MINUTES

POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

JULY 10, 2001

Chairman Costello called the meeting of the Charter Review Commission to order at 6 PM on the third floor conference room of the Citrus and Chemical Bank in Bartow, Florida.

Commissioner Karolyn Nunnallee led those present in prayer.  Commissioner followed by leading the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Executive Assistant called the roll.  All commissioners were present. Except for Commissioner Hunt.  She joined the meeting a few minutes after roll, having been delayed by an automobile accident on her route of travel.

The Chairman noted that a quorum had been satisfied.

 Approval of Minutes of June 26, 2001

Commissioner Lindsey moved and Commissioner seconded the approval of the minutes of June 26, 2001.  There was no discussion, and there were no corrections to the minutes as drafted. The motion carried unanimously.

 Invited Guest Presentations

Dewey Smith of the Home Rule Charter Committee began his presentation to the Commission on the subjects outlined in the agenda.  A copy of his detailed remarks is attached to the record copy of these minutes.

His presentation is summarized as follows.

The subjects included in his presentation were term limits, cutting all county politician’ salaries in half, reducing the current recall and citizen petition requirements to three percent, and a county-wide oath of affirmation.

Mr. Smith believes that government in general, and government in Polk County in particular are “out of touch” with the people they represent.  The only way to correct this trend is to let the people decide issues on the ballot.

Citing voters’ decisions in the past, and the Oppenheimer Report commissioned by the original Charter Commission, he believes that all politicians should be limited to no more than eight years in office.  Accordingly, he recommends changing the Charter to apply term limits to the five constitutional officers.

He advocates a Charter amendment which would cut constitutional officers pay by 50 percent.  He said that the average yearly salary of a Polk Countian is $27,647.  He did not think that the constitutional officers should be paid three to five times the amount the average Polk Countian receives in salary.  He also felt that their salaries were out of line with teacher salaries in Polk County.  He said cutting the constitutional officers pay would be a good way to reduce the county budget.

Mr. Smith believes that the current recall provisions in the Charter are too onerous.

He cited statistics from the recent election showing the amount of money raised by politicians running for public office.  He believes the large sums collected, while perfectly legal, are clearly unethical.

He asked that the contribution records that he had collected, and would submit this evening be made a part of the Commission’s record.  This has been done.

He does not believe that the election process is fair.  To right this imbalance he recommends an easing of the requirements for recall so that if a poor performer is elected it will be easier to get rid of them through the recall process.

His specific recommendation is to reduce the recall requirements to three percent with a six-month window of opportunity to gather signatures.

Citing a Ledger editorial in 1998 that was critical of the original Charter Commission’s rule that a two-thirds vote by the Commission was required to get an item before the voters, he asked that the Charter Review Commission reconsider a similar rule that it had adopted on April 10, 2001.

Mr. Smith addressed the need for a Charter amendment that would require an “oath of affirmation” similar to the one contained in the Sarasota County Charter. 

Mr. Smith closed by urging the Commission to get the measures he recommended on the ballot.  His experience using the route of the County Commission was unsatisfactory.  He and his colleagues had to resort to the expensive and time consuming process of a citizen initiative to get matters before the voters.

In anticipation of Commissioner Nunnallee’s interest in the number of individuals represented by organizations, which make presentations to the Commission, Mr. Smith stated that is not relevant.  He wants the rights of the minority to be protected as well as the rights of the majority.  He wants every citizen or citizen group recommendation on the ballot whether they represent majority or minority views.

He offered to provide suggested language for the Charter amendments he is proposing.  He plans on providing the Commission with signed petitions reflecting widespread interest in the issues he advocates.

Mr. Smith completed his presentation, and the commissioners began with their questions.

In connection with Mr. Smith’s proposal to change the Charter so that the recall of elected officials is “less onerous,” Chairman Costello asked Mr. Watts for his opinion. 

Mr. Watts replied that the Florida Statutes 100.361 specifies the conditions surrounding recall of elected officials. The Florida Constitution, Article 8, Section 1 does not allow a county Charter to specify different conditions.  Charters cannot include provisions, which are inconsistent with General Laws.

Mr. Spitzer observed that non-Charter counties did not have the right of recall, but when Polk County became a Charter county it then had that right.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Watts to confirm that the Polk County Charter conditions for recall could not be made less stringent than the State requirements.

Mr. Watts replied that could be done only if the Florida Legislature changed the provisions of the recall statute.

Chairman Costello asked Mr. Watts to contrast the petition requirements of the Charter and those in State law.

Mr. Watts replied that there is no State law provision.  It is a matter to be dealt with in each individual charter.

Chairman Costello observed that the Sheriff has command of individuals who are responsible for the protection of our lives and our property.  It seemed to him that to cut his pay by 50 percent, and make his pay less than some of the deputies he commanded would be strange and difficult to understand.  Although he did not agree with the initiative to reduce county commissioners’ pay 50 percent, he felt that had more logic in it than the proposal to reduce the Sheriff’s pay by 50 percent.  He asked if Mr. Smith would like to respond.

Mr. Smith said that we have to start at the top in order to begin reducing the county budget.

Commissioner Moore Bailey asked Mr. Smith to clarify an assertion he made concerning Polk County and organized crime.

Mr. Smith said that he wasn’t referring to Polk County, but rather to an act of the Legislature which placed in the budget an item which granted to a specific company the right to do business with the State without the benefit of bidding.

Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Smith if he felt that the recent raise given to Mr. Keene, the County Manager, was appropriate.

Mr. Smith said that he believed that we needed to start at the top and go down, and include the County Manager, department heads, politicians, and everybody else.

Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Smith to clarify what he meant by an “oath of loyalty.”

Mr. Smith responded that he did not use that term.  He was talking about an “oath of affirmation” which would be required of those appearing before the County Commission. The Sarasota County Charter has such a provision.

Chairman Costello said his understanding was that oaths were required in quasi-judicial proceedings before a county commission.  He read the pertinent language in the Sarasota County Charter.  He said that he felt that Mr. Smith’s understanding of this was much broader than his own.  It did not apply to every instance when one appeared before the County Commission, but only in certain circumstances.  He asked Mr. Watts to confirm this.

Mr. Watts said that the Chairman’s reading was correct, and it grew out of a Supreme Court decision, but only when evidence was being presented in a public hearing context, and where the results of that hearing had to be based on that evidence.  On the other hand to require an oath under all circumstances would probably be an infringement of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Chairman Costello observed that if the Sarasota Charter language with respect to oaths is a matter of law there appeared to be no reason why it should not be in our Charter.

Mr. Watts said that it could either be in the Charter or in an ordinance.

Commissioner Gernert, noting the practice in private industry of setting salaries based on comparisons of similar positions in other companies, asked Mr. Smith why it would not be fair to compare other Charter counties county commission and constitutional officer salaries to determine an appropriate rate of pay for our own county commissioners and constitutional officers?

Mr. Smith said that the better comparison is between what the average Polk Countian makes and what the politicians should be making.  He said that there would be plenty of people in Polk County who would do the jobs for half of what they are getting paid.

Commissioner Lindsey, observing that a county commissioner was elected for a fourth term, asked Mr. Smith how he reconciled that with the idea of term limits.  The voters had a choice, and they chose to give him a fourth term.  With term limits they would not have that choice.

Mr. Smith did not see a conflict.  He felt that if the fourth term commissioner had strong competition he would not have been elected.  Under term limits, if you have a good man, he can always run for another office when his term is up.

Commissioner Moore Bailey asked if commissioners could have a copy of the oath language in the Sarasota County Charter and/other charters.  Chairman Costello asked Mr. Spitzer to provide it to the commissioners.

Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Smith if he knew of any voter initiatives that were started but failed to meet the seven percent threshold.  He also asked for the costs involved in the initiatives in which he participated.

Mr. Smith said he was not aware of any.  He said that he had invested a great deal of time, and spent $35,000 of his own money and about $15,000 of other peoples’ money to fund the past initiatives.

Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Smith for his presentation.

Chairman Costello recessed the meeting at 7:15 PM for a five-minute break.

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:21 PM.

The Chairman introduced Michael Dunn, Citizens for Truth in Government as the next speaker.  His topic is on an amendment to the Charter requiring future Charter members to be elected.

He believes there is a need for an amendment to give the voters a right to choose future Charter Review Commission members, and that the commissioners be required to swear an oath of affirmation and impartiality.

He read from a 1998 Ledger editorial that implied that the Charter Commission members were not impartial because elected officials appointed them.  Mr. Dunn felt that it made sense for politicians to appoint to the Charter Commission and Charter Review Commissions, and if he had been elected, he would have appointed those who had supported him.  Still, the perception would be that the appointments are political and that is not good.

He is asking the Commission to consider electing Charter Review Commissioners, to have Charter Review Commissions more often than every eight years, perhaps every two or four years, and even possibly have a continuous or standing Charter Review Commission that could work in conjunction with the Mr. Bark’s citizen review panel and the office of public counsel recommended by Mr. Kuhn.

In closing he wanted to comment on the issue of conflicting charter amendments that Commissioner McLaughlin had raised at an earlier meeting.  One way to address that would be to do another “Oppenheimer” survey to determine what were the interests of the voters.  He also asks the Commission to get in touch with Dane Waters, President of the Initiative and Referendum Institute in Washington, D.C. at 1825 First St. NW, Suite 400, 20006.  He may be able to resolve the concern of too many issues or conflicting issues on the ballot. 

Chairman asked Mr. Dunn to make available to the Commission a copy of his presentation.  He said that he would.

Chairman Costello invited the Commissioners to ask questions of Mr. Dunn.

Commissioner Nunnallee asked Mr. Dunn how many members in his organization.

He replied that he was not sure. He thinks it is between 50 and 70.

Chairman Costello, referring to Mr. Smith’s earlier comments on how elections have a way of tainting the elected, asked if electing Charter Review commissioner would taint them as well; he also wondered what process of elections Mr. Dunn would use?

Mr. Dunn said that some elections such as state committeeman or woman, or the Lake Region Canal District are handled well, and perhaps the election of charter commissioner could be handled in the same way.

Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Spitzer if other charter counties elected charter review commissioners?

Mr. Spitzer said there were 17 charter counties; two did not have a formal charter review body.  Only Sarasota County has an elected charter review commission.

Chairman Costello asked Mr. Spitzer to provide the commissioners with a copy of the Sarasota County provisions regarding the election of charter review commissioners.

Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Dunn if he had any thoughts on the number who should be elected.

He responded that they parallel the number on the county commission, and be elected within districts.  They would represent their districts rather than the county as a whole.

Commissioner Nunnallee assumed that the positions would be non-salaried.  Should there be campaign-spending limits.

Mr. Dunn agreed the position would be non-salaried.  He did not think limits would be necessary. 

Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Dunn for his presentation.

Chairman Costello informed the Commission that the next presenter, Mr. Steinhard called the commission office at 3:30 PM and said that an emergency precluded his attendance at our meeting.  He said that without objection he would give him an opportunity to appear if in fact there was good reason why he could not be present this evening.

 Reports

Chairman Costello gave his report to the Commission.

He referred the Commission to a report dated July 10, 2001 that was at their places outlining expenditures posted since their last approval of expenditures on June 4, 2001.  He asked for Commission approval.

Commissioner Strang moved approval of the expenditures.  Commissioner Masters seconded the motion.  There was no discussion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Costello called the Commission’s attention to the list of invitees, which was before them.  It provides the names and positions of those invited to appear on July 24, August 14 and, if necessary, on August 28.  There were 47 invitations sent.  When the agendas are sent out they will detail the names of the presenters.

Chairman Costello said that completed his report.  He asked Ms. Swearengin if she had a report.  She did not. 

There was no Unfinished Business to come before the Commission.

 Remarks of Interested Citizens

Mr. Hugh Johnson asked to address the Commission.  Chairman Costello reminded him that under the Commission rules he had five minutes to make his presentation.

Mr. Johnson who lives in Lakeland said that he was present in support of the speakers who had previously addressed the Commission.  He provided the Chairman with a copy of an essay by Russell Hancock dated July 4, 2001.  He asked that it be made a part of the official records of the Commission.  Chairman Costello said that it would.

Mr. Johnson then read from the essay by Mr. Hancock.

Mr. Johnson provided a copy of his presentation, and it is attached to the record copy of these minutes.

There were no other interested citizens who asked to address the Commission.

Chairman Costello stated that without objection this meeting of the Commission is adjourned.  There was no objection and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM

 Respectfully submitted,

Mallie Henderson