MINUTES OF

POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

MARCH 26, 2002

Chairman Dan Costello, called the meeting of the Polk County Charter Review Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room Chambers of the Polk County Board of County Commissioners, Bartow.  Commissioner Masters led the prayer and Commissioner Price led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Swearengin called the roll.  All commissioners were present.

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

The Chairman said the first order of business was the approval of the minutes of March 5^th and March 19^th.  The Chairman asked if there were any changes to the minutes?  There were no changes.

Commissioner Moore Bailey made a motion to approve the minutes of March 5, 2002, and March 19, 2002, and Commissioner Stoer seconded the motion.  The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?  There was none.  The motion carried.

The Chairman said they were down to reports.  He said he didn’t have a lengthy report except that evening was their last meeting before they were due to make presentation to the BoCC on what the Commission’s recommendations were. 

He said they had been busy sending information to them via e-mail, and the latest information they should have received was a resolution prepared by Allen Watts.  He said it would be a resolution approved by that body, and attached to it was Exhibit A, which would be the proposed charter amendment changes. 

He said they had three public hearings, and they had heard a total of fifty-four different presentations, and perhaps those presentations had triggered in their minds an interest in changing what they had previously agreed to do, but they would do that when they reached Item VI on the agenda. 

The Chairman asked Kurt Spitzer if he had a report for the Commission?

Mr. Spitzer answered no he didn’t, but he would be happy to discuss the report when the Commission reached that item on the agenda. 

The Chairman said that would be item VI C,  “The Approval of a Draft Report to the Board of County Commissioners”. 

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts if he had a report for the Charter Review Commission?

Mr. Watts said during the week there was one inquiry from a citizen asking about whether or not some of the proposed amendments violated any restrictions on single subjects, and he said he would point out to them under the provisions for amendment by a review commission, they were not limited in the amendments that they proposed to a single subject.  He said courts had reviewed that issue in the past, and they had determined that the give and take of a body such as that or such as the Legislature supplanted the need to have single subject limitation. 

The Chairman thanked Mr. Watts for his report. 

Commissioner Strang said one would infer from Mr. Watt’s response that petitions prepared by a citizen’s group would have to comply with the single subject rule, and he asked was that true?

Mr. Watts answered yes.

The Chairman said the Commission was down to Item VI, Changes to Draft Amendments/Revisions.  He said they would go through those in the in order in which they appeared in the “draft”. 

The first item was Amendment 1 –seven commissioners, and he asked were there any changes to the “draft”? 

The Chairman said he knew that at least one of the commissioner’s would be raising an issue regarding single-member districts, but they were not talking about that at that point, and that would be a new amendment. 

There were no changes to Amendment 1. 

The Chairman asked if there were any changes to Amendment 2- salary of commissioners?   There were no changes. 

The Chairman said the Commission would be voting on those amendments later on. 

Commissioner McLaughlin said he was concerned about the order in which the amendments would appear on the ballot.

The Chairman said the Commission would be taking that issue up later that evening.  He said he wanted to make sure the Commission was agreeable with respect to the substance, and then they would get into the order of the amendments. 

Mr. Watts said he wanted to ensure that the members of the Commission, and also any members of the public who picked up copies of the resolution noted the addition of a transitional schedule to Amendment 1. 

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts to read the transitional schedule to Amendment 1 for the members of the audience who did not have a copy of the resolution.  He said that was an issue that came up recently where they realized in converting from five to seven commissioners they needed to have some sort of transition line to determine how and when that would occur and that was the transition language Mr. Watts’ referred to.

Mr. Watts read that language to the audience.   He told the Chairman a correction needed to be made in the third line from the bottom beginning with, “the terms of those commissioners elected in 2000”, and “2000” should be changed to “2004”. 

The Chairman asked if the Commission had questions for Mr. Watts?

Commissioner Lindsey asked if any one knew if there had already been redistricting for five commissioners as a result of the recent census?

The Chairman said his impression was no. 

Mr. Spitzer said there should have been.

Commissioner Lindsey said he thought that had occurred, but he didn’t know for sure, and he asked if they went to some mix of five-two, if he was correct in assuming that the five would not change?

Mr. Watts said if the commission districts were redistricted in 2001, which was permissible then it might not be necessary to do further redistricting.  The Board of County Commissioners was not limited to the year following a census.  It may redistrict itself in any odd numbered year. 

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions?

Commissioner Strang asked if he understood correctly, that the 2000 Census would not automatically require redistricting?

Mr. Watts said he thought it depended upon whether the census showed a variation that would put the commission district out of compliance with the principle of one person – one vote.  If all of the districts by some coincidence had grown at exactly the same rate redistricting would not be necessary. 

The Chairman said the commissioners had been polled on salary, and he asked that the Commission move on to Amendment 3, “Nonpartisan County Officers”.  He asked if there were any wishes to change that amendment in any way?

Commissioner McLaughlin said he had brought up the issue he wanted to discuss before, but it was his feeling that the Commission might be doing a disservice to the voting public by combining the Sheriff in with that particular resolution, and he said he wondered if it would have a better chance of passage if the Commission separated it out, with the Sheriff being on there, but it would be a separate ballot issue.  It was his feeling if that amendment failed at the ballot box, it more than likely would fail because many voters wanted the Sheriff elected on a partisan basis.  It was his feeling that the other positions of Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, and Clerk of Courts were more ministerial positions, and weren’t viewed as partisan, but one would argue that the Sheriff was viewed as being partisan. 

The Chairman said the Commission did consider that issue during its regular meetings, and it was his feeling that there would not be a consensus on that issue.  He asked Commissioner McLaughlin if his point was he would have a separate amendment for each of the remaining partisan constitutional officers? 

Commissioner McLaughlin answered, quite honestly, he would only separate the Sheriff, and it was not his desire to have twelve or thirteen ballot amendments, but he would have that issue as a separate question. 

The Chairman asked the Commission for a show of hands of the commissioners who wished to change the language as it was presently written to what Commissioner McLaughlin had suggested. 

Commissioner Moore Bailey said as she recalled, the last time the Commission had discussed that issue, she was in agreement with Commissioner McLaughlin, that the Sheriff should perhaps be separate or not a part of that amendment at that time. 

The Chairman asked if there were any other commissioners who were in agreement with Commissioner McLaughlin?

Commissioner Nunnallee said it was her feeling that it might show bias if the Sheriff were separated from the other constitutional officers.  She said she understood what Commissioner McLaughlin was saying, but it was her feeling that if they divided them all in the same manner, and the Charter Review Commission was not being partisan in putting that issue forward. 

The Chairman asked if any other commissioners wanted to make a change to the language?   There were no additional suggested changes. 

The Chairman said he would count the votes for the change that Commissioner McLaughlin made as two and one-half, and he asked that the Commission move on to the next item, because he felt there wouldn’t be a two-thirds vote to make that change. 

The Chairman said the next amendment was Amendment 4, “Qualification of nonpartisan candidates by petition”.   That was an amendment to conform the Charter to recent statutory changes, and he didn’t think there were any wishes to change that item.

The next item was Amendment 5, “Proposal of charter amendments by extraordinary majority of the Board of County Commissioners”.  He said the Commission had one speaker come before them in Winter Haven who had misunderstood that amendment when reading it.  He said that amendment did not change the fact that presently a supermajority or an extraordinary majority of the county commission, which would be four county commissioners, a majority plus one could propose to the voters’ changes to the Charter.  If the voters approve an amendment changing from five to seven county commissioners the new supermajority would be four plus one, which would be five.  The present language of the Charter called four as being a supermajority, so therefore, it would be inaccurate if they went to seven commissioners, and that was the reason for Amendment 5, which was to take care of that contingency. 

The next item for discussion was Amendment 6, “Removal of fixed number of members of a Charter Review Commission”.  Currently the Charter called for thirteen Charter Review Commissioners based upon an appointment of three by the Chairman, two each by the other four county commissioners, and two by the constitutional officers.  If the voters approve going to seven county commissioners, thirteen would no longer apply, so thirteen would be eliminated, and the appointment scheme would be the same, which was to say that the Chairman of the County Commission, would appoint three, the county commissioners would appoint two each, and the constitutional officers would appoint two, so there would be a total of seventeen members on the next Charter Review Commission.

The next item for discussion was Amendment 7, “Establishment of a Polk County Efficiency Commission”.  The Chairman said there was one proposal for a change on that amendment, which was circulated by Mr. Tedder, and there were two additions to that.  He said he thought they had the latest one before them that Mr. Tedder delivered to them in Lakeland.  There was also one suggested change, which was made to Attorney Allen Watts by the County Attorney. 

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts to tell the Commission what that change was. 

Mr. Watts said the County Attorney made the observation that it could lead to mischief if the Efficiency Commission had the right to direct subordinates of the County Manager to appear or prepare reports, and so forth without going through the County Manager, so it was his suggestion just for the sake of managerial efficiency that such requests be made through the County Manager, and be directed to the manager’s subordinates. 

The Chairman said that language was presently written as 8.6.3.  He asked that they review that language, and he said the language in question was the very last sentence in Section 8.6.3.  He read that sentence to the Commission. 

The Chairman said that one would not only have to say County Manager, but they were talking about other governmental units as well, so maybe it should say, the requests would be made through  “the chief administrative officer” of those units, or words to that effect.

Mr. Watts said that language should follow the word “directed”, if that was the will of the Commission.

The Chairman said the other suggestion for change came as a result of Mr. Tedder’s comments, and the Commission’s reflection on them.  Currently the membership of the Efficiency Commission, as it read in 8.6.2, “Qualifications of members”, excluded elected officials or employees of any governmental unit within Polk County.  Mr. Tedder proposed that government employees not be   excluded, but that they should not be permitted to address issues within their own governmental unit.

The Chairman said that was not his recommendation for change.  His concern was that that set two standards, which were; employees of governmental units were excluded period, but individuals who had for profit contract relationships with the county commission were not excluded, and it seemed to him that balance somehow needed to be adjusted. 

The Chairman said he had discussed that issue with Mr. Watts, and he asked him to tell the Commission what his comment was regarding that, and the conflict of interest statute.

Mr. Watts answered the provisions of Chapter 112 governed the ethics of public officers including members of advisory boards, and they prohibited doing business with their own unit of government, and one being able to vote on matters that would affect them in a business capacity.  That however, would only require the refusal of that member on that particular issue, and would not disqualify them from membership on such a board. 

He said he thought the suggestion of the Tax Collector was there should be blanket exclusion if one was doing business with the county for profit.  He said the language that had been proposed might not be the best language if that was the will of the Commission, because then one would get into the question of whether a particular relationship ends up being profitable.  He said it may have been intended that way, and they would have to define what they meant by perform services for profit. 

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts if he had a recommendation on that issue?

Mr. Watts replied, he thought the question of whether to exclude persons in a business relationship with any governmental unit was a question for the wisdom of the Commission.  He said if that was their will he could prepare language. 

The Chairman said that Mr. Watts had reviewed Mr. Tedder’s other comments, and he asked did he have any suggestions for changes to Amendment 7? 

The Chairman asked the Commission did they have any suggested changes?

Commissioner Lindsey said somewhere in Mr. Tedder’s comments he had suggested inclusive of the review process to provide for measuring goals, objectives, and policies.  He said he didn’t find that to be objectionable, and he felt it might lead to more efficient measurement. He said they all knew that efficiency did not always determine the lowest cost unit of anything, but was a service being delivered in the appropriate fashion.  He said it was his suggestion that they consider Mr. Tedder’s comments on goals, objectives, and policies to those agencies. 

Commissioner Lindsey said the section he was referring to was 8.6.3, and they inserted the sentence in advance, which was in advance of the last sentence, which read, “The Commission shall also study the mission, goals, and objectives of the selected governmental units.  The study shall examine if the governmental unit’s mission, goals, and objectives were being measured using adequate and unbiased techniques were being communicated to the citizens of Polk County were consistent with good public expectations”.   

 He said he was not sure that he would use exactly those words, but he did understand their intent.  He said the goals, objectives, and policies of each of the constitutional officers were to serve the constituencies, and each of them had adopted such goals and objectives, and that Commission shouldn’t measure their performance against those goals.  It might recommend modifying those goals, and perhaps that review went unsaid in the process, but he thought perhaps the Commission might want to draw attention to it.

The Chairman asked if there were any further comments regarding that particular amendment?

The Chairman said one thing that could be done was perhaps they could ask the staff, Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Watts to go ahead and take Commissioner Lindsey’s recommendation and the suggestion that the Chairman made, and revise the language and after the break they would have copies of the language before them, and then they could act on it.  He asked the Commission if that was satisfactory? 

The Chairman asked the Commission by a show of hands if they were willing to review the changes, which they had been briefed on?

Commissioner Gernert said before he could vote on that issue, he believed that Mr. Watts suggested that the Commission needed to make some determination as to whether they thought people with a business relationship should be excluded from service, and he said he would like to see a show of hands on that issue. 

The Chairman asked persons with a business relationship with the county?

Commissioner Gernert answered that was correct. 

The Chairman asked the Commission to raise their hands if they felt there should be an exclusion in that particular amendment, so that individuals could not be appointed to the Commission if they had a business relationship with the county?  There were nine commissioners who felt there should be an exclusion.

Commissioner Lindsey said before he voted to exclude he needed a better definition. 

The Chairman said that was not a vote to exclude.  He said they were talking about asking for the staff to redraft some language, which they would review, but there was no point in drafting the language unless there was an expression of interest in doing that. 

Commissioner Strang said he would like to ask a question of Mr. Watts.  He said he inferred from what Mr. Watts said regarding the conflict of interest laws, that those laws would prohibit such a person from serving, and he asked wasn’t that correct?

Mr. Watts said it wouldn’t prohibit them from serving, but it would prohibit them from voting on an issue that affected private pecuniary interests.  He said the language that was proposed was a sentence, which read “no person serving on the Commission, which was a member of the Efficiency Commission shall participate in the study of a governmental unit or agency in which they serve as an employee or perform services for profit for said governmental unit or agency”. 

He said it was not as Mr. Tedder phrased it, an exclusion from membership, it was an exclusion from vote on an issue that would potentially affect a contractual relationship.   He said he would like direction from the Commission as to whether they wanted the language as proposed by Mr. Tedder or some more sweeping exclusion from service entirely.

The Chairman said the language proposed by Mr. Tedder included employee, and the Commission’s language already excluded employees, so that would not be relevant in his opinion.  He asked Mr. Watts if he was correct?

Mr. Watts answered yes. 

The Chairman said the language would read, “No person serving on the Commission shall participate in the study of a governmental unit or agency in which they perform services for profit for said governmental unit or agency”.  He said that would still allow them to serve on the Commission as long as they didn’t do that.

Mr. Watts answered that was correct. 

Commissioner Moore Bailey said it was her understanding that if a person had a conflict, they could recluse themselves if that came up as a conflict of interest, and she asked was that correct?

Mr. Watts answered that was correct.

Commissioner McLaughlin said he felt the Commission was going down a slippery slope.  He said for example, if someone were a partner in a law firm, then clearly they were benefiting from the profits, and if that law firm did any business with the county, it would be a slippery slope, and he said in knowing Polk County politics like he knew them, each individual would have to be thoroughly investigated, and if there were conflicts people would be aware of them.  He said he would imagine that they would have to recluse themselves.  He said he would hate to exclude people right off of the bat, and he felt that they would want to have them recluse themselves when it was appropriate. 

The Chairman asked if there were any further comments?  There were none. 

The Chairman asked the commissioners for a show of hands, and he said that was not for a final vote, but who would favor the insertion of the language as follows in 8.6.3: “No person serving on the Commission shall participate in the study of a government unit or agency or perform services in which they perform services for profit for said government unit or agency”? 

The Chairman asked those who would like to have that written into the language of Amendment 7 to raise their hands.  There were none that desired that to be written into the language. 

The Chairman asked for a show of hands concerning the change requiring requests for information be passed from the Commission through the chief administrative officer of the governmental unit.  The show of hands was almost unanimous. 

The Chairman asked if there were further changes to Amendment 7?  There were no further changes. 

The Chairman asked that the Commission proceed to Amendment 8, which was the change in percentages in each district from six to four. 

The Chairman said that covered all of the amendments, and he asked with respect to additional amendments if anyone had any proposed additional amendments?

Commissioner McLaughlin said he thought it was appropriate for the Commission to review the issue of the mixed single-member district with two at large.  He said the Commission had heard a lot of testimony in the last three public hearings regarding that issue, and he thought it was something that had been on the hearts and minds of a lot of the citizens that had spoken to them, and he wanted to bring that issue up for discussion. 

The Chairman asked if there were comments?

Commissioner Gernert said he too would like to see that issue considered, and before he was on the fence with that issue.  He said he would like to hear some discussion regarding how the two at large might be structured in such a way as to provide good representation to the entire county. 

The Chairman said he thought one way to begin that discussion might be for a motion to be made to discuss the issue of single/mixed districting. 

Commissioner McLaughlin made a motion to discuss the issue of single member districts, and Commissioner Gernert seconded the motion.  The Chairman asked if there was further discussion regarding the motion?  There was none.  The motion carried.

The Chairman invited Commissioner McLaughlin to speak first to that issue since he had made the motion. 

Commissioner McLaughlin said he thought in general what they discovered was that Polk County was an extremely large county, and that for individuals to compete successfully to run for the County Commission they almost inevitably had to have extremely resourceful financial backing before they could go both to Lakeland, Winter Haven, and all of the large cities in the county, but also they had to cover a tremendous geographic region.  He said he thought there were really two issues.  One was if they went to a single member district were they going to create too much of a fiefdom environment and create too many turf wars and basically fractionalize their government.  He said he thought that was a point that had some merit to it, but he thought by doing a mixed system which would be five single member districts and doing two at large he thought that risk would be reduced significantly, and he thought the county would benefit greatly.  Because first of all, they were giving an opportunity for more and more people to run for the County Commission that might not have the financial backing, and that might not have to raise $100,000 to run for that office.  Secondly, by creating two at large positions for maintaining the ability for people to run at an at large basis, and for larger cities and for other even smaller cities to have a candidate run as an at large seat, so he thought there was a misconception for those who opposed that, and that Lakeland was automatically going to get the two at large seats, and he thought that was incorrect, and he thought in Polk County there were players all through out the region, and it didn’t necessarily matter how large the city was, but what mattered was the strength of the candidate.  He said he thought that was certainly out weighed by the benefit that they were creating.  Overall, he said they had heard a lot of testimony about it.  It had been something that he thought that had been the number one topic that had come before the Commission, and he thought it was worthy to be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide upon. 

He said even if one was on the fence on that issue, he asked that they just place the issue on the ballot.  He said they weren’t forcing the voters to do that, but the voters could decide for themselves whether or not they wanted that, but he thought it was certainly in their interest to do so.

The Chairman said that he implied from Commissioner McLaughlin’s comments that he would only recommend that if there were seven commissioners, and he asked was that correct?  He asked if the voters rejected the seven commissioners would he suggest they stay at the five at large?

Commissioner McLaughlin answered he thought if they rejected the seven commissioners, he didn’t think they could get a majority of the commissioners there that would favor the five at large.

The Chairman asked if there were further comments on that issue?

Commissioner Dukes said in listening during the hearings the Commission held, it was his feeling that the majority of the people that spoke about single member districts had talked about separate single member districts, and he thought generally they expressed that they would settle for five single member districts, and two at large.  He said the majority of the comments that he had heard had talked about seven single member districts, and for them to put anything else on the ballot would be a disservice since most people were expressing single member districts, and he didn’t feel they should have to settle for two at large. 

He said he knew it was a large county, and they were not just talking about competing for county commission positions, but they were also talking about being in touch with the constituency.  They were talking about being put in the position to do what was fair.  He said when talking about single member districts they were talking about seven single member districts. 

The Chairman asked him if he would be opposed to a five and two split? 

Commissioner Dukes said that he preferred seven. 

Commissioner Gernert said he agreed with Commissioner Dukes in that the majority of people wanted seven single member districts.  He said there were several people who had talked to him personally, and had adamantly expressed their feeling that we were a country of representative government, and that seven individual districts would work.  They also felt like the days of the fiefdoms as Commissioner McLaughlin referred to were less likely to occur because of the way the Charter was structured as well as county management, and the authority for the hiring and firing of personnel rested with the County Manager and its subordinates, and the County Commission was elected to set policy.   

Commissioner Lindsey said he had wrestled with that particular issue throughout the Commission’s proceedings, and he was still firmly convinced that at-large districts better served the county.  He said if they thought they had a dysfunctional county commission then, he thought seven single-member districts would be even worse. 

As he had stated earlier, he said he wanted the man or woman who represented the north part of the county to be concerned about what happened in Frostproof, and the people from Frostproof to be concerned about what happens in Polk City, and have equal concern across the county.  He said there were seven single-member districts then, and those people were not elected from the same constituency, and it was his feeling that the battles and bitterness would simply happen, and he said he hoped that was not the case, but he didn’t want to be the person to say that he told them so five, ten, or fifteen years from then, but he had seen that happen in other jurisdictions where indeed that did occur where the interest of one side or one neighborhood was different from another. 

He said he would reluctantly agree with the split of five and two.  The argument that Lakeland would always dominate reminded him of the comment that he thought Jessie James made, which was “why do you rob banks?” and Mr. James replied, “that was where the money was”, and in voting people campaigned in the Lakeland urban area because that was where the people were.  It was his feeling that as the population shifts occurred the persons campaigning would simply shift their campaign to where the population shift occurred.  He said he would rather leave it at five or seven at-large, but he would be willing to consider, and put on the ballot five and two. 

The Chairman asked if there were further comments?

Commissioner Hunt said she too agreed with Commissioner Lindsey, in that she would be reluctant to agree with the split of five and two, because of the number of speakers that came forth, but mainly she was adamantly against the seven single-member districts because she did not wish to give up her right to vote for any one, and she wasn’t willing to do that. 

The Chairman said he didn’t think there had been much support for seven single-member districts on the Charter Review Commission, and he thought the issue was whether there was enough support with nine votes for a mixed system.

Commissioner Moore Bailey said that she too would like to see seven single-member districts, but realistically as she had stated before, she liked the mix of five – two, and she thought that would be more workable at that point in time because they hadn’t gotten to the seven commissioners, and that had not passed, and she would support the five – two. 

Commissioner Strang said he had not given that issue a lot of thought, but it seemed to him that it would be awkward to have both of those questions on the same ballot, with the matter of going from five to seven and the at-large, unless they voted on a contingency basis for five and two.  He asked how would that be handled?

The Chairman asked if the seven commissioners were not approved?

Commissioner Strang answered if they did not approve seven commissioners and voted for five and two. 

The Chairman said he thought one thing they had agreed to was they would revert to the five at large, if they did not vote for seven.  He said if the Commission voted affirmatively for seven, and there were nine votes there for a mixed system, and then that would automatically mean five and two. 

Commissioner Strang asked if five and two would be nullified if they rejected the seven?

The Chairman said that was correct.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if the question on the ballot would simply be to add two commissioners at-large up or down?

The Chairman said he would like to refer to staff on that question.

Mr. Watts said if that passed then they would have a couple of options.  The first was to do a substitute amendment one, which proposed seven commissioners, but elected on a five and two slant, and the other would be to have an Amendment 1 just as they then had it, and then have perhaps an Amendment 1A that said if Amendment 1 passed do we want a five and two plan, and if that also passed then that was what they would get, and if both failed then they would still be where they were with five at large.

The Chairman asked Commissioner Lindsey if that answered his question?

Commissioner Lindsey answered yes.

Commissioner Gernert said he honestly believed from the standpoint of offering an amendment to the public that the combining of the language should the Commission be increased to seven people with five being elected in single-member districts made more sense than having two separate amendments.

Commissioner Lindsey said he thought that would be easier to understand.

The Chairman said that would be a very interesting transition.

Mr. Watts said having listened to the Commission over the last several weeks and the public and not wanting to do that on the fly he did consult the statutory language, and prepared an amendment that would contain that language and a suitable transition, and he didn’t bring copies.  

The Chairman said he thought the Commission needed to determine if there was adequate support for a mixed system. 

The Chairman asked if any commissioner wished to make a motion for seven single-member districts? 

Commissioner Dukes made a motion for seven single-member districts, and Commissioner Gernert seconded the motion. 

The Chairman said that a motion had been made by Commissioner Dukes and seconded by Commissioner Gernert to put forth an amendment for the voters’ consideration to change the districting scheme to seven single-member districts.

The Chairman asked if anyone wished to discuss that issue?

The Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.  The results were 11/2 with the nay’s prevailing.  The motion lost. 

Commissioner Strang made a motion for five single member districts with two at-large, and Commissioner McLaughlin seconded the motion.  The Chairman asked if there was further discussion regarding the motion?

The Chairman said the Commission was discussing the gut issue and the delicacy of the language would be dealt with later, and perhaps they could do that during the break if the motion passed.

Mr. Watts said he would run copies of the language for the Commission to review. 

The Chairman reminded the Commission the motion was to move to a system of five single-member districts and two at large districts, assuming that the voters approved the seven commissioners. 

The Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.  The results were 10/3 with the ayes prevailing.  The motion carried.  He asked that the staff work out some sort of language for the Commission’s consideration. 

The Chairman asked if there were any further changes to the list of amendments?

Commissioner Strang said the Commission had set a great store by efficiency and they were recommending the establishment of an Efficiency Commission, which would take affect if enacted somewhere way down the line.  He said as he said before, and he would like to say again, it was his considered opinion that the greatest thing that the people of Polk County could do to increase the efficiency of their county government was to make the constitutional officers elected charter officers rather than elected constitutional officers. He felt that would bring some sanity and order to the rather chaotic fiscal system that the county then had.  He said Polk County didn’t enjoy home rule as the Charter called for, and he said he would like to read a portion from the Charter to them.  He read Section 2.8.3 on the Powers of the Board of County Commissioners. 

He said as that language read, that was not the way it was then, and the Board of County Commissioners despite what the Charter said, did not make final budgetary determinations.  Those final budgetary determinations in several cases were made somewhere else.  As a result the taxpayers of Polk County were then funding up to six purchasing departments where they could be funding one.  He said they were paying for up to six motor vehicle maintenance departments where they could have just one unified.  Up to six insurance departments and human resource departments and management information departments.  In his considered and studied opinion there was waste and duplication that could be in a large part eliminated by having the constitutional officers elected as charter officers instead of as constitutional officers, and as of then he would dare say that the budgetary process was confused and diffused. 

The Board of County Commissioners had been able to avoid accountability because they didn’t’ have final authority.  They had final authority and responsibility for setting the millage rate, but they didn’t have final authority so far as administration of the budget, and in many cases that lay in Tallahassee.  He said he would suggest and urge them to give the voters a chance to bring some fiscal sanity to the county by electing their row officers as elected charter officers rather than as elected constitutional officers, and he would so move. 

The Chairman asked Commissioner Strang if he was making a proposal to amend the Charter to that affect?

Commissioner Strang answered yes. 

The Chairman asked if there was a second to the motion Commissioner Strang made to change the status of the constitutional officers to elected charter officers under the county commission?

Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the motion. 

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?

Commissioner McLaughlin said that Commissioner Strang just indicated that in the current Charter it indicates that process should happen.  Yet he was saying then if the Charter Review Commission put in some more language that it was not going to happen anymore.  He said he didn’t understand, because they literally would have to have a system of how the budget process would flow wouldn’t they?   As he understood it, Commissioner Strang was just arguing that it was already in the Charter, but that was not the way things took place, and Commissioner Strang was only changing a couple of words around, and he asked was that really going to change it?

Commissioner Strang responded yes, because as of then, several of the row officers had their budgets by people other than the Board of County Commissioners.  He said for example, if the Sheriff didn’t like what the County Commission suggests for him he could go to the Cabinet.  The Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser’s final say so were with the Department of Revenue. 

Commissioner McLaughlin said he didn’t mean to disagree with him, but he was only saying that the language, which he proposed in the motion didn’t seem to address that problem, and they would actually need language to the affect that the final budgetary authority would rest with the County Commission.

The Chairman said he understood the import of the motion was to change the way constitutional officers existed in the Charter to elected officers under the supervision of the County Commission.  The Chairman asked was he correct in his understanding?

Commissioner Strang answered under the budgetary and fiscal control of the County Commission.

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion? 

Commissioner Masters said just for Robert’s Rule of Orders sake, if the Charter Review Commission had discussed that issue and voted on it, what would be the rule to bring that issue up for discussion again?

The Chairman said his response would be, that the Commission did the very same thing with single member/mixed districts, and a motion was made to discuss that issue again, and the motion carried, and the Commission approved it as an amendment.  He said he could see no difference in that sense. 

Commissioner Masters said in the Charter Review Commission’s By-Laws, which were adopted there were certain rules if the Commission voted on an issue previously that they required for discussion purposes, and it would take a vote just to discuss the issue. 

The Chairman answered, a majority vote, which was the practice, which the Commission had been using. 

The Chairman said if a majority of the Commission approves the motion, which Commissioner Strang made then they would open the issue up for discussion.  If after the discussion, then there was a motion to make that change to the Charter, and it received nine votes then it would be a change to the Charter, but as of then, they were involved in a motion to determine whether or not there was a majority to discuss.

Commissioner Masters answered okay. 

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?  There was none. 

The Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote on the motion to discuss the amendment proposed by Commissioner Strang. The results were 12/1 with the nays prevailing.  The motion lost. 

Commissioner Masters said inasmuch as Commissioner Strang had his day in court, he would like to pass on some information, which he had learned from his experiences serving on the first and second Commissions.  He asked that they bear with him because he felt he would have the singular yes vote as well, but he wanted to bring that issue to their attention.

He said the amendment, which he would like to propose was for discussion, and that was to place on the ballot the opportunity for the people to reaffirm their decision to have charter government for Polk County. 

In some people’s eyes charter government was supposed to reduce county government.  Since charter government, the county budget had gone up approximately twenty-eight million dollars.  The charter form of government produced a new tax, which was the MUT tax, which had generated approximately fifteen million dollars and was going up each year, and that was costing each taxpayer approximately twelve dollars per year.  He said they had spent approximately two hundred thousand dollars in just Charter Review and the setup process.  Due to the charter form of government they then had potential law suits between cities and counties on CRA issues, and there were special interest groups threatening to reduce the number of signatures to get items on the ballot to one percent, which they said was to take back government.  He asked them to imagine the number of special interest issues, which would guide the county if it were lowered to one percent.

He said there were special interest groups threatening to reduce the quality of leadership in the county by limiting terms and reducing salaries of county officers.  He said the focus for county government had moved from better governance, and a better quality of life to negative spitefulness.  He said he guessed in some people’s eyes the good thing charter government had brought was reducing commissioners’ salaries, which had saved each citizen approximately thirty-five cents, so they had increased it twelve dollars, but they had saved it thirty-five cents, and he would like to ask the people of Polk County since they had seen what Charter government could do and how it worked if they still wanted it?

The Chairman asked Commissioner Masters if his motion was to give the voters an opportunity to decide whether they wanted to continue the Charter or not?

Commissioner Masters answered that was correct.

The Chairman asked if there was a second to that motion? Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the motion. 

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion? There was none. 

The Chairman asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.  The results were 11/2 with the nays prevailing.  The motion failed. 

The Chairman asked if there were any other proposals for amendments?

Commissioner Moore Bailey said she would like to propose the following amendment after listening to public discussion from the Citizen Law Enforcement Watch, and they were requesting to have a Citizen’s Review Board, and she felt there might be some questionable conduct that they were stating or alleging that was happening, but by the same token she thought it should be put before the voters to decide whether or not that should happen, and she wanted to discuss that issue, and would like to bring that issue before the Commission.  

Commissioner Moore Bailey made a motion to discuss the issue of a Citizen Review Board, and Commissioner Strang seconded the motion. 

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on the motion?  There was none.  He asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll for a vote.  The results were 6/7 with the nays prevailing.  The motion lost. 

The Chairman asked if there were further proposals for amendments?

Commissioner McLaughlin asked the Chairman when it would be appropriate to discuss the order in which the amendments would be placed on the ballot?

The Chairman answered after the break. 

The Chairman said without objection, the Commission would recess for fifteen minutes.  There were no objections. 

The Commission reconvened at 7:30 p.m.

The Chairman said that apparently Mr. Watts and Mr. Spitzer were still running off the changes to the language.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if the Commission could defer to Commissioner Gernert’s report in the mean time?

The Chairman said he would leave that to Commissioner Gernert’s discretion.

Commissioner Gernert said it would only take him between five and ten minutes to present his report to the Commission. 

The Chairman said in that event, they would proceed to Commissioner Gernert’s report, which was Item VI D. 

Commissioner Gernert said the Education/Communication Committee met on March 19^th preceding the public hearing in Lakeland for about one hour and fifteen minutes.  He said they reviewed the materials, which were used during the first Charter, and several things came up in the discussion, with the first being the Internet.  He said the Internet had become so much more pervasive and they felt like it was going to be a good tool for them to use in terms of publishing the complete document as it would be presented to the public, and it also offered them an opportunity to present reminders to the public either in print or broadcast media that they could go to the web site and get that information or they would offer the public the alternative of calling the Charter office and asking that a brochure be sent to them. 

They proposed the web site be used because they did not anticipate it costing anything for the duration of the Charter’s process, because the site had already been created, and was up and running, and there would be no cost for any changes that would be made. He suggested at some point they make the home page the actual amendments and then have possibly a pass through to the other areas that the people might want to see, like the present charter and other things. 

They proposed that a brochure be used with the proposed amendments.  The initial quantity would be probably 5,000, but they had budgeted for a total of 10,000, which would be used by the commissioners and other people that wanted to distribute that information at civic clubs, service organizations, and those sorts of venues.

It was their feeling that printing a limited quantity in the beginning would be wise until they determined whether there was a more logical way to present the information, or if there were any problems with the format.  If there were no problems, then they would go ahead and complete the remainder of the printing.  He said they were going to have public presentation materials, and $1,000 was budgeted for that.  Public presentation materials included a Power Point presentation, but they also knew there were a lot of venues that do not lend themselves to Power Point, and many of the service clubs meet in locations where light control would be a challenge, and they proposed not only a Power Point presentation, but possibly some large boards that could be used by any commissioner wishing to present information in their community.  They budgeted $2,000 for the production of those materials. 

At the Communication/Education Committee’s initial meeting, Commissioner Costello agreed to talk with the Editorial Boards of the various papers that might want to present information on the Charter to their readers.  Commissioner Gernert said there was a request made at the last week’s meeting that commissioners be invited to accompany Chairman Costello if they were interested when he was meeting in their community so they could see what types of questions were asked, and what information was presented at those meetings in case they were asked down the road. 

Funds were set aside for radio, cable television, and newspaper ads as was done with the initial campaign, and they had taken a look at, and had talked with several of the local media that had offered to consider presenting information as a public service.  He said it was the committee’s feeling that all of the newspapers would offer to print the ballot amendments in their entirety at some point during the months preceding the election, but if they got further into the campaign, and they did not feel the public had been given the information or it was not getting out for them to access it they would use those funds to bolster that presentation.  They budgeted $12,000 in that area.  He said they did have some print and broadcast PSAs, which they were going after.  They didn’t think there would be any cost for those. 

Regarding the direct mail brochure, he said he would ask for their indulgence on that because after having seen the language as it was presented they had to make decisions as to whether they try to telescope that information, present an overview of the amendments, and then state how to get a complete document, or would they need to publish the complete document, and the cost in doing that would vary considerably. 

He said as it was then, they were intending to use a large post card as was used in the first campaign, and they did not present the entire ballot information for the Charter on that post card they just presented the main points and they might do that again.

Mailing costs alone for a direct mail piece sent only to the most frequent voters after being sent by household could run as high as $24,000.  He said they wanted to look into the mechanism that they used in that particular venue. 

He said the League of Women Voters presented information to the voting public without taking a position, and they were intending to work with them, and see that information got placed there, and they had budged fees if necessary to retain a Polk County based firm to produce the printed materials, and do the placement for any broadcast materials that they did.  In each case, he said he would say that Commissioner Dukes and Commissioner Nunnallee served with him on that committee, and they wanted to be sensitive to the money that was spent in that effort.  The original Charter Commission budged some $60,000 for the process and spent $44,000.  He said they had an initial budget of $53,700 that they were proposing to them, and that was a framework for them to begin that process.  He said if they saw something that was not necessary or it could be done less expensively they intended to use the most cost affective measure.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments regarding Commissioner Gernert’s report?

Commissioner Hunt said the only item she questioned was the newspaper ads, and if memory served her correctly, and she asked Commissioner Masters to assist her if he could, but she believed the newspapers did an excellent job giving an explanation of all of the work that the first Charter did in an unbiased fashion. 

Commissioner Masters said he agreed with Commissioner Hunt.

Commissioner Gernert said he had a copy of the expenses for the first campaign, and there was $3,600 in newspaper costs for the papers in the county, and he included that in case they had to turn to the papers for further bolstering of the message.  He said he agreed with Commissioner Hunt in that he felt the Editorial Boards of all of the papers would do a thorough job of presenting the information to the public, but if they wanted to have smaller presentations, and they felt it was necessary for the full information on the Charter amendments to go to a web site or something similar to that, and it could not be done in a public service fashion they needed to have the availability of the funds to buy the space. 

Commissioner Masters said he would look into the budget from the previous commission, and see if they spent that amount.  He said he didn’t think that they did, and he asked Commissioner Strang if he remembered?   He said he thought the Ledger supported all of the publication that they needed for that. 

The Chairman asked Commissioner Masters if he was referring to the $3,600?

Commissioner Masters said yes, and he believed that money was not spent. 

Commissioner Gernert said he would double-check that information, and if it was not necessary and was not done, then they would not invest at that time. 

The Chairman asked how the agency would be selected?

Commissioner Gernert answered they would do an RFP to Polk County based firms that had the capabilities to do that kind of work.  He said he would guess there were probably one or two in Winter Haven and probably three or four in Lakeland. 

Commissioner Nunnallee said they also wanted to be certain because the Ledger was not the only publication in the county, that the word got to the smaller communities that had local papers, and that would probably be at a prorata rate as well, but they wanted to be certain that the message did get out to everyone. 

The Chairman asked if there was a motion to approve the recommendations of the Education/Communication Committee?

Commissioner Hunt made a motion to approve the recommendations of the Education/Communication Committee, and Commissioner Masters seconded the motion. 

The Chairman asked if there was further discussion?  There was none. 

Commissioner Nunnallee suggested that perhaps the committee could also draft some letters, which were basically fill in the blanks that the Commission could use to speak in one voice, and those types of letters could possibly be sent to the editor as well as off ad pieces. 

Commissioner Masters said he would like to see more spent in the direct mail brochure.  He felt that really targeted the market, and that was a more focused expense, and he would leave that point up for discussion, but it was his feeling they were under spending there, and he thought they needed to do more direct mail to get the point across. 

Commissioner Gernert asked if he proposed that they do more than one direct mail piece to the voter?

Commissioner Masters answered absolutely. 

Commissioner Gernert said that every direct mail piece to the voter was going to cost a minimum of $30,000. 

Commissioner Masters said the county was spending $15 million more because they had the Charter, and they were spending $30,000, and it was his feeling if they were trying to inform the public one direct mail piece would not be adequate.  He said he was not familiar with the costs which were involved in that and could not be the judge and jury regarding whether the costs were satisfactory or not, but it was his feeling that one direct mail piece was not adequate.

Commissioner McLaughlin said he thought that the Supervisor of Elections office would also send out a sample ballot, and he asked was that correct?  It was his feeling that would count as a second opportunity to educate the voters that would not come out of that budget. 

Commissioner Gernert said it would also be published in the two major papers at least once, and possibly the smaller papers, but he knew the Ledger and the News Chief published a sample ballot.

Commissioner Strang said he hesitated to second guess Commissioner Gernert because he had put a lot of time into that, and he respected what he had done, but rather than add on extra mailings if he had to state a preference he would prefer that they have no direct mailings.  He said as Commissioner Gernert said, that was roughly $30,000 for one piece, and he asked them not to forget that would be coming at a time when there was going to be a veritable blizzard of stuff going through the mail for the gubernatorial campaign, and all of the legislative campaigns, and a lot of trees would be chopped down to pay for that stuff, and he wondered whether their small mailing would be lost in the deluge. 

Commissioner Masters said, and the opposite side of that if there were enough of them going out, if they were just one versus two or whatever, and there was a reason why people sent those mailers out, and he thought if they were trying to get their point across there was a reason why all of those trees had been chopped down and all of those mailers had been sent, and it was to get the message of each one of those candidates out there.  He said they obviously knew that was the best way of getting their point across.  The other thing that one saw quite a bit during campaigning were the signs that were in people’s yards.  He asked had they looked at any of those types of signs for showing support of those amendments that they were proposing?

Commissioner Gernert said they had not.  What he looked at and what was discussed at the Education/Communication Committee was what was called a multi disciplinary approach, which offered the reader or the voter a variety of areas where they would see something regarding the Charter whether that was a newspaper or something that directed them to the web site whether they heard it on the radio or whether they received it in direct mail hoping that the repetition of the availability of information would cause them to take interest and read it. It was his feeling to put all of their presentation in one or two media areas would not be a sound communication plan based on what he knew to be good communication practices.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if Commissioner Gernert’s committee was a standing committee for the duration of that application?

The Chairman answered yes.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if there was a motion to approve that?

The Chairman said there was a motion on the floor, and it had been seconded.  He said they were in discussion. 

Commissioner Masters said they had put a lot of time into that process, and he didn’t want to see it short-changed at the end.  He said they had studied the issues, and they had made good decisions, and they wanted to get that out to the public, and it was similar to if there was a great candidate, but he was under funded, and if they were under funded they couldn’t get their point across. 

Commissioner Moore Bailey said she would be in agreement with Commissioner Masters that there perhaps could be another way to communicate in the mega media blitz, and that was to do the yard signs, and she would rather have that be in addition to as opposed to doing another mailing at the tune of $30,000 of the voters money, and that would be her suggestion. 

The Chairman asked with eight amendments how they could go about doing a yard sign, because a yard sign did not contain a lot of space. 

Commissioner Moore Bailey said maybe separate signs for each amendment, but it was her feeling that was something the committee should look at to see if that was feasible, and whatever agency they came up with might have some ideas about that as well, and with doing brochures and other things, and she felt they were going to be inundated as it was with direct mail, but she thought one nice slick literature brochure going out to everyone should help with all of the other communication methods, and it was her feeling that they didn’t want to inundate people. 

Commissioner Hunt said she knew from working on campaigns the three most successful means of advertising a candidate were using mailers, advertising during talk radio, and finally cable television.  She thought distributing yard signs would be a nightmare from the Commission’s point of view, and she knew from walking door-to-door for candidates over the past years, that the voters kept the mailers, and they used them when asking questions or talking, and even going to the ballot box, and that it was especially true with the retired voters, who took voting very seriously. 

The Chairman said the motion was to approve the report and recommendations of the Communication/Education Committee, and he said he was assuming if the motion passed the committee would take into consideration the comments the commissioners had made. 

Commissioner Gernert said they certainly would.

The Chairman asked for all of those in favor of the motion to say aye and for those opposed to say no.  The motion carried.  

The Chairman said he wanted to get into some related subjects such as future meetings, and there wouldn’t be two per month, but there needed to be some. 

He asked that they go back to Item VIB, which was approval of amendments and revisions, and he asked Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Watts to advise the Commission as to what they had done. 

Mr. Watts said they had prepared a substitute Amendment 1 still titled “Seven Commissioners” and he said if the Chairman didn’t mind he would read those because there weren’t sufficient copies for all of the members of the public. 

Mr. Watts said the ballot question was, Shall Section 2.1 of the Polk County Charter be amended to provide for five county commissioners elected only by the qualified electors of their districts and two commissioners elected at large from the entire county.  The Chief Purpose was an amendment changing the number of county commissioners from five to seven providing for the election of five commissioners only by the qualified electors of their district, and the election of two commissioners at large.  He said the text in Section 2.1 was amended to provide as follows:

2.1. Composition

There shall be seven members of the Board of County Commissioners.  Five of the seven commissioners shall reside one in each of five county commission districts, the districts together covering the entire county and as nearly equal in population as practicable, and each commissioner being nominated and elected only by the qualified electors who reside in the same county commission district as the commissioner, and with two of the seven commissioners being nominated and elected at large. 

He said that language was taken from Chapter 124 of the statutes so that any law that was developed anywhere else in the state under that statute would be relevant there to the interpretation of that without it having to be tested there.  He said he hated being the guinea pig, and they tried to use language that had been used elsewhere. 

Transitional Schedule

He said the Transitional Schedule provided if that amendment was approved no commissioner elected prior to 2003 shall be affected in his or her term of office commencing with the elections in 2004, each district commissioner shall be elected only by the qualified electors who resided in the same county commission district. 

 Two additional commissioners shall be elected at large at the general election of 2004.  One of such commissioners shall be elected for an initial term of two years expiring with the terms of those commissioners elected in 2002, and one of such commissioners shall be elected for a term of four years expiring with the terms of those commissioners elected in 2004.  Thereafter all commissioners shall be elected for four-year terms upon the completion of the transition to seven commissioners that schedule shall cease to be a part of the Charter. 

The Chairman asked regarding the Charter Section 2.2 – Redistricting how if at all, would substitute Amendment 1 affect redistricting, and he read Section 2.2 to the commissioners.

The Chairman asked if that amendment would change any of Section 2.2?

Mr. Watts said no, because the commissioners already had the power in 2003 to redistrict the county if they were so advised. 

The Chairman said it was his understanding that those new districts would have to conform in so far as possible, because of the criterion to make the districts as nearly equal as possible, but also to conform so far as practicable to the city boundaries, and he asked if he was correct in assuming that would still apply?

Mr. Watts answered that was correct, and the standard in Section 2.2 was presumably then being followed by the Board of County Commissioners, and if they did their job correctly after the last Census then they would not need to adjust the district boundaries again in order to implement single member districts.  He said they did have that power, but they didn’t necessarily have a duty to do so under that amendment. 

The Chairman asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Watts?

Commissioner Lindsey said as he understood it those races would still remain partisan elections, and so there would be a Democrat or whatever party run off, and he asked were those offices subject to simple plurality or were they going to have a run off process?

Mr. Watts answered so long as the State Election Code provided for a run off process that would apply there.  He said as they may know, the primaries had been changed a little that year, in particular with respect to the Governor’s Primary so that the plurality candidate out of the primary would be the nominee without a run off.  He said he thought that was a change for that year only.  He thought the Election Code otherwise still provided for run offs. 

Commissioner Lindsey asked if that position applied to local or was it state races only?

Mr. Watts answered it was placed by the State Election Code for all races. 

Commissioner Lindsey asked for local and state?

Mr. Watts answered yes.

Mr. Watts said one generally could not change the election code county by county by the provisions of a charter.  The State Elections Officer sets up a uniform system of elections for county officers, whatever we happen to call them.  If we had charter county officers for the row offices we would still elect them on the schedule laid out by the Secretary of State Division of Elections or whatever that was going to be under the Cabinet system.

Commissioner Lindsey asked if that applied to the general or the primary election?

Mr. Watts answered it applied both to the primary and the general election. 

Commissioner Lindsey asked if there were three Democratic candidates running for the Democratic nomination of District 1, then the single person who received the most votes, which may not be a majority would represent the Democrats in that race?

Mr. Watts said no, he believed in most years, and he wasn’t sure what it provided for that year for offices other than the Office of Governor, but in most years the top two candidates if there were more than two, and neither received a majority the top two candidates for the Democratic nomination or the Republican nomination would compete in a run off. 

Commissioner Lindsey said that was not what he understood Mr. Watts to say earlier. 

Mr. Watts answered that year it was a little different, but it was for that year only. 

Chairman Costello asked if there were further questions on substitute Amendment 1?  There were no further questions. 

The Chairman said since there were no further questions regarding substitute Amendment 1, he would entertain a motion for the approval of substitute Amendment 1.  

Commissioner Strang made a motion to approve substitute Amendment 1, and Commissioner Nunnallee seconded the motion. 

The Chairman asked if there were further questions?

Commissioner Moore Bailey said as she read and had heard the Chairman read substitute Amendment 1, she wanted to ask Commissioner McLaughlin if that was basically what he was thinking in terms of how the amendment should be presented to the voters?

Commissioner McLaughlin answered yes.

Commissioner Moore Bailey asked as opposed to just stating single member districts, did he support single members and should they move from five to seven commissioners? 

Commissioner McLaughlin said what was stated in Amendment 1 was his intent.  He said if the move from five to seven commissioners failed he wouldn’t favor single member districts with only five commissioners, and it was his feeling there needed to be some at large districts. 

Commissioner Moore Bailey said as she understood the language that would be automatic?

Commissioner McLaughlin answered yes that was correct.

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts if he would tell him about the automatic nature of that?   He asked where would the language be in advising the voters if they voted “no” on that amendment then, and if they would remain status quo ante as they had said?

Mr. Watts answered 2.1 was not amended, and they were presumed to know what they were changing. 

He said they would notice since they had used underline and strike through language on each of those amendments, the strike through language in the present section 2.1 was set out in the text immediately following the underlined language. 

The Chairman answered okay.

Commissioner Lindsey asked would it be more appropriate at the top of the page where an all cap narrative was given, that the Charter be amended to delete five and add seven or words to that affect to advertise or to notice the fact that they were substituting what was then five at large for five and two?

Mr. Watts said where that showed up was in the statement of the chief purpose of the measure, and that said an amendment changing the number from five to seven, and then provides for five of them to be single member and two at large.  He said that was intended to be a little fuller explanation than just the ballot question. 

Commissioner Nunnallee asked if only Amendment 1 would be part of the ballot where it said seven commissioners, and she asked if there was any way there they could put seven commissioners/mixed districts? 

Mr. Watts said they could do that if the Commission so desired.  He said he didn’t change the title from the other Amendment 1, but they were allowed to have a ballot title of up to fifteen words under the statute. 

The Chairman said they were very familiar with the mixed districts, but he didn’t know what that would mean to the average voter.

Commissioner Nunnallee said perhaps by putting it they would realize that vote was not just about adding the seven commissioners, but it would also be having those commissioners be representative of their districts, so that the voters might read into the amendment a little further.

The Chairman said he hoped that the voters would read more than just the title, and if they read more than the title, the ballot question, which was on the second line, said provide for five county commissioners elected only by the qualified electors of their districts, and two commissioners elected at large from the entire county. 

He asked if she thought that it needed to be changed to seven commissioners/mixed?

Commissioner Nunnalee said she thought it would be a little clearer to the voter if it had that in the title.

Commissioner Moore Bailey said she was all for making it as simple as possible, and she felt somewhere one did get lost within what they were trying to accomplish.  She said she knew there were seven commissioners, but her point again remained the same, but it did not address single member districts at all. 

The Chairman asked Commissioner Moore Bailey if she was referring to the title?

Commissioner Moore Bailey answered yes.  She said she knew that Mr. Watts said that they could not use more than fifteen words in the title.  She said she knew from experience and from looking at what they had in the county a lot of the voters may get confused, and there were a lot of educated voters who might not, but there might be some that could get lost on that issue. 

The Chairman asked what the Commission wanted to do?

Commissioner Lindsey asked would it serve the purpose to simply say after seven commissioners, (five by districts two at large)? 

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts if that stayed within the limit regarding the title?

Mr. Watts said that would be fine, if it was the Commission’s desire. 

The Chairman said he didn’t want to add to confusion, but as of then people voted in districts, and it was his feeling that they saw their commission as representing a district even though it was at large.  He said he wasn’t sure how that eliminated the voters saying it that way. 

Commissioner Lindsey asked the Chairman if he preferred to leave it as it was?

The Chairman said yes, and he felt the more language that was put in the more convoluted it became, and more questions would arise. He said that was his opinion primarily because when the ballot question in caps was very clear to him, it should be clear to most people. 

The Chairman asked if other commissioners wanted to pursue changing the title?

Commissioner Price answered maybe in addition to qualified electors they should put single member districts.  She said she thought that had been their use in choice of the descriptor of what that was about versus elected only by qualified electors in their districts, and they had used single member districts. 

The Chairman asked so she would add “qualified electors of their single member districts”?

Commissioner Price answered yes.

The Chairman asked if the Commission or staff had any reaction to Commissioner Price’s suggestion?

Commissioner Strang said he understood what they were trying to get at, but he liked the language the way it was.  He said it was a little awkward in that it was a bifurcated question and there were two subjects, but he thought it covered it succinctly. 

The Chairman said in fairness to those that wished to make a revision, if they would make a motion then the Commission could get a second and vote on it. 

Commissioner Nunnallee made a motion the Commission change the title so that it reflected five districts and two at large members.<