MINUTES OF
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 12, 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
Hunt led the prayer and Commissioner Allen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Swearengin
called the roll. All commissioners
were present with the exception of Commissioner Price.
The Chairman
said the first issue was the approval of the minutes of January 29, 2002.
The Chairman said he understood there had been several changes made to
the minutes, and he asked if there were any additional changes other than the
ones that had been made?
He said he would
like to note that Commissioner Strang had two small corrections, with the first
being on page 11, third paragraph last sentence, the word deficiencies should be
changed to “efficiencies”, and on page 17, six paragraph first sentence, the
words school up should be changed to “spool up”.
The Chairman
asked if there were any additional changes to the January 29th
minutes? There were no
further changes.
Commissioner
Nunnallee made a motion to approve the minutes of January 29th, and
Commissioner Lindsey seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion? There
was none. The motion carried.
The Chairman
said regarding reports, he wanted to remind the Commission they would have a
Public Hearing on the next Tuesday, February 19th, at 7:00 p.m., in
the City Commission Chambers in the City of Winter Haven.
He said he had
passed out directions for those who asked for them, and if the directions
weren’t clear, to please check with him, and he would try to make them
clearer.
The Chairman
said he had nothing further to report. He
asked Mr. Watts if he had anything to report to the Commission?
Mr. Watts said
he had nothing other than the draft amendments.
The Chairman
said he would like the Commission to move to the Issues Agenda. At the last
meeting the Commission agreed to move back to the Discussion Agenda, the issue
of single-member/at large-districts. He
said his understanding was the issue of all single-member districts did not
receive very much support, and they were currently in a situation where they had
all at-large districts. He said he
thought what they were talking about was a mixture between at-large and
single-member districts, and since Commissioner McLaughlin reintroduced that
subject to them he thought he might like to speak to that issue.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he, like some of the other commissioners, who previously had
some concern over single-member districts, thought there was room for
compromise, and he thought the five and two or even three and four scheme would
address the concern that the County Commission not become so polarized as to not
get anything done because it didn’t happen to benefit one particular single
district, because they would know that they would have two or three at-large
commissioners depending upon the pleasure of the Charter Review Commission, and
he thought it would also help increase participation.
He said as of
then, the County Commission consisted of five white men, and he said he thought
there was certainly a lot of room for improvement in that regard, and he thought
what he proposed would help reduce the cost of elections, which was something
that he thought that they all should try to strive for, which would increase
diversity on the County Commission, and also protect the County Commission to
make sure it didn’t become so polarized that nothing got done. He said he felt that was linked to the increase from five to
seven commissioners, and when they came to the point of actually placing that
issue on the ballot they might need to combine that issue.
He said he thought the issue there was whether or not the Commission
wanted to shift from an at-large system regardless of how many commissioners
there were, to a mixed system, and that could be four and one under the present
scheme, or four and two, or four and three under the new scheme, or six and one
under the new scheme, and it could be any combination with the exception not all
would be single-member, and not all would be at-large.
The Chairman
asked if anyone else wanted to discuss that issue, because they would need to
take a test vote to determine where they were with respect to the mixed
districts.
Commissioner
Gernert said he talked with a number of folks in and around his community during
the last week, and he said he found a real concern that if they went to a mixed
system that they could have a situation develop where one side of the county
versus the other controls the County Commission.
He said from their standpoint, if they were going to go to a system, they
preferred that it be a system of all single-member districts rather than a
mixture.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if the Commission took no action that evening would it remain
seven members at large?
The Chairman
answered that was correct.
The Chairman
said he would entertain a motion with respect to whether they wanted to have a
mixed system or they wanted to stay with at-large.
Commissioner
Masters made a motion the Commission leave things as they were with five or
seven at large, and Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Strang said he was about to make a contrary motion, and he didn’t know
everything that he wanted to know about single-member districts, and apparently
they worked very well in the cause of good government in some areas, and he said
he thought it was worthy of further exploration.
The Chairman
said after the present vote they might very well have an opportunity to explore.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion on the motion to continue the at-large
districting scheme that was presently had?
There was no further discussion.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 6/5 with the nays prevailing. The motion lost because it did not garner a two-thirds vote.
Commissioner
Masters asked wouldn’t the opposite be the same?
The Chairman
answered not necessarily, because the motion was to keep them all at-large, and
that motion only gained five votes, and it could be that some of those aye votes
were kind of a subterranean “no” vote.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked if the Chairman knew if Commissioner Moore Bailey was coming to
the meeting that evening?
The
Chairman answered he was not sure, because they hadn’t heard from her.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he thought if anyone was in favor of mixed districts, he thought
they should wait until
Commissioner Moore Bailey arrived.
The Chairman
said if Commissioner McLaughlin was assuming that Commissioner Moore Bailey was
for mixed districts, and if they had a vote on that and they added one to it,
then they would still know where they stood.
He reminded the Commission it took a two-thirds vote to pass, and there
were a total of eleven commissioners present, so that would be a total of eight
votes.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked was there someone else missing?
The Chairman
responded Commissioner Price.
The Chairman
asked did anyone wish to make a motion with respect to a mixed districting
scheme?
Commissioner
Strang moved that the Commission recommend some form of mixed districting, and
Commissioner Nunnallee seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said as he stated before, he didn’t know everything that he wanted to
know about single-member districts, and they seemed to have been working well in
other counties for some time, and he would like to see what benefits they could
get out of it.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would speak against the motion for a couple of reasons.
He said primarily as had been championed, time and time again, he
didn’t want to give up the right to vote.
He said as of then, he had a chance to vote on all of the County
Commissioners, and he would like to keep that right to vote on all of the County
Commissioners, and not diminish his voting power by whatever number.
He said he also wanted every County Commissioner whether it was five or
seven or whatever that number was, to have an equal interest in Frostproof, Fort
Meade, Lakeland, and the Green Swamp on the north side and the power plants on
the south side.
He said he
wanted each of them to have the same interests, and the same compassion and not
be so cocoon like, that they only had to appease fifty-one percent of those who
choose to vote in a much narrower arena.
Commissioner
Hunt said she would like to add the word “accountability” to what
Commissioner Lindsey said, and all of the County Commissioners should be
accountable to all of the voters in Polk County.
The Chairman
asked if anyone else wanted to discuss that issue?
Commissioner
Stoer said she agreed with what they both said, and when they were discussing
single-member districts, she asked weren’t they trying to have representation
from the minority?
The Chairman
answered that was one hope, and he asked that they remember that there was a
memorandum from Kurt Spitzer indicating that in order to come up with a majority
minority district, it would be almost impossible in Polk County, but because
there would be a reduced number of people within a district that one had to
campaign for, it might have a tendency to increase the chances of minority
representation.
Commissioner
Masters asked if part of the concern was the amount of money that it took for
campaigning across the county?
The Chairman
said that was a concern he heard expressed at the previous debate.
He asked if any of the commissioners wanted to respond?
Commissioner
Dukes answered that was one of the concerns, and he thought when they were
talking about creating diversity on the Commission that was going to have to
somehow take place, and they would have to produce that.
Commissioner
Masters said campaign finance reform was being talked about in the federal
government, and he asked if they didn’t change the districting schemes, would
it perhaps open more doors for people, and he asked if anyone else had any ideas
with regards to that?
Commissioner
Dukes said without a cost factor he thought it would be best to have at-large
commissioners, because there were minority candidates that were able to reach
across the county for those voters that empathize with their position, but
having to reach all of those voters was the problem, and he said he thought
single-member districting would cut it down, so that they would only have to
reach a limited amount, and that was the real problem.
He said if they could cut the cost, and were able to reach everyone
across the county who was going to empathize or sympathize with one’s
position, then he thought that would be best.
Commissioner
Masters said the way that he understood it, was it was really a funding issue of
a minority trying to garner enough funds to be competitive in the race, and that
was really the only thing that the single-member district fixed.
He said the things that it broke was one didn’t get to vote for all of
the commissioners, and it possibly gave too much power to one area, and he could
not support that issue for those two reasons, but he would be interested in some
other idea of trying to make it more accessible to everybody.
Commissioners
Dukes said he thought that was only one area, and Commissioner McLaughlin
brought up three, and he agreed with all three areas that he mentioned.
He said one of his real sentiments was creating diversity in the
Commission. He said he didn’t
know whether single-member was the way to go with that, even with cutting it
down to a single-member district. He
said it didn’t necessarily guarantee anything.
He said it really didn’t give one a great advantage either.
He said the only advantage was being able to appeal to a certain block of
people. He said at-large would
really be the best way to go.
Commissioner
Strang said he recognized there were a lot of advantages and disadvantages both
ways, but he said he couldn’t help but recall a career military friend of his
who said why would you want to live in the same town for forty years, and
Commissioner Strang said he replied, one of the advantages were, that if you
lived there forty years you find out who the bad guys were.
He said Polk
County was a large county geographically, and he was afraid that he wouldn’t
know if the guy from Indian Lake Estates or Northwest was a bad guy or not,
because it was so far away, and he said he thought that was one advantage of
single member districts.
Commissioner
Lindsey said as an informed voter, as he knew Commissioner Strang was he knew he
would find out who the bad guy was.
He said in
responding to Commissioner Dukes’ comments, in playing with some drawings
earlier that day, for that very discussion, it occurred to him that if Polk
County was equally divided by population, and assuming that the population was
spread equally, seven districts would represent about 75,000, and so someone
would have to be convinced whether it was a minority or a majority or whoever it
was to be one of 75,000 to choose to run in that district albeit countywide, so
one would have a smaller pot from which to choose from.
If it were mixed or even five districts that would be 500,000 divided by
five, which would be 100,000 population from which to choose.
He said it occurred to him that the smaller the slice of the pie, the
greater likelihood that a minority or a female would be more likely to raise
their hand, and say “let me be the one to represent you across the county”.
He said he thought it would have exactly the affect that they would hope
to achieve, and would still then be able to reach across that district
countywide, as Commissioner Dukes had commented on.
Commissioner
Hunt said her two examples against the argument was Gow Fields and Brenda
Reddout, who were two excellent campaigners able to raise large sums of money
and gather votes from all types of people, but on the other hand, if her memory
served her correctly, Larry Peacock raised almost no money and he was
successful, so she said she didn’t think those two arguments, especially the
money issue was a valid argument in Polk County because she thought they were
very platform oriented.
Chairman
Costello said he did have a report of the charter counties for 2001, and their
districting schemes, and he said perhaps he should refresh their memories on
that. He read the list of the various charter counties’ districting schemes to
the Commission. Of the seventeen
counties four had mixed systems, and five had single-district systems, and the
rest were at-large. He said it
really wasn’t equally divided, but more or less distributed among the three
systems.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he had a question for Commissioner Gernert. He said Commissioner
Gernert had mentioned that he had spoken to people, and there was a concern
about the concentration of power among the community, and he asked if those
people were in favor of single-member districts, and if he was in favor of
single-member districts?
Commissioner
Gernert said the jury was out on that, because that argument pulled him one way,
and then the other. He said he
thought the real concern, and they all had danced all around it, was the
concentration of population in the Lakeland area.
He said with seventeen communities spread all over the county, and two
being Mulberry and Lakeland in that general geographic area, if a mixed system
was in place there was some concern that those at-large commissioners were going
to be elected by that constituency because historically the eastern side of the
county didn’t always agree on everything, and act as a cohesive unit.
He said he mentioned the fact that people said that it would be like the
old county barn system where it was all a favoritism, and he said they really
discounted that. He said they said with the Charter in place and the
people’s ability to make decisions through that particular instrument, and
that single-member districts should work, and work well. He said he found more people that felt that way, and there
weren’t any strong feelings about a mixed system.
The Chairman
said at the risk of complicating the Commission’s discussion further, he was
going to ask Mr. Watts to comment, because he might have another alternative.
Mr. Watts said
he just wanted to point out without taking any part in the Commission’s
deliberations that they should not let their imagination be limited, for
example, he knew of no legal reason why they could not have some system like a
single-member district primary in which the Democratic and Republican parties
each nominated a candidate on a single-member district basis, and then those
candidates run at-large in the general election.
He said the
commissioners could imagine any kind of scheme to put together, and the pros and
the cons of at-large and single-member districts, and he didn’t want them to
think that they were necessarily limited to the way things had been done in
other counties, because they weren’t.
The Chairman
said as a practical matter he thought the Commission should let the motion go
forward and be voted on, because he didn’t think there were going to be eight
votes for the motion, and he thought they would be back to where they were
before they put that issue back on the Discussion Agenda.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion on the motion to have some form of mixed
districting system made by Commissioner Strang and seconded by Commissioner
Nunnallee?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said for those who were opposed to the motion, it didn’t appear
there was a huge animosity towards further discussion, and he asked if there was
any harm in voting in favor of putting that issue up for Public Hearing, and
then getting more information from the public, and letting them have their
input, and then voting on that issue?
He said for
example, he was not in favor of non-partisan races for the Sheriff, but he voted
to go ahead and put the issue on the Discussion Agenda, so they could all
discuss non-partisan races for the Sheriff.
He said he thought what he would do was look to those who might be
opposed to that because it might not quite meet their criteria, and try to vote
for it to at least try to give the public some input, and then they could vote
the issue down after that if they didn’t like what the public had to say.
The Chairman
said the Commission had to provide for the Public Hearing the Commission’s
proposals at that stage, and those proposals certainly could be changed after
the Public Hearings, but they had a motion on the floor, and unless the maker of
the motion and the Commission agreed to withdraw it, he thought they needed to
proceed with a vote on the motion, and they could always continue that
discussion at a later time.
Commissioner
Strang said to further complicate matters, Mr. Watts had reminded him in his
comments about thinking outside of the box, about the matter of proportional
voting, and that had been done with success in a few jurisdictions, and he would
be interested in pursuing that.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Strang if he wanted to explain proportional voting?
Commissioner
Strang said it was where each voter in a given race received seven votes and
they could cast those off for one candidate if they wanted to, but all seven or
five districts ran at the same time.
The Chairman
asked if Mr. Watts had any comment regarding Commissioner Strang’s suggestion.
Mr. Watts said
that had been done in some other jurisdictions, and he was not aware of a
Florida jurisdiction that had done it, and he would want to double check the law
on it, but it essentially worked in the corporate world, and it was called
cumulative voting, and how it worked was one would take a certain percentage of
his stock and they were able to elect a certain percentage of the board of
directors by voting their stock as a block for their slate, and then letting all
of the other votes go for the others who were being elected.
He said it had
been tried in multi-member legislative bodies such as that in other
jurisdictions, and there was some literature out on it, which he said he would
be glad to let them peruse if they were interested in it.
He said it was novel for Florida, but it would work something like
Commissioner Strang outlined. If
there were three commissioners on the ballot in a particular year, each voter
would get three votes, and they could cast their votes for three different
persons, or all three for one if they really felt they wanted to give that
candidate a boost. It was a way in the minds of some people of mixing and
matching single-member districts, and at large because sometimes minority
communities could pile their votes on a particular minority candidate, but the
election was at large and the votes were counted all at once.
Commissioner
Lindsey said if he was going to research proportional voting to consider one
vote for every year that one had lived in Polk County.
Mr. Watts said
one could not vote based upon seniority.
The Chairman
said the motion was for some form of mixed districting made by Commissioner
Strang, and seconded by Commissioner Nunnallee.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 6/5 with the nays prevailing. The motion lost because it did not garner a two-thirds vote.
The Chairman
said he thought that was exactly the same vote that occurred the last time they
brought it up, and if there was one thing that was true about that issue, they
hadn’t changed their mind about it. He
said even if Commissioner Moore Bailey were there that would in effect cause a
tie vote, which would still be three votes away from the two-thirds.
The Chairman
said the Commission was then down to Unfinished Business. He said there was one major item to discuss, and that was the
approval of the draft language on amendments/revisions to the Charter, and he
said he was going to turn it over to Allen Watts.
Mr. Watts said
he had given them a memorandum containing some proposed language for a starting
point, and he asked them to feel free to criticize it, and to make sure that it
reflected what they intended. He
said in each case he had set forth a proposed title of the measure, proposed
ballot question, and a proposed summary of the chief purpose of the measure,
which could be up to seventy-five words, and then the text of the amendment
itself, and he suggested that they work backwards from the text, and make sure
they had that right from their deliberations, and then work their way up to the
statement of the chief purpose, and the ballot question to make sure that they
fairly set forth the measure that they intended to put before the voters.
Amendment 1 was
the proposed enlargement of the Board of County Commissioners to seven, and he
said all that was necessary to do that was in Section 2.1 of the Charter to
strike the word “five” where it appeared in two different places, and change
it to “seven”.
He said he would
be glad to entertain any questions.
The Chairman
said what he would like to do was he would like to get the Commission’s
approval on those amendment by amendment, and of course what was up for
discussion was not only the wording of the article or the section of the
charter, but also the ballot question, and the chief purpose of the measure.
Commissioner
Strang said they were not voting on whether they approved or disapproved of the
essence of the thing, they were just voting on the accuracy of the writing.
The Chairman
said that he would like to remind the Commission to keep in mind that they had
already voted on that.
Commissioner
Strang said with that in mind, he would like to make a motion for approval of
Amendment 1, and Commissioner Gernert seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion on the motion?
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked Mr. Watts regarding Amendment 5, and any amendment that would
deal with the increase in the composition if it were possible to include that in
the same amendment?
He said he knew
that they had discussed wanting to have those individually, but for instance,
could they actually put that question on the ballot, and just expand on the
question, by saying in addition to?
Mr. Watts
answered they could do that, and the way he tried to structure it was to
separate it out, and he said he thought those were the instructions he had from
the Commission, to separate out the increase in the number, and put that as a
pure question, and then make as separate amendments the removal of any tie to a
fixed number, as in Amendment 5, instead of having that read four as it did
then, and change it to read a majority plus one, and then whatever happened to
the number of commissioners under Amendment 1 or some future amendment.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he was sorry, and maybe he wasn’t clear, but what he wanted to
know was if they could keep the language in the ballot question the same, but in
the description to the voter, also indicate that would also change as well, and
then change number five, and basically combine it, but not have a huge ballot
question. He asked could they
indicate they were going from five to seven, but in the description of what
actually happened in amendments, which they actually would amend, could they
actually say that they would increase?
The Chairman
said his recollection was unless it had dimmed over time, was they voted on that
issue at the Commission’s last meeting to have each of the amendments listed
as separate ballot items, and those were the instructions they gave to the
consultant. If the Commission wished to change that then they certainly could,
but that was their vote at their last meeting.
The Chairman
asked if his recollection was correct?
The
Commission responded he was correct.
Mr. Watts said
he could write it any way that he was instructed to write it, and they could
combine those into a single issue that dealt with the enlargement, and the
resulting changes in other sections of the Charter.
He said the advantage was simplicity.
He said the disadvantage was they might have people opposed or in favor
of one or more of the amendments, but not all, and then the fact that they were
combined could be an advantage or it could be a handicap.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what happened if Amendment 1 passed and Amendment 5 didn’t?
Mr. Watts
answered if Amendment 1 passed and Amendment 5 didn’t, then they would have a
conflict.
The Chairman
asked why would that be a conflict if a majority plus one was the same, and he
said that was the reason they changed the language.
Commissioner
Lindsey said the current language was four.
Mr. Watts said
it then said four, and so it would be a simple majority if Amendment 5 failed,
and Amendment 1 passed, and it would then take a simple majority of the
commissioners to propose a charter amendment to the voters.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked weren’t they doing a disservice to the voters? He said they were going to confuse people, and he thought
they should tie Amendment 5 to Amendment 1.
He said he understood that they wanted to have full disclosure to the
voters, but they were simply going to add a lot of confusion to the voters if
they indicate in the description or even just expand on Amendment 1, and say
exactly what would happen, but he thought that was the way to go.
He said for instance, if he knew it was voted down that evening, but if
they wanted to do the mixed districting scheme, and in his mind he thought they
would have only done that if they had seven commissioners, so they wouldn’t
necessarily want to do a mixed districting scheme if they had five
commissioners.
Mr. Watts said
it was possible he believed to link amendments so that they become effective
only if another amendment on which it was dependent passes. He said for example, they could have Amendment 1 as it was
stated, and then have Amendment 5 stated,..." if the number of
commissioners were enlarged to seven shall Section 8.3.1 be amended."
The Chairman
said that would be a clear way to fix that amendment, and when they got to five
maybe they could add that in.
The Chairman
asked on the motion to approve Amendment 1 as it had been presented to them, if
there were further questions?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he was sorry to “beat a dead horse”, and he asked what
happened if Amendment 5 failed and Amendment 1 passed?
Mr. Watts said
they would be back to the simple majority, and that would be the will of the
voters.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked Mr. Watts if he thought the voters really understood what they
were doing?
Mr. Watts
answered in that case he would say that they did if a majority enlarged the
number without enlarging the majority.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 10/1 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried.
Mr. Watts asked
the Commission if they had any comment, and they didn’t strictly speaking have
to vote on the ballot summary or the ballot question that evening?
The Chairman
said his understanding was a vote on approval not only on composition, but also
the rest of it.
Mr. Watts said
on Amendment 2, the package was to increase the salary to $49,500, and that was
stated in the ballot summary, and the chief purpose of the measure stated that
if it changes the base salary from $33,500 to $49,500 per year, and it restated
the continuing requirement that the commissioners approve further increases only
by a unanimous vote, and only to match the increase in salaries of county
employees with the Consumer Price Index. He
said the only change necessary to amend the text was to strike the number
$33,500 and insert the number $49,500.
The Chairman
asked what the underline “by ordinance” was in the last sentence?
Mr. Watts said
that was a technical amendment, and since they were increasing it under that
ordinance, if they would notice in the third line of the text, it said effective
with the term beginning in November 2002.That that was the present language, or
he thought it was, and he would check that, but at any rate, what they wanted to
say was that the current language said any salary increase shall not be
effective until the first day of January following the adoption of the increase.
In order to make it clear that they were talking about increases the
Commission adopted by ordinance it was necessary to insert those words.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts if the wording in the current charter was beginning in November
2000, and not 2002.
Mr. Watts said
2002 should be underlined.
The Chairman
said in the last line, it said any salary increase shall not be effective until
the first day of January in the year following the adoption of the increase, and
he said it did not have any by ordinance in there.
Mr. Watts said
that was correct, and he inserted that to make it clear. If they would notice, they were changing the Charter language
to make it effective with the term beginning in November 2002, and that was when
the term actually began, and that matched the language in the most recent
amendment that was approved by referendum.
He said the commissioners were sworn in, he thought on the third Tuesday,
in November, and at any rate they took office in November.
The current language also said that any salary increase shall not be
effective until the first day of January in the year following the adoption of
the increase. He said that set up
an inconsistency where it said that the salary was $33,500, effective with the
term beginning in November of 2000, which was the present language, and in the
last line it said the increase shall not be effective until the first day of
January, which was not the same thing as November, so there was a conflict set
up in the language.
The Chairman
asked since the increase to $49,500 was not an increase by ordinance, if it was
different from the increase by ordinance, which could be all of the county
commissioners wanted to give themselves a raise, and they did it by ordinance,
then it wouldn’t be effective until January after they enacted it?
Mr. Watts said
that simply continued with that clarification with the existing language in the
Charter, but he said he perceived that the existing language was inconsistent
with itself because it provided two different times for the commencement of the
salary.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion for approval of Amendment 2, and Commissioner Nunnallee
seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion? There
was none.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 11/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously. The
Chairman said they were down to Amendment 3.
Mr. Watts asked
that the Chairman and the commissioners check carefully to make sure that the
proposed text fairly represented their intent.
For example, they didn’t specifically say how the transition would be
made, but he said he provided “commencing with the primary and general
elections in the year 2004”, then they added to the list Clerk of the Circuit
Court, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, and Tax Collector.
He said he put those in alphabetical order.
The Chairman
asked if that was the first election after the people got a chance to vote on
the charter?
Commissioner
Strang said he understood that they would be the first regular elections.
He asked what the charter called for with regards to unexpired terms, and
were there any provisions with respect to elections to fill unexpired terms?
Mr. Watts
answered that the charter provided that the vacancies were filled in a manner
provided by the Constitution and general laws.
The Constitution provides that in the event of a vacancy in a county
office, if there are twenty-eight months or more remaining in the term, then the
office would be filled at the next election.
If there were fewer than twenty-eight months, the Governor fills it by
appointment for their ballots of the unexpired term.
Commissioner
Strang asked either way they wouldn’t have a special election?
Mr. Watts said
in that case, no, because everybody was up for election in 2004.
Commissioner
Gernert asked for two or four year terms?
Mr. Watts,
responded four-year terms.
Mr. Watts said
they did not change the length of the term.
Commissioner
Gernert said otherwise the Governor wouldn’t go with it.
Mr. Watts said
if any vacancy occurred after July 1, which would be twenty-one months remaining
in the term, and actually the constitutional officers’ terms began in January,
rather than in November, as county commissioners and school board members did.
Commissioner
Gernert asked if the voters approved that, and in 2004 there were non-partisan
elections, and someone for whatever reason didn’t fulfill their term, did the
Governor then appoint a replacement if they were non-partisan?
Mr. Watts
responded yes, as it was presently worded in the Charter, and there was no
provision for a special election. He
said there was one case on that and it occurred in Charlotte or Sarasota County.
He said the Tax Collector died while in office, and the question came up
did they fill the vacancy by special election as provided in the Charter, or did
the Governor get to appoint someone to fill the balance of the term?
He said the court held under that case, and it was an opinion that had
since been called into question by some other opinion, that one could not
interfere with the Constitutional power of the Governor to fill a vacancy in a
constitutional office. He said he
thought it was a question of whether an office created as non-partisan by a
Charter remained entirely a constitutional office. He said they had said in Polk
County’s Charter that it did remain constitutional if elected on a
non-partisan basis.
Commissioner
Masters said in the language all the constitutionals had been grouped together,
and he was concerned with the possibility that if one of the constitutional
officers had a group that wanted them to be made partisan.
He said he understood they were going to be separated.
The Chairman
said yes, they had clumped all of the constitutional officers together, and it
was voted on.
Commissioner
Masters answered o.k.
The Chairman
said there was one small point that he wanted to raise on the issue of changing
the petition to get on the ballot by collecting signatures, and he said with
non-partisan it dropped to one percent. He
asked what it was with partisan?
Mr. Watts
answered it was also one percent.
The Chairman
asked, so it wouldn’t matter then in terms of the 2004 election?
Mr. Watts
answered the 1998 Constitution required that the petition requirements be made
the same for all parties or for non-partisan, and the Legislature in the next
session changed that requirement to one percent.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said they were all talking about giving the voters the most choice,
and that was the argument in favor of having the number of amendments they did
then, but it didn’t seem that they were doing that in that amendment.
He said when he voted to put that to the public hearing, he still
expressed reservations that he thought a lot of people, for instance, with the
Sheriff might want to have that race be a partisan race, and he wondered if they
were throwing the baby out with the bath water in that case.
He said that amendment could legitimately go down because people simply
wanted to vote for the Sheriff on a partisan basis, and then there was the Clerk
of the Court and the Property Appraiser, which he thought the majority of the
people in the county would probably think should be non-partisan.
The Chairman
said that Commission had decided, and it was his understanding by more than a
two-thirds vote that would be their proposal for the voters for the public
hearing. In the course of the
public hearing commissioners could change their minds based upon what the input
of the voters was. As of then, his
understanding of the vote by the Commission was that all of the constitutional
officers would be non-partisan officers.
Commissioner
Strang asked if there was a motion on that yet?
The Chairman
answered, no.
Commissioner
Strang made a motion for the approval of Amendment 3 as presented, and
Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Masters said he understood what the Chairman said regarding there was a motion
passed by a two-thirds majority, and he asked wasn’t there also a motion that
said that all items would be recognized separately, and they would not be put
together with items to be voted on?
The Chairman
said he didn’t recall that motion, and he wasn’t sure what he meant.
Commissioner
Masters said what he understood was that the Commission was not going to put
amendments like the seven county commissioners with another article that was
relative to the county commission, but they were all county commission related,
so they wanted them separate.
The Chairman
said the Commission voted at the last meeting when those issues were presented
to the voters, the Commission was going to separate them.
Commissioner
Masters said that was why he was asking if that was in conflict?
The Chairman
said in his judgment it was not, because that was one of the issues that they
voted on, which was all constitutional officers would become non-partisan.
He didn’t think Commissioner Masters was present at the meeting, but
that was the vote that was taken.
Commissioner
Masters answered all right.
The Chairman
reminded the Commission there had been a motion made by Commissioner Strang, and
seconded by Commissioner Hunt to approve Amendment 3 as presented.
He asked if there was further discussion?
There was no further discussion.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 9/2 with ayes prevailing. The motion carried.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked after the public hearings if the Commission would go through
that same process again where they would vote on those issues?
The Chairman
responded, yes.
The Chairman
said the Commission was then down to Amendment 4.
Mr. Watts said
Amendment 4 was what the Commission called a “housekeeping amendment”, and
as he said the Constitution was amended in 1998 after the Charter had been
completed by the original Charter Review Commission to standardize the
requirements for qualifications for the ballot for all parties major or minor or
non-partisan candidates in order to conform the Charter to that provision in the
Constitution, and it was necessary to remove the exception.
He asked the Commission to look at the top of page three, where the text
of the current Article 5.2.3 in the Charter, said the candidate for non-partisan
office may qualify by means of the petitioning process provided in general law.
He said general law at the time that language was written provided for
three percent of the registered voters for a partisan election, and the Charter
Commission chose one and one-half percent of the whole population as being
roughly the equivalent of three percent of all of the Democrats or all of the
Republicans. It was no longer
necessary or useful to do that, and the exception should be removed in order to
bring that section into conformity with the Constitution.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if it wouldn’t be more enlightening if the title were preceded
by conform the Charter to the Constitution?
Mr. Watts asked
to conform the ballot question to the Constitution?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered, yes, to use the fewest words to tell the voter what he was
doing, and he felt it was a housekeeping measure, and it was to conform the
Charter to the Constitution.
The Chairman
asked how Mr. Watts would reword that article?
Mr. Watts said
“shall Section 5.2.3 be amended to conform the Charter to the constitutional
laws of Florida by the removal of additional charter requirements for
qualification of non-partisan candidates by petition.”
Mr. Watts said
Commissioner Lindsey said the same thing with fewer words.
The Chairman
asked delete by petition?
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey if that satisfied his question?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered yes.
The Chairman
asked did everybody get the wording changed o.k.?
He said in the large print where it said, “ballot question”, insert
the “charter” between conform and to, and delete “by petition” at the
end of the sentence.
Commissioner
Strang asked if conform was a transitive verb?
The Chairman
said he wasn’t sure, but there were a couple of journalism students present,
and he could ask them.
The journalism
students said they didn’t’ know.
Mr. Watts said
he thought it could be.
The Chairman
asked if there was a motion to approve?
Commissioner
Lindsey made a motion to approve Amendment 4 as presented, and Commissioner
Nunnallee seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.
The results were 11/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman
said they were then down to Amendment 5, and he asked for Mr. Watts’ comments.
Mr. Watts said
the purpose of Amendment 5 was to amend Section 8.3.1 to change the requirement
for proposing charter amendments from the Board of County Commissioners from
four, which was the present to a majority plus one of the entire number, which
was still four if the number of commissioners was five, but it would require
five if the number of commissioners were seven.
He said it was an amendment that gave the flexibility to Section 8.3.1 to
apply whether or not the number of commissioners was changed.
He said he believed Commissioner McLaughlin suggested earlier that he
might want to consider stating that contingency as a part of the ballot
question, and he was subject to their instruction on that.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion for approval on Amendment 5, and Commissioner Strang
seconded the motion.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said if they didn’t change it, he didn’t think they were making
clear to the voters what they were doing. He
thought they needed to change the language to at least have that contingency if
it was moved to seven commissioners. He
thought as it was, they were confusing the voters because they didn’t know if
they would vote in favor of going from five to seven to vote that down, then all
it took was four votes.
The Chairman
said that was what it took then.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said right, but as of then, he thought it was a majority plus one,
and he asked if he was correct?
The Chairman
answered, which is four.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked if that language would change it to five?
Mr. Watts
answered if the number increased to seven.
The Chairman
said he found that similar to where they deleted “thirteen members” on the
Charter Review Commission article, and he said the Commission said let’s
delete thirteen because if people voted for seven then the thirteen wouldn’t
make any sense, and it would increase to seventeen, so let’s not give a number
there, and put in what in affect was a formula.
He said he saw that as a formula that took care of both contingencies.
Commissioner
Strang said he thought what Commissioner McLaughlin was saying was he wanted the
voters to have a clear understanding of why it was in there, and he said if they
voted for seven commissioners, and that failed they were diluting the super
majority.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that was his point, and he didn’t think that amendment made
that clear to the voters.
Mr. Watts said
it was possible to make that amendment linked to the first amendment, and
contingent upon passage of the first amendment for its effectiveness.
The Chairman
asked how that would be done?
Mr. Watts
answered by providing that amendment shall become effective upon the adoption of
Amendment 1.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner McLaughlin if that would satisfy his concern?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered sure, but again, they were then at eight amendments, and he
asked why not just stick that in Amendment 1?
The Chairman
said that horse was getting deader and deader.
The Chairman
asked that the Commission give instructions to amend that amendment, without
objection, and then after the break Mr. Watts could come back with the revised
language to Amendment 5.
The Chairman
said they were then down to Amendment 6, and he asked for Mr. Watts’ comments.
Mr. Watts said
Amendment 6 was a similar amendment, and it was intended to state the number of
members of a Charter Review Commission on a formula basis rather than a fixed
number, and all it did was remove the sentence in present Section 8.4 of the
charter that said, “Each Charter Review Commission shall consist of thirteen
persons”. He said by leaving
every remaining provision in that section the number would still be thirteen if
the voters did not approve Amendment 1. If
they approved Amendment 1 it would go to seventeen.
He said if some future Charter Review Commission changed the number of
county commissioners to six, nine, or whatever else the formula would still
work, so again the Commission could give him an instruction to make that
affective if only upon the adoption of Amendment 1, or they could simply put the
formula in the charter if it passed separately, and it would be there for future
use.
Commissioner
Lindsey said, as he understood it, if it didn’t pass it would need to be tied?
Mr. Watts said
that was correct.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would like to make a motion to tie it and approve it.
The Chairman
said without objection, the Commission would ask Mr. Watts to do the same with
that as they asked him to do with Amendment 5.
The Chairman
asked if there were any further comments on Amendment 6? There were no further comments.
The Chairman
said they were then down to Amendment 7, and he asked Mr. Watts for his
comments.
Mr. Watts said
Amendment 7 was their first look at a completely new broad section for the
Charter. He said he would propose
to add it to Article 8, which was Miscellaneous Provisions, which was where they
would find the language about amendment of the charter already. It created
not later than January 31, 2004, and of every eighth year, a Polk County
Efficiency Commission.
He said he
provided in that amendment without their clear instruction, that the Nominating
Committee would be convened by the chair of the Board of County Commissioners
because somebody had to convoke it. He
provided that it would be following the organizational meetings of the Board of
County Commissioners, and of the School Board, both of which took place in mid
November of each year. He provided
that the deadline for appointment at the commencing of the Efficiency Commission
would be January 31. He provided in
accordance with the proposal of the committee, and their discussion, the
language for the membership of the Nominating Committee, which consisted of the
chair, the chair of the School Board, and a county officer selected by a
majority of the elected county officers.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if the county officer was what was known commonly as a
constitutional officer?
Mr. Watts
answered that was their constitutional name.
He said the Constitution called them county officers.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if there was room for parenthetically saying constitutional for
edification purposes?
Mr. Watts said
that was fine.
The Chairman
asked did the Charter refer to them as constitutional officers elsewhere?
Mr. Watts
answered he thought it referred to them both ways.
He thought it called them county officers, and said that they remain
constitutional officers.
The Chairman
said Article 5 was titled “County Constitutional Officers”, and 5.1 County
Constitutional Officers, and without objection, they would change that then.
Mr. Watts said
he made a provision just as a recommendation to them, that should any
non-governmental organization named as a member of the Nominating Committee
cease to exist or fail to make a selection a majority of the remaining members
of the Nominating Committee may designate a successor organization of similar
interest to select the necessary member of the Nominating Committee.
Mr. Watts said
that was an editorial license on his part, and he thought that was probably what
they intended if they had talked about it.
He also added a provision that any vacancy in the Nominating Committee
shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection, and that was not
part of the committee report either.
He said the next
part was the Nominating Committee having due regard for the principals of
Section 6.3 of the Charter, and the duties of the Commission shall by a majority
of its whole number appoint not less seventeen nor more than twenty-five.
The phrase “majority of its whole number” was his phrase, and not the
phrase of the committee, and he said he stated “and there upon shall be
dissolved”, and he said that again, was his phrase and not the phrase of the
committee. He said “in the event
of death or resignation,” and that was again his phrase, a provision for the
filling of vacancies on the Efficiency Commission once it had begun, because if
they dissolved the Nominating Committee once it had completed its task, and they
could go either way on that, they could reconvene it if all of the members were
still around, but it seemed probably more efficient to simply allow the
Efficiency Commission to fill its own vacancy by majority of the remaining
members.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts what if the person was no longer a registered voter in Polk
County?
Mr. Watts
responded by saying that was one of the occasions, if he would look at the last
sentence of 8.6.1, it said “In the event of death, resignation, or removal of
residence from Polk County”, and he asked him if his point was if they allowed
their registration to lapse?
The Chairman
said that was correct.
Commissioner
Strang said or if they were convicted of a felony.
The Chairman
said he thought 8.6.2 would still be controlling, and he asked wouldn’t it?
He said since Mr. Watts made reference to residence in 8.6.1 maybe he
should make reference to the voting status as well.
Mr. Watts
answered, the word “or permanent disqualification and ability to serve of any
member of the Efficiency Commission”.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts to repeat the last sentence of 8.6.1.
Mr. Watts
responded, “In the event of a death, resignation, or removal of residence from
Polk County or permanent disqualification, or inability to serve”. He thought that would take care of a conviction of a felony.
Commissioner
Strang asked if it was still permanent?
The Chairman
said he thought one could get it restored.
Mr. Watts
answered it could be restored, but it was permanent in the sense that it was not
an automatic restoration. He said
the inability to serve would be failure to meet the attendance requirements set
forth in the rules of the Efficiency Commission.
The Chairman
said they were down to 8.6.2, and he asked Mr. Watts for his comments.
Mr. Watts said
8.6.2 were the qualifications that were established in the committee’s
recommendation, which was approved. He
said each member of the Efficiency Commission should be a resident of and shall
be registered as a voter in Polk County, and shall not be an elected official or
an employee, and he said he used a little bit of editorial license there, “of
any governmental unit within Polk County”.
He asked them to keep in mind that would include any municipality, and it
would include the School Board. He
said if one worked for the School Board or any city, the county, or any county
constitutional officer, one would not be entitled to serve on the Efficiency
Commission. He said he thought that
was the intent of the committee’s report, which the Commission approved, and
he said he pointed that out for any corrections they might find necessary.
He said in
8.6.3, the duties of the members and of the other officers, that expressed the
duties that the County Commission shall carry out, and the duties of other
offices to support them in their work. He
said he pretty much used the language of the committee’s report.
He did provide on his own the first about the elected chair, and by a
majority of its whole number adopt and amend its rules of procedure, and that
was his language, and not the committee’s.
He said in the next sentence, “The Board of County Commissioners shall
provide necessary funds for the work of the Commission including”, and he said
then his words were, “but not limited to”, and he said that was Mr.
Spitzer’s suggestion.
Provision for an
Executive Director- “The Commission shall conduct its comprehensive study of
government including, but not limited to”.
He worked a little bit with some of the language of the committee report
to make sure that he got it right. “The
organization structure, effectiveness, and efficiency”, which were the
subjects of study, and then the objects of study were “any board, officer,
authority, agency division, department or other unit of government included
within the budget approved by the Board of County Commissioners.”
He said the constitutional officers’ departments were included in the
budget of the Board of County Commissioners.
He said, “the study shall include an examination analysis of the most
effective and cost efficient means of delivery of services to all of the
citizens in a responsible and effective manner”, and he said again in the next
phrase he used a little bit of editorial license with, “may include
consideration of private delivery of services, and ways in which to coordinate
effective and efficient delivery of services by, between, and among governmental
units, including municipalities and the school district”.
He said, “all offices and departments of the Board of County
Commissioners and all other public officers and governmental units within the
county, were directed to provide information and cooperation to the Efficiency
Commission, as necessary to the successful discharge of its duties”.
He said again, he hoped that was consistent with the spirit of what the
Commission approved, but he didn’t have precise language that they approved,
so he used some editorial license.
8.6.4 Efficiency
Commission, he said he inserted after one, “ or more public hearings”, and
that was his insertion, “shall and deliver to the Board of County
Commissioners, the school district, each municipal government within the county,
and to any other public officer or governmental body substantially addressed or
affected”.
Item I-Their
report containing interim recommendations on or before January 31, of the year
following appointment. He said that
was the one-year report. He said he
provided his own language, “this requirement shall not prevent other or more
frequent interim recommendations”.
Duty 2- A report
containing its final recommendations on or before January 31 of the second year
following the appointment of the Efficiency Commission.
Final
Recommendation concludes the work of the Efficiency Commission. He said without any particular time requirement, but
certainly prior to the Final Report, or concurring with it, was Item 3, “any
recommendations for amendment of the Polk County Charter”.
He said he provided an alternative, “the recommendations may be
immediately considered by the Board of County Commissioners for proposal in
accordance with 8.3.1, and as an alternative, “any recommendation” which
“the Board of County Commissioners had failed to propose shall be submitted by
the Board to the next regularly scheduled Charter Review Commission for its
consideration.” He said then he
provided, “after the delivery of the Final Report, the Efficiency Commission
shall be dissolved not later than twelve months after the delivery of each
report. The County Manager shall
delivery to each designated recipient of that report, a compliance report
showing actions taken or refused by any affected officer, board, department, or
governmental unit with respect to each of the Commission’s recommendations”.
He said that was a little bit of a restatement of the Committee’s
report, and he said he wanted to make sure he had that right.
The Chairman
asked if basically the options there were under 8.3.1, and he asked if the Board
of County Commissioners could propose it?
Mr. Watts
answered, yes.
The Chairman
said he thought the other option of course, was to go to the Charter Review
Commission.
Mr. Watts said
if they failed to propose it, then it went to the Charter Review Commission.
He said if they proposed it, and the voters refused it, then their duty
was exhausted, and they didn’t need to take it on to the Charter Review
Commission.
Commissioner
Strang said he thought Mr. Watts had done an elegant drafting of that document,
and he wanted to commend him on it. He
said he had one question under 8.6.3, in the last sentence, which said, “All
offices and departments and all other public officers and governmental units
within the county are directed”, and he asked if that implied that the
Commission had the authority to “direct”?
He asked if it might be better to use a word like “encouraged or
enjoined”, or something similar to that?
The Chairman
asked weren’t the people directing?
Mr. Watts
answered, exactly, and that was the voice of the people, and the people were
directing those people to carry out that duty, and he asked did the people have
the power of subpoena? Mr. Watts
answered, no, and he asked could it? Mr. Watts answered probably not.
He said that was a directive from the people if they approved that
amendment for all of the people within the county because it was all of the
people of the county.
Commissioner
Strang asked even Federal employees?
Mr. Watts
responded, that was what it said.
Commissioner
Hunt asked in 8.6.4 if there was a reason that the school district wording was
used instead of Polk County School Board.
Mr. Watts
answered the name of the body corporate, was the School Board of Polk County,
and that was what the statute said the official name of the governing body was.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Hunt if she thought the wording was a little confusing, and
he asked her what she thought it should be?
Commissioner
Hunt said when it referred there to “School Board”, she thought they should
use “School Board of Polk County”.
The Chairman
asked the Commission if there was any objection to changing that language?
There was none.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked what the last change was?
Mr. Watts said
in 8.6.4 to change the word “School District” to “School Board of Polk
County”.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked in the exclusion of public employees, local, State, and Federal,
if that would also include retired employees of those various entities?
Mr. Watts said
that language did not, and he asked if that was his intent?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was asking the question if their occupation was their
disqualifier then the only disqualifier they would have would be their previous
occupation? He asked wouldn’t
they ever get cleansed?
The Chairman
asked did he mean that he would not be a retired Navy officer?
Commissioner
Lindsey said that was his point.
Commissioner
Strang asked Commissioner Lindsey if he believed in rehabilitation?
Commissioner
Lindsey said there was probably some period of rehabilitation, whether it was
one-year or six months, or something similar to that, but by implication if
people were being excluded by their occupation, certainly if they were retired
they still had vested pension entitlements that might prejudice their thoughts
toward Mr. Strang’s issues.
The Chairman
asked what about people on Social Security?
He said they were getting entitlements too, and he asked if they would be
excluded?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was only raising a question to what the intent was.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey if he had a proposal?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was only raising a question.
The Chairman
said he would like to get the Commission’s attorney’s opinion on how the
courts would interpret that. He
asked Mr. Watts to comment on that question.
Mr. Watts
answered the current employee, current officer, and it would not exclude someone
with past service in the office from service.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if they were imposing that on the municipalities by the language,
and in recognizing the historical progress of “Polk City” being the poster
child for dysfunctional families could that body then disband that government?
The Chairman
answered it tended to move around some. He
said he hadn’t seen Polk City in print lately.
He said Lake Alfred had recently been in print.
Commissioner
Strang asked didn’t it depend on what the newspaper reporters decided to
cover?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he only raised that question as an example.
Mr. Watts asked
Commissioner Lindsey if his question was could that body disband?
Commissioner
Lindsey said they were imposing cooperation and directing, and he said obviously
it was a rhetorical question, and that was the language as to the issues itself,
and he said he removed his comments.
Commissioner
Masters asked had they addressed funding?
The Chairman
answered yes. He said there was a
committee established to deal with that. He
asked Commissioner Strang if he wanted to respond to Commissioner Master’s
question concerning the budget?
Commissioner
Strang said that he would like to defer to the committee’s chairman.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner McLaughlin to respond to Commissioner Masters’ question.
Commissioner
McLaughlin told Commissioner Masters that there was a committee that met on that
issue and couldn’t get consensus on whether or not they should set a specific
cap, or they should just use the language that said provide necessary funds.
Mr. Watts indicated to the Commission that the term “necessary” did
have some type of limit to it, and there was a vote at the last Charter Review
Commission meeting on that issue, and he of course, voted to have a limit, but
thought he was alone on that issue.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked in paragraph 8.6.3, if they could say, “the Board of County
Commissioners, in accordance with Section 2.8 of that charter, shall provide
necessary funds”? He said the
only reason he thought they should do that was that 2.8 gave the County
Commission the right to review budgets, and as of then, they were only saying
that they had to give necessary funds, and he thought they needed to give them
some discretion. He said 2.8.3
said, “review the budgetary requests including salaries, and make the final
budgetary determinations and appropriations for all county governmental
operations.”
The Chairman
asked Commissioner McLaughlin if he was saying the Board of County Commissioners
in accordance with Section 2.8 shall provide the necessary funds, and he asked
him if that was what he wanted in the language?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered yes.
The Chairman
asked if there was any objection to that language? There were no objections.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts if there would be a problem with that?
Mr. Watts
answered if it was the will of the Commission.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts if he would add that language.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion to move for approval of that language as amended, and
Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said he apologized for delaying the proceedings.
He said he was prepared to vote in favor or the motion.
He said he couldn’t resist the opportunity to observe with a little bit
of asperity that the Efficiency Commission, which was called for in there would
presumably present a report to some future Charter Review Commission, and it was
his decided opinion that any efficiencies that they might seek to achieve would
not be achievable unless they do like the volunteer Efficiency Committee did,
and find that to achieve true efficiencies one would have to bring the
constitutional officers under the charter, and to make them elected charter
officers rather than elected constitutional officers, and to make those fiscal
reforms to bring the Clerk of the Court with the functions that he had been
performing under the Board of County Commissioners, and to him it was sad that
inevitably the commission that they were creating would have to come up with the
same recommendation made some years ago, and that they proposed that commission
offer to the voters, but were turned down.