MINUTES OF
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 29, 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
Nunnallee led the prayer and Commissioner Dukes led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Swearengin
called the roll. All commissioners
were present with the exception of Commissioner Allen; Commissioner Hunt; and
Commissioner Masters, 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
advised the Commission that Commissioner Moore Bailey was attending a wake, and
she would join the meeting later.
The Chairman
said the first order of business would be for the approval of the minutes of
January 8, 2002. He said there were
a couple of changes, which had been included in their packages. The first change
was on page seven and the second change was on page eight. He asked if there were any additional changes to those? There
were none.
Commissioner
Strang made a motion to approve the minutes of January 8, 2002, as corrected.
Commissioner Nunnallee seconded that motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion regarding the motion? There was none. The
motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman
said they were down to reports, and in the commissioners’ packages was a
memorandum for expenditure approval dated January 29, 2002, and he would like to
have a motion for approval of those expenditures.
Commissioner
Stoer made a motion for expenditure approval dated January 29, 2002, and
Commissioner Nunnallee seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if there was further discussion? There was none. The
motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman
said he would like to introduce Lisa Aronson, Executive Director of the Broward
County Charter Commission and the Executive Director of its Government
Management and Efficiency Committee. He
indicated she drove up from Broward County and would be with the Commission that
evening.
The Chairman
said he also needed to report to the Commission that although they had as Item B
on their Issues Agenda, the Appointed Superintendent of Schools, he needed to
report that the School Board choose by a vote of seven to zero not to request
that issue be put on the ballot before the voters, either through the Charter
Review Commission or on their own. He
reminded the Commission that they could still discuss that issue, but he did
want to advise them of the School Board’s decision to leave things the way
they were.
The Chairman
said that completed his report.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Spitzer if he had a report for the Commission?
Mr. Spitzer
answered he had no report, other than to say that per the Chairman’s request
he had begun to gather some information related to the Public Information Effort
from the 1998 Charter Commission, and he was sharing that information with
Commissioner Gernert along with some preliminary information he located from his
files, and he hoped to have the remainder of that information to Commissioner
Gernert by the Commission’s next meeting.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Watts if he had a report for the Commission?
Mr. Watts
answered he had nothing to report.
Commissioner
Gernert said once he received the information from Mr. Spitzer regarding the
Public Information Effort from the 1998 Charter Commission, he would be talking
with Commissioner Nunnallee and Commissioner Dukes, and they would coordinate
their calendars for a meeting, and then contact the Commission’s office, so
that the media could be noticed.
Commissioner
Strang said he noticed in their packet of materials that was passed out to them
that evening was a copy of a letter from the Chairman acknowledging a letter
from Wogan Badcock, and he asked what his position was on the two items
mentioned in the letter? (Copy attached to file copy of these minutes).
The Chairman
answered Mr. Badcock indicated the Polk County Constitutional Officers’ salary
levels should be maintained, and he asked Commissioner Strang if he wanted to
paraphrase what Mr. Badcock’s position was?
Commissioner
Strang responded that Mr. Badcock said that he offered his support that the
County review and pay adequate wages to the Constitutional Officers, and that
was the only subject in the letter.
The Chairman
said that letter was faxed to the Commission’s office, but it was received too
late to present at the Commission’s meeting on January 8, 2002.
The Chairman
said the Commission was down to the Issues Agenda, and they had two issues to
discuss, with the first being Government Management and Efficiency, which
included a presentation by Lisa Aronson whom he introduced earlier that evening.
He said Ms. Aronson was aware of the Commission’s rules and she would
be making a presentation for twenty minutes, and then would respond to any
questions the Commission had.
The Chairman
invited Ms. Aronson to speak to the Commission.
Ms. Aronson began her presentation by stating that she was very pleased to be there to make a presentation to the Commission.
She said she had
some very unique experiences serving in government in Broward County, and she
had been fortunate enough to serve at the federal level, state, and county level
and also with a special taxing district, and she had a lot of experience working
with a variety of different governmental entities, and not just with Broward
County.
She said she was
hired to be the Executive Director of the
1994 – 1995 Charter Review Commission, and in 1998 she was hired to be the
Executive Director to the Management and Efficiency Committee, which was placed
before the voters as a recommendation of the 1994 – 1995 Charter Review
Commission, and when the Management and Efficiency Committee wrapped up in 2000
she was then hired on by the current Charter Review Commission to work with them
on their current Charter Review process, which was underway.
She said Broward
County, having had a charter since the beginning of 1975 has a lot of history
and experience as a charter county.
She said during
the course of time there had been some efficiency studies created as a result of
some County Commission recommendations, and at one time there was a
recommendation by the Broward Legislative Delegation to have an Efficiency
Committee. After some pressure from legislators the County Commission avoided
having a local bill adopted and agreed to have an Efficiency Committee formed
back then, in 1981, with some appointments by the Legislative Delegation, the
County Commission, and the Broward League of Cities. She said that group met and made some recommendations. There
was also an Efficiency Committee in 1988, and
one that took place in 1998 that she staffed.
She said she
would like to give the Commission some history concerning why it was suggested
by the 1994 – 1995 Charter Review Commission to establish a Management and
Efficiency Committee, and to require it or make that recommendation to the
voters to have it as a requirement in the charter, and something that occurred
every six years.
She said during
that particular Charter Review process six years ago, there were a number of
issues that individual members brought to the attention of their colleagues, as
well as the public, about things that were wrong with county government, at a
variety of different levels. She
said as many of them probably knew, Broward County was very urbanized.
She said they were down to about five percent unincorporated. Only five
percent of the residents live in the unincorporated areas, and everybody else
resided within one of thirty cities, and almost every city had a Police
Department and a Fire Department.
A private
ambulance company might possibly handle emergency medical services or it might
be the county, or it might be a city. She
said there was absolutely no coordination of any kind in communications in
service delivery, and there were even situations where multiple jurisdictions
would respond to a scene when two cities may have shared a road, and it created
a lot of mass confusion, and was still an issue that they were attempting to
resolve.
There were some
concerns regarding the county’s purchasing system. A lot of people in the
business world had difficulty providing services to the county, particularly in
the minority communities, with people who were trying to sell services and goods
and make the county aware of their capabilities. It was hard for them to make it
known what they were capable of doing unless they went out and hired a lobbyist
to promote their services.
The county’s
land development code and planning process was another issue raised by builders.
One of the boards that was in their charter was the Board of Rules and Appeals,
which works to hear appeals when there are problems with the building code, and
that area needed to be looked at because South Florida had its own building
code, and now the county was going to fall under the Florida statewide building
code. She said there was a whole
procedure in place in terms of who should sit on that particular board, and
there was meeting after meeting about modifying the Board of Rules and Appeals
and who should sit on it, and whether or not that was something that the Charter
Review Commission really had time or interest in digging deep into.
When the Charter
Review Commission was first seated, and the public was invited to give input
into what they thought was important about the charter and county government,
most of the people who came to speak really didn’t have an issue with the way
county government was functioning from the County Commission’s prospective,
but there were concerns about various matters they experienced on a day-to-day
basis. She said maybe they didn’t
quite understand what the county did, or maybe they thought there was a
duplication of services, which could happen sometimes, because some cities had
libraries, and yet the county had a regional library system, and most cities had
parks, and the county also had a regional park system. A Charter Review
Commission did not have the time, interest, or willingness to address these
issues. There should be a mechanism
in place to do studies of management and efficiency, and to
come up with some
recommendations that could be beneficial to county government. Eventually the
Management and Efficiency group was adopted by the voters when it was placed on
the ballot in November of 1996, and it passed very successfully by a three to
one margin. It was one the highest votes received by any of the charter
amendments that were on the ballot, and there were nine charter amendments back
in 1996. She said it was something
that a lot of people shared a lot of interest in, and were very supportive of,
and something that could be very helpful to the county.
When the group
was seated it started out as a fifteen-member board with every county
commissioner having one appointment, and other interest groups that were given
an opportunity to make appointments. The
Legislative Delegation had two appointments, one from the Senate, and one from
the House. The School Board could select one person, and again, it didn’t have
to be an elected official, but they choose to appoint their chairperson, which
did create some problems with those elected officials because during the course
of the study they went through three different School Board Chairpersons,
producing a lack of continuity. Legislators that appointed themselves were also
in and out of town quite a bit because of their obligations in Tallahassee, so
there were a lot of missed meetings, and the group did eventually adopt a
membership requirement, but of course, who would tell a Legislator they could
not serve on their board?
Representative
Lippman had first approached the Management and Efficiency Committee when he
joined the group with a strong desire that the Commission be rearranged in such
a way as to have with single-member districts and an elected mayor. He was
moving that issue forward even though many felt that it was really a Charter
Review issue.
Some of the
members of the Management and Efficiency Committee back then called themselves
the Mini Charter Review Commission, because, while many felt that single member
districts and an elected mayor appertained to
management, and part of the authorizing language stipulated that
management could be looked at, and they were looking beyond just a county
administrator, they were looking at the County Commission itself.
There was a
study underway, and the legislators had talked about putting the measure before
the voters, but there was a pledge that if the Management and Efficiency
Committee studied the issue the legislators wouldn’t act. The legislators didn’t stick to their pledge and they went
forward with putting a measure before the voters for a strong mayor and
single-member district County Commission. The Management and Efficiency
Committee began receiving a lot of concerns, and they asked why did they have to
buy into that package?
There was a lot
of support for single-member districts as a mechanism to help give minorities
more opportunities to run for public office in Broward County.
The county African-American and Hispanic population was growing
significantly. While there had been
African Americans and Hispanics on the County Commission they had been first
appointed by the Governor initially, and then elected. Nobody had really tested
the system to see if a minority could be elected running countywide for the
first time. While there was a lot of support for single-member districts, there
was none for a strong mayor. The Management and Efficiency Committee decided
that they really wanted to hear from the public and had four public hearings
around the county to receive input not only on that particular issue, but on any
issue about county government, and there was a lot of discussion about having
single-member districts for County Commission.
There was also a
lot of discussion about dissatisfaction with the fire rescue system.
She said there were some concerns about the county’s purchasing system.
The public was bringing forth some issues that members themselves were sharing
among themselves in meetings. While
a lot of time and energy was spent on the governance types of issues in the
beginning, they also started getting deeper and deeper through their study
process into a lot of other areas.
There were three
sub-committees formed: Growth Management and Economic Development sub-committee,
Regional Municipal Service Delivery subcommittee, and a Governance, Special
Taxing District and Transportation sub-committee.
These topics really followed the prior Charter Review Commission in many
ways, because there were similar sub-committees, and there were at least five
people that served on each of the sub-committees, so they had fifteen members,
and they asked that every person at least serve on one sub-committee.
She thought it was very healthy to form the sub-committees because a lot
more could be accomplished and dig deeper into a lot of different issues than
just meeting as one full committee. They
started digging deep into a lot of issues.
They also gave the public an opportunity to participate in numerous ways.
Ms. Aronson then provided a couple of examples how public input had
prompted action by the Management and Efficiency Committee.
She said they
had good rapport and relationships with county administration and department
heads throughout the process.
As far as
membership was concerned she thought that appointments that were made by
community groups were very good, because things were taken outside of the County
Commission appointment process, and some independent input could be received
through the Management and Efficiency Committee; however, there were incidents
where people had business relationships with the county, and that was something
that she would strongly suggest that they limit if they were going to pursue a
committee they should make sure that people who were appointed don’t have an
existing business relationship with county either through providing a service or
selling goods to the county, because of apparent or perceived conflict of
interest. One more recommendation
that she would make was that they be allowed to bring in independent legal
counsel and independent people that can monitor county government outside the
county itself, because while they relied a lot on county staff, there were
questions about whether or not the group really had the authority to hire
outside people to do studies. They were not permitted to hire outside legal
counsel. She said polling was good,
and focus groups were really good, and she suggested that they reach out to the
community, and they would receive a wealth of information and send the message
that they are not just relying on internal county staff, but inviting a lot of
people to share their experiences with county government.
She said she
would be willing to answer any questions that they might have.
The Chairman
asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms. Aronson?
Commissioner
McLaughlin thanked Ms. Aronson for coming to the Commission’s meeting, and
said he thought Ms. Aronson’s presentation was very informative. He said in her presentation to them she spoke some
about people coming to her with the suggestions of county administrators or
county commissioners, and he asked if she felt that was almost a shadow
government that had been set up? He
said for instance, were county commissioners saying take it to the Management
Committee because they didn’t want to deal with that particular issue?
Ms. Aronson
answered no, and as a matter of fact, prior to the Management and Efficiency
Committee being formed there was a new County Administrator appointed that
January, and one of the things that the County Commissioners were very concerned
about was the perception that something was broken in county government, and the
individual that was hired made a strong presentation to say that he was very
efficiency minded, and he would dig deep into county government and find
something that was broken, and did not rely on the Management and Efficiency
Study Committee to do that. He had
initiated a process with the Budget Office and with his own internal auditors to
do some independent management studies. She
said that was something that she had to learn about from reading County
Commission agendas, or seeing notices of Selection Negotiation Committees, and
that there were other things happening. She
said they didn’t want to duplicate the efforts that were already underway.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked Ms. Aronson what the budget was for her committee?
He said he knew she mentioned outside counsel being helpful, but he
wondered if they had assistants? He said he knew that Broward was larger than
Polk, but they would probably have a budget of similar size.
He asked if she could give the Commission some idea of how much it cost
to run the committee?
Ms. Aronson
answered that Broward had a population of 1.6 million people, and their budget
for Management and Efficiency Study was approximately $400 thousand dollars over
the two-year period. She said
as paid staff she worked full-time as Executive Director, and she had a
full-time assistant, and partially into the process, once they were getting well
underway, they also added some clerical and transcription help.
The County Attorney did provide an attorney to them at no additional
charge, but there were many times where people wished they could have had the
opportunity to hire an outside entity. Since
their budget was capped, they didn’t have the ability to do that, and they had
to buy office equipment, and they didn’t buy much furniture because most of it
was given to them from other offices, but there was still the routine office
supplies that had to be done, and they also had to run part of the purchasing
system themselves. They didn’t
receive any assistance from anybody else in terms of ordering supplies or
services, or whatever they were in need of.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked if Ms. Aronson knew how much they saved the county?
Ms. Aronson
answered that was a good question, and she felt even on the Occupational License
discussion alone, and she could probably find the reference in the report to
that, and they knew that there were a lot of fees that were not being collected
because the county was lackadaisical about it, and they waited for people to
come to purchase a license. When
they were polling all of the individual cities to find out how many business
owners had municipal occupational licenses, they discovered that alone could
probably produce millions of dollars if there was a mechanism where people could
just purchase their county license on site when they go and get their municipal
license. She said it was very hard
to say from a monetary standpoint. She
said she thought in many respects there were some ideas that the county’s
purchasing system needed to be worked on, and even their office of information
technology and computers was really dysfunctional and should be better managed,
and that an independent study was needed to look at that, and that was a
recommendation to the County Commission that they did follow-up on to help
identify efficiencies themselves that their group didn’t do. She asked that the Commission keep in mind that it was still
basically a citizen committee that was moving issues to the forefront, and
getting the citizens involved in identifying issues, and if cost savings could
be achieved that was almost secondary in having an opportunity to participate
and get different governmental entities together to look at different issues
such as with the School Board and the County considering having the County’s
building codes operation be responsible for inspecting schools, which had never
been done before.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked Ms. Aronson what assured her that everything they recommended
would be implemented?
Ms. Aronson
answered after the Management and Efficiency Committee completed its process,
they requested an opportunity to sit down with the County Commission and the
County Administrator in a workshop, and that was done simultaneously with the
presentation of the final report where they made a presentation, and talked
about a number of different areas. She
said even that was a major event because a block of time out of a county
commissioner’s day months in advance, and they were granted an opportunity to
sit down in workshop with them on those issues, and it was healthy process
because as they were going through it county commissioners would say to the
County Administrator, “That’s great, we need to follow-up on that”.
She said ultimately within two and one half months the County
Administrator had worked with her to numerically identify everyone of their
recommendations, and then presented a report to the County Commission.
She said there were more than thirty-two recommendations because some had
sub-categories, and check marks were placed by the item indicating if it was
complete, in process, if they disagreed, refer to the Charter Review Commission,
refer to the Board of County Commissioners, or refer to another entity. She said she thought seventy-five percent of what the
Management and Efficiency Committee recommended was either already complete or
in process within two and one half months.
She said some of it had already started occurring during their study
process, because they didn’t wait to put something in a report, and when they
identified something, and the group felt that a letter could accomplish
something either to the County Administrator or to the County Commission, they
did it in writing as soon as they could, so that something didn’t sit and wait
for a report to be published. The report showed every single recommendation that
was made by the Management and Efficiency Committee, and what the staff response
was. She said they took it very
seriously. She said the County
Commission took that process very seriously.
She said that was not just a report that sat on a shelf.
She said everybody was proactive in communicating and keeping that
communication going with the Commission, and with the administrative staff.
She said she was right around the corner from the County
Administrator’s Office. She said they knew where she was, and she knew where they
were, and the County Commissioners knew where she was, and if the Management and
Efficiency Committee had an issue they presented. She said it was a very good cooperative process throughout
the study efforts.
Commissioner
Price thanked Ms. Aronson for coming to the Commission’s meeting, and she
asked if any of their recommendations were related to downsizing or combining
departments doing away with potential jobs, and how was that met?
She asked if they accomplished that by only sending a letter to the
County Administrator, and action took place from that, or was that something
that was saved for the final report? She
asked also if that was the first time an Efficiency Committee had been formed in
Broward.
Ms. Aronson
replied she would answer Commissioner Price’s last question first.
She answered no, it was not the first time.
There had been several study committees.
She said that was the fist time the charter mandated Management and
Efficiency had taken place, and it was timed in such a way that it would be
finished when the new Charter Review Commission would be seated, so that there
could be some recommendation presented by the study committee that could go to
the Charter Review Commission if action needed to be taken via charter.
She said there was also a subsequent workshop with the new Charter Review
Commission where the Charter Review Commission and the Management and Efficiency
Committee go together where the Management and Efficiency Committee some
recommendations to the charter group.
She said on the
issue of downsizing she knew off hand she could give them one good example, and
it pertained to the water management arena.
She said the county had something called the Office of Environmental
Services, which was partially responsible for water supply and water management.
She said the county had several dependent water management districts in
the northeastern part of Broward County, and that was really run as a utility. In addition to that, there was also the Department of
Planning and Environmental Protection that had a Water Resources Division, so
they had a Water Management Division connected with a utility, and they had a
Water Resources Division. She said
their group made a recommendation that those efforts should be consolidated,
because there was some duplication of efforts being made. While the staffs worked very closely together in many
instances on various issues, like water conservation, and trying to have a
coordinated effort in trying to have a coordinated effort between all of the
different water districts that existed in the county, and in trying to keep a
handle on all of those districts and when they were formed and who they
serviced. She said they multiplied
in Broward County. She said she
thought there were over ninety special taxing districts in the county, and
thirty had a water connection. She
said she spoke to the Division Directors of those two divisions that had a
relationship in water, and they didn’t feel that their efforts should be
consolidated, and there was an explanation in the report that one was really
more regulatory and one was more public outreach and the County Administrator
backed up those Division Directors, and did not want to consolidate those two
divisions into one. However, the
issue also surfaced again when they had a major drought last year, and that no
one really knew who was in charge when it came to water conservation and
encourage water conservation. Both
divisions were expected to do something and they both did try to do something in
their way, but there was still a duplication of effort, and she thought it would
work itself out in the near future because some of the folks that worked in the
Water Management Division were near retirement, and it was probably within three
years that they would see a reorganization in that area.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he had couple of questions, which were generated from reading their
report, which he felt was quite thorough. He
asked how long the previous Administrator was in his position?
Ms. Aronson
answered she thought six years.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if the new Administrator was promoted from within?
Ms. Aronson
answered no. The new Administrator
actually came over from Lee County. She
said he was an Assistant County Administrator who had worked his way up the
ranks from an emergency medical technician in Lee County to be Assistant County
Administrator. She said Broward
hired him without having been a county administrator before.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if a national employment search was done?
Ms. Aronson
answered yes.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if it was common for their delegation to effectively butt in local
government matters?
Ms. Aronson
answered yes it was, and she said it was unfortunate because it had happened on
several occasions. She said
ironically she thought part of it was due to timing and a change from a
Democratic led legislature to a Republican led legislature.
She said Broward County was very heavily Democratic to that day, and she
thought when Jeb Bush became Governor a lot of the Broward legislators felt that
they were not going to be heard in Tallahassee, and that their issues were not
going to become important, heard, or listened to, so they began looking at
county government as something to meddle with.
She said ironically three of their newest county commissioners were
former state legislators who were term limited out, and that might have had
something to do with it also, but they were looking at county government as
another opportunity to serve.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what the obligation was of those thirty municipalities to
cooperate? He said they seemed like
a dysfunctional family who were going off in different directions.
Ms. Aronson
answered they were in many ways, but there was a very strong philosophy, and
that was home rule. The fire unions
and the police unions were probably some of the strongest forces of political
activism in Broward County, and it was just a reality.
To try to bring any type of resolution to the fire rescue issue they had
to deal with all of the various unions, and there were numerous unions.
It was very difficult even when something might make sense fiscally.
She said people talked about closest unit response, that the closest fire
station should be able to respond to a fire irrespective of municipal
boundaries, but cities say based on home rule, we have to respond to fires in
our own community. When they were finally being moved forward to talking about
maybe they said they could respond to the fire across the street in the other
city, but they needed to be compensated for it, because if they responded there
was no mechanism in place to be compensated for it. It was very challenging.
Unfortunately, Broward had created more municipalities.
They hadn’t eliminated too many cities over the years, although that
was a recommendation that was made a Management and Efficiency Committee years
ago, but instead of going down in number they had created new ones.
Commissioner
Lindsey replied, maybe the citizens have a right to be wrong.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked as the city requirements had expanded had the county, other than
the water management issues shrunk?
Ms. Aronson
answered that she thought they were seeing a strong stabilization. At present, the county was not growing, and they had been
holding the line on taxes for several years, and she thought the number of
employees had been about the same for several years.
She said they were at the point now that the county had to re-establish
its identity from being a service provider to unincorporated areas to being a
regional service provider and focusing on regional services, where it was a dual
purpose before. While there had
been responsibilities to oversee a large international airport and an executive
airport, and they also had a seaport that was then under the county’s
jurisdiction, where it was previously an independent special taxing district.
She said there were regional parks, and there was a regional library
system that took some years to put together to bring all of those municipal
libraries into the same system, where if one works in one city they could drop
their book off in another city if they happened to be in another city, or
exchange information. She said
there was still a need and a desire to finish up servicing those unincorporated
areas, and serve them until they go into cities, and that was a goal that was
shared by the County Commission and the Legislators, which was to see that all
of the remaining unincorporated pockets in Broward County with the exception of
the Everglades go into a municipality by the year 2005, and it was previously
the year 2010, but that had been expedited so that every resident who would be
residing in Broward County by the year 2005 would be living in a city.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if Broward County, County Commissioners had term limits, and what
their salary was?
Ms.
Aronson answered yes, they have term limits, and that was new since the
inception of the 2000 Charter, and it was three four-year terms.
She said that
the County Commission eventually brought single-member districts to their
commission. After there was a lot
of study and public hearings done by the Management and Efficiency Study
Committee on the single-member district issue, that board didn’t have the
power to go to the voters, but they asked the County Commission to separate the
ballot question, and put on an alternative ballot question to compete with the
Legislature’s ballot question, to only have single-member districts.
The County Commission agreed to put that before the voters to have nine
single-member district county commission seats, and at the same time, they
agreed to put on an issue to support term limits, and both of those issues
passed, and the legislative issue failed to have the package of a strong mayor
with single-member districts.
She said their
salaries were as of then, approximately $80,000, and they followed the state
formula for non-charter counties, and it was an automatic increase every year.
The Chairman
asked if the Commission had further questions for Ms. Aronson? There were none.
The Chairman
thanked Ms. Aronson for her presentation and her response to the Commission’s
questions.
The Chairman
asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the issue of the Management and
Efficiency Commission to determine what they wanted to do? The Chairman said he would like to start the discussion by
going around the table, and he asked Commissioner Price for her thoughts.
Commissioner
Price said in discussion, Polk County had its own Efficiency Committee, and
there was a final report, and she said she would like to yield to Commissioner
Strang to remind her of the effectiveness of that.
Commissioner
Strang said he wished his memory were more accurate.
He said first of all, he remembered clearly they never issued a final
report as a matter of principle. They
felt that would have reduced their power and effectiveness if they acted as
though they were issuing a final report, and withdrawing from the field of
battle, so they took it early on that they would never issue a final report, but
just an interim report.
He said Jim
Keene issued a very good answer to their last interim report, in which he
cataloged a whole number of their recommendations, which had been responded to
and acted upon. He said they
didn’t win all of the battles of course, but he thought it was a very helpful
thing.
He said he
thought one of the advantages of that type of committee was it was truly
independent, and it was not appointed by the body it was established to
investigate. He said he thought
that having an organization appointed by the people that it was supposed to
investigate was self-defeating.
Commissioner
Price said several years earlier she had the pleasure of serving on one of those
committees, and was appointed by the Chamber of Commerce.
She said she didn’t know how many of them were familiar or recalled or
even remembered reading in some of the notes, and her recall was they challenged
a few issues, and as a committee member it was a little challenging because she
never felt she could really get at the issue, because that person was an
outsider, and to research one needed some working knowledge of the impacts, and
sometimes it was challenging to get information.
She said she had
mixed emotions on that issue. She
said while she thought certainly the appointment was valuable, and she would
want it to be from a citizen’s group and for there to be no liaison, and no
business relationships as such, she felt they all could say they had some type
of business relationship, but she would have concern with an appointment with a
business partnership. She said she
was on the fence with that issue of aye or nay.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Strang if he had any additional comments?
Commissioner
Strang answered no.
Commissioner
Gernert said as it was described that evening, it seemed to have merit, and it
certainly produced some results and the avenues for the citizens to have input
into the management of their county government.
He said he thought Commissioner Strang felt that the effort that was done
in Polk County earlier was beneficial. He
said he for one, thought that issue should be put before the voters because it
seemed like a good check and balance.
The Chairman
said he would like to offer some comments.
First of all he thought that Polk County was obviously not Broward
County, not only in terms of size, budget, and geography but also in terms of
where they were politically. He
said Polk County was a very conservative county as compared to Broward County,
but he thought that the Commission did have some things that they needed to keep
in mind. The county has twenty
elected government bodies counting seventeen municipalities, one County
Commission, one School Board, and he knew of at least one Lake’s Management
District, and that made twenty.
He said not to
quote him, but he thought that these governments spent something on the order of
$1.5 billion dollars per year. He
said if they didn’t think in that complex morass they can’t find achievement
of some significant savings, and some improved effectiveness in county
government, he thought he was completely wet.
He read the
Charter’s Preamble and emphasized the following phrase:
“To create a more responsible and effective government.”
He reminded the
Commission that they had met for the first time last April, and couple of the
commissioners had the benefit of meeting with the original Charter Commission,
but a lot of them had to really get their wheels moving fairly fast in order to
understand what the issues were. If
there had been a body that had been meeting and studying issues, and that
provided an output to the Charter Revision Commission, when the Charter Revision
Commission meets it would have helped this Charter Revision Commission.
He asked how many of the different issues that came up before them
related to things like efficiency, and consolidation of different functions in
government. These were some of the
same things that came up in the Efficiency Committee on which Commissioner
Strang served, so it seemed to him that an organization like that would be a gap
filler in the eight year period between Charter Review Commissions, and would be
very helpful to subsequent Charter Review Commissions.
He said if they
wanted to have an Efficiency Commission they could structure it the way they
wanted, and that it didn’t have to be structured Broward’s way. He said that issue would be proposed for the people to
approve. The people could decide
how they want it structured. If
they don’t want county commissioners to appoint members, then don’t
structure it that way. He said,
eight of the fifteen members were appointed by the County Commissioners in
Broward County, but it didn’t have to be structured that way.
It could be structured in a way to give cities more representation, and
School Board representation, and so forth, and so on.
He said he
thought it was a worthwhile idea to consider, and to him it provided a
continuing link between the people and the effectiveness of their government. He said as of then, when the Charter Review Commission ceases
to exist there is no linkage, and the Committee would provide that necessary
linkage.
Commissioner
Nunnallee said she was always concerned with what it would cost the county, but
obviously there was a lot of duplication. She
said she thought it was their duty as citizens of Polk County to try to do
everything possible so that they could stop the duplication, and make the county
better. She said she thought that
it would be wonderful, and she knew there were some issues that they needed to
work out, so that it is a non-partisan group, but she also wanted it to be a
group that was taken seriously, and that their ideas would go forward.
She said she didn’t want to have a committee that was spinning their
wheels and coming up with great ideas, and it was just a piece of paper.
She said she wanted to be able to implement what that committee came up
with, and she thought they needed it because they had a lot of feelers out
there, but they were not coming together, and she thought that would be an
opportunity to pull it all together and see where they could improve, where they
had duplication, so they could cease that, and really do whatever is possible to
basically save the taxpayers money in the long run.
Commissioner
Stoer said she wrote several words down, and one would be the size of the county
compared to Broward, and the merit she thought would be good, but it was of
course taken in its full context, and funds were always an issue with Polk
County Voters or any voters, and she asked who would educate the public on how
great the need of that committee would be before they voted, and who would fund
that expense? She said she thought
it offered another opportunity for the public to be heard, and she said she
didn’t know if we had as much trouble getting before the County Commission.
The Chairman
said regarding Commissioner Stoer’s question regarding who was responsible for
educating the public before they voted would the Charter Review Commission’s
responsibility under the charter. He
said it was not a mandatory responsibility, and it was an optional
responsibility, but that would be the subject of the report from Commissioner
Gernert’s committee sometime in February.
Commissioner
Dukes said all of the commissioners who had spoken before him had touched upon
his sentiments and concerns regarding a commission such as that one, but like
the Chairman and Commissioner Gernert, he thought it just made sense.
He said he thought it was just a common sense thing to do.
He said, whether they had twenty elected governments or not, and if they
only had five, he thought it would be a common sense thing to do.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that he would like to echo all of the other commissioners’
comments, and he said he was actually surprised that the group that Commissioner
Strang served on was no longer in existence, so he didn’t know how it ended up
winding up the business, but he thought that the county had something similar to
that already, and so if they don’t, he thought that being in the charter would
definitely give them a guarantee that efficiency and management issues would
continue to be looked at. He said
one thing that he would like to caution them on, was that the devil was in the
details, and he thought that it was unfair that in Polk County’s Charter the
Charter Review Commission had unlimited spending, and they could go out, and do
almost anything according to the Charter, and he thought that particular group
should have some type of cap, at which point it would need to go back to the
County Commission, and request more, but some type of cap needed to be added.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said first of all she would like to ask if the Chairman received
her message regarding where she would be during part of the Commission’s
meeting?
The Chairman
answered yes.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was not there for Ms. Aronson’s presentation, but she
did read the information sent to them by Chairman Costello as well as the
e-mailed information. She said she
talked to a couple of persons, and she said she respected Commissioner
Strang’s decision because he served on that committee before.
She said there were a couple more persons that she spoke to who had
served on the one that the county had before.
She sad she would probably echo the same sentiments everyone else had,
and in addition she said she would probably be somewhat in agreement with
Commissioner Price that she was a little skeptical, but she thought that was a
win – win situation at this point in time.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he was less inclined to agree. He
said if they wanted absolute efficiency, and if that was the goal there were a
couple of things that would have to occur that he was not sure they were ready
to do. He said first he agreed that
they were more conservative than Broward County, but he also thought that they
were much more progressive in some areas, and certainly their access to elected
officials was greater, and there was no screen or no litmus test they had to
take in order to bring an issue before any elected body in that community.
He said they also understood and let their legislative delegation know
where their responsibility begins and ends, and fortunately they were staying
out of local issues.
He said if they
wanted absolute efficiency they would have to do one of two things: the
first being effectively dismantle the county government and assign those
responsibilities to the various municipalities, and perhaps even require some
municipalities to annex urban areas on their periphery.
He said he thought that Winter Haven was dwarfed because of the
urbanization on its perimeter and had not done a very good job of annexation,
and he felt that was by design of the people affected.
He said if this
were to come about there was no mandate for the seventeen municipalities to
participate in acquiesce to whatever the final findings might be, but more on
the line of what Commissioner Strang had to say, he still liked the ability then
that Polk County had and instituted as the need arose, and if there was a
problem in the purchasing agent side, he felt there was enough corporate
purchasing agents in the county that task force could be formed, and give public
employees a lesson on purchasing. He
said the same would be true in the computer and technology aspect of it to point
out the deficiencies or whether some economies might be achieved, and the same
was true in fleet maintenance. He
said he thought Commissioner Strang’s committee did address some issues on
fleet maintenance, some of which came to pass.
He said he thought insurance and risk management would also be the same
thing, and that there was expertise in the private sector, and he thought
private sector was not a dirty word, and he felt the private sector could teach
the public sector areas of potential improvement.
He said he was less inclined to embrace it with what had evolved was
effectively the will of the respective communities, and he thought the people
still didn’t advocate those single issue task force charges as the need
arises.
Commissioner
Strang said he didn’t have time to collect his thoughts earlier, when the
Chairman skipped over him, and he said he wanted to mention several things.
He said going back to what Commissioner Lindsey said, if the Commission
would recall his manifesto of the Commission’s last meeting, when he was
talking about the need as he saw it for having the Constitutional Officers made
Charter Elected Officers. He said
he thought one of the greatest bars or impediments so far as efficiency was
concerned, was the fact that they had that diverse, diffuse fiscal scheme so far
as the County budget was concerned. He
said Commissioner Lindsey brought up the matter of fleet management.
He said the Efficiency Committee that he served on went in and studied
the fleet management vehicle maintenance etc. in all county departments, and the
Sheriff’s Department said the automobiles they drove were different, and they
were law enforcement vehicles, and nobody else other than their mechanics were
qualified to change spark plugs and batteries on those vehicles.
He said that was where their recommendations stopped.
He said the Sheriff stonewalled them, and likewise they felt there was
some need with financial management, and there again, they had the disparity
with the Clerk, and absent some reform so far as the organization of the county
government, in his opinion there were a lot of efficiencies that could not be
realized.
He said the
Chairman mentioned that an Efficiency Oversight Committee could go whatever way
the people wanted, and it was up to the people to do it, but he said as he saw
it, the people were going to have to vote up or down, and they won’t have a
chance to craft the providence of the committee, and he thought that Commission
represented the people, and it was their job to structure the committee.
The Chairman
said that was his meaning when he made that comment, that they could structure
the committee the way that they wanted to.
Commissioner
Strang said the sine qua non in his opinion was independence. He said one couldn’t have an Efficiency Committee that was
a lapdog of the elected officials.
Chairman
Costello said if when they voted on that issue, if he voted in principle to
develop something like that, then what the Commission could do was to provide
some principles to their consultant to develop some draft language. He said he thought that it would take a little bit, but the
point was that he didn’t think it would be appropriate for the Commission to
vote on what Broward’s charter said, and they wanted to have it unique to Polk
County.
He said he was
explaining to Ms. Aronson that when he arrived at Polk Community College in 1970
there were two Personnel Offices. One was to deal with faculty and professional
people and the other was to deal with career employees.
He said, much of the same argument was provided to the Commission by the
Sheriff, when he said they had certified law enforcement officers, so we have
special skill areas. He said the college had since combined those two offices into
one office, and one office could handle everything. He said he thought that was a measure of efficiency as well.
He said he
thought having something similar to that in the Charter gave the committee more
force, and more power because it was connected directly to the people.
He said it was easy to manipulate a committee that is appointed by
individuals who were going to pass on it, but it would be more difficult if it
were completely totally independent.
Commissioner
Gernert said he would like to make a motion that the Commission offer the
question to the voters of establishing a Government Efficiency Committee that
would be seated every eight years, either one or two years prior to the seating
of the Charter Review Commission to deliver a report to that commission, and
that the members not be appointed by elected officials, and that the budget be
established not to exceed $150 thousand dollars without approval from the County
Commission.
The Chairman
said as he understood Commissioner Gernert, there were basically three
principles in his motion: the first
being was to offer the voters choice of establishing a Government Efficiency
Committee that would be seated every eight years, but that would be seated for
one or two years prior to the Charter Review Commission being seated; and the
second principle was that members would not be appointed by elected officials;
and the third principle being their budget would not exceed $150 thousand
dollars unless approved by the County Commission. The Chairman asked
Commissioner Gernert if he stated his motion correctly?
Commissioner
Gernert answered yes.
The Chairman
asked if everyone understood the motion, and if there was a second to that
motion? Commissioner Moore Bailey
seconded Commissioner Gernert’s motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang asked if the Chairman would repeat Commissioner Gernert’s motion?
The Chairman
repeated the motion.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was inclined to vote for some of the motion, but not all of it,
so he assumed he would have to vote against it.
The Chairman
reminded Commissioner Lindsey that he could make a motion to amend the current
motion, and then the Commission would vote on the amendment.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would like to make a motion to amend the current motion, and to
divide those three issues individually. He
said the first issue was the establishment of the committee itself, and the
second was the method of appointment, and the third was the budget.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey if he wanted all three issues decided separately?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered yes.
The Chairman
said he would like to ask the maker of the motion if he had any objection to
separating each issue?
Commissioner
Gernert answered no he didn’t.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he needed some clarification on the first issue regarding when
that group would meet. He asked if
they were saying two years prior to the next Charter Review Commission, and that
would be six years from then?
Commissioner
Gernert answered Commissioner McLaughlin’s question by saying, and every eight
years after that.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked if Commissioner Gernert was saying that they would put that
issue on the ballot, but that issue wouldn’t actually come up for another six
years to that Committee?
Commissioner
Gernert said that was correct, and the reason for that was as Broward was using
their committee to develop a report that then was used by the Charter Review
Commission to maybe pinpoint some issues early on in their process.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would be more inclined to put it on the other end, so that it
need not wait six or eight years for implementation, but at the sunset of that
commission, and the assumed passing of that issue, then that Commission would be
immediately charged and begin the implementation as their group did making
recommendations not to the next Charter Commission, but to the County
Administration for implementation. He
said their method would wait almost a decade before they would see results, so
he felt it should be on the front end instead of the back end.
Commissioner
Price said she was curious as to the establishment of a number of committee
members. She asked were they going
to discuss that or were they just going to leave that out?
The Chairman
answered that was up to the Commission.
Commissioner
Strang said he would to first of all say that he was all for efficiency studies
and he was very supportive of that idea. He
said he was concerned though lest they provide for the establishment, and the
naming of such a body at some time out in the future, and whether that might
have a chilling affect on initiatives by Chambers of Commerce or other
interested citizen groups at no cost to the taxpayer.
The Chairman
said he would like to suggest one possible method of handling the situation with
the concurrence of the maker of the motion.
He said it was apparent that they should have some sort of consensus on
the fact that they should have some sort of group that dealt with government
efficiency, and he asked why couldn’t they deal with a motion on that issue,
and once they get a two-thirds agreement on that, which would be seven
individuals, then what they could do was then go principle by principle, and see
if they could get a two-thirds vote on that, and that way they would be
instructing their consultant.
The Chairman
asked if that met with Commissioner Gernert’s approval?
Commissioner
Gernert said sure, and he was willing to withdraw the motion.
The Chairman
said without objection, the motion made by Commissioner Gernert, and seconded by
Commissioner Moore Bailey was withdrawn.
Commissioner
Gernert made a motion that the Commission put an initiative on the ballot to ask
the voters to decide whether or not they wish to establish a Government
Efficiency Committee or Commission, and Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the
motion.
The Chairman
repeated the motion for the Commission, and he asked that the Commission discuss
that motion. The Chairman asked
Commissioner Moore Bailey for her thoughts.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said earlier in the meeting she had heard some discussion in the
three principles about having the committee not appointed by elected officials,
and she asked how would that committee be established? She said assumed that would come somewhere within the next
couple of motions. She said the
other concern that she had was, and she said she thought she heard what
Commissioner Price and Commissioner Nunnallee said, and she asked if that
committee would have real power, and not just be another touchy feel good
committee? She said when she heard
Commissioner Strang talk about the stone wall that they ran up against, those
were the kinds of things that she was referring to, as they went through the
process in drafting the consultants as they pulled together what they were
thinking about doing.
The Chairman
said that depended upon how they wished to structure it.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey if had a comment on the motion to put that initiative
before the voters?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he wanted to speak against the motion, but when the motion passed,
he had an opinion on how it should be structured.
The Chairman
said he thought that he would be entitled to do that.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
There was none.
The Chairman
said on the motion to provide an initiative on the ballot to ask voters to
decide whether they wished to establish an Efficiency Committee for a
Commission. The Chairman asked Ms.
Swearengin to call the roll for a vote. The
results were 10/0 with the ayes prevailing.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman
said it was 7:25 p.m., and he asked that the Commission take a ten-minute break,
and then they would get into the principles.
The Commission
reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
The Chairman
said he had asked Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Watts to come up with a list of things
that the Commission should give them guidance on, and he invited Mr. Spitzer to
make his report.
Mr. Spitzer said
to that point, he had identified five policy questions, and there were several
options under each question. He
said the first one was the budget, and how they wanted to handle the budget of
the Efficiency Commission. The
Commission could set a specific cap in the charter amendment itself, and they
could have language, as did the Broward Charter, that allowed the Board of
County Commissioners to set the budget for the Efficiency Commission, and that
was different than the Charter Review Commission, or they could allow that the
cap was specifically identified in the Charter, but that it could be exceeded by
the Board of County Commissioners; secondly, qualifications of the members, the
Broward Charter had language that said that the members shall have a business
related or management experience in the public sector, private sector, or in
organized labor with minimum standards set by the County Commission. They could be silent on that subject, and they could have
language that attempted to require business or management experience as
evidenced by, and one could fill in the blank, but he was not sure how that
would be done in a charter amendment, but there might be a way; thirdly, timing
and it could be established as the Broward Commission was where it was on the
same cycle, and that it got established two years prior to the start of the
Charter Review Commission’s, and that their work if necessary be handed off to
the Charter Review Commission, or it could be established earlier than that to
begin work more immediately; fourthly, in terms of membership, the Commission
could either exclude or permit elected officials to serve on the Efficiency
Commission, and then lastly, in terms of appointments, the appointing entities,
they could allow that all members were appointed by various governmental
entities, elected bodies, or they could attempt to limit that in some fashion.
He thought if they did that they would then need to identify what
non-governing bodies would make those appointments: the League of Women Voters,
the Chamber of Commerce, and other community organizations.
Mr. Spitzer said
the number of people was interrelated with who made the appointment and who was
excluded. He said the Commission
could require that different types of governmental entities at least be
represented, even if they didn’t make the appointment, or were not allowed to
serve, and they could perhaps try to ensure that cities, the constitutional
officers, the County Commission, and perhaps other organizations were
represented on the Efficiency Commission or not.
The Chairman
said there was one section in the Broward Charter about diversity.
Mr. Spitzer said
he didn’t know in the Broward Charter, but he knew in the Polk Charter there
was language concerning appointments in general made by the County Commission,
which directed the County Commission to consider diversity when making
appointments to the Charter Review Commission or any other appointed body, and
they could reference that section for appointments to that body.
The Chairman
said it seemed to him that the easiest one to start with was the number of
appointments. The Chairman asked
the Commission if there was any preference they wanted to express on that point?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered seventeen.
Commissioner
Gernert said he was going to suggest just for the sake of discussion, that the
last time the Efficiency Committee was appointed the Chambers did that, and he
said he wasn’t trying to corral that, but if they could perhaps base the
number on the number of Chambers in the county, or number of municipalities, and
if those municipalities had a certain body, League of Women Voters or Chamber of
Commerce, etc., that is who would make the nomination.
Commissioner
Strang said he had a couple of observations, and in his opinion the more the
merrier so far as the number, because that was going to be a job that required a
degree of dedication and heavy lifting, and he thought a vast number would have
to be appointed in order to get a half vast number to show up.
The Chairman
asked how about seventeen?
Commissioner
Strang answered perhaps, but he would go to twenty-five.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked Commissioner Strang how many members were on the Efficiency
Committee the last time?
Commissioner
Strang answered he had forgotten, but the longer they stayed in existence the
less the number. He said he thought
it was unreasonable to ask volunteers who were serving without pay to stay in
harness forever.
The Chairman
asked for the sake of guidance for the consultants, if they could settle on at
least seventeen? The Chairman said
when they returned on February 5th they would have had time to think
about that issue, and the consultants will have had time to draft the language.
The Chairman said he didn’t want to take a vote on every issue, because
it would take too long, but he asked if there was a consensus on the language
with at least seventeen as to the numbers?
There was a consensus.
The Chairman
asked who would appoint and what non-governmental organization would make
appointments? He reminded the
Commission that Commissioner Gernert referred to the Chambers of Commerce as one
possible group, and he asked if they could suggest any other groups?
Commissioner
Strang said in talking about efficiencies, he thought there were certain
industry and professional groups, which he thought could make good contributions
to that matter of business efficiency. Like
the county organization of purchasing agents, and he thought there was probably
a county organization of CPA’s or accountants, insurance agents, and auto
dealers who were all dealing with a piece of the pie so far as that was
concerned. He said he didn’t see
that there would be real glaring conflicts of interest problems with that, but
he thought they would receive the kind of expertise and professionalism that
perhaps that organization would benefit from.
The Chairman
said the problem he was having, was if they made that issue so specific it would
run to great lengths, and could cause confusion with the voters, but yet at the
same time, they don’t as with Broward County, and they say the County
Commission was going to do it, and as he took it, that Commission did not want
to get into that, and he thought that was the consensus.
He asked how would they mediate between those two?
Commissioner
Strang asked if the Commission had the power to submit a proposed ordinance to
the County Commission, and if so, they could draft an ordinance with all of the
details in it, and give it to the County Commission, and say if this referendum
passes this is the enabling language?
The Chairman
said he didn’t think the Commission would have the authority to do that, but
he would refer to Mr. Watts on that question.
Mr. Watts
answered that he didn’t think that the Charter could require them to adopt a
particular ordinance, and the way to do that was really to have a fairly
detailed section in Polk County’s Charter.
He said the Commission could require them to adopt standards for
appointment by ordinance, which met some of those criteria, if they didn’t
want to do the detail in the Charter. He
said one of the risks in specifying particular business or trade groups that
might make appointments in the language was that they had no assurance that
those groups would endure from cycle to cycle.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would encourage that they should solicit nominations from the
CPA’s and the Purchasing Agents, but not to vest them with the responsibility
of making those appointments for the reasons mentioned.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey who would do that soliciting?
Commissioner
Lindsey said some combination of elected officials making that choice, and he
said he hadn’t felt the pressure that perhaps some had, that they felt they
were the lapdogs of the elected officials, and he said he certainly didn’t.
He said on one end they say they are the chosen among the electorate, and
the electorate was smart enough to pick them, so they had to live with them for
the term of their office. He said
he didn’t have a problem with some combination of elected officials, chambers,
or mayors. He said if one came from
the Frostproof Chamber of Commerce than one might be one of two hundred to be
chosen, and if one was from the Lakeland Chamber one would be one of three
thousand to be chosen, so he wasn’t sure that equity of representation was
there, but as they went to likely seven commissioners, not exactly in the format
that they had with this body, but some combination of that, he said he was not
opposed to elected officials making those appointments urging their solicitation
of recommendations from professional groups, interest groups, minority groups,
majority groups, and everything else.
The Chairman
asked should membership exclude or not exclude elected officials?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered membership should exclude elected officials.
The Chairman
confirmed that membership should exclude elected officials, and he asked if
there was a consensus on that? There
was a consensus.
The Chairman
asked what about timing, two years before the Charter Review Commission meets or
earlier or later?
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what the obligation was that the results have to go back to the
Charter Commission? He asked
couldn’t the results go directly to the County Commission?
The Chairman
asked Ms. Aronson to respond to Commissioner Lindsey’s question.
Ms. Aronson
answered it was designed that way in Broward County, but their Charter Review
Commission meets every six years, and it was structured in such a way that they
knew when the charter amendments were voted on in 1996, and that the Efficiency
Committee would get seated in 1998, and their group disbanded in 1995, so there
was a three year time span, but it wasn’t as great as eight years or six
years, and the bulk of the recommendations that were made were things that
really had to be done by the County Administrator or the County Commission, and
there were few that were made to the Charter Review Commission, and she thought
regarding what Commissioner Lindsey said earlier, was sooner would probably be
better than later would probably be more affective for them rather than waiting
eight years to implement that.
The Chairman
said on February 5th they would be discussing the Charter Review
process, and it was under other, and he would like for them to make a
determination as to whether they continue the present practice in terms of the
appointments, and also in terms of how often they meet, and he asked or did they
decide not to discuss that issue?
Commissioner
Price answered the eight years prevailed.
The Chairman
asked what about the issue of timing?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was again, of the opinion, that sooner was better than later,
and there needed to be a respite between all of those study commissions, charter
commissions, elections and so forth. He
said there needed to be a pause between those things. He said he was inclined to lean toward the appointment
immediately after the issue passes in order that implementation begin
immediately, and recommendations, as they were finalized, be directed to the
Commission, and if there was a burning issue that didn’t get the attention
that within two years there was going to be an election, that might be the issue
of that candidate to carry forth.
The Chairman
asked how long would they sit for it, which would be another issue?
The Chairman
said for instance they could meet right after the general election following the
report of the Charter Review Commission, and he asked how long would they meet,
i.e., two years or three years?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered eighteen months.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that Commission had been meeting since April, and he felt the same
type of commitment and dedication would be necessary.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he felt they also needed to make sure that they have county
commissioners or constitutional officers appoint those members, if that was
going to happen, and that the new commissioners have an opportunity to appoint,
so they would want those appointments to be made until after their inauguration.
The Chairman
said they would actually take office in November of the even year, 2002, 2004,
2006,etc.
Commissioner
Lindsey said if they waited until there were seven commissioners that wouldn’t
happen until 2004, whereas it could happen two years earlier.
The Chairman
said he thought eighteen months seemed like a very short period of time for that
sort of work, and he would refer to Commissioner Strang for his comments.
Commissioner
Strang answered when one considered the amount of time it takes them to spool
up, and educate themselves, and particularly with a group like that, which would
probably be all new to the task, he said he would think it would take a while to
get them all educated as to where the pipes were buried.
He said
regarding what Commissioner McLaughlin said, he thought there was consensus that
they weren’t going to prohibit those people being appointed by elected
officials, but he hoped they would not let them be appointed by the elected
officials whom they are appointed to investigate.
In other words, if they are going to be appointed by an elected official
let them be School Board Members or City Commissioners or Soil and Water
Conservation District Members, but don’t let the people who are going to
investigate the County Commissioners be appointed by County Commissioners, and
he felt that was poor business.
Commissioner
McLaughlin responded to Commissioner Strang by saying that the problem then,
would be that they were then saying that groups was just going to be
investigating the County Commission, where what he was seeing was perhaps they
needed to have an appointment by the City Commission of Lakeland, and the City
Commissioner of Winter Haven as well.
Commissioner
Strang asked if he meant have them study their efficiency?
Commissioner
McLaughlin answered that group was going to study the efficiency of government
in the county, and there were a lot of municipalities in the county, and there
could be some synergies there between Polk County government and the City of
Lakeland, for instance, or some of the constitutional officers, so he didn’t
think that they would want to limit that particular appointment to non-county
commissioner appointments, and he thought they needed to have a broad base.
Commissioner
Strang asked if he was saying that group should be empowered to study municipal
governments as well as county governments?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said anytime one was going to study county government by default they
would also be studying municipal too.
Commissioner
Strang asked if he meant Eagle Lake and Polk City too?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said, what he was thinking, for example, was that Lakeland was
obviously a very large municipality, and it has a huge impact on the county, so
one had to study Lakeland, if one really wanted to talk about efficiency.
The Chairman
said he was thinking in terms of all of the governments, but only in terms of
their inter-relationships where their services kind of overlap.
The Chairman said for example, parks and playgrounds have common usages,
and it seemed to him there needed to be some sort of study on how they could
better avail their selves of the use of both.
The School Board uses them during the day and the public uses them at
night. He said there had been some
progress in that area, but that was one small example.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said as a for instance, he served on a committee quite a while ago
that reviewed countywide library systems, and that was a perfect example of
something that committee might wish to look into, and that was what he was
referring to. He said he was not
saying they were going to get into whether the City Commission of Lakeland
should have six members, etc., etc. He
said he was talking about the synergies that could exist between the
governmental bodies.
The Chairman
said as he understood it all they so far in consensus was at least seventeen,
and no elected official may serve, and he asked if that was correct?
The Chairman
said he would like to move down to timing, and he asked Commissioner Strang if
he had a time?
Commissioner
Strang answered two years prior to the Charter Review Commission?
Commissioner
Lindsey replied, no.
The Chairman
said then it would be six years from then?
Commissioner
Nunnallee said no, two years serving.
The Chairman
said the question was when would they begin?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered immediately after, not waiting until.
The Chairman
asked in November of 2002?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered yes.
The Chairman
asked if they would sit for two years and every eight years thereafter?
The Chairman asked if there was a consensus on that?
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked how would they get them starting in November of 2002, it would
be the next day after the election?
Commissioner
Lindsey answered in January 2003.
The Chairman
confirmed that they would meet for two years, and the next one would be 2011.
Commissioner Gernert said he would like to make a case for 200