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA, BUT I HAPPEN TO LIVE THERE, AND I REALIZE THAT WATER ISSUE IS A BIG ISSUE FOR TAMPA. SO I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU AS WELL FOR COMING -- COMING FORWARD WITH THIS. IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT. I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>MARK SHARPE: YES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM G-1, TO RECEIVE THE REPORT FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT REGARDING BOARD EMERGENCY NOTIFICATIONS. LORI HUDSON IS COMING FORWARD WITH THIS PRESENTATION. >>LORI HUDSON: COMMISSIONERS, LORI HUDSON, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR. THERE REALLY IS NO FORMAL REPORT OTHER THAN JUST TO ADVISE YOU THAT WE HAVE FOUND A NO-COST SYSTEM WHERE WE CAN USE VARIOUS PLATFORMS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER BECKNER, WHO INITIATED THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THIS ALL, AS YOU RECALL, CAME ABOUT WHEN WE HAD THE ISSUE WITH THE POTENTIAL LOCATION OF A GUN WITHINSIDE THE COURTROOM AND THE LACK OF THE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM THAT WE HAD IN PLACE HERE AND THE IMPORTANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ALL RELEVANT STAFF MEMBERS ARE MADE AWARE OF ANY POTENTIAL SERIOUS EMERGENCY INCIDENCES THAT WE MAY NEED TO RESPOND TO OR MAY NEED TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS KEPT IN THE LOOP. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK MS. HUDSON AND HER COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT. THEY HAVE -- FOR ALL OF THEIR HARD WORK AND THE RESEARCH THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. WE TRULY APPRECIATE IT, AND I THINK IT'S WELL NEEDED FOR -- FOR OUR -- FOR THIS BOARD AND OUR COUNTY. >>LORI HUDSON: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECEIVE THE REPORT. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN BECKNER: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD MAKE -- ARE WE - - IS THAT ALSO THEN APPROVAL TO GO FORWARD WITH PUTTING THE SYSTEM IN PLACE? DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? >>LORI HUDSON: THAT WOULD BE OUR REQUEST TODAY, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SYSTEM. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: SO THAT CAN BE ALONG WITH THE -- TO RECEIVE THE REPORT AND MOVE FORWARD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: TO RECEIVE THE REPORT AND TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: I BELIEVE THAT YOU GOT THE INFORMATION YOU NEEDED THIS MORNING FROM THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT ON THE CENTERMALL, SO WE WOULD MOVE ON THEN TO ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT FOR DISCUSSION, AND THE FIRST ONE OF THOSE IS ITEM A-12, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO ADVERTISE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 4th TO CONSIDER THE ENACTMENT OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - - OR MAINTENANCE STANDARDS, I'M SORRY, AND RENEE LEE, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THAT? >>RENEE LEE: YES. COMMISSIONER, WE ASKED TO HAVE THIS ITEM PULLED, CERTAINLY BECAUSE OF TWO PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN HERE. WE NEED TO ADD A PROVISION REGARDING FLOOR COVERINGS, AND RACHAEL WILL DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT THIS MORNING AT PUBLIC INPUT, THIS ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING UNITS, AND THAT WAS PUT INTO THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THE REQUEST BY CATHOLIC CHARITIES BEFORE AND THE TENT CITY. WE ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH LEAVING THOSE IN THE ORDINANCE OR HAVE THEM REMOVED AS REQUESTED TODAY. AND IF YOU WILL TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT REGARDING FLOOR COVERINGS, RACHAEL. >>RACHAEL GREENSTEIN: SURE. RACHAEL GREENSTEIN, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. THE ITEM YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THE PROPOSED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE. LAST YEAR YOU HAD DIRECTED OUR OFFICE TO PREPARE SOME REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE 04-18 AND 96-2, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM HOUSING CODE. WE WORKED WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND DID A SUBSTANTIAL OVERHAUL OF THAT ORDINANCE, SO WE'RE NOW PROPOSING THIS NEW PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE TO REPLACE THOSE TWO ORDINANCES. IN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE, CODE ENFORCEMENT ASKED THAT WE ADD TWO ADDITIONAL REVISIONS, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED COPIES OF, AND I'LL JUST TOUCH ON THEM BRIEFLY. ONE OF THEM IS ON FLOOR COVERINGS IN SECTION 11.8.5, AND THEY'VE ASKED THAT THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE BE INCLUDED IN THAT SECTION. IT'S TO STATE, FLOOR COVERINGS IN ALL ROOMS, WHETHER REQUIRED OR NOT, SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM RIPS, TEARS, OR HOLES THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY CREATE A TRIPPING HAZARD TO ANY PERSON WALKING THEREON, AND THE OTHER REVISION WOULD BE TO SECTIONS 11.11.2 AND 11.11.3 REGARDING HANDRAILS AND GUARDS, AND THAT'S JUST TO CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE OPENINGS FROM A FOUR-INCH DIAMETER SPHERE TO A SIX-INCH DIAMETER SPHERE, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD INCLUDE THOSE PROVISIONS WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SO WE CAN SET THAT FOR PUBLIC HEARING. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: MS. GREENSTEIN -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YOUR MIKE. >>KEVIN WHITE: YEAH. IT'S ON. IT'S NOT LIGHTING UP, BUT ANYWAY, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. YOU DID THE FLOOR COVERINGS, BUT WHAT WAS THE PORTION ABOUT THE -- THE TENTS AND THE OTHER? >> THE BOARD AT I BELIEVE IT WAS THE JULY 21st MEETING HAD DIRECTED OUR OFFICE TO INCLUDE SOME PROVISIONS IN THIS CODE TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING UNITS. WE HAD PREPARED SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPLICATION THAT HAD GONE THROUGH THAT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOW BEEN DENIED, SO THAT LANGUAGE IS NOW IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, SO YOU COULD DIRECT US AT THIS POINT TO REMOVE IT OR WE COULD CONTINUE TO KEEP IT IN THERE AS WE SET THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. >>KEVIN WHITE: I'D MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE REMOVE THAT FROM -- FROM THE PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITE TO MOVE THE ITEM WITH -- WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE ONE -- ONE CONDITION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND IN SECONDING THIS, THERE'S NO ITEM TO MOVE IT ALONG WITH AT THIS POINT, SO THERE'S NO PURPOSE REALLY TO HAVE IT IN THE ORDINANCE; CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. THEN I'LL SECOND IT. >>KEN HAGAN: ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >> THANK YOU. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS -- THE NEXT ITEM IS A-13, TO ACCEPT AN AGREE TO THE WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR RELATED TO FURLOUGH DAYS, AND THAT WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MS. BEAN. AND FIRST, LET ME JUST FIRST STATE THAT I COMMEND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, MS. BEAN, AS WELL AS MR. BARNES FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE FURLOUGH DAYS. WHILE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED BY YOUR CONTRACT, I DO COMMEND YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS, AND THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, THE -- AS I WAS READING THROUGH THIS, I'M FINE WITH THE DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE EXCEPT THERE'S ONE PARAGRAPH THAT RAISES A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT -- AND BY THE WAY, THIS LETTER IS THE SAME FOR EACH MS. LEE, MS. BEAN, AS WELL AS MR. BARNES. IT SAYS, I MAKE THIS REQUEST TO AVOID THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO AMEND MY CONTRACT, AS I BELIEVE MY PARTICIPATION WITH THESE FURLOUGH DAYS IS CONSISTENT WITH MY STATUS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND THAT THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO SHARE IS THAT WITH THE ONGOING CONTROVERSY THAT'S GOING ON, SOME MAY ARGUE THAT A BASIS IS TRYING TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ALL THE SAME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL RAISES, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS THE CASE OR THAT'S THE INTENT, BUT THAT -- AGAIN, THAT COULD BE THE PERCEPTION, THAT COULD BE PERCEIVED IF WE ACCEPT THIS REPORT, AND LIKE I SAID, I JUST THINK THAT -- I'M FINE WITH ACCEPTING THIS LETTER WITH THE DELETION OF THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH. AGAIN, JUST TO AVOID ANY TYPE OF CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE OR QUESTIONS THAT MAY -- MAY -- MAY ARISE FROM THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. NO OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM A-82, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN OCTOBER 28th, '09, AT 1:30 AS THE DATE FOR -- TIME FOR THE IPA WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONER SHARPE, YOU PULLED THAT ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: I WAS GOING TO ASK, BOARD MEMBERS, I'M GOING TO BE OUT AT THAT TIME ON OTHER BOARD BUSINESS AND WASN'T SURE IF THE BOARD MEMBERS -- I KNOW ANYTIME YOU MOVE A DATE, THAT POTENTIALLY MEANS THAT NOW YOU MAKE IT GOOD FOR ME BUT BAD FOR YOU, SO I'M -- I WOULD LIKE TO BE HERE FOR THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT IF WE CAN'T MOVE THE DATE BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT WORK FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S SCHEDULES, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR - - YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THAT WHOLE DAY I'M GOING TO BE ON -- THE 28th IS JUST A DAY THAT I WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. >>KEN HAGAN: WHEN'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE WORKSHOP DAY? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS ON HOLD? >>PAT BEAN: I DON'T HAVE THE CALENDAR IN HERE WITH ME, I'M SORRY. >>MARK SHARPE: WOULD IT BE -- I MEAN, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS IF -- IF THE ADMINISTRATION WERE TO LOOK AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE DAYS, THEN WORK WITH EACH OF THE OFFICES TO SEE HOW OUR CALENDARS -- AND THEN WE DO IT THE EARLIEST DATE BUT WITHIN -- WHERE IT FITS -- >>KEN HAGAN: I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT IF EVERYONE ELSE IS. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: DID WE HAVE -- I KNOW THIS WAS A HOLD DATE WE GOT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. WERE THERE ANY OTHER HOLD DATES WE GOT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR? DID WE HAVE SOME -- >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I SHOW IT AS JUST A DATE TO HOLD. >>PAT BEAN: THERE SHOULD BE HOLD DATES ON YOUR CALENDAR FOR OTHER WORKSHOP DATES. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. WE HAVE OTHER DATES THAT WE HAVE ON HOLD FOR WORKSHOPS? >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT FIRST? >>PAT BEAN: YES, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: I JUST WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS, AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT ISSUES, JOB DESCRIPTION, WHERE WE WANT THEM TO POINT THEIR ENERGY, BUT I THINK DURING OUR DISCUSSION IN THE BUDGET WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE WAY BEHIND, WOEFULLY BEHIND IN TERMS OF COMPLETING THE PEER REVIEW. PERHAPS MAYBE AT THE NEXT BOCC MEETING WE COULD DISCUSS AT LEAST GIVING HIM THE DIRECTION TO DO THAT. HE SAID HE WAS PREPARED TO DO THAT IN APRIL AND MAY OR MAY, AND I'D LIKE NOT TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER TIME WHEN IT'S SUITABLE FOR ALL OF US TO BE HERE OR MOST OF US TO BE HERE TO THEN INITIATE A REQUEST TO DO THAT. I THINK IT'S OVERDUE, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO HAVE TO WAIT FOR A WORKSHOP TO DIRECT HIM TO DO THAT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT, MR. SHARPE? >>MARK SHARPE: I'M FINE WITH THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO WHAT ABOUT IF WE BRING IT -- JUST THAT ONE ITEM UP, AND I'LL BRING IT UP AS A COMMISSIONER'S AGENDA ITEM NEXT TIME, TO GO AHEAD AND DIRECT HIM TO DO THAT, AND AGAIN, NOT PUTTING HIM IN A PREDICAMENT BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS READY TO DO IT, AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST MOVE ON THAT ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: WE SHOULD PROCEED ON THAT, YES, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY? >>KEN HAGAN: THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE WAS JUST TO HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION CHECK OUR CALENDARS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE DAY FOR A BOARD WORKSHOP. >> SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: THAT WAS SECONDED BY I THINK -- WELL, COMMISSIONER WHITE, AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, COMMISSIONER FERLITA'S GOING TO INITIATE JUST A BOARD ACTION FOR FUTURE BOARD MEETING. >>ROSE FERLITA: I'LL DO IT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. THAT'S FINE. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE ON THE MOTION. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JIM NORMAN: CAN I ASK WHERE IS THAT PEER REVIEW? IS THAT SCHEDULED YET? >>PAT BEAN: THAT'S WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT. >>ROSE FERLITA: HE WAS UNABLE TO MAKE IT ON THE 28th, SO WE WERE GOING TO PUSH BACK THE WORKSHOP TO TALK ABOUT JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT I THOUGHT RATHER THAN WAIT FOR THAT TO BE SET, THEN DISCUSS IT, THEN INITIATE THAT DIRECTION, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION AT OUR NEXT BOCC MEETING THAT HE GET STARTED ON THE PEER REVIEW. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: DID YOU NOT MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT AT ONE TIME? DID HE SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE BY A CERTAIN TIME? I MAY STAND CORRECTED HERE. >>JIM NORMAN: I DID. >>ROSE FERLITA: HE DID. HE HAD ALREADY SET A TIME, AND I THINK WE SUPPORTED THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] I CAN PULL THE MINUTES, BUT WE GAVE TILL THE -- A DROP-DEAD DATE THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. >>PAT BEAN: I BELIEVE YOU DID. >>ROSE FERLITA: YOU GAVE HIM 90 DAYS FROM THAT DAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >>PAT BEAN: I'LL PULL THE RECORD AND WE'LL SEE WHAT IT WAS. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. AND THEN MS. BEAN, IF YOU CAN COME BACK WITH ME ON THAT. IF THAT'S IN PLACE -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT AS WELL -- THEN I WON'T NEED TO BRING IT UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM NEXT TIME, IT'S ALREADY IN PROCESS. >>PAT BEAN: I'LL PULL THE MINUTES. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CONSENT ITEMS? >>PAT BEAN: THE ONLY OTHER ITEM IS IF YOU HAVE ANY FUTURE ITEMS. >>RENEE LEE: NO, WE HAD -- >>KEN HAGAN: WE ALSO HAVE -- LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE -- >>PAT BEAN: OH, I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST REMINDED THAT THE GALLAGHER REPORT ISSUE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FURTHER DISCUSSED AT THIS POINT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. LET'S TAKE UP THAT ITEM. >>RENEE LEE: ARE YOU READY, MR. CHAIR? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>RENEE LEE: OH, I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU. WE REVIEWED THE RFP THAT WAS PUT OUT, AND IT APPEARS THAT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS IN THE RFP, ONE UNANTICIPATED WORK AND THE OTHER THE POWER OF THE PURCHASING DIRECTOR TO DO UNILATERAL CHANGE ORDERS THAT THERE IS AN AMOUNT OF $35,000 THAT COULD BE USED UNDER THE CONTRACT TO GO FORWARD WITH GALLAGHER. ANY AMOUNT OVER THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- THE CONTRACT WITH GALLAGHER WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD. WAN SWAN MS. BEAN, COMMISSIONER, MAY I SPEAK TO THIS PLEASE? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>CHRISTINA SWANSON: CHRISTINA SWANSON, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AND MS. LEE, THANK YOU FOR THE UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CONTRACT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD ALSO -- BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DIDN'T HELP WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS -- THAT THERE WERE TWO PIECES THAT WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IN PROJECT DELIVERABLES WITH GALLAGHER, AND ONE OF THOSE IS A VERY CLEAR ASKING FOR THEM TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELF-FUNDED PLAN TO COME BACK WITH THE SAME TYPE OF NUMBERS THAT AON HAS IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR PROJECTED CLAIMS ARE, WHAT OUR IBNR RESERVES NEEDED TO BE, AND WHAT OUR STATE-REQUIRED FUNDING RESERVES ARE. WE ALSO VERY CLEARLY ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE PREMIUM RATES FOR THE FOUR TIERS OF THE COUNTY'S PLAN USING OUR CURRENT COST RATIO, SO THIS PIECE OF THE -- THE PROJECT WAS -- WAS REALLY NOT COMPLETED BY GALLAGHER. THEY CAME IN WITH THE SECOND HALF OF IT, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE MEETING WITH THEM TO TRY TO HASH OUT WHAT WAS OFFERED AND WHAT WAS NOT, BUT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WITH THE $30,000 THAT THEY BID, IT DID REQUIRE THEM TO DO THIS -- THIS WORK, SO YES, MS. LEE, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE COULD EXTEND IT BEYOND THAT, BUT THAT WAS IN -- ACTUALLY IN THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO DO THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: IF WE COULD HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GALLAGHER COMMENT ON THAT. >> WE -- CHUCK TOBIN WITH GALLAGHER. WE ABSOLUTELY WILL ABIDE BY THAT AGREEMENT AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AS SUCH. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THEN, THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PREMIUM RATE SUGGESTIONS PROPOSED BY AON AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS OF THAT WORK -- >> THAT'S CORRECT, AND PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AS REQUESTED IN THE PROPOSAL. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. SO THAT WILL BE PROVIDED, SO WE DON'T NEED NECESSARILY THEN -- >> NO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: -- ANY ADDITIONS TO THIS CONTRACT? >> NO, IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR CONTRACT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN -- DO YOU HAVE A TIME FRAME -- WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME NOW GOING FORWARD, MS. SWANSON, OR IF WE KNOW THAT. >>CHRISTINA SWANSON: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. IT'S IMMEDIATELY. IN ORDER TO MEET THE BOARD'S MOTION, WE HAVE TO TAKE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS THE FIRST WEEK IN JANUARY, PAYROLL CUTOFF, AND THIS WORK WILL BEGIN TOMORROW, SO WE WILL HAVE THOSE RATES BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE EMPLOYEES SINCE THEY WILL HAVE TO ELECT AMONG THE THREE PLANS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THEN, I'M SORRY, MR. TOBIN, TO HAVE YOU SIT DOWN. YOU'RE GETTING A LITTLE EXERCISE TODAY. BUT WITH THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DELIVER THAT TO THIS BOARD WOULD -- YOU THINK WOULD BE -- >> I HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE ACTUARY, GLEN. HE HAD A FLIGHT TO CATCH BACK TO BOCA RATON, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT LONG. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD -- >> WE'LL EXPEDITE THE PROCESS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: YEAH. OBVIOUSLY KEEP MS. SWANSON IN THE LOOP, AND THEN WHEN -- >> YES, ABSOLUTELY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: -- WHEN THAT'S KNOWN, IF YOU COULD COMMUNICATE THAT WITH THE BOARD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> YES. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MS. SWANSON, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP THEN. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IF I'M INTERPRETING IT CORRECTLY THAT THAT WAS A SERVICE THEY SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED UNDER THE FIRST 30,000? >>CHRISTINA SWANSON: YES, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CHECKING THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO INTO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE -- >>PAT BEAN: JUST ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR. >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>PAT BEAN: WESLEY WENT TO THE RECORDS AND HE PULLED UP THE MOTION, SO I CAN ANSWER RIGHT NOW. COMMISSIONER -- THERE WAS AN ITEM APPROVED FOR THE PEER REVIEW OF THE IPA TO BE DONE AND FOR THE IPA TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD BY NOVEMBER 4th WITH THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PEER REVIEW. THAT WAS THE MOTION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: SO HE'LL BE ON OUR NEXT AGENDA. >>PAT BEAN: SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT REGULAR AGENDA. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT DID NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT THIS MORNING NOW WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK. >>ROSE FERLITA: WESLEY, THANK YOU, BY THE WAY. >>KEN HAGAN: IS ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THAT DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK THIS MORNING? PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> YES. THANK YOU. I'M LINDA WELDON, AND I REPRESENT ULTIMATE MEDICAL ACADEMY. WE ARE LOCATED IN THE FLORILAND MALL. WE HAVE 80,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WE OFFER POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION TO OVER 1,000 STUDENTS CURRENTLY ENROLLED. WE'VE HAD OVER A THOUSAND GRADUATES IN THE TWO AND A HALF YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN OPERATION IN THAT FACILITY. WE HAVE OVER 200 EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IMPROVING OUR FACILITY AND MAKING IT APPROPRIATE TO THE PROGRAMS THAT WE OFFER. WE HAVE ALSO BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE LANDLORD OF THAT BUILDING, AND IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT HE DID COMMUNICATE WITH MR. KELLY REGARDING THEIR POSITION ON UTILIZING THAT FACILITY FOR A HOMELESS SHELTER, AND I WILL READ FROM THE -- THE LETTER THAT HE SENT TO US. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COUNTY'S LEASE, THE PREMISES ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO BE USED FOR GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE PURPOSES AND NO OTHER USE WITHOUT THE LANDLORD'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. THE LANDLORD WILL NOT CONSENT TO THE USE OF THE PREMISES AS A HOMELESS SHELTER, AS SUCH WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE IN A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE, AND OF COURSE, AS ULTIMATE MEDICAL ACADEMY, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT IT WILL DRAMATICALLY IMPACT OUR BUSINESS, SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. WELDON. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MS. SMITH. >> WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT A-48. THAT IS THE 16 COMPANIES THAT WERE ASKED TO GO OUT TO BID ON THE HOUSING ISSUE FOR REHAB. I WANT TO TELL YOU, LULA AND HER PEOPLE SET THIS BAR UP HIGH ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE WE GOT REAL GOOD CONTRACTORS THIS TIME, AND I WENT THROUGH ALL THEIR PAPERWORK, AND WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW GOOD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISN'T GOING TO BE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU HOW GOOD THESE CONTRACTORS ARE GOING TO BE. I'M ALSO VERY, VERY AMAZED AT HOW FAST WE DON'T GET STUFF. I HAD ASKED FOR THE REORG CHART FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, AND I FIND UNDER HERE A VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THE UTILITY AND COMMERCE ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IS ALSO AN ACA -- RIGHT? MERRILL IS AN ACA? HE'S GOT ANOTHER BUDGETED-ELSEWHERE POSITION. EVEN MORE DISTURBING THAN THAT IS UNDERNEATH HIM IS THE CHIEF INVESTIGATOR, MR. PRS HIMSELF, MR. SHEHAHA. HE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE A JOB. THE WORST EVIDENCE OF THIS -- THE REARRANGING OF THINGS -- IS WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE CONTRACT MANAGER FELICIA CROSBY- RUCKER TOTALLY, TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED. HOUSING PROGRAM MANAGER NIKKI MORTON NEVER DID THAT BEFORE, BUT SHE'S GOING TO DO IT NOW. AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF BLANK SPACES. YOU HAVE PEOPLE -- YOU'RE GOING TO WONDER WHY THIS IS A DISASTER. YOU MAY HAVE $19 MILLION, BUT A LOT OF IT'S GOING TO BE WASTED. YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I'M NOT BEING FUNNY. I'M TIRED OF SEEING MY GOVERNMENT FAIL, OKAY. AND I WANT TO BRING UP THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF AMBIVALENCE OR SERENDIPITY WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO RUN THE MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU GO BY COLOR CODE, DO YOU GO BY DATE OR TIME OR AGENDA ITEM? AT ONE TIME IT HAD TO BE AGENDA ITEM. NOW IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. ALL YOU GOT TO TURN UP IS WITH 50 OR 60 OLD PEOPLE AND THEY JUST FLOOD THE WHOLE AGENDA. I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU -- WE CAN COUNT ON -- WHAT WE CAN COUNT ON FOR YOU TO DO, OR YOU JUST CHANGE IT EVERY TIME YOU FEEL LIKE IT. >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, THEN I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> OH, YES, I HAVE ONE MORE. G-1. IT'S ABOUT EMERGENCY. WE HAD AN EMERGENCY LAST MONTH, AND THE EMERGENCY ENTAILED THE FACT THAT THIS BUILDING GOT SHUT DOWN. PEOPLE WERE TOO LONG IN THIS BUILDING. TOXIC AIR STARTS TO ACCUMULATE RATHER QUICK IN THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS, AND FOR -- FOR THE PERSON LEFT IN CHARGE, GARSYS, TO ALLOW THAT TO GO ON FOR THREE HOURS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NEGLIGENT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> NOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL YOU ME ABOUT WHAT -- >>KEN HAGAN: YES. I GO DOWN THE LINE BY THE ORDER OF THOSE WHO'VE SIGNED UP NUMERICALLY. >> YOU GO DOWN THE LINE NUMERICALLY? >>KEN HAGAN: I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T SIGN UP EARLY ENOUGH THIS MORNING OR I WOULD HAVE CALLED YOUR NAME. >> NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT LOAD OF PEOPLE THAT CAME IN THAT DAY. YOU JUST TOOK EVERYBODY'S -- >>KEN HAGAN: I GO DOWN THE LINE. YES, MA'AM. JANET DOHERTY. >> SO IT'S WHAT TIME SOMEONE SIGNS UP, THAT'S WHAT WE CAN COUNT ON? >>KEN HAGAN: YES, MA'AM. >> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AGENDA ITEM, IT'S TIME ONLY? >>KEN HAGAN: YES, MA'AM. >>OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: JANET DOHERTY, LELA LILYQUIST, OR RAYME NUCKLES, ARE EITHER OF THOSE FOLKS HERE? GOOD AFTERNOON, MS. DOHERTY. >> [INAUDIBLE] WHO DO I HAND THESE TO? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JANET DOHERTY. I RESIDE AT 8214 REVELS ROAD IN RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA. SIGNED UP THIS MORNING, BUT I GUESS I SIGNED UP TOO LATE TO SPEAK THIS MORNING AS WELL, BUT I GOT THE ADDED BENEFIT OF LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON. WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT FROM GOVERNMENT? I'VE HEARD IT BANDIED ABOUT ALL DAY. I WANT HONESTY, INTEGRITY, TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY, AND COMMISSIONER BECKNER, YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD, I WANT ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT'S JUST IT. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GETTING THAT. I HAVE A BOOK. I'VE GIVEN IT TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THE LAST TIME I GAVE THIS BOOK OUT AT THIS MEETING WAS TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR WHEN THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE. IT'S CALLED ETHICS 101. IT'S A WONDERFUL BOOK. I'VE READ IT A MILLION TIMES. IT'S BY JOHN MAXWELL, AND IT SAYS, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BUSINESS ETHICS, THERE'S ONLY ETHICS. PEOPLE TRY TO USE ONE SET OF ETHICS FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIFE, ANOTHER FOR THEIR SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND STILL ANOTHER AT HOME WITH THEIR FAMILY. THAT GETS THEM INTO TROUBLE. ETHICS IS ETHICS. IF YOU DESIRE TO BE ETHICAL, YOU LIVE BY ONE STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD. I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. I THINK WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME HERE ABOUT THE ETHICS OF THE SITUATION IS THIS: HOW DO YOU FIRE 105 INDIVIDUALS, HARDWORKING INDIVIDUALS, AND GIVE YOURSELF A PAY RAISE AND HAVE NO POLICY IN PLACE? NUMBER ONE. HOW DO YOU TAKE A CAR ALLOWANCE AND ALLOW JARVIS TO DRIVE YOU AROUND IN A COUNTY VEHICLE? THESE ARE ETHICAL QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, I WORKED WITH MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY. THIS COUNTY IS BROKEN. YOU HAVE 26 DEPARTMENTS WITH ALL THESE DEPARTMENT HEADS. I WENT TO THE -- AND YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WHO I'VE HAD A LOT OF -- I MEAN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO I'VE HAD A LOT OF POSITIVE DEALINGS WITH UNFORTUNATELY HAS HER WAGON HOOKED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO I HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF POSITIVE DEALINGS WITH. I BROUGHT AN ISSUE TO HER ATTENTION THREE YEARS AGO ABOUT SAVING MILLION DOLLARS ON ONE CONTRACT, A $4-MILLION CONTRACT. THAT CONTRACT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE MID-'90s. IT WAS A SEVEN-YEAR CONTRACT IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. IT'S SOLE SOURCE. NORMALLY THE CONTRACT GOES OUT AT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES FOR REBID ON THREE-YEAR INCREMENTS. IT'S FROM A CANADIAN COMPANY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT SAVE THE MONEY WHICH WOULD HAVE SAVED JOBS WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED TO THE ECONOMY OF THESE HARDWORKING PEOPLE, YOU BASICALLY -- YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO -- YOU'VE LOST MONEY BECAUSE YOU'VE LOST ALMOST A THIRD OF THOSE TONS, $10. AT THAT TIME -- AND I WANT YOU TO READ THESE -- THESE THINGS I'VE GIVEN YOU VERY CLOSELY. THERE WAS NO RFP THAT WENT OUT. THERE WAS A -- THEY'VE GONE THROUGH SIX MODIFICATIONS, AND YOU HAVE SOMEBODY, CHRISTA SPETH, SHE DID A WONDERFUL JOB. SHE TOLD THEM ABSOLUTELY NO, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANYMORE MONEY ON THIS CONTRACT, AND GUESS WHAT, THEY GOT IT. THEN YOU HAD BARRY BOLDISSAR COME IN, AND YOU KNOW WHAT HIS CONS WERE TO RENEGOTIATING A CONTRACT AND SENDING OUT AN RFP, IT DOES NOT OPEN THE CONTRACT FOR COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS, BUT POTENTIALLY IT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL BIDS FOR BETTER PRICE FOR RENEGOTIATION. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THESE THINGS FOR YOU. THERE'S SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT HERE, BUT BASICALLY THE BOTTOM LINE -- >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. DOHERTY. >> -- THIS IS NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT, AND I WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE YOU LOOK MORE INTO THE POLICY THAT WAS ABLE TO GIVE HER THIS RAISE. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. DOHERTY. MS. -- IS THERE A LELA LILYQUIST HERE? OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MA'AM. >> HELLO, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. LELA LILYQUIST FROM BRANDON, FLORIDA. I WANTED TO PASS OUT -- WE DID SOME FLIERS FOR CONVOY OF HOPE FOR THE HOT MEALS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR THE HOMELESS IN OUR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AREA. AND I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT SOME POSITIVE, INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AS FAR AS HOUSING THE HOMELESS. A SITUATION THAT CAME TO MIND FOR ME WAS WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF TRAILER PARKS LOCATED CLOSE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-OWNED LANDS. THE TRAILER PARKS ARE IN BAD REPAIR. THEY NEED INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES NOW. THAT WOULD FIT VERY NICELY WITH MR. NORMAN'S THOUGHT ABOUT CONSOLIDATING THE WATER DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE IT COULD ALSO INCREASE THE JOBS IN THAT MARKET AREA WHERE THERE'S LOW- INCOME HOUSING. MY THOUGHT IS IS THAT WE COULD APPROACH HOMELAND SECURITY AND ASK FOR 25 TRAILERS PER MONTH FOR THE NEXT 25 MONTHS WITH THE IDEA THE TRAILERS ARE FREE. THEY CAN BE HOUSED IN ON TRAILERS AND BROUGHT INTO THE TRAILER PARKS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, AND WE COULD DO A CONTRACT WITH THOSE TRAILER PARKS REQUESTING THAT THE TRAILERS THAT ARE CONSIGNED THERE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY THERE FOR FIVE YEARS RENT FREE, LOT FREE -- LOT RENT FREE IN EXCHANGE FOR A PLACE FOR THE HOMELESS TO LIVE IN THREE- TO SIX-MONTH SEGMENTS. THE HOMELESS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO WORK IN CONTINUING EDUCATION HOURS 20 HOURS A WEEK, AT A JOB FOR 20 HOURS A WEEK, AND TO DO AN APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM THROUGHOUT THEIR TIME STAY IN THOSE KATRINA TRAILERS. I WAS SADDENED WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION -- WE DID NOT AGREE TO THE SHELTER CENTER, AND I HAD HOPED THAT CATHOLIC CHARITIES WOULD HAVE BROUGHT MY PLAN FORWARD FOR YOU GUYS TO SEE. I TOOK MY ARCHITECT OUT TO THE SITE AND I ASKED FOR A PERMANENT HOUSING, I ASKED FOR COTTAGES TO BE BUILT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE CODE-ACCEPTABLE BATHROOMS AND SHOWERS AND KITCHENETTES AND WOULD ACCOMMODATE UP TO FOUR PEOPLE IF NECESSARY, AND YOU GUYS DIDN'T GET TO SEE THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO PASS IT AROUND. I KNOW THAT'S ALREADY FINISHED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT MY ARCHITECT AND I DID. AND I GUESS FINALLY, WE HAVE A LOT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LANDS. WE HAVE 9,500 PEOPLE HOMELESS. THERE'S A LOT OF STUDIES ON THE HOMELESS POPULATION AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONTINUED -- PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE TOOK A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND DID A PROTOTYPE SHELTER CENTER FOR OUR HOMELESS, AND I THINK WE COULD DO THAT ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND THAT'S ALREADY OWNED BY THE COUNTY, AND MY THOUGHT IS IF WE DID SATELLITE SHELTER CENTERS AND STARTED OFF WITH KATRINA TRAILERS, WE COULD ACTUALLY SPIN OFF OF THAT WITH CONNECTIONS FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE NEWSPAPERS, A LOT OF OTHER STATES ARE GETTING THIS MONEY FOR NEW JOB CREATION, AND WE'RE MISSING OUT BECAUSE WE'RE SO BOGGED DOWN WITH ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES IN THE COUNTY. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE 9,500 PEOPLE HOMELESS, STILL LOOKING FOR JOBS. I HAD THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DO AN OVERLAY MAP, AND THIS IS AN ABBREVIATED VERSION OF IT, BUT WHAT WE DID WAS WE LOOKED AT MANUFACTURED HOME TRAILER PARKS AND WE LOOKED AT THE COUNTY-OWNED LANDS IN ADDITION TO THAT, SO YOU CAN PASS THIS AROUND ALSO AND SEE THAT WE OWN A LOT OF LAND, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DOES, IN A LOT OF RURAL AREAS, BUT YET THEY'RE CONNECTED TO BUS LINES AND AWAY FROM PEOPLE'S SUBDIVISIONS SO THAT ACTUALLY YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING VERY POSITIVE IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND LET IT BE A PROTOTYPE. SO ANYWAY, I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER -- THERE'S A LOT OF CREATIVE PEOPLE -- AND MAYBE DEVELOP TODAY A TASK FORCE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH MEMBERS OF YOUR COUNTY COMMISSION, MR. BECKNER, MR. NORMAN, YOU KNOW, YOU SERVE ON THE SALVATION ARMY, AND YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD AN ALLOTMENT OF ALL THE BEDS AVAILABLE -- COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS IS TRYING THEIR BEST, AND RAYME NUCKLES HAS BEEN WONDERFUL SUPPORT IN EXPLAINING WHAT WE NEED TO DO, BUT WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME HOUSING IMMEDIATELY THIS WINTER. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. >> IF WE GOT SOMETHING IN PLACE, WE COULD ACTUALLY GET PEOPLE INTO SAFE, DRY HOUSING RIGHT AWAY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. LILYQUIST, FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND FOR YOUR HARD WORK. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND REFER THE WORK THAT MS. LILYQUIST HAS DONE OVER TO STAFF AND HAVE THEM GET IN CONTACT WITH MS. LILYQUIST AND SEE IF WE CAN INCLUDE HER IN THE DIRECTION WE GAVE THIS MORNING AND SEE IF ANY OF HER WORK CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR PLAN, SO MS. LILYQUIST OUR STAFF WILL CONTACT YOU ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FUTURE ISSUES THAT BOARD MEMBERS WANT TO INITIATE THIS AFTERNOON? EXCELLENT. WE'RE ADJOURNED. 1