Chairman Dan Costello

MINUTES

POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

JULY 24, 2001

Chairman Dan Costello, called the meeting of the Polk County Charter Review Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. on the 3^rd floor conference room of the Citrus & Chemical Bank, Bartow. Commissioner Strang led the prayer and Commissioner Lindsey led the Pledge of Allegiance.

All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Moore Bailey, Gernert, and McLaughlin all of whom gave advance notification of their absences in accordance with the Commission’s Rules. Commissioner Masters was also absent.

Chairman Costello said he would like the record to show the Commission had a quorum.

Chairman Costello said the first order of business was for the approval of the Minutes for July 10, 2001.

Commissioner Allen made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Price seconded the motion.

Chairman Costello asked if there was further discussion, there was none. The motion carried.

Chairman Costello said the Commission would be hearing Invited Guest Presentations, and the first speaker would be Commissioner Bruce Parker.

Chairman Costello invited Commissioner Parker to speak.

Commissioner Parker thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak to them. He told them he thought they were doing the most important work that needed to be done in local government, because they were setting-forth ideas on what the Constitution and the Charter for the people of Polk County was going to be, and that was democracy in action.

He was concerned with some areas that had to do with what was called the “starter” Charter. He said the definition for the responsibilities of the County Commissioners was not descriptive enough.

He said Polk County land-wise was the size of the State of Delaware with 17 municipalities. The County had some logistic problems that municipalities didn’t have because of its relatively vast service area.

He said he didn’t feel the Commission could expect a county commissioner to perform like a city commissioner because they were entirely different, and most people didn’t realize that unless they served as a county commissioner, city commissioner, or a mayor. He said it was his hope that the Charter Review Commission would give some thought as to how those logistics would be dealt with in such a large county.

He believes that the primary function of a county commissioner should be constituent service. The Commission might think a county commissioner shouldn’t do that, and if they wanted to leave it up to the administrators, department heads, or the managers that would be fine. He said when he received a call in his office that something was wrong, and some type of action was warranted from someone, that request was sent to the County Manager and was staffed out, and if it was brought back to him, staff tried to work it out, and if staff could not work it out, then he got involved again, and if he could not work with staff to get the problem resolved, it was taken to the floor of the Commission to see if there was some type of policy that could be used to assist the citizen. He asked the Commission to bear in mind on a monthly basis his office received hundreds of those types of calls, and this was not the type of thing that was experienced in the city, and county government charter-wise and city government charter-wise were like night and day.

County commissioners were having quite a debate regarding whether they were part-time or full-time, and he thought they needed some guidance, and felt the Charter Review Commission would be a good place to start. He suggested that guidelines be set regarding part-time or full-time employment status.

He felt the distinction between the setting of policy and its execution should be more clearly defined in the Charter.

He suggested the Charter establish some type of orientation program for new County Commissioners, because of their many differing levels of experience.

He thought the Charter Review Commission should provide guidelines for the County Commission Meetings, and the manner in which those meetings should be carried out, and he felt the Charter Review Commission needed to determine what the ceremonial duties of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners were.

He said he thought the Commission needed to define Home Rule.

Commissioner Parker thanked the Chairman and Commission for the opportunity to speak to them.

Chairman Costello asked the Commission if they had any questions for Commissioner Parker.

Chairman Costello said Commissioner Parker described Polk County as a far-flung county, as big as Delaware, spread all over the place, and he stated that as a problem, but he didn’t hear him come up with a solution for that problem. He indicated that having seven commissioners wouldn’t necessarily ameliorate that situation any, and he asked him what he would do to deal with that situation?

Commissioner Parker said he was not sure he had an answer. Because of Polk County’s size, he felt the Commission could go to seven or any number of commissioners it wanted, but the districts should be equalized in population to balance the responsibilities of each of the seven commissioners.

Chairman Costello asked the Commission if they had further questions, there were none.

Commissioner Parker thanked the Commission for its time.

Chairman Costello introduced Kenza van Assenderp, General Counsel to the Tax Collector’s Association.

Mr. van Assenderp proposed an addition to the Polk County Charter adding a requirement for a Charter Amendment Impact Assessment before any amendments either by petition or ordinance are proposed for voters’ consideration. A copy of his proposal was delivered to commissioners and is attached to the record copy of these minutes.

The proposed amendment would require a detailed statement of need, an assessment of revenue impact, a description of induced changes in government functions or powers, and a determination as to whether the amendment meets certain standards set forth in the amendment.

He believes that constitutional officers Charter status should not change. Constitutional officers perform a State of Florida function, but are accountable to the local electorate. Shifting their status to Charter officers would make them less responsive to the voters.

He suggested that the Commission should consider making the language of the Charter less “techno-centric.” His proposed amendment would embody that spirit, inform the electorate, induce competence, and eliminate cynicism.

Chairman Costello asked the Commission if they had questions for Mr. van Assenderp.

Commissioner Lindsey asked what Mr. van Assenderp’s response would be to those who say policy makers should be elected but those performing ministerial administrative functions that don’t have policy discretion should be appointed?

Mr. van Assenderp said as a general rule he thought that was fine. The policy makers that make the laws, the tax collector, clerk, and supervisors use are the members of the Legislature. The rules are made by the elected Governor and Cabinet so the principal he referred to was being adhered to beautifully. The local Home Rule decisions were being made by the Board of County Commissioners, all the municipalities, special districts, and the authorities. There were at the same time some overriding state interests in uniformity, and fairness and accountability that the people of Florida, have consistently said are State interests. The issue was not who was elected to implement that policy decision, but rather how the State was going to make sure its interests were fair and uniform. The solution was to elect local people, like the tax collector, the clerk, the sheriff, the property appraiser, and the supervisor of elections to do state work. The fact that they don’t make policy decisions, other than the everyday implementation of policy decisions subject to the rules and regulations, was not a bad thing, but it was a good thing, it was a reform thing, and that was what was needed for the 21^st Century.

Commissioner Lindsey said in the case of the Tax Collector not unlike Publix for example, they collect taxes in probably 300 jurisdictions, and remit them to the appropriate agency.

Mr. van Assenderp responded by saying, but not with the same efficiency and accountability.

Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. van Assenderp to explain his response.

Mr. van Assenderp said, the Tax Collector collects and distributes not pursuant to city and county ordinances, and not pursuant to rules and regulations of a private company like Publix, but pursuant to State rules, and regulations by which the Tax Collector was audited, making sure no citizen loses property without due process, and that was what was called the tax certificate process. He said it was very different, and much more sophisticated than Publix’s collection mechanism for sales tax.

Commissioner Lindsey said, using the example of the Finance Director of the City of Lakeland Utility, if they didn’t subscribe to certain established policies, and procedures someone’s lights could be turned off, and bad things could happen if procedures weren’t followed, and the fact remained, it was an administrative application, and not policy.

Mr. van Assenderp said it was administering, but it was administering the state policy to protect the citizen. The State did have an interest that homestead property was protected, and wanted an elected official subject to State Law and Regulation to see that was done. If that person was put under the County then the County inherited those headaches, because the County was now doing State work instead of the Tax Collector, and that was not Home Rule.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if the County was held to the same State standards?

Mr. van Assenderp said, yes, and that was the problem.

Chairman Costello thanked Mr. van Assenderp for his comments.

Chairman Costello invited the next speaker to come forward, Joe Tedder, Tax Collector.

Mr. Tedder began his presentation by stating he wanted to briefly speak to the Commission regarding the Office of Tax Collector, the reason for the governing structure, and suggestions he had for recommendation. (A copy of his handout is attached to file copy).

The Office of the Tax Collector works on behalf of the State of Florida. Everything that they do is done as an agent of the State of Florida.

He said there were two things they did that were similar to the City of Lakeland’s finance person, and they were the collection and the distribution of tourist development taxes, and the collection and distribution of occupational taxes.

He said the Tax Collector’s Office was a fee office, meaning he collected a fee or a commission for his tax collection functions. That revenue runs his office, and he is not funded by any particular entity.

Florida Statute’s require that his budget be sent to the Department of Revenue, because all of the services his office provides except for the collection of tourist development taxes and occupational licenses, he does on behalf of the State of Florida. The Department of Revenue is required to review his budget, In order to ensure statewide uniformity.

The total revenue for the Tax Collector’s Office was approximately $9,200,000 with total expenses amounting to $6,025,000 leaving a “net profit” of about $3.2 million.

He said structure was extremely important, because like in business government must have structure for it to be successful. In business, motivation is to be profitable. In the Tax Collectors Office, structure has to be maintained as well, so that it generates the same positive things the open market system generates. Florida Legislature sets the costs of every product the Tax Collector’s Office sells, and State Agencies review their work.

Motivation for the Tax Collector is the election process. He said the Tax Collector was elected every four years, and that was what drove him to make sure he was taking care of the customer. He said if it was agreed that election was the important part of motivation, they needed to ensure his accountability equaled his authority. He said, if he was going to be held accountable to the voters through the election process, then the Commission needed to make sure he had the appropriate authority including: determining what the organization of his office was going to be; the budget; ; the kind of personnel he was going to have; and goals of his office. He felt each part of the structure: cost, quality, and motivation must exist for the protection of the people.

He thought there was nothing wrong with the Charter Review Commission making recommendations to different entities that were addressed in the Charter, and making suggestions regarding things that needed to be looked into, but he didn’t feel it would take a charter amendment to make that happen.

He felt the County was not dealing with the real problems that it faces in the future. He sees the County changing in the same ways as Tampa and Orlando, and feels the County needs to change in those ways too. He said the Commission needed to make sure the County had a vision of where it would be 5, 10, or 20 years from now, so that when our children graduate from college, they have a reason to come back to the county we love.

Another thing he thought the Commission needed to do was to encourage the BOCC to use services that the constitutional officers had when they were available. He said they talked to the Board of County Commissioners several times about collecting utility bills that were sent through the County. He said they had a collection process, and they would be more than happy to enter into a contract with the County.

He felt public awareness needed to be increased on the part of the constitutional officers. He said there were things that the constitutional officers could do that would increase the public’s awareness of what they were doing, for example meeting quarterly to give the public an opportunity to come before them, and express concerns. He said they could issue annual reports, which could include budget information, short-term and long term goals.

He said he thought the Charter needed to address what the CRA process was going to be, so that it gave equal protection to both the cities and the counties. He said this was an issue, that if not addressed could cost the Board of County Commissioners or the cities millions of dollars year after year.

Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Tedder for his comments.

Chairman Costello asked Mr. Tedder if the CRA process was a function of general law? His understanding was the Charter could not address issues that were addressed in general law or conflict with what was in general law, so wasn’t the corrective process at the State level, as opposed to the Charter?

Mr. Tedder said it could be. He said he knew when Polk County became a Charter it put them in a different posture in dealing with CRA’s, but he thought that it might be reviewed to see if there was anything that could be done.

Commissioner Strang said it was his understanding the Charter did not purport to interfere in any internal municipal ordinances.

Mr. Tedder said he was not telling the Commission what to do with this issue, but rather stating this was an issue that could have an important lasting effect on the County, and if there was something the Charter could do to help facilitate a reasonable solution, they might want to do that.

Commissioner Strang said, by way of observation, he was delighted to see Mr. Tedder mention he was making a profit for the people of Polk County.

Chairman Costello asked Mr. Tedder what happened to the profit the Tax Collector’s Office made for Polk County?

Mr. Tedder said the profit was something that was generated, and the Tax Collector’s Office had the option of investing that profit in a variety of different ways: providing more branch offices, reducing computer fees, and providing postage. He said they had traditionally invested that money, but had indicated to the Board of County Commissioners that they were going to invest the $3.2 million in the Board. Before that happened he wanted to know what the Board would be doing with their $3.2 million?

Chairman Costello said one thing that troubled him was the fact that a lot of common services were required of the various Constitutional Officers, School Board, and County Commissioners, but there was no consolidation of those services in order to improve efficiency and reduce costs. He said the kind of services he was referring to were transportation, motor pooling, personnel, and MIS. He said he would like to have his comment about how one can consolidate these services without necessarily interfering with his ability to do his job?

Mr. Tedder said each constitutional officer made that decision, and most constitutional offices do consolidate services where they believe it benefits their operation. He thought there was a lot of misinformation regarding that. He said, to give an example, people automatically believed they should buy everything from the County Purchasing Department, because they have bought everything through County Purchasing, but that is not necessarily the case.

Chairman Costello said the final question from him was the Commission had a recommendation from one of their presenters that the Charter spell out qualifications for Tax Collector, and he wanted to get his reaction to that.

Mr. Tedder said that spelling out qualifications such as requiring an accounting background or a CPA might exclude people who would other wise be qualified. He said many of the Commission knew Jack Fouts who had been in the Tax Collector’s Office for 29 years, and he only had a high school diploma. He thought anybody that wanted to run should have the opportunity if they were willing to put their name on the ballot.

Commissioner Price asked Mr. Tedder for his thoughts on CRAs. She said she had limited knowledge on it, but she knew it was formed by State statute. She said she would like to know more about what his thoughts were on the changes or the differences that he would propose?

Mr. Tedder said from listening to the Board, at the County Commission meetings, and from listening and reading articles in the various newspapers from the cities, this was a conflict that was going to reach a head, and that would cause a problem. Cities are angry because the County seems to have more authority to tell them what to do with the CRA. The County is upset because they are losing money with the CRA. He said there was going to be an explosion at some point in time in this process. He said that even at the State level The Florida Association of Counties was expressing concern over this, as well as the League of Cities. He thought it would be important if the Commission could legally address this issue in a way that both parties felt they had equal protection, and to insure they were able to do the job they wanted to do.

One of the things a Charter Government does is put more power in the Board of County Commissioners, and typically it takes power from somebody else, and people were finding out where they had lost power, because of the Charter document, and the County had gained it. He said perhaps a Task Force would be needed to look into that issue.

Commissioner Nunnallee asked Mr. Tedder how many employees he oversaw?

Mr. Tedder said, approximately 120 employees.

Commissioner Lindsey asked of those 100 or so employees, did he use the same personnel or job description the County used?

Mr. Tedder said, no.

Mr. Tedder said what his employees did was unique.

Commissioner Lindsey said a cashier is a cashier?

Mr. Tedder said, no they did not have any cashiers. The person that sits in that position that might be commonly referred to as a cashier has to know the law in regards to delinquent taxes, current taxes, how to read a tax bill, how to tell someone what is happening with a tax certificate, how to tell them how to redeem a tax certificate, how to tell them when their property is about to be sold on a tax certificate sale. They also need to be fluent with the rules and regulations in regards to titling vehicles, and mobile homes and boats as well as fluent in understanding not only State code, as well as other states’ codes.

Commissioner Lindsey said Mr. Tedder gave the impression in a complicated procedure like he described with the various agencies, and different fees that only an elected official could do that job competently and legally as opposed to an appointed official.

Mr. Tedder said, no. What he said was, the ultimate goal was to make sure the customer was taken care of, just like in business. He said if he were appointed by the County Manager or the Board of County Commissioners or the School Board, instead of being elected, his interest would not be in serving the public, but would be in making sure the County Manager and the Board of County Commissioners were taken care of.

Commissioner Lindsey said it had been suggested that the constitutional officers’ salaries be reduced to the magnitude that the County Commission’s had been reduced to, i.e. fifty percent. He asked if this were to occur, would it affect motivation, and the striving to provide customer service?

Mr. Tedder said he believed the salaries should be based upon what the Legislators intended them to be and that was reflected in Florida Statutes, 145.16 which he quoted.

Mr. Tedder said the Legislature recognized when referring to county officials that provided services of a statewide concern, the need for uniformity. Low salaries will attract unqualified people and that will not only hurt the State but the people of Polk County as well, because the State standards might not be applied fairly to Polk’s citizens. He said that is why he believes issues such as salaries and term limits are issues that need to be done on a statewide basis.

Commissioner Lindsey observed that, unlike with private enterprise, the “free market” did not set the prices the Tax Collector charged, because the public had no other choice than to “buy” from the Tax Collector. If a profit were made, the public was being overcharged.

Mr. Tedder replied that the State set the fees, but the “profit” he made was because his office was operating in a cost-efficient manner.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if the fees were lower would the office be less efficient?

Mr. Tedder said, no, but added that Commissioner Lindsey was assuming that the profit was based on the high prices rather than the low cost of service.

Chairman Costello asked if there were other questions by the Commission. There were none.

Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Tedder.

Chairman Costello said the next invited speaker was Coy Castleberry, of the Constitutional Political Action Committee. The presentation that Mr. Castleberry was going to be presenting was mailed to them about two weeks ago. He said a revision had been made to that presentation, and they had that revision before them.

Chairman Costello welcomed Mr. Castleberry.

Mr. Castleberry began his presentation by saying on behalf of the membership of C PAC, he would like to thank everyone there, and the Commission for taking the time to hear their presentation. He said they submitted a county charter amendment proposal to the Commission, and then it was revised in light of information that was read from Chapter 145 of the Florida Statutes, which Mr. Tedder just spoke about. He brought a complete copy of Chapter 145 for the Board. He said in Chapter 145 the Legislature reserved the right to set salaries, and in 145.16 it says special laws or general laws of local application were prohibited, which directly addressed salaries to the several Constitutional Officers. (He presented copies to the Chairman, and he distributed them).

He gave the Commission some background regarding his proposal. He said he was a paralegal assistant working in two different counties. He said he worked out of Polk and Hillsborough County. He said he understood research, and he understood very well what the Charter Review Commission was going through.

He said he would like to go through the proposal that was submitted, and go over the revision. Because of Chapter 145 of the Florida Statutes, he removed the limits on the overtime pay that had been addressed under the full-time position for the County Commissioners, because the Board of County Commissioners were addressed in that Legislative act of Chapter 145, and their salaries were addressed, so therefore they removed that. He said he still believed it was very important that the County Commissioners put in a minimum of forty hours a week. He said he didn’t think County Government with an $800 million budget could run on 15 to 30 hours a week, and the bottom line was when someone accepted being a public servant they accepted whatever wage the public or the State determined they were going to receive.

He said there wasn’t a commissioner on the Board that didn’t understand there was an initiative to reduce their salaries by fifty percent, so they should have no squawks, or qualms about working, whatever it takes to get the job done, and that was the reason for the forty hour work week. He said he did agree if they worked over forty hours they should be paid some type of compensation, and that would be left up to the Commission’s legal staff to find out if that could be done, and his group would support that issue. He said, C PAC was over 200 members strong, and they were growing, and they were now expanding into Hillsborough and Manatee County. He said they chartered as a statewide political action committee, and they are going to also handle state issues at the next election cycle.

He said ballot qualifications for Polk County’s candidates were far too high for the County Commission. He said it was his understanding that they had to collect 3,200 signatures in order to run for the County Commission. He said he ran for State Legislature, and was only required to collect 600. He said he thought that issue needed to be addressed, and the number of petitions for the County Commissioners should be reduced, and any decision the commissioners made affected everyone in Polk County, and he believed the Commission could legally lower the amount of petitions required, as well as lowering the qualifying fee required, if they decide to pay the alternative fee, and also allow any elector of Polk County to sign that petition. Regardless of what district that commissioner sits in, any decision he makes effects the residents of his community as well as the residents in his district, so he believes it should be his right to sign that petition card for any commissioner, even if he does live outside his district.

He said under Article 2.5 of the Charter, Salary and Compensation he thought the Commission needed to add the forty hour work week in the County Charter for that base pay.

Under the Legislative Branch of Article 2 of the Charter 2.7.3, Meetings, Transcripts, Recordings, Minutes, and the Polk County Budget. He said public access to those records were only required in a “timely” manner. He said there had been litigation in the Polk County court over that, which costs the taxpayers money. He said he believed the Commission could address this, and define what “timely manner” means. Is it 14 days? Is it 30 days? Is it 20 days? He said that would solve future problems.

Time Limit to Speak at the County Commission Meeting: The County Commission strictly enforces the three-minute rule, and he said some issues could not be covered in three minutes, and he recommend ten-minutes, and if it didn’t take that much time then that would be fine, but he felt it should be a minimum of ten minutes.

Under Article 2.8 Powers, Paragraph 3 – They recommended bringing the County Constitutional Officers budgets under direct control of the County Commission. He said every election cycle the County Commissioners are held responsible for the budgets for the past four years, and they have no control over the other budgets of the Constitutional Offices, and if they are going to be held accountable then give them the power to line item veto it.

Under Article 5.1 County Constitutional Offices – and 5.2.5 – They recommended adding, “excepting for their annual budgets, salaries and other compensations of which the County Commission shall have Line Item veto power.” He said, they would still preserve the County Constitutional Officers, and they would still be elected officials. He said he did not agree with abolishing any elected office, and he would not support any charter amendment, and neither would the membership of C PAC, that abolishes an elected office. He said anytime you abolish an elected office, control is being taken away from the people, and they do not agree with that. They believe the people should have the right, and the authority to say who is put into that office.

Commissioner Strang said he inferred from what Mr. Castleberry said that he and C PAC would have no opposition to a provision making the Constitutional Officers elected Charter Officers rather than elected Constitutional Officers, and would answer to the Board of County Commissioners and to the voters.

Chairman Costello said he did not understand Mr. Castleberry’s opening comments, regarding the import of 145.16 Florida Statutes, and the issue of Constitutional Officers salaries, and he asked him to clarify the point he was making.

Mr. Castleberry said he withdrew it from their proposal, because of the overtime pay for the County Commissioners where they had limits set.

Chairman Costello asked if Mr. Castleberry was saying that the Commission could not address the salaries of the Constitutional Officers.

Mr. Castleberry said he was saying there was a provision in 145.16 of the Florida Statutes, that said no special local law shall apply, so there again he felt it would take the Commission’s attorney looking that law over, and making sure that law was not violated. He said, it was his concern with everything, which was done in the Charter that they adhere to the special and general laws. He said the Charter did not need a conflict from any office in the County, and he had read most of the minutes from the Commission’s meetings and several times he had heard the salaries of those Constitutional Officers being brought up, and that Florida Statute 145 specifically set down the law that the legislative intent was, just as Mr. Tedder said, and if they reviewed that statute, they would see they actually had it laid out by population as to what the pay was, so they needed to make sure that they did not violate that.

Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Castleberry in his reference to Article 2.7.3 regarding minutes, transcripts, etc. with the suggestion it be made available within 14 days? What had been his recent experience?

Mr. Castleberry said it had been anywhere from 30 days to 90 days, depending on what it was that was being requested.

Mr. Castleberry said there had been times he could not get a copy of the County Commission tapes for thirty days, and then at other times he could get them on the same day.

Mr. Castleberry said normally you could get it when you requested it, but there were times when there were certain records that you could not get, for instance, he said he was yet to receive a full copy of the Polk County Budget.

Chairman Costello asked if there were any additional questions by other commissioners? There were none.

Chairman Costello said without objection, he would like to take a five-minute recess. There were no objections.

Chairman Costello invited Jamie Beckett, Secretary, for the Libertarian Party of Polk County to speak to the Commission.

Mr. Beckett said in his opening remarks that he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Commission.

He said since he was a big believer in being clear and brief, which were the keys to effective communication, he was not going to come anywhere near the twenty minute limit. He told the Commission he believed the Chairman had given them a proposal his organization submitted to them, and rather than read everything that they had in front of them, he would be happy to entertain questions later.

In terms of elections his organization would like to request that all elective offices at the County level in the future be conducted as non-partisan elections, and that would be in keeping with the way city elections were done in Polk County, and they believed it would lower the cost of elections.

He said they would like to see voters always have the opportunity to vote for none of the above, if they don’t care for any of the listed candidates. They believed this would increase voter turn out.

He said they would like to see the number on the Board of County Commissioners increase from five to seven or nine, and they would like for some of those members to be at large members, who cover the County as a whole.

Sunset Laws for Outdated Laws – He said one of the biggest problems that they see in his organization, in government as a whole, is that laws with the best of intentions often go far beyond their stated goals, and just won’t die, and become a problem. They would like to see a situation where new legislation has a six-year lifespan, and at the end that period it can be re-evaluated, and if it is still valid it continues, and it is not valid it can die there without being a burden.

Ballot Initiatives- They would like to see the process simplified whereby the signatures required would be at large signatures. It is very difficult for those bringing a ballot initiative to verify where all of their signatures come from, and the second thing they would like to see the Supervisor of Elections be required to promptly establish and approve the proper language for an initiative.

Elected Officers- They would like to see the County Constitutional Officers, commonly known as row officers, turned into charter officers. This means they would continue to be elected by the people of Polk County, but their budgets would fall under the Board of County Commissioners, and his organization found it to be somewhat of an untenable situation when the Board of County Commissioners had no control over the budget of an agency they have to work with.

The Charter Review Process – They would like to see the Charter reviewed every five years rather than every eight. They believe that five years is long enough for the changes to take effect, and to see if they are going in the right direction, but not so long that ramifications that were unforeseen become a real problem.

Chairman Costello reminded the Commission that they received a handout, which was the same as an e-mail that was sent to them last week, outlining Mr. Beckett’s presentation. He asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Beckett.

Commissioner Price said she had had noted in an earlier presentation about a comparison between city and county government. Was this comparison the reason why the Libertarian Party was recommending non-partisan elections for the County, because city elections were non-partisan. She asked Mr. Beckett to expand a little further beyond that.

Mr. Beckett said his organization believed that participation in government was what made government good, especially in the democratic process. He said it was somewhat ironic that in a particular party’s primary nobody seemed to have a problem with five, or seven, or nine people running, but when it come down to the actual election they were generally told that more than two people were confusing. The primary process was somewhat expensive and they felt unnecessary. It was their belief if an individual or a member of the community wanted to come forward, throw their hat in the ring, and be a participant in the process, knowing that they didn’t necessarily have the best chance of winning, because it was a non-partisan election, and they may not have a lot of money behind them, but if they could go out, and make their case, and meet civic groups, and go door to door, then let them. He said in their discussions in their group they have been able to come up with no valid reasons why limiting participation is to the benefit of the pubic in the elective process.

Chairman Costello said he was curious about “None of the Above” on the ballot. He asked what if a majority of the votes were “None of the Above”?

Mr. Beckett said that was the beauty of the suggestion. He said in his party all of the selections do have a “None of the Above” option when they vote for officers, and it is a possibility that a majority could be “None of the Above”. He said where that goes from there is up to the Commission. He said if the situation occurred where the majority vote turned out to be “None of the Above”, then it might behoove them to hold a new election with new people, or to open the process up. He said there was the possibility also, as in some three-way races, where the winner has the minority vote, which is less than fifty percent.

Chairman Costello said that the Commission would ask legal counsel if he could find out whether or not that option would be inconsistent with any state laws that they currently have.

Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Beckett regarding the Sunset Provision if he had some examples regarding local ordinances that would be applicable in that scenario?

Commissioner Lindsey said in the non-partisan election it seemed if the label R, D, or L was worn, your guys don’t win, but if we take all of the labels off, your guys might have a better chance?

Mr. Beckett said it was not so much for their guys, because the team is the people of Polk County, not the Libertarians, Republicans, or the Democrats, and the best use of government was when most people were included. He felt voter polls were dwindling, and the number of people that actually showed up to vote were dwindling, and the number of people willing to submit to the process of the election was dwindling.

Commissioner Lindsey said besides the R, D, or L, is the I, the independent excluded?

Mr. Beckett said, no. There would be no R, D, or L or I, just as it is in the City Elections. If you run in a City Election, which is non-partisan, and he said counsel could correct him if he was wrong, his understanding was that the person was not allowed to discuss his party affiliation while he was running.

Commissioner Lindsey said that may be in judicial, but he didn’t think that was true in general seats.

Mr. Beckett said he believed that was the rule in City Commission seats. He said they were not allowed to discuss their party affiliation, and were required to run as a non-partisan, and he felt that made the playing field more even, so that the people began voting for the candidate, rather than the team the candidate was on.

Mr. Beckett said he was sure Coke and Pepsi would think so, but he felt if the person could not articulate their position, they were penalized for it in the system that was being proposed, and if they could articulate the position well, and it was a popular one that resounded well with the public, then perhaps the fact that they don’t have a lot of money behind them isn’t such a factor.

Commissioner Strang said a major argument for non-partisan elections on the City and County level was that one of the big purposes of party affiliation other than power and patronage is to validate, or put a tag on somebody that explains them to the voting public, and the voters tend to think that because someone is running for statewide office as a Republican or a Democrat that they have been vetted by the party organization, and that the party is putting forward its best champion. He said it was generally felt that at the County and the City level party labels are irrelevant because, one, the issues that are faced on the local level don’t tend to be Democrat or Republican or don’t lend themselves to that kind of partisanship, and beyond that because those races are local involving people close to home, and they don’t need the seal of approval of a political party in order to be validated by the voter. The voter knows them or they know somebody that knows them, so for those reasons it was felt party labels were not necessary. He said as Mr. Beckett pointed out in every municipality in the State of Florida, elections were held on a non-partisan basis.

Commissioner Lindsey said he did not disagree that sometimes a tag was a bad thing, but he thought the exclusion would perhaps be going too far.

Commissioner Nunnallee asked Mr. Beckett, if party affiliation were taken away shouldn’t campaign financing be limited as well, so that everyone would be on an equal playing field?

Mr. Beckett said he felt everyone was on an equal playing field in terms of campaign financing, because there were open records. While a great deal of people involved in politics do know the party affiliation of people that are involved in politics, part of what he intended to bring forth was for the people that weren’t traditionally involved in politics, but were active, knowledgeable, and willing to contribute, and have something to offer. He did not think it was necessary to limit campaign contributions. He thought if the finance laws in place were abided by, that would be sufficient.

Commissioner Strang said on the matter on “None of the Above”, as he understood it from reading the literature of the national organizations espousing that, there were two kinds of “None of the Above” elections, one which is binding, and the other which is non-binding. He thought the position of the Libertarians was that they favor a non-binding, (a straw ballot), and not only do they feel it would increase tremendously voter turn out, but it would also help raise the quality of the candidates. He said he thought that a person who lacked qualifications would probably be loathed to enter a race where he was competent he or she was going to lose to “None of the Above”.

The Chairman said the next thing on the agenda was a brief report from him. He said they sent out forty-seven invitations to groups, and he was pleased to report that they have 40% in affirmative replies. He noted to the Commission that he had given them a copy of the Invitation Response Sheet. (Copy is attached to public record). He reminded the Commission that under adjournment, it did not state 8:00 p.m., and it would not for the next two meetings, because those meetings were likely to run beyond 8:00 p.m.

Chairman Costello asked if there were any reports from Legal Counsel or the Commission Consultant?

Mr. Watts said he was asked to review a couple of issues at the last meeting, and then some other issues came via e-mail. He said he could address those orally and follow-up with a written report.

He said the first question was whether or not it was possible within a charter to limit the millages, which a Board of County Commissioners imposed in the budget process or require a supermajority of the Board to raise taxes?

He said that seemed to be determined against that power, and the responsibility of setting millages, and the process by which millages were set was specified in state law. In the one case that tested that, it was a Charlotte County Charter Amendment that limited millage increases by the Board of County Commissioners. The courts said the state law was controlling and the Charter cannot limit the responsibility of the commissioners or transfer the responsibility to the people rather than to the commissioners.

The second question was whether or not it was possible to remove the County Commissioners from the State Retirement System by a provision in the Charter?

He concluded that was not possible, although the nature may be changed of a County Commissioner, so that they no longer fill the role of a non-charter commissioner. They still remain an employee, so to speak of the County for purposes of their payroll and so forth. For reasons of actuarial soundness in the State System, the State wants everybody in the system, regardless of what their title is. He said that the Commission could address the pay, but they could not address the retirement contribution that goes with that pay.

He said the remaining questions were submitted to him by e-mail last week, and he would comment on them briefly. He said he thought a couple of them were deserving of more research.

To what extent if any can the Charter Review Commission touch on School Board Matters?

He said that was on the frontier of the law. He said it had not been attempted in any other Charter with two exceptions, one being, that the Volusia County Charter by amendment converted the School Board to a non-partisan position prior to the time the Constitution did the same thing, and that was upheld after litigation.

He said the other situation was in the Duval County Charter, which was a Constitutional special case, the amendment that authorized the consolidation of the City and the County in Jacksonville was originally passed in 1937 under a former Constitution. What eventually happened was thirty years later, in 1967 they got around to proposing and adopting that Charter in Duval County. It consolidated the City and the County Government, and it also folded into that consolidated government, the purchasing, the personnel, except for instructional personnel, and the legal representation of the school district.

He said he did not read any special language in the 1937 Constitutional Amendment that would make it different from the 1968 Constitution under which generic charter commissions draw their authority today. Given that that school boards are created under Article 9 of the Constitution, and County Commissioners and the other so called Constitutional Offices are created under Article 8, the fact remains that the Supreme Court on several occasions had treated school board members as county offices, so he thinks it is possible that it would be a constitutional experiment, and he didn’t know where the Commission might want to go with it.

He said the underlying logic behind dealing with it through a charter would be that the same constituents elect county commissioners, county officers, and school board members, and where the superintendent is elected, the school superintendent. He said that the same people’s rights were being dealt with. He said that the electorate’s rights were not being changed, because it was the same electorate for all of those offices. He felt that whether there was some overriding State Constitutional Policy that would prevent the Commission from doing that, he felt it would be speculative, and would be a Constitutional experiment.

He said the next question was, could the Charter create a Government Efficiency Commission, which would make recommendations to Charter Review Commissioners for their consideration when the next Charter Review Commission was established, and if so can it address issues of efficiency involving city/county relationships in addition to those involving County Government?

He said his understanding was that body would be advisory. It would not have any compulsory powers, and the answer to that was yes, the Charter could create such a body.

To what extent can the Charter address issues pertaining to the consolidating of governmental functions in the name of efficiency and effectiveness which are common to many branches of government, Personnel, MIS, IT functions, Transportation, and Maintenance, etc.?

He said he thought that the same answer that he gave regarding the question about the Duval Charter in which they collapsed Purchasing, Personnel, and Legal Representation may be the answer to that, although it was somewhat of a constitutional experiment.

Certainly within the framework of Article 8, where the Commission was dealing with the Board of County Commissioners and the five Constitutional Officers, Article 8 invites local charters to rearrange those as seems best to the local people under Home Rule, and to rearrange the powers and authorities, so long as all of the state responsibilities created by the Constitution or statute have some repository in the resulting charter. He said, yes, other charters have experimented with taking the Sheriff’s personnel and putting them under a civil service system, still hired by the Sheriff, but subject to whatever uniform classification system and benefit system that may be created for other county employees. He said he used that as an example and not as a suggestion.

Chairman Costello said that he had asked one other question regarding whether or not the Charter could speak to the superintendent of schools.

Mr. Watts said, yes, he addressed that question a few moments ago, and he had not had a chance to reflect on that. He said there were some specific provisions in Article 9 that deal with appointing or electing the Superintendent, and he would like to review those provisions to see if there was a limitation or provision as to the general power of charter counties under Article 8.

Chairman Costello asked Mr. Watts if he would memorialize his findings for the Commission?

Mr. Spitzer said he provided the members of the Commission with several documents, which he hoped they received prior to the meeting, and also a copy of an e-mail that was provided to Commissioner Moore Bailey. He invited the Commission if they had questions that came to mind between meetings to feel free to contact him.

Commissioner Strang asked if an individual commissioner had proposals to put forward what the appropriate procedure for that would be?

Chairman Costello said his understanding was the Commission needed to complete the Invited Guest Presentations through the 28^th, complete the Hearings, and then begin going into the Issue Agendas, and he thought that would be the appropriate time to bring those issues up.

The Chairman said the Commission was down to Unfinished Business. There was none.

Mr. Wayne Steinard began his presentation by stating he was a Polk County resident, and was currently the President for Citizens for Truth in Government. He said he was there to read a brief statement regarding the Initiative & Referendum Institute, which they would be revisiting at a previous meeting of the Commission on June 26, 2001. He said they had given copies to the Chairman (A copy is attached to the public record).

He said during the Commission Meeting on June 26, 2001, attorney, Phillip Kuhn, presented, the Citizens for Truth in Government’s position that provided that all amendment recommendations coming before the Charter Review Commission were legal on their face, and should be placed on the ballot. In knowing that, they would be calling on one or several nationally recognized independent experts and attorneys to support Mr. Kuhn’s presentation, they asked that Mr. Kuhn beforehand to field the Commission’s questions, but not to be drawn into debate.

Mr. Kuhn did as requested, and in so doing they learned that Commissioners Lindsey, Masters, McLaughlin and Counsel Allen Watts were concerned about four things. They were concerned that some citizens might attempt to place gratuitous or whimsical issues on the ballot, there may be too many issues on the ballot, there might be conflicting or competing issues on the ballot, and there might be voter confusion or fatigue.

He said they now wished to make the Charter Review Commission aware of the Initiative Referendum Institute of Washington, D.C., and they asked that the Commission consider Commissioner Strang’s review of their website that he made that afternoon, and to also read a copy of the letter that they received yesterday from the institute. He asked that the Commission consider the contents of that letter carefully and to contact Mr. Dane Waters who was the author of that letter and also the President of the Initiative & Referendum Institute. He said he felt if the Commission would do this, he felt the four concerns that they had would be laid to rest.

He asked the Commission to note that in Mr. Waters’ letter, that he confirmed Mr. Kuhn’s opinion that the Commission should place all Charter Amendment recommendations that are legal on their face on the ballot. He said in echoing Mr. Kuhn’s other statements to the Commission, the Institute confirms that it is up to the people to decide what to place on the ballot with respect to the concerns about possible gratuitous amendments, the Institute confirms that it is not the authority of the Commission to decide what is gratuitous or not.

Regarding the possibility of too many issues on the ballot, the Institute confirms that the numbers should not be the concern of the Commission, but rather it is for the people to decide.

Regarding conflicting measures on the ballot, Mr. Waters wrote there was substantial precedence in case law.

He said according to the letter that they received it was the law in most states that if conflicting measures were placed on the ballot then the one receiving the most votes would prevail.

Regarding voter confusion Mr. Watts alluded to, the Institute maintains that the accusation that voters do not vote, and only vote no because of the number of measures on the ballot is totally baseless. He said there was no evidence to suggest that voters do not vote or vote no, just because of the number of issues on the ballot.

He said as a part of Mr. Waters’ closing comments, he writes on behalf of the Institute, they could see that the concerns raised by the Commission members are without merit.

He said that on that night they heard valid amendment suggestions of which they may or may not agree, but as long as a sponsor presents them to the Commission in compliance with valid issue requirements, they believe the Commission is obligated to place them on the ballot. He said Mr. Waters had agreed to speak with the Commission by conference telephone call or even fly there to conclude the citizen’s side of that story, and to answer questions to otherwise debate anyone regarding that matter. He asked the Commission not to let that opportunity pass, and to evaluate the letter that had been handed out, and to give them another opportunity to readdress that issue.

Chairman Costello said without objection, the Commission would stand adjourned. There were no objections. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.