MINUTES OF
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Chairman
Dan Costello, called the meeting of the Polk County Charter Review Commission to
order at 6:00 p.m. on the 3rd floor conference room of the Citrus
& Chemical Bank, Bartow. Commissioner Strang led the prayer and Commissioner
Gernert led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms.
Swearengin called the roll. All
commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Dukes;
Commissioner Masters; and Commissioner Nunnallee who gave advance notification
of their absences in accordance with the Commission’s Rules.
The
Chairman said he would like the record to show the Commission had a quorum.
The
Chairman said the first order of business was the approval of the minutes of
January 29, 2002. He said the
Commission had some pages in their packages, pages seven, twenty-three,
twenty-four, twenty-five, and twenty-six, which contained more or less minor
changes to the minutes, as compared with those same pages that were sent to them
in the mail.
The
Chairman pointed out that when one had only a week between meetings it was a
struggle to get the minutes out, because the Commission’s minutes ran
thirty-five pages. He said he would
like to compliment Ms. Swearengin on the work that she did in that regard, and
that it was very difficult, but she did it in a very fine fashion.
The
Chairman said without objection those minutes would be approved at the
Commission’s next meeting, and meanwhile those corrections would be made so
that they had a complete set of minutes.
The
Chairman said they were down to Reports. They
had a public hearing on February 19, 2002, in Winter Haven City Hall. He asked if everyone knew how to get to the Winter Haven City
Hall? He said he would get a map to
each of the commissioners. The
Chairman indicated the City Hall was not on the main road, but it was fairly
easy to find.
The
Chairman said the next meeting that the Commission had, which was the following
Tuesday, February 12, 2002, would be the last chance that they would have to
make any changes before they had their public hearings.
He said that didn’t mean that they couldn’t make changes after the
public hearings, but they would want to make sure the language was set by the
next week.
He said if they had any other issues that they wanted to bring up they needed to do it preferably that evening, or not later than the next Tuesday. He reminded them to remember that those issues needed to be placed on the Discussion Agenda if they were not already there, and then they needed to receive a two-thirds vote to go to public hearing.
He
said on that evening, he hoped they would complete the government and efficiency
issue that they had before them in their agenda, and that would be the final
issue subject to any others that they might decide to bring up.
He
said one other issue that they needed to discuss, and it didn’t necessarily
have to be done that evening, but he wanted to give them a head’s up because
he was talking to Mr. Spitzer about it. Since
they were a Charter Review Commission they were not subject to the one subject
rule that the citizen would be if the citizen were making a petition to change
the Charter, and so they had a choice in the way that it could appear before the
voters. He said the choice would be
to have each individual revision or change as a separate item for the voters to
vote on or to aggregate all of the changes into one item, and they would need to
make a decision on that, so that they could advise the Commission’s attorney,
so that he could take steps to make the necessary changes, and depending on
their preference they would either have them aggregated as one choice, or
separated as several choices, or a couple combined together. He said they could take that issue up again at the next
meeting.
He
said that finished his report, and he asked Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Watts if they
had anything to report to the Commission?
Mr.
Spitzer and Mr. Watts had no report.
The
Chairman said the Commission was down to the Issues Agenda.
He said he talked to Jim Nelson of the School Board, and he graciously
asked Brenda Reddout, School Board Member to appear before the Commission, and
to explain the vote at the School Board Meeting, which was seven – zero, not
to bring forth the appointed superintendent issue at that time, and Ms. Reddout
was there to explain the vote, and to respond to any questions that the
Commission might have.
The
Chairman invited Ms. Reddout to speak.
Ms. Brenda Reddout, School Board Member,
Polk County Schools
Ms. Reddout said that the Board had just voted on the previous week, and the discussion came down to one or two members who were not for an appointed superintendent. She said the overriding concern that was expressed at the Board’s meeting was the concern regarding timing. She said they had asked at the board meeting prior for the School Board Attorney to prepare for them a history of the initiative in Polk County, and in looking at the votes as they came out, it was clear that in the primaries and in the regular general election the initiative was subject to an overwhelming defeat. She said off-year elections seemed to do much better if the issue stood alone. She said that was the overriding issue, and the secondary issue was Andrea Whiteley had gotten information from the Florida School Board’s Association that outlined strategies for getting the initiative for an appointed superintendent passed, and the School Board wanted more time to study that. She said the timing was a big concern, and the majority of the Board was for an appointed superintendent. She said they probably said it more tactfully than she did, but they were for an appointed superintendent.
She
said there were a number of PACs (Political Action Committees) that had been
formed, and were also looking at the issue, and were trying a number of
different tacks in order to bring an appointed superintendent to Polk County.
The
Chairman asked if the Commission had questions for Ms. Reddout?
Commissioner
Price thanked Ms. Reddout for coming to the Commission’s meeting. She said she had a couple of questions since she had not been
watching the School Board Meetings on television or cable, and she hoped that
she would fill her in. She said her
first question was, had there been any public input at the School Board Meetings
for the change, and also had there been any internal focus from the School Board
or from the school members themselves, teachers, principals, etc.?
She asked if she was hearing any changing of the winds and perhaps a
little more swaying than the last public vote might recall, because in her view
she felt they were seeing a little more importance placed on having that
appointed versus elected. She said
it had been pretty one-sided from her perspective, and she was wondering if Ms.
Reddout, as a School Board Member, was seeing some of those same things from all
of the sources that they had?
Ms.
Reddout said that she would like to answer the first two questions directly, and
they were no, and no. She said they
had absolutely no public input at the meeting, and their process was similar she
assumed to that Commission’s process, and if one saw an item on their agenda
they could speak to it, and it was an item, which was on the agenda, at their
last meeting, and no one spoke to it.
She
said they had not had any real discussion even at Work Session over how they
felt. She said the issue as it came
to them was brought up at the board meeting prior, and the School Board attorney
was asked to prepare a resolution, and the following meeting they voted on it,
and except for some brief comments, and she said she thought each board member
made some comments, there was never any full discussion of what would be the
advantages and the disadvantages, and they had not had that discussion.
She
said she felt that answered the no, and no questions, and as an aside, as
someone who like her colleagues, was out in the schools, and tried to be out in
the community, she said she also sensed that there was a growing feeling that an
appointed superintendent was needed in Polk County.
She said there were still obviously, pockets of people who wanted to have
their vote, but just by the number of PACs, some that they already knew had been
established, and some that people had come to them and asked for permission to
establish PACs to work on the issue. She
said it did seem to be gathering some steam.
Commissioner
Price thanked Ms. Reddout for her comments.
The
Chairman told Ms. Reddout the Charter Review Commission had quite a bit of
input. He said they had input from chambers, the Polk Voter’s
League, the NAACP, and from many different groups and as a matter of fact, the
only recollection he had was of Mr. Smith’s group and the Superintendent
himself were opposed to an appointed superintendent.
He said he could not recall any other opposition to an appointed
superintendent that came before that Commission, although not all commissioners
were for an appointed superintendent, and he thought there were two that were
not for it. He said that
Commission’s position was if they wanted to use the Charter Review Commission
as a vehicle they were entitled to do it, and the Commission’s attorney, Allen
Watts, was of the opinion that if the School Board requested it, that it would
be legitimate for them to go ahead and put it before the voters, but he
understood that there was some sentiment to having it as a separate issue.
Ms.
Reddout answered she believed the Board appreciated the opportunity.
She said in her own personal opinion, and not from the School Board, she
believed if the School Board as a board, did not look to settle the issue and
put it out to ballot by November, and at least vote on a resolution and set a
time certain for the vote, she was concerned the School Board may not have a
vote on that issue for many years to come.
She said clearly then, the majority of the School Board felt very
strongly about the appointed superintendent, and with a November election there
was no guarantee that would stay in place, and that was a real concern that she
had.
The
Chairman asked if it required a super majority of the School Board to put it
before the voters?
Ms.
Reddout said no, she thought it only required a simple majority.
The
Chairman asked if there were any further questions?
Commissioner
McLaughlin thanked Ms. Reddout for coming to the Commission’s meeting, and he
asked if it would be fair to say that Commission’s current agenda resolutions
regarding the increase in salary for the county commissioners, and perhaps even
the expansion of the county commission were somewhat controversial, and the
School Board did not want to have their issue on the ballot because it might get
lumped in with something of that nature?
Ms.
Reddout said there was some mention made of that at the prior School Board
Meeting. She said there was concern
not only with the timing, but at the prior week’s board meeting there was also
a concern about confusion, and she said people talked about how sometimes one
could get a whole bunch of angry people coming out, and they might be angry on
one issue that had absolutely nothing to with their issue, and their issue got
defeated as well.
The
Chairman asked if there were any further questions? There were no further
questions.
The
Chairman told Ms. Reddout that the Commission didn’t think anybody was angry
with anyone of them, because they were doing the people’s work, and besides
they didn’t get paid, and they were not elected.
Ms.
Reddout responded, of course not, they were angels.
Commissioner
Strang said and the people get what they pay for.
The
Chairman thanked Ms. Reddout for her comments.
The
Chairman said the Commission was down to Item “B”, Report of Committee on
Government and Efficiency Issue, and he reminded the Commission that
Commissioner McLaughlin, Commissioner Nunnallee, and Commissioner Strang were on
that committee. He thanked those
commissioners for their work, and he asked Commissioner McLaughlin to make his
report.
He
said he thought without objection, the best thing would be to explain everything
as it read. He said the one issue
that came up was whether or not it should be a committee or a commission, and it
was the committee’s feeling that it should be a commission because it would
give it a little more weight in terms of the actual name of the organization,
and he said it was felt that the term “committee” might not have the will
behind it, and that was one consensus they came to.
He
said in terms of the Mission everyone could read for themselves what the Mission
would be, but basically the idea was that they didn’t want to limit that just
to the Board of County Commissioners, and if there was a problem with SWFMD
interacting with the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, or something
like that, they wanted that commission to be able to investigate that.
He said there was some very broad language, which included agencies,
divisions, offices, and departments of any governmental unit, etc., etc.
He
said they then discussed that they should issue an Interim Report after one
year, and then a Final Report prior to the end of its term, and then later under
Operation in Section VI, they would see that after they issued the Final Report,
they would then like the County Manager to within twelve months respond to that
report, and issue basically a status report of how the recommendations had been
implemented, and that was under Operation.
He
said in Section III, which was Membership Qualifications.
There was a fair amount of discussion regarding how many members there
should be, and also how the appointment process should take place, and they
basically came to the conclusion that it was their recommendation that there be
at least seventeen, but not more than twenty-five, which was a consensus of the
group. He said they also thought
they should be registered voters and that they should not be elected officials
or employees of Polk County Government.
He
said in terms of the appointment process there was discussion of whether or not
the group should be appointed by individuals or by a nominating committee
consisting of appointed people, and or governmental officials, and the idea
behind that was that the Nominating Committee would do a better job of basically
following the will of the Commission, and would do a better job balancing issues
regarding geography, gender, ethnicity, and issues like that, because they were
able to look at the whole group. For instance, if one county commissioner
received an appointment and the other county commissioner received an
appointment, it was very difficult to collaborate on all of that, particularly
if they were not in the “sunshine”, and so they felt that the appointment
process would be better handled by a committee composed of a: the Chairman of
the County Commission; a constitutional officer named by the five constitutional
officers; the Chairman of the School Board; two elected city officials named by
the Polk County League of Cities; two members named by the Polk County
Association of Chambers of Commerce; and a member named by the League of Women
Voters of Polk County.
He
said that was to make sure that the unincorporated areas as well as the
incorporated areas were well represented, and to make sure that the group would
follow the guidelines under Section 6.3 of the Polk County Charter. Commissioner
McLaughlin asked if he could read that section to the Commission because it
basically encompassed a fair amount of issues that they had discussed.
He said in Section 6.3 of the Charter it would be their hope that when
the Nominating Committee met they would be charged with that section, and he
read Section 6.3 to the Commission. He
said it was the committee’s feeling that rather than spell out that one-third
should come from a certain area or other specific requirements that it would be
best left to the Charter Review Commission to read Section 6.3, and basically be
charged with trying to follow 6.3 as well as the committee objectives, by
finding competent and qualified people to be able to evaluate the governmental
efficiency.
He
said the one issue that the committee was not able to come to consensus on was
the budget. There was a feeling from one of the group members who said that that
the group was going to be studying efficiency, and he didn’t think the
committee needed to concern themselves with the fear that the group were going
to go out and spend “willy-nilly.” He said he thought that was something
that he shouldn’t paraphrase, because Commissioner Strang’s words were much
better than his, but basically he thought that Commissioner Strang thought that
they didn’t need to set a specific cap. He
said he and Commissioner Nunnallee were a little uncomfortable not setting any
specific caps. He said they really
couldn’t find a consensus on that issue, so they left it for the Charter
Review Commission to decide.
He
read VI the terms of Operation to the Commission.
He said Mr. Spitzer had made some other notations regarding the term and
duration as well as the name issue, which was basically Efficiency Commission or
Management and Efficiency Commission, as opposed to what the committee currently
had. He said those suggestions came
late in the day, and the committee was not able to discuss his suggestions, so
they would also leave those to the Commission’s opinion.
Mr. Spitzer also said that the commission shall be advisory only, and
they agreed with that, but they didn’t necessarily want specific language
referencing that because the committee felt it disempowered the group.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that concluded the committee’s report, and he asked if he had
left anything out for the other commissioners on the committee to speak up.
The
Chairman asked Commissioner Strang if he had any comments?
Commissioner
Strang answered no. Well done, it
was a good report.
The
Chairman thanked Commissioner McLaughlin for his report.
The
Chairman said he thought what was in order was for the commissioners to ask
questions of the committee, and then they could go down those items and see if
they could get a consensus on them, and then deal with the issue of the budget.
The
Chairman asked if there were any questions of the committee for the
commissioners?
Commissioner
Lindsey asked Commissioner McLaughlin what compelled the other units of
government to cooperate?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he didn’t know if under the Charter they could compel a
division of the state, for instance, to cooperate with them, and that issue was
discussed some, but other than just being good government, he felt he might have
to defer to Attorney Watts in terms of the legal issues as to what they could do
to compel other governmental entities to cooperate with them.
He said he knew they could compel the Board of County Commissioners to
cooperate but he wasn’t sure to what extent they could say to the School Board
that they had to cooperate with them, or something of that nature.
Commissioner
Strang said to answer Commissioner Lindsey’s question, he didn’t think the
committee they were referring to had the power of compulsion to compel anybody
to do anything. He said all that
committee was going to do was to issue a report.
He said he didn’t know if the language stayed in there, but the
discussion was that the committee would be advisory only, and would not have any
executive powers. He said he thought the benefit of a committee like that lay in
its ability to jawbone, to bring a issue up before the public, and he thought
they would find that if they made their case well enough that the politicians
would get in line.
The
Chairman said he would like to respond to Commissioner Lindsey’s question.
He said if the voters approved the amendment, and that was what the
voters wanted for their government, and if that was not a compelling reason,
then he said he certainly didn’t know what was.
Commissioner
Lindsey said the example given was SWFMD.
The
Chairman said he thought in that case, it was going to be a moral persuasion as
opposed to any other kind, because actually the county didn’t have
jurisdiction over SWFMD. He said it
seemed to him that if that was the people’s document, and that was the
Charter, and if there was an issue concerning SWFMD, and that Commission had
spoken, and SWFMD was not responding in any way whatsoever, it seemed to him
that was an issue for the Chairman of SWFMD to be concerned about, because they
were supposed to be responsive to the people as well.
Commissioner
Strang told Commissioner Lindsey that he thought they had discussed that, and he
thought that it was conceivable that there might even be an issue affecting the
Army Corps of Engineers, but with a group like that, issuing a report critical
of them or suggesting that they change their ways, he thought there were even
ways to get to the Corps of Engineers to cooperate.
Commissioner
Price said she had a couple of questions. The
first being, under Item IV under Appointments, and she asked when they referred
to the Polk County League of Cities, were they referring to the Ridge League of
Cities?
The
Chairman answered yes, and he said that language might need to be modified
somewhat because he thought the Ridge League of Cities did include Plant City.
Commissioner
Price responded yes it did.
The
Chairman said he would have to look into the organization and find out.
Commissioner
Price said she was familiar with the organization, and she was an associate
member, and her concern was if they listed the organization, not all of the
members were from Polk County, and it become a little more political in nature
as to who their appointment becomes.
The
Chairman said that was an issue that they needed to resolve before February 12th.
Commissioner
Strang said that the members did have to be citizens of Polk County, or voters
of Polk County.
Chairman
Costello said no they didn’t because Plant City was a member of the Ridge
League.
Commissioner
Price said of the Ridge League not all of those were, but she understood that he
was saying that the by-laws so to speak required them to be a member.
The
Chairman said yes, they had to be a resident of Polk County.
Commissioner
Price said that her point would be, which was really her second question, in an
effort to have inclusion in some of the smaller areas what was the
responsibility in those groups to include them?
The
Chairman asked Commissioner McLaughlin if he could respond to that question?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered sure.
The
Chairman said that came up at the committee, with which he was attending as an
ex-officio member. He said
Commissioner Nunnallee was on the committee for the very reason that she
expressed that concern, and they initially had in there not less than one-half
would be evenly distributed among the county commission districts and everything
else like that, but then when the committee began looking at 6.3 very carefully,
6.3 had a requirement for geographical diversity, and he said the committee
members could speak for themselves, but he thought they felt that would take
care of it, as opposed to having some sort of formula.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said the other issue was if one highlighted just on the geography,
were they then not emphasizing other issues such as gender diversity, or ethnic
diversity, that were just as important, so the concern of the committee, at
least what he was expressing was if they said follow 6.3, but make sure that
half were from unincorporated areas, then they might be doing their self a
disservice when it came to the overall mix of the group.
Commissioner
Price said she would also like to ask one other question regarding the Polk
County Association of Chambers Commerce, and she knew they had a commissioner
who was fairly familiar with that, and she asked how did they see that group
coming together with a nomination, and she asked if all of the chambers
participated, and if they all were active, and would there be a good response
from all chambers?
The
Chairman asked Commissioner Gernert to respond.
Commissioner
Gernert said the correct name for the group was the Polk Association of Chamber
Executives, and it was changed about eighteen months ago.
He said they met every other month, and as with any group, there was an
ebb and flow of how many were there, but all of the organized chambers in the
county were invited to participate. He
said there were some groups, and Eagle Lake came to mind, because they didn’t
have a full-time administrative person in that organization.
He said he thought Polk City at that point in time did not, and there
would be some cities that were not represented, and that was because they
didn’t have formal Chambers of Commerce.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said the one point that he would like to make was that the Commission
remember that was also a nominating committee, and they were getting to appoint
two members to the Nominating Committee, which then nominated other people, so
for some of the smaller communities there was ample opportunity for them to come
and voice their opinion saying they wanted to have a member on that group, etc.
etc.
Commissioner
Gernert said one thing that he would like to add was that, the first Efficiency
Committee that Commissioner Strang was a part of was appointed by the Chambers,
and he thought they would take that charge very seriously.
He said he didn’t think there would be any problem getting them
together to consider nominees.
Commissioner
Price said she would agree, but she said her question was really about
representation of all of the Chambers, and that was where her focus was, and she
said she was sorry if she didn’t ask that question right.
She said she wanted to make sure they had good representation from all of
the county’s Chambers in that particular organization.
Commissioner
Strang said he thought they needed to be mindful of the fact that Efficiency
Commission was not going to be formed to divide up the spoils of war.
They were going to be a working group, and their job was to provide for
the general welfare of everybody, and he didn’t think parochial interests were
going to intrude very deeply into their work, and those people were going to be
after efficiencies and changes that would affect everybody equally.
The
Chairman said he would suggest on IV they change the language where it said
“two elected city officials” to “two elected Polk County city officials”
named by the Ridge League of Cities, and then two members named by the Polk
Association of Chamber Executives.
The
Chairman asked Commissioner Price if that would take care of it from her
standpoint?
Commissioner
Price answered yes.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what the deliberation was regarding the League of Women Voters
versus the NAACP or the Polk Voters League, or the Libertarian Party, or the All
Roads Committee, or the Sierra Club, or the Republican Party, or any other?
Commissioner
Strang said the Libertarians were voted out two to one.
Commissioner
Lindsey said well at least they were considered.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said in response to Commissioner Lindsey’s question, that was why
the sub-committee felt it was important to actually have a Nominating Committee
as opposed to an organization, which would actually nominate their particular
person, because they literally were going to get on a slippery slope where if
they included one, and didn’t include another they would get a whole laundry
list of organizations who would all want to have input, and their particular
person on it, and what they thought was best was if that nominating committee
could best handle that. He said the
discussion was really made in light of should a person, or a county commissioner
make appointments, or would there be a committee that basically handled the
applications or nominations. He
said they didn’t get into all of the various interest groups that could have a
person on that particular nominating committee.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what the math was on all of those delegates?
The
Chairman said he thought it was an even number, and he thought it was eight.
The
Chairman said the committee discussed whether it should be odd or even, and they
said they were going to reach a consensus so it really didn’t matter.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked Commissioner McLaughlin if there was a consensus among his
committee or that body that the Charter Review Commission somehow did not
represent all of the interests that needed to be represented, and somehow they
were not politically correct?
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked if he was referring to the Charter Review Commission?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he thought there was a discussion that took place where they
were actually surprised because of the way nominations take place, and at the
diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity, but they had not received the
geographic distribution that he thought some people would like from them.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if the work product to date had been compromised by that faux pas?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said they didn’t discuss that, and he hoped not.
Commissioner
Lindsey said the reason for raising the issue was they said repeatedly the
voters were wise enough to make their choice, and be that as it may, once they
had made their choice, they lived with those choices until the next time around,
and they vested in them the responsibility to pass budgets, make decisions, make
appointments, and the whole spectrum of their responsibilities, and he didn’t
see why that would be any different in the modification of the system that
appointed them collectively, and would work as well as it did that time, and to
advocate that to the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters in the
absence of other interest groups, he would rather defer to the elected bodies that were elected by all of them.
The
Chairman said he would like to respond to that.
The
Chairman said it seemed to him that the difference was that, in a sense, it
would be the people’s efficiency committee, and it belonged to the people
because it was in the people’s charter. It seemed to him the Charter would not
be saying we don’t trust elected officials. As a matter of fact, there were
four elected officials included on the nominating committee, which was half of
the total, if eight was the total. He
felt it simply said what they were going to do was to get a diverse group
together that didn’t have a particular stake in any particular outcome, and
there was probably a greater stake in the outcome of that group than there would
be with respect to the Charter Review Commission.
It seemed to him that committee was more distant and removed from any
sort of possible manipulation.
Commissioner
Strang said he agreed with Chairman Costello, and he would have really kept his
mouth shut, but the Chairman’s question prompted this answer. He said to answer the Chairman’s question, he felt the
Charter Review Commission was not representative, and he thought that group
represented the status quo, and it represented the interests of the politicians
who appointed them for the most part. He
said having said that, he thought that group was more interested in its own
agenda than it was in what the demonstrated concerns of the electorate were.
He said having said that, he thought the appointing group that thing
called for was probably fairer than the system, which got the Charter Review
Commission appointed. He said they
were appointed by individuals, and he would dare say if a committee had
appointed that group he would not have been appointed, and he thought that the
fact that they were proposing that those appointments be made by a committee
insured there would be greater diversity, and that the provisions of 6.3 would
be carried out.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was trying to look at the minutes that they talked about
when they discussed that very issue at the last meeting, and of course in
regards to the numbers she was counting the Chairman of the County Commission
appointment comes from there, constitutional officers get to appoint one, and
that was two, and two elected city officials, and that was two, and then with
the School Board there would be three, and the math added up to nine.
She asked if she was adding correctly?
The
Chairman said he thought it was eight, but he wasn’t sure.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey, said at any rate, to expedite, what she wanted to say was that she
still believed that was not the fairest way, and it was the same discussion that
they had the previous week. She
said she would like to refer to Mr. Spitzer, and ask him to remind them with how
Broward County came up with their committee.
Mr.
Spitzer said he didn’t know how their language was arrived at, but their
language, if he recalled correctly, basically was direct appointments took a
different approach. Appointments
were made directly by the County Commission and then various specifically
identified interests groups in the Charter Cities Legislative Delegation, the
Chamber of Commerce, Broward Workshop, and Broward League of Women Voters.
He said those were direct appointments as opposed to Polk, where it was
the cities and the county and the chambers, and they appointed sort of a
Nominating Committee who made the appointments to the Efficiency Commission.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked the Chairman if he was saying that was an even number, she
would like to piggyback on something that was said by a fellow commissioner, and
if they could at least include one Afro-centric group in that committee
certainly that would guarantee some diversity.
She said she would say that the leading one in the county would be that
of the NAACP.
The
Chairman said he didn’t quite understand Commissioner Moore Bailey’s
question.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said her question was regarding the make-up of the committee, and
who would be making the nominations. She
said what she was asking was if there could be another entity added, and her
suggestion would be the NAACP, and it was her feeling that organization would
create true diversity, and would guarantee that there would be some diversity
within the group.
The
Chairman asked if there were any other questions of the commissioners?
The
Chairman said what the Commission could do was to take that issue up as they
began voting on that. He said
again, he was at the committee meeting when they were considering categories of
membership, and because it was a nominating committee and not the Efficiency
Commission itself. He said there
was a feeling that the advice that was contained in 6.3, which he thought was an
excellent gold standard for diversity, and the committee felt that whoever was
going to be appointed to that nominating committee would pay close attention to
that language.
He
said the Charter itself did not have a category for the NAACP or the Polk Voters
League, or the League of Women Voters or any of the many different categories of
organizations in the county, and it had that language in there, which was
similar to the constitutional language forbidding discrimination with respect to
race, religion, gender, or ethnicity, but it had that general gold standard in
there, and he thought good people, and four of those people would be elected
individuals, and they would be accountable to their constituents, would comply
in good conscience, and it seemed to him that would take care of that.
He said if they began adding specific categories of groups he felt the
group was going to be difficult to manage.
The
Chairman said he would invite any other commissioner to make a comment on that
point.
Commissioner
Strang said he agreed with the Chairman, and if one got into the categorical
representation of the thing, one would wind up chasing his tail, and it would be
difficult to include everybody that wanted to be included.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said at that point she still maintained that thought, but it
appeared that they had to either accept that as it was because it appeared that
it was not open for discussion in terms of any addition, and she said she
guessed she really had nothing else to say, but her point was that she thought
they should have the discussion. She
said she appreciated the opportunity to discuss and she appreciated the
opportunity to consider what she had stated as well, and if it was open for
discussion she thought whatever anyone said should be taken under consideration
and not be knocked down.
The
Chairman said he first of all wanted to state that her conviction with regards
to that issue not being open for discussion was completely and totally wrong,
and he didn’t know how she got that impression.
He said they were in discussion then with respect to some proposals that
were going to be voted on, and when they were voted on, amendments could be made
to those proposals either individually or as a group, so discussion was open,
and if he had given that impression to anyone else, and if members of the
committee had given that impression to anybody else to please disabuse
themselves of it. He said it was
not closed.
The
Chairman asked if there was any further discussion?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said that was fine, and she didn’t have any other comments other
than to say that she hoped they could all be on one accord.
The
Chairman asked where the Commission wanted to go with respect to that issue? He reminded the Commission what they were trying to determine
was whether or not there was a two-thirds vote for that item, so the consultants
could draft it for the next meeting.
The
Chairman asked the Commission if they wanted to go paragraph by paragraph, and
to raise their hands if they did.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked were the other commission members supposed to have received
anything via e-mail?
The
Chairman answered no they did not. He
said the members at the last meeting were invited to send e-mail comments to
Cynthia Swearengin for transmission or copy to the committee members.
Commissioner
Strang asked if it would upset the Commission’s schedule if they submitted
that for everyone’s study that evening and voted on it at the next meeting?
The
Chairman said he thought it would, because of the fact that they really needed
to get that thing wrapped up, because they had to approve the draft language for
all of the revisions at the next meeting, and the Commission’s attorney needed
to draft that language, and he was hoping that they could get it completed.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would like to make a motion, and then depending on the action of
that motion, he would like to make a follow-up.
He made the motion the Commission approve the recommendations of the
committee in paragraphs I, II, III, V, and VI, and Commissioner Moore Bailey
seconded the motion.
The
Chairman reminded the Commission that paragraph IV was not included, and
paragraph V still needed to have some work done on it, because the committee was
unable to reach a consensus on the budgeting issue.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that was fine, and to leave out IV and V.
The
Chairman asked if it would then be I, II, III, and VI?
Commissioner
Lindsey said that was correct.
The
Chairman reminded the Commission that the motion was to approve the
recommendation of the committee paragraphs I, II, III, and VI, and the motion
was made by Commissioner Lindsey, and seconded by Commissioner Moore Bailey.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Price said she had a discussion point just for her clarification under point
number III. She asked if the
committee that would be appointed at a later date would have the flexibility
between seventeen and twenty-five members?
The
Chairman answered at least seventeen, but not more than twenty-five.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Gernert asked, would that issue be placed on the ballot in its entirety, or how
would that work?
The
Chairman said it would be one article on the Charter.
Mr.
Watts said the ballot question would be something like, shall the Charter be
amended by the addition of article such and such providing for the appointment
of the Efficiency Commission, or what ever they ended up naming it. He said they had seventy-five words to summarize the affect
of the measure.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion? There was none.
The
Chairman reminded the Commission the vote was being taken on the motion to
approve committee recommendations on I, II, III, and VI.
He asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 10/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion that the recommendations of the committee, with respect to
paragraph IV be approved with the changes the Chairman suggested, and
Commissioner Prince seconded the motion.
The
Chairman asked if there was discussion on the motion?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would speak against the motion as it was formed then. He said he was not offering a motion, but he was offering a
point of discussion with an observation that by the time that occurred they were
likely to have seven county commissioners as opposed to five, and even in or not
in that likelihood he would strongly consider the League of Women Voters as a
very narrow special interest group and substitute an additional county
commissioner in addition to the Chairman.
The
Chairman asked if that was a motion to amend?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered yes.
The
Chairman reminded the Commission that the motion was to amend the main motion,
which was to approve paragraph IV, by deleting the League of Women Voters and
adding a second county commissioner, and Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said he was prepared to vote against that amendment because he thought
they had too many elected officials on there already, particularly with the
county commissioners. He said that
committee would be examining and auditing the work of the Board of the County
Commissioners, and he didn’t like to see the people who were being
investigated appoint their investigators.
The
Chairman said that he concurred with Commissioner Strang on that issue, and he
also felt that the deletion of the League of Women Voters, which had a
reputation for being dispassionate and objective when it came to governmental
issues, and adding a county commissioner would be a mistake.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he did not share the Chairman’s observation, but he would suggest
in light of term limits that second member, be one member who was at the end of
his term, and would not have a vested interest in the results.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion? There was none.
The
Chairman said on the motion to delete the League of Women Voters from paragraph
IV, and to add a second county commissioner, he asked Ms. Swearengin to call the
roll for a vote. The results were
8/2 with the nays prevailing. The
motion failed because it did not garner a two-thirds vote.
The
Chairman said the Commission was down to the main motion, which was the approval
of the committee recommendation on IV, with the understanding that language,
“two elected city officials” would be changed to “two elected Polk County
City Officials”, and the Polk County League of Cities would be changed to
Ridge League of Cities, and the Polk Association of the Chambers of Commerce
would be changed to Polk Association of Chamber Executives.
The
Chairman asked if there was any further discussion on the main motion?
There was no further discussion.
The
Chairman asked Ms Swearengin to call the roll for a vote on the main motion. The results were 8/2 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried.
The
Chairman said the Commission was down to Item V, with the issue of the budget,
and he thought Item VI was approved earlier, and he asked if there was
discussion on that issue?
The
Chairman said perhaps the committee members would want to speak to that issue
before the other commission members did, and he said Commissioner McLaughlin did
somewhat speak to that issue, and he said in summarizing Commissioner Strang’s
comments, he didn’t want a limit placed on the budget, and he asked him if
that was correct?
Commissioner
Strang answered yes.
The
Chairman asked Commissioner McLaughlin what sort of limit did he want?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he didn’t throw out a number, but in his mind he said he would
say not to exceed $100,000, and he said the background on that was that he
didn’t feel that it was fair after the County Commission had said to them to
basically give them an unfounded mandate to fund that group with the sky as the
limit. He said he was in agreement
with Commissioner Strang in feeling that group would not go crazy with the
money, but he felt giving the voters some indication of what it cost to fund
such a group was a good idea. He
said as a final point, that was not a make or break decision, for instance, if
that group decided not to speak to the budget issue he would still vote in favor
of having that organization, and his preference would be to have a budget.
The
Chairman asked why didn’t they entertain a motion for either a specific budget
or for the wording of paragraph V? The
Chairman read paragraph V to the Commission.
Commissioner
Allen said he felt that language said it adequately.
The
Chairman said what the Commission could do was to get a motion to that affect on
the table, and see where that stood, and if that didn’t pass then they could
go to some sort of a budget.
Commissioner
Allen made a motion that the language for paragraph V would read as recommended
by the committee, and Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the motion.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said he would like to explain the reasons for his recommendation. He said that Commission did not have a budgetary limit, and
he said he noticed they hadn’t held any orgies or bought any jets or anything
like that, and the predecessor Charter Commission was rather circumspect with
regard to that. He said he felt they were going to be appointing some people
with great probity and good reputations from throughout the county, and he
thought they would be able to trust them not to waste the taxpayers’ money,
and then beyond that he noticed that proposed language said that the Board of
County Commissioners would provide the necessary funding for the work of the
Commission. He said he felt the
word “necessary” stood out there, and they weren’t going to provide for
any jets or wasteful expenditures in his opinion.
He said the third point he wanted to make was how did they know what kind
of number to put on the budget? He
asked what was an appropriate budget to put for the Polk County Charter for all
time to bind the people to?
The
Chairman thanked Commissioner Strang for his comments.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was in agreement, and she was looking at the minutes from
the last week, and she thought Commissioner McLaughlin said something like
$95,000 or something to that affect, but she believed as it had been stated,
that they were talking about people who would be very conscious about how they
were going to spend the taxpayers’ dollars, and thought that would be wise and
frugal.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said perhaps they could get some comment from Attorney Watts on the
word “necessary”, and he said, Commissioner Nunnallee, who was not there at
that evening’s meeting, was also concerned about that issue.
Mr.
Watts said he thought the word “necessary” was a standard.
He said the word in Article 9 with respect to school funding was
“adequate”. He said the
Supreme Court had debated whether or not it could enforce the word
“adequate”, and thus far had not, but they had stated there was a limit
beyond which they would not tolerate a deviation from the ordinary meaning of
the word “adequate”. He said he
thought the same thing applied to the word “necessary”.
He said he thought it was a standard that could be adhered to.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
There was none.
The
Chairman said on the motion to approve V as recommended by the committee with no
budget, he asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 9/1 with ayes prevailing. The motion carried.
The
Chairman said that completed the recommendations of the committee, and he
thanked the committee for their work.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he knew that the Commission had already approved Article I, but
he would like to bring to the attention of the Commission the issue of the name
of that group. He said he felt the
Commission needed to address that issue because Mr. Spitzer’s text was in
Article II, and the Chairman’s text was in Article I, and they actually had a
typo there because in Article II they were calling it the Efficiency Commission,
and then in Article I they were not. He
said he thought they needed to decide the name of that group.
Commissioner
Gernert said he would make a motion that the name of the group be the “Polk
County Efficiency Commission”.
The
Chairman said the motion had been made that group be called the “Polk County
Efficiency Commission”, and Commissioner McLaughlin seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang asked if they could vote by acclamation to save time?
The
Chairman said he thought the Commission had made a practice of doing a roll
call, and he thought it was best that they continue that practice.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion on that issue?
There was no further discussion.
The
Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 10/0 with ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously.
The
Chairman said he would like to skip down to the Summary of Changes to the
Charter, and he told Commissioner Gernert that he felt that would be an
appropriate time to bring up the issue he had.
Commissioner
Gernert said at the risk of being run out of town on a rail, he was not present
at the meeting where the Commission discussed County Commissioners’ salaries
and made a decision to submit to the voters the salary of $49,500, and he asked
them to forgive him for not being privy to all of their discussions that
evening, but he would like to move that to the Discussion Agenda because he had
a perspective on that, and wanted to discuss it with them.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion to move the salary issue to the Discussion Agenda, and
Commissioner McLaughlin seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on the motion?
There was none.
The
Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 10/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously.
The
Chairman said that issue was then on the Discussion Agenda.
Commissioner
Gernert thanked the Commission for allowing him to address that issue. He said
as he stated earlier, he had not been privy of each of their discussions of that
evening, at least not in detail, at that point in time, but his concern was on
the issue of county commissioners’ salaries, and basically he saw it as having
two options, either leave it where it was based on the vote last time on the
ballot, or consider it an issue of equity or fairness, and it seemed to him that
to move the salary to $49,500 was just as arbitrary as cutting it in half from
whatever the state mandated for other counties, and he thought at the meeting
that he had come back to Mr. Spitzer had prepared a report on the salaries that
commissioners received in other charter counties, which to him, gave them a
benchmark that they could affix or gage their salaries against, and that would
be the average of those salaries paid in other charter counties.
He said his point was, if they were to be a progressive county, and if
they were to operate in an atmosphere where they were considered to be fair an
equitable employers that they should look at the issue of equity and tie those
county commissioners salaries to what was the average in those other counties,
and that was what he wanted to bring to their discussion that evening.
The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said he voted yes to bring that issue back up for discussion because he
wanted to reiterate what he hoped he had said earlier, in that he felt like the
very fact that that was on the discussion agenda to raise county commissioners
salaries right after the voters had spoken loud and clear, to him sent an even
louder message, and that was that Commission didn’t care what the voters
thought particularly when one considered the Commission completely ignored
petitions submitted to them by over 2,700 voters.
He said he thought in the referenda they proposed to the voters, if the
salary issue was included then it would color and militate the defeat of all of
the others, because he thought the voters would question the integrity of that
Commission.
The
Chairman asked if there were further comments?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he would disagree with Commissioner Strang’s statement
regarding that issue, because he thought the Commission put a lot of
consideration in why they came to that number, and he said he knew Commissioner
Gernert wasn’t there, but there was a fair amount of discussion when they
began talking about term limits, and they hadn’t had any evidence come before
them to suggest that the voters out there wouldn’t like another option on
terms, and they knew that if they put it on the ballot they were going to vote
it down, so whether one was personally in favor of term limits or not with
regard to the County Commission that would not make much difference.
He said he thought that Commission, and he was speaking for himself, but
also having been there, he thought that Commission needed to give the voters
Option “B”, and they only had Option “A”, which was to cut the salaries
in half, and he said he agreed with Commissioner Gernert that it was an
arbitrary number, but for instance, if the voters had cut them in half, cut them
in one-third, or cut them down to nothing who was to say cut them in half would
actually be the end result, and he thought the Commission decided that they had
enough evidence come before them from all of the Chambers of Commerce who had
spoken to them, and from all of the citizen groups who had spoken to them, and
from editorials in the Ledger, that they felt that the current salary was not
sufficient, but that it did need to be raised up to a level where someone could
work on a full-time basis, and educate children in college.
He said he would not favor going back to what was previously had, because
he thought it would be an exercise in futility that was not going to pass, but
what they were trying to do was to give the voters another option.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she would echo those sentiments exactly.
She said she would not like to undo what they had already done, and that
was her only comment.
The
Chairman told Commissioner Gernert he was present at that meeting, and his
rational for approving the $49,500 was not that he felt that was the ideal
solution, but he felt that was the solution that might be tolerable for the
voters. He said the current county commissioners were being paid approximately
the same amount as the School Board, and he said having been in that position
for four years, and he said of course, he hadn’t been a School Board Member,
and maybe it was a little unfair for him to say, but he didn’t think so.
He said he thought the responsibility that a county commissioner had was
a lot more significant than the School Board Members, and he thought they should
be paid more than the School Board Members, and that was roughly $14,000 more
than the School Board Members were being paid.
He said it was probably about double of what the Lakeland City
Commissioners were paid. He asked
if their salaries were up around $23,000 then?
He said he thought Commissioner McLaughlin came up with the $49,500
because it was just under $50,000, so it was what was really going to be
saleable to the voters. He said, he
thought that salary had to be increased, but he felt if it were increased too
much it would be rejected by the voters.
The
Chairman asked if there was any further comment or discussion?
Commissioner
Strang asked under the Charter if it was not true that the County Commission
could call for a referendum on that matter?
The
Chairman said they had the right to with a supermajority vote to put a matter
before the voters.
Commissioner
Strang asked if he was aware of any effort that had been made to do that on
their part?
The
Chairman said, no, he was unaware of any.
Commissioner
Gernert asked Mr. Spitzer if he recalled what the average of those salaries
were?
Mr.
Spitzer said, no, he didn’t, but to take his ideal literally there were some
charter counties, that in their charters they did not follow the state schedule,
and in Dade County, which was the largest county, they were paid $6,000 per
year, and Volusia County, which was about the size of Polk, tagged their
salaries to those of the School Board, but others Broward, Pinellas, and
Hillsborough all followed a state salary schedule, and it was a population
driven schedule, and so they would be somewhat higher.
The
Chairman said he would like to interrupt Mr. Spitzer.
He said he happened to have the average, and it was $58,593, and that was
the average of the charter county, county commissioners’ salaries.
Commissioner
Gernert thanked the Chairman for allowing him to bring that issue to the
Commission, and he said he certainly appreciated all of their positions on that.
The
Chairman asked if there were any other issues to be brought up or revisited?
The
Chairman said they were down to Summary of Changes to the Charter.
He said he had gone through his copy of the Charter, and he would like to
summarize what the Commission had done thus far:
1)
Article 2.1, which was the Composition of the County Commission, they had
changed from five to seven.
2)
Article 2.5, which was Salary and Other Compensation, they had changed
from $33,500 to $49,500 with some language similar to what was in there for
increases.
Mr.
Spitzer said no, he thought that was all of them.
Mr.
Watts said there was one other that might be dependent, and that was in 8.3.1. He asked if the voters approved an enlargement of the Board
of County Commissioners to seven, was it the intent of that Charter Review
Commission to continue a supermajority requirement for the proposal of charter
amendments by the Board of County Commissioners?
The
Chairman asked if there was any way to put that in a formula?
The
Chairman asked what he would call it?
Mr.
Watts said a majority plus one.
The
Chairman said, so that would be another change, and that was 8.3.1.
The Chairman said he thought that was a total of six or seven changes all
together.
Commissioner
Strang asked if that was the only place where the supermajority of Polk County
appeared, which was in 8.3.1?
Mr.
Watts said he believed that was correct.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked when did the supermajority apply, and what section was he
referring to?
Mr.
Watts answered 8.3.1 Proposal of Amendments to the Charter by the Board of
County Commissioners. He said they
had a finite number of four in there then, and if the Board of County
Commissioners was enlarged to seven the equivalent number would be five.
It was a majority plus one, but if they simple stated it as the formula,
majority plus one that would apply whether or not the voters enlarged the
Commission.
The
Chairman asked who would be drafting that language for the Commission’s
consideration on February 12th?
Mr.
Watts said he thought that was his responsibility.
The
Chairman said they would take a look at that draft language, and they needed to
have a vote on that draft language, so that they could get everything ready for
the first public hearing on February 19th.
Mr.
Watts asked the Chairman if they also wanted to look at ballot language at that
point, or how to cluster the amendments, or did he want to defer that decision?
The
Chairman asked if the Commission had any feeling concerning that?
Commissioner
Strang said he thought there was a lot to be said for having each one stand
alone rather than lumping them together.
The
Chairman said he had referred to that earlier, and those were the choices, they
could have them together in clusters, or they could have them separate, and he
said his preference was to have them separate as well, and he asked how did the
rest of the Commission feel?
Commissioner
Lindsey said it appeared that three of the seven issues were simply housekeeping
issues. The number qualifying was a
statutory requirement regardless of what they did, and the supermajority issue
was a housekeeping issue, and he thought there was one other issue he thought
was a housekeeping issue. He asked
if there was any merit to clustering those under housekeeping, and the rest
could stand independently, or was it all or none?
Mr.
Watts said what they called housekeeping, someone else might disagree with, and
that was certainly their privilege.
Chairman
Costello said the other risk was when a voter saw the issues grouped together
like that, they might say well, I don’t know, I’m not going to do that, and
vote against it, and then the choices would be interesting if they did vote
against it.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he would be in favor of what Commissioner Lindsey was saying,
because if they basically made it neutral as a housekeeping matter, for
instance, if they changed the language that it was majority plus one, but
didn’t specific that it was seven, so if that actually failed then there would
be no affect on the Charter in terms of how they operated, but he thought they
didn’t want to put too many issues on the ballot.
He said if they didn’t lump them all together there might actually be
more confusion than if they lumped them together, and say what they were doing
in ninety words or less or whatever it was.
Mr.
Spitzer said they could take the technical housekeeping amendments, and attach
them to their other policy amendments, and let them stand-alone too.
The
Chairman said he thought that a motion needed to be entertained on that issue to
determine whether they wanted each one of the seven items separate or whether
they wanted to combine some. The
Chairman asked if anyone wanted to make a motion for either one of those
choices?
Commissioner
McLaughlin made a motion to combine the housekeeping issues into one ballot
amendment, which would spell out each housekeeping issue.
The
Chairman asked what the housekeeping issues were?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered the Section 8.4 change, which was to eliminate that
sentence.
The
Chairman asked the deletion of the thirteen-person sentence?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered right, and by deleting it they still weren’t changing it,
and Section 8.3.1, changing the words, “Not fewer than four members upon a
concurrence of a majority plus one member”.
He said he thought the other one was regarding the procedure for
petition.
Mr.
Watts answered 5.2.3.
The
Chairman asked if he was referring to the sentence referring to one and one-half
percent to one percent?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered right.
Chairman
Costello asked if those were the three issues he was referring to?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered correct.
The
Chairman said that Commissioner McLaughlin made a motion to group those issues
on the ballot as one, and Commissioner Lindsey seconded the motion. The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?
The
Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 6/4 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion was lost because it didn’t receive a two-thirds vote, which
would be seven that evening.
The
Chairman asked that the Commission go back to the other issue, and he asked if
there was a motion to make every issue a stand-alone issue?
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion to make every issue a stand-alone issue, and Commissioner
Moore Bailey seconded the motion. The
Chairman asked if there was further discussion on that issue?
Commissioner
Price asked if the Commission would see a written analysis of each of those at
the Commission’s next meeting?
Mr.
Watts answered yes.
Commissioner
Price asked if the Commission would be presented with options, or would that be
it, and then they would have discussions?
Mr.
Watts said in the case of language the Commission had not seen in final form,
such as the Efficiency Commission, he said he would like to put that together
with some options of language, because he didn’t want his language to prevail
over the Commission’s intent unintentionally.
He said in most of those cases they had already worked out language.
Commissioner
Price asked, according to Roberts Rules of Order, when the Commission viewed the
language the next week, if they felt there were two that really grouped
together, could the Commission bring that up again?
Chairman
Costello answered the Commission could revisit the issue.
The
Chairman asked if there was any further discussion?
There was none.
The
Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 10/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously.
The
Chairman said the Commission was then down to Unfinished Business, and he asked
if there was any unfinished business to come before them?
Commissioner
Gernert said he just wanted to share with the Commission that Mr. Spitzer
provided him with the background materials for the Communications Committee, and
they would be getting together.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was not there when the minutes were approved, and she said
she wanted to add some corrections, and submit them for the record.
The
Chairman told Commissioner Moore Bailey that the minutes were not approved, and
that the Commission decided to defer the approval of the minutes until the next
Commission meeting because the members hadn’t had a chance to look over them.
He said he knew she had made some suggested changes, and he said he
thought one was based upon a comment that Commissioner Lindsey made, and he
suggested that she clarify with him what that was.
Commissioner
Lindsey said if Commissioner Moore Bailey refreshed his memory they would get it
corrected.
The
Chairman asked that Commissioner Moore Bailey and Commissioner Lindsey get
together with Ms. Swearengin, and get those corrections straightened out.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said the other comment was with the Chairman, but yes, she could do
that.
The
Chairman said fine.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if there would be a deliberation on the order of those elements on
the ballot?
The
Chairman said he would defer that question to Mr. Watts.
Mr.
Watts said he thought they could propose the order, but he was not sure that the
Supervisor didn’t have the ultimate authority as to how to arrange the ballot.
The
Chairman said he thought that was certainly fair for their consideration, and he
didn’t know if they needed to do all of that next week because they still had
a while before their report would be done.
The
Chairman asked if there was any further Unfinished Business?
The
Chairman said the Commission was down to Remarks of Interested Citizens, and Mr.
Hancock and Mr. Smith had signed up to speak to the Commission.
The
Chairman invited Mr. Hancock to speak to the Commission.