MINUTES OF
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MAY 22, 2001
The
meeting of the Polk County Charter Review Commission was called to order by
Chairman Dan Costello, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 407 of the County Administration
Building. Chairman Costello asked Commissioner Chris McLaughlin to lead the
prayer and Commissioner Stoer to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman
Costello asked Ms. Swearengin to call the rol1: Commissioner Allen; Chairman Costello; Commissioner Dukes;
Commissioner Gernert; Commissioner Hunt; Commissioner Lindsey; Commissioner
Masters; Commissioner McLaughlin; Commissioner Moore Bailey; Commissioner
Nunnallee; Commissioner Price; Commissioner Strang. All members of the Commission were present with Commissioner
Moore Bailey, Commissioner Nunnallee and Commissioner Price appearing at a later
time.
Chairman
Costello said that he would like the record to show that the Commission has a
quorum.
Chairman
Costello stated that without objection, he would like to depart from the
scheduled agenda. He said that one of the attorney applicants, Mr. Thomas Cloud,
needed to leave to attend his son’s graduation.
Chairman Costello noted that Mr. Cloud’s son was the Valedictorian of
his class in Orlando. He said that
he would like to bring Mr. Cloud in early and return to the scheduled agenda
later. He said that he would then
ask for comments from Commissioner Strang, who chaired the Lawyer &
Consultant Committee. No
objection was made, and Chairman Costello asked Mr. Cloud to come in to be
interviewed.
Commissioner
Strang advised the Commission that Mr. Cloud was with the Gray Harris law firm.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Cloud to have a seat and welcomed Mr. Cloud and his
associate, Mr. Trohn to the meeting. Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Trohn and Mr. Cloud to make their remarks and then the
Commission would have an opportunity to ask questions.
Mr.
Cloud and Mr. Trohn made introductory remarks, and then took questions from the
commissioners.
Chairman
Costello asked the Commission if they had any questions.
Commissioner
Lindsey stated that from time to time the Commission may not be familiar with
the law and procedure, and it may drift into areas that have not been chartered,
and he asked if it was the attorney’s role as counsel to guide the
well-intentioned Commission members back within the bounds of the law.
Mr.
Cloud replied that his firm wanted to be able to advise the Commission if the
area they were heading into was inconsistent with the Constitution, statutes or
the controlling cases, but he said that the Commission would need to walk a fine
line when they do that. He said
that he thought that the worst thing a lawyer could do is to be overbearing and
squash the discussion of ideas, that when turned in a different light may bear
merit. His firm tries very hard to find ways to help implement what the clients
they represent want to do, and if the Charter Commission sets upon a course
where there is a possibility of finding a solution, they want to be problem
solvers, not problem creators.
Commissioner
Strang asked Mr. Cloud if his firm was chosen to represent the Commission, who
the point person would be. Mr.
Cloud stated that he would be the point person, but if for some reason he could
not be at the Commission meeting, his firm had the resources to send one of his
partners in the Orlando office, Mr. Dean Cannon. He said that Mr. Cannon was a Lakeland native, and that he
had advised the Orange County Charter Commission the last time they met in the
year 2000. He said that Mr. Cannon
was not at the Commission meeting because he had undergone surgery that
afternoon.
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked Mr. Cloud to comment on the amount of experience he had with
county charters. Mr. Cloud said he
assisted with the drafting of the Orange County Charter.
He said that the current County Attorney was his former law partner, Tom
Wilkes, and when they were dreaming up what that charter would look like, they
would bounce ideas around the office. He
said that he and Tom had been the chief assistants to Charlie Gray, when he was
the County Attorney. He said that
he had worked in three counties where he has had to work daily with charters. He
said that a good example of that would be in Volusia County. He represented a
charter entity there called the Volusia Growth Management Commission, and he has
represented them since their inception in 1987, when it became a creature of the
charter. He said that he has worked
on the Volusia County Charter on a daily basis for 14 years.
He said that in the 14 years that they have been in existence that they
have never felt the need to amend what they were doing, and that there have been
no law suits.
Commissioner
Gernert asked if Mr. Cloud’s firm had any recent experience with the most
recent Orange County Review Commission. Mr.
Cloud stated yes, that he had assisted Dean Cannon, but Dean was the point
person.
Commissioner
Masters asked Mr. Cloud if the only Review Commission he had worked with was the
one that Commissioner Gernert just referred to. He stated yes, although a member of their firm, Fred
Leonhardt had actually served on the Orange County Charter Review Commission.
Chairman Costello asked if there were any further questions.
Commissioner
Lindsey stated that the Commission had gone to great lengths to try to maintain
independence from existing established county government.
He said that they had gone to the point that they didn’t usually even
meet in the County Administration building, but that they meet in the building
across the street. He said that the
Commission did not rely on the County Attorney’s office or on the County
staff, but had an independent staff. He asked Mr. Cloud if because his firm
represents the County, if that compromised that independence.
Mr.
Cloud stated absolutely not. He
said that most of his experience with the City of Lakeland and Polk County has
been on the opposite side of the table from them.
He said that he has never had to litigate with them.
He has always been able to work those matters out, and he sees no
problems whatsoever. He said that
he recognized how important it is for the Commission to have its independence
because they not only have to deal with the County Commission, but also all the
cities within Polk County.
Mr.
Bob Trohn said that he had to confess that Mark Carpanini was his close friend,
but that he promised that he would not talk about anything with Mr. Carpanini
that would disqualify them.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Cloud how his firm would charge the Commission if they were
selected as the attorney advising the Commission.
Mr.
Cloud stated that the fee would be on an hourly basis.
Chairman Costello asked Mr. Cloud to be more specific.
Chairman Costello asked how much per hour.
Mr. Cloud stated that it would be $150 per hour.
Chairman Costello asked what the fees for travel and other related
expenses would be. Mr. Cloud stated that it takes him approximately one hour to
get to Bartow, and if the Commission wanted some limit set on the amount of time
the firm charged on travel, he would not have any objection in doing that.
Commissioner
Masters asked Mr. Cloud how many hours Mr. Cannon was involved with the Orange
County Review Commission. Mr. Cloud
said he did not know, but that he could get that information for the Commission.
He said that he did not think that the fees exceeded $10,000 or $15,000 at the
most.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked Mr. Cloud if his firm was chosen what would be his first
recommendation. She asked if he
would want to listen to the Commission’s conversation and based upon what the
Commission thought, then make a recommendation.
Mr.
Cloud said that he would listen to what the Commission thought, and then make a
recommendation. He said that before
going to the Commission meeting he had a copy of the Polk County Charter, and he
said that he had a copy of other charters to compare it to.
He said that he pulled a copy of the statute, and a copy of the
Constitution because he wanted to brush up on the laws that applied. He feels
that he was not brought there to be a member of the Commission, but that he is
there to offer advice, and to help find ways to implement what the Commission
decides. He said that the
legal advisor is not part of the decision making body.
Commissioner
Masters asked Mr. Cloud if he had ever worked with either Kurt Spitzer or Alyce
Whitson.
Mr.
Cloud answered yes he had. He said
that he had worked a great deal with Kurt Spitzer.
He said that when he was with the Orange County Legal Department, he
handled a great deal of the lobbying for the county on environmental issues in
Tallahassee, and he constantly worked with Kurt Spitzer on a variety of issues
before the legislature. He said
that they do a great deal of work with the League of Cities and the Florida
Association of Counties, and he is greatly involved with the Florida Association
of Counties. He stated that he was not familiar with Ms. Whitson.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were further questions. There were no further questions.
Chairman
Costello said that he thought that the Commission needed to hear from
Commissioner Strang on his process. He
asked Commissioner Strang to give the Commission a report relating to the work
of the Lawyer and Consultant Committee.
Commissioner
Strang said that he would like to thank his committee members:
Commissioner Moore Bailey, Commissioner Lindsey, and Commissioner
McLaughlin for their diligence. He
said that they met a week ago in that same room.
He said that they considered 12 attorneys and two consultants and, since
there were only two consultants, the committee recommended interviewing both of
them. The committee decided on the requested three law firms, being
Gray Harris of Orlando, Akerman Senterfitt of Orlando, and Cobb Cole from
Daytona Beach. He said that
each member of the committee was asked to vet a particular finalist, and he said
that he could present all of those at once or individually as the applicants
come up for interview.
Chairman
Costello said that his suggestion would be to wait until all of the interviews
had been completed.
Commissioner
Strang said that completed his report and he wanted to thank Mr. Carpanini for
his assistance with the ballots. Commissioner
Strang advised the Commission that a copy of meeting minutes were included in
the Commission packets. Commissioner Strang moved for approval of the minutes of the
Lawyer & Consultant Committee Meeting and Commissioner Lindsey seconded the
motion. Chairman
Costello asked if there was any discussion.
Mr. Koch, from the audience, said that he thought that usually the
minutes were handed out to the members of the audience.
Mr. Koch was given a copy of the minutes.
Chairman Costello asked if there was any further discussion.
There
being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously to approve the
minutes of the Lawyer and Consultants Screening Committee.
Chairman
Costello advised the Commission that in the packet of information that they
received prior to the meeting, each one of them had a tally sheet for a lawyer
and a consultant, and when the time came for those sheets to be completed that
Mr. Carpanini would assist with the tallying
process.
Chairman
Costello said that he would like to call the second attorney for interview.
His name is Mr. Harry Stewart, and he is from the law firm Akerman
Senterfitt in Orlando. Chairman
Costello welcomed Mr. Stewart to the Commission Meeting and asked him to make
his opening statement to the Commission.
Mr.
Stewart made a few opening remarks.
Mr.
Stewart said that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission
had.
Commissioner
Lindsey told Mr. Stewart that his colleagues Mr. McMillian and Mr. Kraft spoke
very highly of him. Commissioner
Lindsey asked Mr. Stewart to give a brief outline of the evolution of the
Seminole County Charter from its inception and subsequent amendments or
revisions.
Mr.
Stewart said that they had an initial adoption, and they had a charter
commission. He said that he would
like to give an example to distinguish the two.
In
Orange County, the County Commission did not start the charter with a Charter
Commission. They adopted their
charter, wrote it, and appointed a committee, which made a recommendation. The
County Commission wrote their charter themselves, adopted it by ordinance, got
it passed, and established a charter.
Mr.
Stewart said that Seminole County adopted a Charter Review Commission, and that
went to the Commission who put the recommendation that the Commission come up
with on the ballot. He said that he
represented that original commission. He
said they had a second commission, and represented them as well.
There were a number of charter amendments.
He said that he represented the Charter Commission in Seminole County
again last year.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked what the role of the counsel was.
Mr.
Stewart replied, a provider of information.
He stated that if somebody wants to do something or put something in the
charter that is absolutely unequivocally contrary to what the law says then he
feels that it is the counsel’s job to tell them that. If there is no case law or there is no law at all on the
subject, then you just do whatever you want, and it is the majority that rules.
Mr. Stewart said that he saw the counsel’s role not as a referee, not
as a guide necessarily, but as a resource.
Commissioner
Masters said that the Commission had two consultants they were considering:
Kurt Spitzer and Alyce Whitson. He
asked Mr. Stewart if he had worked with both or either of them.
Mr.
Stewart replied that he knew Alyce Whitson, and he had worked with Kurt Spitzer.
Mr. Stewart said that he knew Tom Cloud very well, and has known him for
a number of years. He said that he
has known Allen Watts for about 27 or 28 years.
He said that he knew Kurt Spitzer when he was with the Florida
Association of Counties. He said
that he doesn’t recall where he knew Alyce Whitson from, but that he had seen
her around at various functions.
Commissioner
Strang asked Mr. Stewart if he would be the point man for Akerman Senterfitt for
this position. Mr. Stewart said
that was correct. Commissioner
Strang asked if he had a back up in the event that he couldn’t make a meeting.
Mr.
Stewart said he did have a back up. He
said that there were at least 4 people in his firm that could do the work for
the Commission. Mr. Stewart said
that Akerman tries to do the research at the lowest competent level, so if he
had a research project he would not be doing it.
He would have an associate do it because it would be cheaper.
The
associate in turn would return the research to him, he would evaluate it and
ultimately write the opinion, and tell the Commission what it says.
He said that he would attend the Commission Meetings unless he can’t,
and if he could not, he said that he would send someone.
Commissioner
Masters asked what could the Commission expect in total costs from his firm
going through the review process.
Mr.
Stewart said that he did not know, but from an hourly basis he would bill the
Commission for whatever time it takes him to do the job, and for groups like the
Commission his firm usually charges one-way travel.
Commissioner
Masters asked Mr. Stewart, on the three charter review commissions that he
worked with, what their average costs were.
Mr.
Stewart replied that the Seminole County bills were in the $20,000 to $25,000
range.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Stewart what his hourly rate was.
Mr.
Stewart replied $225.
Chairman
Costello asked if any other Commissioners had questions.
Mr.
Stewart said that he wanted to point out that $225 is a discount for a
governmental entity because the normal billing rate is $285 per hour.
Chairman Costello said that he was glad to hear that.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked Mr. Stewart if he knew what the charges were for the other
counties that he did not mention, and he said that he did not remember because
they were a number of years back. He
said that Seminole was last year, and the previous Seminole was four years
before that, and the charter in Orange was in 1990.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked Mr. Stewart if he were hired to represent the Commission what
his general observation would be regarding his duties working with the
Commission.
He
said that he felt that he would primarily be there to provide a resource.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked Mr. Stewart if he was chosen to do a revision or an amendment
would he add the Commission to his resume.
Mr.
Stewart apologized for not including the Citizens Initiative Group of Polk
County to his resume, stating that he put his presentation package together
quickly, and was not sure how popular the group was.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said that she was only joking.
Chairman
Costello asked the Commission if they had further questions.
There were none.
Chairman
Costello introduced Allen Watts from the law firm of Cobb Cole & Bell and
asked him to make his opening statement.
Mr.
Watts made an opening statement and the Chairman invited the commissioners to
ask questions.
Commissioner
Strang asked Mr. Watts when he read that the referendum for the Polk Charter had
passed by such a resounding margin what was his reaction.
Mr.
Watts stated that he thought that a good thing had been done.
He said that the same thing happened in Brevard County, when the Charter
was proposed there, and that he thought that the people were ready for a change.
He said that political scientists say people don’t do things like that
unless they have a little bit of unhappiness with the status quo, and that they
want to try something better, and the good thing about charters is that if
something doesn’t work, that is what the initiative is for, you do it without
having to wait on the legislature to move.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if it is an over simplification to say that the County Charter
simply gives county government the same duties, rights, and responsibilities
that incorporated city charters do, and it doesn’t do any more or any less.
Mr.
Watts replied that he thought that it does more. He said that when he was growing up most of Polk County was
unincorporated, and the County Commissioners did what people in the
unincorporated area needed to do, but it wasn’t a lot.
He said that he thought people were more self-reliant then. He said he
thought people expected more of government now, and they expected county
government in the unincorporated areas to be a provider of urban type services
that we use to say we would never need. We
were farmers, and grove owners, so as that happens we begin to see the county
like you have described. You begin
to see the county doing things that cities would do if they had that territory. You may live in one city, your kids may go to school in a
school that is in the county, you may work in a second city and go shopping in a
third city and you have a interest in each one of those places when your driving
through it or shopping in it, or working in it, but you are only allowed to vote
in one, and that is the one where you sleep, so regional issues tend to get a
little bit skewed because the only place people vote is the place where they
sleep. The only government that
really can address the place where everybody works, sleeps, and shops is the
regional government. In county
government there are some issues you can argue about, for example, in a time of
drought, you can talk about water supply. Are
there issues that need to be addressed on this little city or that little city
or the third little city? Do we
need to come together as a region as the whole county and say let’s look at
this as a big picture and lets see if there is something that the county can do
that none of the cities could do acting individually?
He
said that today his firm received word from the Department of Community Affairs
that Palm Beach County has the first approved school concurrency plan in the
State of Florida. He said that he
has been working with the school board on this for four or five years.
To get there under the rules of the State Legislature set up they had to
have an inter-local agreement that was signed by 26 cities.
He said that his thinking on it in retrospect was that it should not have
been necessary to make the job that hard. There
should have been a unit of government that could take on that job and say lets
get it done. The same people who
vote in cities vote in the county, and therefore he thinks it becomes a little
bit parochial to say, well the county doesn’t
do anything for me because I live in the City of Winter Haven, or I live
in Bartow, or I live in Lakeland. He
said that there were things that the county could learn how to do better than
individual communities can do.
He
said that didn’t mean that we should go out and trample on municipal rights
because there is a coziness to being in a city particularly in some matters like
the detail of land use and zoning and things like that, those were neighborhood
type issues, but there are also issues that we can look at on broad scale
transportation systems, water supply, drainage, air quality and a lot of things
that they did in the Volusia Charter. A list of categories were adopted by the Charter where the
County has the right to pass ordinances that become minimum standards.
Every city can pass its own ordinance as long as it is no less
restrictive than this benchmark that the County did.
He said, that those were the things that you can do with a charter
because a county can address regional issues that cities can’t.
Mr.
Watts said that was a long answer to Commissioner Lindsey’s question, which
was is there a difference between the city government and what a county
government can do. He stated that
the answer was yes.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were further questions.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that given Mr. Watts’ statements, he is not only well versed
in the legal aspects of a charter, but also in political aspects.
Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr. Watts if the Commission could hire him
as a consultant and an attorney, or did he think that those needed to be two
separate roles. Mr. Watts said that
he felt that there were things that Mr. Spitzer knows that he does not.
He feels that consultants know more about the internal procedure of
government.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Watts how his firm would bill the Commission for his work, if
he were selected.
He
said that his firm would bill by the hour, but that he would like to see the
Commission set a budget. He said
that he charged the last Commission $135 per hour and his outside rate was $175
per hour at that time. His outside
rate at the present time is $200 per hour.
He said that Polk County was very special to him.
His parents live here and there are many reasons that he comes to Polk
County other than work, and that he would be glad to set a rate of $150 per hour
to do the work of the Review Commission.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Watts what his rate was for travel.
Mr. Watts said that he handled travel by talking on his cell phone and
billing it to the clients that he is talking to on the way.
Chairman Costello asked Mr. Watts, when he was traveling back and forth
to Orlando to his office, if he would be billing the Commission for that.
Mr. Watts answered no. He
said that he does charge the mileage rate the County sets for travel.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were further questions. There were no further questions.
Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Watts for coming to Polk County.
Chairman
Costello advised the Commission that all of the attorney interviews had been
completed, and asked the Commission if they wanted to continue the evaluation
process for the three attorneys, or did they wish to interview the Consultants.
Commissioner
Masters said that he preferred to hear the Consultants first.
Chairman
Costello said if there were no objections, he would proceed with the first
Consultant; and the
consultants would be interviewed in alphabetical order.
Mr. Kurt Spitzer would be the first Consultant to be interviewed.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Spitzer to come in and welcomed him to the Commission
meeting. He asked Mr. Spitzer if he
would like to make an opening statement.
Mr.
Spitzer made his opening statement.
Mr.
Spitzer said that he wanted to give the Commission some background and a
suggested approach for this project. He
said that his firm’s suggestion would be to divide the process into three
basic phases.
Phase
one would begin shortly after the Commission selects a lawyer and a consultant.
Mr. Spitzer said that he wanted to go through what some of the broad
issues were, and get a consensus built on what the Commission would like to look
at in greater detail; and then over the course of the next several months, those
issues that the Commission decide upon would form the basis of the
Commission’s agenda for their regular meetings.
Mr. Spitzer said that his firm would prepare briefing papers, backup
documents, help coordinate decisions on who the Commission would like to hear
from in terms of local people or from people outside of Polk County, different
experts or representatives of other groups, tape testimony, get briefing
documents and then go into a decision making phase where the Commission would
make final votes on what revisions, if any, they would like to see to the Polk
County Charter. He said that he thought that the Charter required the
Commission’s recommendations, if any, to be handed to the County Commission
within one year after the Commission was first appointed.
Mr.
Spitzer informed the Commissioners that they must hold three public hearings on
their recommendations before they transmit them to the County; and the
Commission’s final recommendations needed to be done by early or mid March.
He told the Commission that they were not required to make any
recommendations. He said that the
table was open as to what the Commission wanted to recommend within the
constraints of Florida Law and the Florida Constitution, and that his firm’s
role was to help facilitate the decision making process and to help the
Commission identify what issues they would like to look at.
He
said that attached to the handout was a print out of the different charter
provisions in the State of Florida, and his firm maintained a database that they
try to keep current on the different provisions of all of the charter counties
in the State of Florida, and the attachment was a partial listing to be used as
an example for some of the issues that people most commonly ask questions about.
He said there were many other issues that their database contained. Mr. Spitzer asked the Commission if anyone had questions.
Chairman
Costello asked if any of the Commissioners had questions.
There were no questions from the Commission.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Spitzer how he charged.
He
said that his firm generally charged in one or two different ways. In his rough
estimations for approximately 10 months of work excluding what the Commission
might want to be involved with as an educational effort or public information
effort after the Commission’s final recommendation is delivered to the County,
he anticipates in the Charter that the Commission would remain in existence for
the purpose of informing the public as to what their recommendations are, but
short of that somewhere around 10 months of work. It could be a fixed fee on that basis or an hourly rate, and
in both cases there would be travel expenses.
Chairman
Costello asked if Mr. Spitzer’s firm were hired what would his hourly rate be.
Mr.
Spitzer stated $150 per hour. He
said that he would need to talk more specifically about the fixed fee, but that
he estimated that it would be somewhere in the area of $25,000.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Spitzer how he charged travel expenses.
Mr.
Spitzer replied that with the last Commission that the State guidelines were to
be used, but they didn’t even do that. Only
actual expenses such as airfare and rental car expenses were charged.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Spitzer how his travel time for Commission meetings would be
charged.
Mr.
Spitzer said that if it were an hourly rate, his firm would charge half of the
hourly rate for travel time. If
it’s a fixed fee, nothing would be charged for travel time.
Commissioner
Masters asked if Mr. Spitzer was finished, and Mr. Spitzer added that if the
Commission used a fixed fee it would include all attendance at their meetings,
any questions, research, and preparation of briefing documents.
He said that he thought that those tasks were included in the proposal
that was sent to the Commission. Mr.
Spitzer said that Larry Gross’ time was not included, but would be in the
neighborhood of $10,000.
Chairman
Costello asked how Mr. Gross billed.
Mr.
Spitzer replied that Mr. Gross billed in the same manner, either on an hourly
rate or a per meeting rate.
Chairman
Costello asked who Larry Gross was and what his expertise was.
Mr.
Spitzer said that Larry Gross was a gentleman that he has worked with a number
of times in the past. He said that
his area of expertise is building consensus and goal setting with different
organizations, and that Mr. Gross had done this type of process with numerous
organizations, both public, nonprofit or private sector organizations.
His background dates back to Rubin Askew.
He has worked with four or five different governors of the State of
Florida.
Commissioner
Masters said that Mr. Spitzer’s charges for work that he did for the previous
Commission were very reasonable. He
said that the Commission periodically received copies of the bills.
Chairman
Costello asked Mr. Spitzer if he worked on an hourly basis for the previous
Commission.
Mr.
Spitzer said no, his firm worked on a fixed fee basis plus expenses.
Commissioner
Masters asked if Mr. Spitzer had any input on the three attorneys.
Mr.
Spitzer said no, but he felt that all three of the attorneys were well
qualified. He said that he knew all
of them personally, and that Harry Stewart had a number of years experience both
working as a County Attorney in a charter county and has written more of the
significant case law that has been established in the Florida Supreme Courts.
He said that Allen Watts has been either the County Attorney or the
special counsel to Volusia County Florida, and Mr. Watts has written a lot of
case law. He said that Tom Cloud with Gray Harris has worked with
Orange County Florida for a long time. He
said he first knew him in the early 80’s.
He said that he thought that all of the attorneys were fine choices, and
that he didn’t feel that the Commission would make a mistake by going with any
one of them.
Chairman
Costello asked if any of the Commissioners had further questions, there were
none. Chairman Costello thanked Mr.
Sptizer for his time.
Chairman
Costello said that he would like to welcome Alyce Whitson from Tallahassee,
Florida who applied to be consultant for the Commission.
Chairman Costello asked Ms. Whitson if she would like to make an opening
statement to the Commission.
Ms.
Whitson made a brief opening statement and Chairman Costello invited
commissioners to ask questions.
Commissioner
Strang said that he was particularly interested in the fact that Ms. Whitson had
experience in states other than Florida with local government charters.
He asked Ms. Whitson if there were significant differences in state law
that governs municipal government from state to state.
She
stated that as far as municipal government was concerned that yes there were a
lot of similarities and a lot of differences.
Commissioner
Masters asked what Ms. Whitson’s fee was.
She
stated that the hourly rate was $150 and for any meetings the charge would be
$1,000 per day, plus reimbursement for expenses.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were any further questions from Commissioners.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked Ms. Whitson what engagements she had now that would compete for
her time with the Commission.
She
said that she was under independent contract with the Municipal Code Corporation
and she is the consultant for the City of Miami Charter Review Commission, but
will be completing that in June of 2001.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were further questions. There were no further questions.
Chairman Costello thanked Ms. Whitson for her time.
Chairman
Costello said that if there were no objections, he would like to take a brief
recess for approximately 10 minutes. There
were no objections. A recess was
called at 6:40 p.m.
Chairman
Costello reconvened the meeting at 6:51 p.m.
He stated that the Commission was now down to VIII B, The Selection of
Lawyer and Consultant. He asked
Commissioner Strang if he would give a report on the investigation of the
candidates before the Commission began its evaluation on their selections.
Commissioner
Strang asked Chairman Costello if he wanted them to do the law firms first.
Chairman
Costello said that would be fine.
Commissioner
Nunnallee asked if all of the interviewees left. Chairman Costello said that some of them were still there.
Commissioner Strang asked Commissioner Lindsey what his findings were on Akerman Senterfitt.
Commissioner Lindsey said that he did not prepare a report that could be circulated, but he had some notes that he would like to read to the Commission. He said that he made several phone calls and left voice mail messages to five of the references that Mr. Stewart gave. He said that he only received responses from two:
Akerman
Senterfitt
Mr.
Robert McMillan, the County Attorney, from Seminole County
Mr. McMillan said that Mr. Stewart was extremely knowledgeable on the issues of the process, and very helpful and accommodating.
Mitchell
Kraft, City Attorney, City of Tamarac
Mr.
Kraft said that Mr. Stewart has ten years experience as general counsel for
Orange County and that his firm has an on going relationship as bond counsel for
the City of Tamarac and that he has an extreme depth of knowledge of the law in
this particular specialized area, and that he is a gentleman and a quality
person.
Commissioner Strang thanked Commissioner Lindsey for his report. He said that he had the other two law firms, the Cobb Cole firm, Allen Watts’ firm.
Cobb,
Cole, & Bell
Mr.
Brian Rothwell, City Manager, City of Palm Coast
Commissioner
Strang said he received a response from Mr. Brian Rothwell, City Manager, City
of Palm Coast, where Allen served in 1999 and 2000. Commissioner Strang said that Mr. Watts led the City of Palm
Coast all the way through the chartering process, in other words, this was an
unincorporated community and he took them all the way through to city status for
a city of 35,000. All of the
comments were good. Mr. Rothwell said, “he led us all the way through the
initial chartering process and performed excellently in every respect”.
Dr.
Paul Gougelman , Brevard County Charter Commission
Commissioner
Strang said that he received a reply from the Brevard County Charter Commission
were he served in 1993 and 1994 from Dr. Paul Gougelman who was Chair of that
Commission. He said nothing but
superlatives about Allen Watts. He
said that the Commission would be making a grave mistake if they don’t hire
him.
GRAY
HARRIS
Linda
Akens, County Attorney Staff
Commissioner
Strang said that he received a response for Dean Cannon who is one of the
Orlando attorneys for Gray Harris. He was the lead attorney in their charter
review process last year, and Ms. Linda Akens with the County Attorney Staff in
Orange County called and said, “he did an outstanding job”.
She said, “he gave them options for every decision”, “had no preset
agenda and was an excellent writer”. She
said that their charter review process took ten months.
Commissioner Strang said that he assumed from the paperwork that came
with the Gray Harris application that Mr. Cannon is the most experienced member
in charter work and that he would be the point man, but apparently Mr. Cloud is
well qualified, and he stated that he hopes he would lean on Mr. Cannon if they
got the job.
Commissioner
Strang said that completed the attorneys and he asked Chairman Costello if he
wanted him to go on to the consultants.
Chairman
Costello said, lets go ahead and complete that process and we will go back to
the evaluations.
Commissioner Strang asked who had the reference check for Kurt Sptizer.
Commissioner Moore Bailey said that she did.
Kurt Spitzer and Associates, Inc.
Mike
Burton, Project Manager, Deltona Incorporated Study Commission
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said that she contacted everyone listed as a reference.
At the Deltona Incorporated Study Commission, she left a message for Mike
Burton, Project Manager. He will be
out of town until Tuesday.
Tallahassee
– Leon County Consolidation Commission
Commissioner
Moore Bailey contacted Tallahassee - Leon County Consolidation Commission.
He worked there in 1991. She
was not able to reach anyone there.
Steve
Czonstka, Chairman – Okaloosa County Charter Study
Commissioner
Moore Bailey contacted the Chairman of Okaloosa County Charter Study Commission
1996. She stated that the
Commission had a copy of the e-mail that she received from Steve Czonstka.
It was very complimentary.
Commissioner Moore Bailey said that she would like for Commissioner Masters to give a verbal reference for Mr. Spitzer for the job that he did while serving the Polk County Charter Study Commission. Chairman Costello asked Commissioner Masters for his comments.
Greg
Masters, Vice-Chairman – Polk County Charter Study Commission
Commissioner Masters said he was very pleased with Mr. Spitzer’s professionalism, his timeliness, and his ability to keep the Commission on track.
Alan
Bomstien - Pinellas County Charter Review Commission
Commissioner
Moore Bailey gave the reference for the Pinellas County Charter Review
Commission 1998. She stated that
the Commission had a copy of the e-mail from Alan Bomstien.
Rick
Diamond – Lee County Charter Review Advisory commission
Commissioner
Moore Bailey gave the reference for the Lee County Charter Review Advisory
Commission 1999. She said
that a e-mail was received from Rick Diamond.
Chairman
Costello asked Commissioner Moore Bailey if those e-mails were favorable.
She answered that they were.
Lee
Vause, Chair – Leon County Charter Study Committee
Commissioner
Moore Bailey received a complimentary e-mail from Lee Vause from Leon County
Charter Study Committee for Mr. Spitzer’s work them.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey noted that the reference received from Okaloosa County Charter
Commission in 1996 – 1997 stated that they found Mr. Spitzer’s advice to be
very helpful and he charged them $3,000 for his work. Commissioner Moore Bailey stated that this ends her report.
Commissioner
Strang thanked Commissioner Moore Bailey for her report and asked the Commission
if they had questions.
Commissioner
Strang stated that he believed that Commissioner McLaughlin had the reference
check on Alyce Whitson. Commissioner
McLaughlin said that was correct.
Alyce Whitson
George
Dunlap – City Attorney at Bartow
Commissioner
McLaughlin stated he spoke with George Dunlap, City Attorney at Bartow today and
he only had glowing things to say regarding Ms. Whitson.
Thomas
Little - City Attorney at Dumas, Texas
Commissioner
McLaughlin also spoke with Thomas Little, City Attorney at Dumas, Texas.
He said that Ms. Whitson was dedicated and knows what she is doing and he
has no complaints about her.
Ann
Robins, Finance Manager, City of Ocala
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that Ms. Robins said that she was assisting the Commission and
that the Commission did not have any problems with Ms. Whitson and that she was
knowledgeable regarding what she does.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that all of the recommendations for Ms. Whitson were all very
glowing.
Commissioner
Strang said that completed his committee’s report to the Commission.
Chairman
Costello said that the Commission owed its appreciation to Commissioner Strang
and his committee for not only meeting and going through all of the
applications, but also doing the vetting procedure.
Chairman
Costello asked the members of the Commission to remove their tally sheets from
their packages that Ms. Swearengin delivered to them prior to the meeting.
He asked Mark Carpanini to brief the Commission on how they should
proceed in doing the tally. Chairman
Costello said that they would begin with the lawyer tally.
Mr.
Carpanini asked the Commission members to circle for each candidate a score,
three being the highest and the next one would get a two and then the lowest
preferred or ranked candidate would get a one.
He said that when the Commission members finished the tally sheets that
they would be collected, and the candidate with the highest point value will
receive the engagement. He asked
the Commission members to please sign their tally sheet so that the Commission
could have a record on how they voted.
Chairman
Costello asked the Commission members to complete both tally sheets, with the
lawyer tally sheet being first, and then pass them to him when they were
finished. The Commission did as
they were asked.
Chairman
Costello stated that it appeared that Mr. Watts was the Commission’s legal
advisor. He said that Mr. Carpanini suggested to him that the Commission might
want to make a motion authorizing the Chairman to send a letter of engagement to
Mr. Watts as the legal advisor to the Commission.
Commissioner
Masters so moved and Commissioner Strang seconded the motion to authorize the
Chairman to write an engagement letter to Mr. Watts as the legal advisor to the
Charter Review Commission. Chairman
Costello asked if there was any discussion. There was none, and the motion
carried unanimously.
Chairman
Costello said that there were 38 votes for Mr. Sptizer and 19 votes for Ms.
Whitson and as with the case with the lawyer, he would like to entertain a
motion to authorize the Chairman to write a letter of engagement to Mr. Spitzer
as the Commission’s consultant.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey made a motion to that effect and Commissioner McLaughlin seconded
the motion. Chairman Costello ask
if there was discussion, there being no discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
Mark
Carpanini said that he wanted to make certain that the Commission understood
that the Chairman will send a letter of engagement outlining the terms of the
engagement, and there will be a place on the letter of engagement for
acceptance.
Chairman
Costello said that he would like to return to Item IV, but before he asked for a
motion on the minutes he wanted to point out that Mr. Hancock called the
Chairman’s attention to a couple of mistakes in the minutes or documents
pertinent to the minutes. One
mistake was on page 10 of 11 on the minutes, in the second to last paragraph.
The original minutes indicated that Mr. Smith read the letter from Mr.
Hancock. He did not do that, he
only delivered the letter to the Commission, so he changed the draft minutes,
and a revised copy is before you.
The
other change is in an attachment that had to do with the draft minutes of the
May 8th meeting on the By-Laws of the Polk County Charter Commission.
Mr.
Hancock called the Chairman’s attention to the fact that he used the term revision
instead of review when the Chairman made his changes.
Page five of the minutes was corrected to reflect that it is not the
Charter Revision Commission, but it is the Charter Review
Commission. The Commission also has
the first two pages of the By-Laws attached to the package that Ms. Swearengin
delivered to you reflecting those changes.
Chairman
Costello asked if there were any other changes to the minutes of May 8, 2001.
Commissioner
Gernert moved approval of the minutes of May 8, 2001 with the changes as noted,
and Commissioner Nunnallee seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes of May 8, 2001 with the
changes as noted, carried.
Chairman
Costello said that there were no invited guests, so we will move down to
reports. Chairman Costello stated
that he had no report to make. The
Executive Assistant indicated that she had no report to make.
Chairman
Costello said that the Commission had completed Items VII and VIIIB on the
agenda and they were down to item VIIIC, which is a discussion of criteria
governing the use of a lawyer and a consultant, which the Chairman opened to the
Commission for their discussion.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said it has been his experience in dealing with law firms that it is
often advisable to have the consultants and the attorneys, particularly
attorneys, actually go by the hour versus a flat fee, and to itemize the work
that has been done, and to ask that hours actually be documented in some way.
Typically when you have flat fees, you end up getting poor service and
often not the type of work that you want.
Chairman
Costello reminded the Commission that the discussion was on fee arrangements for
the consultant and the attorney for the Commission.
He asked if there were any further discussion.
Commissioner
Allen asked the Chairman if he would tell the Commission what the exact fees
were that the previous Commission was charged.
Chairman
Costello said that he did not have a break down between the lawyer and the
consultant; but he did have the total cost, which he received from the County
Finance office, which was about $83,000.
Commissioner
Strang said that as he recalled the consultant’s fee was $20,000 exclusive of
expenses.
Chairman
Costello replied to Commissioner Strang by saying that Mr. Spitzer’s letter to
the Commission indicated his fee for service would be $20,000 plus supplemental
fees for Dr. Marlow; and in addition to that there were some fees for extra
expenses, but apparently there was a flat fee plus additional expenses because
there were other consultants besides him.
Commissioner
Strang said that one thing the Commission might want to consider is the
differing level of experience with county government that members of the
Commission have. He said that he felt that the Chairman as a former commissioner
would have an intimate knowledge of the workings of county government, and that
each member of the Commission has a differing level of familiarity with the
subject. He said that the original
Charter Review Commission went to great lengths as he recalled to bring
themselves up to speed to try to learn about the details and the inner workings
of county government. He said that
he just brought up the subject in case there were those who feel a need for that
kind of familiarization with the mechanics of county government.
Chairman
Costello asked Commissioner Strang if he thought that would affect the amount of
time the consultant would be spending with the Commission.
Commissioner Strang replied, possibly.
Commissioner
Masters said he thought when Kurt Spitzer appears at the next meeting, if the
Commission looks at his approach to a project, as reflected in the handout, he
will allow the Commission time to set up its own agenda for what is trying to be
accomplished. He said he thought
Mr. Spitzer will figure he is going to be at the meeting for two hours, and he
will try and piece everything together that the Commission wants to accomplish
based on having two hour meetings, and then figure out if that is what the
Commission will need, and then he will be able to tell them at that point what
his fees will roughly run.
Commissioner
Masters said, now that the Commission has its attorney and consultant, it needs
to decide in which direction that it wants to go. He said that the previous Commission had various people come
in from different groups and from the county offices, and give the Commission
their side of the story, and then the Commission would meet with the consultant
and the attorney.
The
attorney would tell them what they were able to do based on Florida law.
Chairman
Costello said the Chair was searching for guidance on the following in addition
to the items that have been mentioned so far :
1)
Does the Commission want the attorney and consultant to attend each of
their meetings?
2)
How does the Commission want the fees arranged?
Chairman
Costello said that Commissioner McLaughlin mentioned that he doesn’t think
that the flat fee rate is a good idea. He
feels that it should be an hourly rate.
Chairman
Costello asked that the Commission give him guidance as to whether they wanted
the lawyer and the consultant to attend each meeting.
Commissioner
Masters said that he would like to make a motion that the Commission have the
consultant attend each meeting, and the attorney attend when requested, and to
retain both of them under an hourly basis.
Chairman
Costello said that the motion made by Commissioner Masters is that the
consultant attend each one of the Commission’s meetings and the attorney would
attend when requested to do so, and both would charge the Commission on an
hourly basis. Chairman Costello
asked if there was a second to that motion.
Commissioner McLaughlin seconded the motion. Chairman Costello asked that the item be opened for
discussion.
Commissioner
Nunnallee said she thought the previous Commission asked the consultant to be at
each meeting and that the attorney was called in when it was necessary.
Commissioner
Masters said, yes the consultant was at every meeting.
He said that he did not remember the attorney being at every meeting.
Commissioner
Masters said that the consultant did not run the Commission’s meetings.
He only advised them on how others did in a similar situation.
Commissioner
Dukes asked if the Commission provided the attorney a copy of the minutes when
he wasn’t there so that he could be aware of what was discussed.
Chairman
Costello said that Commissioner Strang nodded yes in response to Commissioner
Dukes question.
Referring
to Commissioner Duke’s question, Chairman Costello said that he thought that
would be a good idea to provide copies of the minutes.
Commissioner
Masters said that usually when the past Commission spoke with the attorney it
was about a specific question of law. He
said that he did not remember the Commission providing the attorney minutes of
every meeting.
Commissioner
Strang said that it was his distinct impression that the lawyer and the
consultant were thoroughly briefed on what transpired in meetings that they did
not attend, and he thought the Commission should insist upon that in these
proceedings.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was any further discussion on the motion.
He said that he would like to restate the motion again.
He said that the motion was that the consultant would attend each of the
Commission meetings and the attorney would attend when requested and both the
consultant and the attorney would charge on an hourly basis.
Chairman Costello asked if there was further discussion. There was none,
and the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman
Costello said that the next item on the agenda related to invited groups, but he
thought that this item was a little untimely because the Commission may want the
benefit of guidance from the consultant and/or the attorney before they extend
the invitations.
Chairman
Costello said that he drafted a letter, which was circulated to everyone, and it
was in the public record. He said
that he received some feedback from Commissioner Lindsey correctly pointing out
that the Commission work can result in amendments, revisions or no
recommendations at all, and the letter would be changed to that effect.
Chairman Costello said if the Commission would like, they could wait for
Mr. Spitzer to come on board, and he would fax him a copy of the letter. He can
give the Commission his reaction to the letter when he comes to the meeting.
Commissioner
Gernert said that Chairman Costello’s idea was very reasonable.
Commissioner Masters made the motion to wait until we meet with our
consultant Mr. Spitzer before invitations are sent out to groups to appear
before the Commission. Chairman
Costello asked if there was a second to that motion.
Commissioner Gernert seconded the motion.
Chairman Costello asked if there was further discussion.
Commissioner
Strang said that he did not have a problem with that because the Commission is
not talking about a lot of time, but he didn’t think that the consultant would
change a word of that wonderfully crafted document.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he was concerned with Commissioner Strang’s previous
comments regarding the level of involvement and awareness with what is now
county government. He asked
Chairman Costello if his motion anticipated that the consultant would provide
the orientation of what is now Polk County Government according to the
constitution of those in administration and set up for the uniform edification
of the group.
Commissioner
Masters said that if the Commission requested this information from Mr. Spitzer
he thought that this would be his first step in orientating the Commission
members. He feels that when the consultant gives the Commission the guidelines
the formal invitations could be sent.
He
said that he remembered a conversation by Jim Keene. He said that the Commission was trying to make a decision on
whether they wanted a strong county manager appointed or elected,
and there was quite a lot of discussion before he was brought in.
Commissioner
Strang said that he wanted to add to Commissioner Lindsey’s comments.
He said that he particularly remembers Jim Keene’s presentation to the
Commission. While he was truthful throughout he was not very forthcoming. He
felt that he pulled his punches because the Commission was facing charter
status, and he wasn’t going to say anything that was going to get him in
trouble with the County Commission or with the Constitutional Officers.
Commissioner Strang said this is one thing that the Commission needs to be aware
of. A lot of people have vested
interests that they need to protect and sometimes they won’t tell you all that
you need to know.
Commissioner
Lindsey stated that was his inquiry and he asked how Commissioner Strang
would propose to bring everyone up to the same benchmark recognizing
that some of them knew less than others.
Commissioner
Strang said that there were just some handicaps that the Commission would have
to live with.
Chairman
Costello pointed out for the benefit of discussants, that the issue of the
motion is whether or not the Commission should wait for the consultants to meet
with the Commission for the first time before they extend an invitation letter
to invited groups to appear before the Commission.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he thought that his comments were pertinent if the Commission
is going to use the first meeting with the consultant as the benchmark
orientation.
Chairman
Costello asked Commissioner Lindsey if he was correct in assuming that he
supported the motion. Commissioner
Lindsey said yes based on what he had heard from Commissioner Strang.
Commissioner
Masters said that he would like for the chair to do a follow-up letter to Kurt
Spitzer asking him to bring information to the first meeting to bring the
Commission up to speed, so that invitations can be sent to people that would
like to be placed on the Commission’s agenda, and to bring the Commission up
to speed on the different issues that will be affecting the current charter.
Chairman
Costello said that Commissioner Lindsey nodded yes, for the record.
Chairman Costello said that he would like to restate the motion.
The motion is to wait until the Commission has their meeting with the
consultant before it gets into the process of issuing invitation letters to
invited groups to appear before the Commission.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was further discussion to the motion. There was no
further discussion. Chairman
Costello asked all of those in favor of the motion to say aye and opposed to say
no. The motion carried with one no
vote from Commissioner Strang.
Chairman
Costello said that he would inform Mr. Spitzer so that when he comes to the next
meeting that he would be prepared.
Chairman
Costello said the Commission was now down to item VIIII, Remarks of Interested
Citizens. Chairman Costello asked
for the sign-up sheet. Ms.
Swearengin took the sign-up sheet to Chairman Costello.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked Chairman Costello before he went to VIIII, Remarks of
Interested Citizens, if he would restate his statement with regard to drafting a
letter going to the consultant, so that when he came to the Commission meeting
for the first time, that everyone would be up to speed on how the function of
County Government works.
Commissioner
Masters said that if the Commission would look at the last two pages of Mr.
Spitzer’s handout it would give them an overview of what was discussed in the
original charter meetings. He said
that Mr. Spitzer usually broke those items down in great detail.
Commissioner
Masters asked Commissioner Moore Bailey if he answered her question, and she
stated yes.
Commissioner
Gernert said that he wanted to make the comment that he thought that as the
Commission moved through its process, and people came and talked to them about
the issues that they thought the Commission should put on the ballot, that the
Commission would be asking questions, and the consultant would bring them up to
speed. He said that he would prefer
to learn as things came across the table, rather than have the consultant assume
that the Commission needed to know everything about other counties.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was further discussion on this point.
There were no comments.
Chairman
Costello said that there were four individuals that wished to speak and he would
take them in the order in which they appear on the sign-up sheet.
Chairman Costello invited Mr. Koch to speak.
Mr.
Koch said that he was a resident of Lakeland and that he was at the meeting in
solidarity with his friend, Mr. Dewey Smith, and the important things that Mr.
Smith was attempting to convey to the Commission. He said that yesterday morning he tape recorded Jerry
Hughes’ Straight Talk radio program, and with his permission, he made
additional copies for each of the Commission members.
He said that he would like to enter these tape recordings into the
Commission records for use by each commissioner and any other interested person.
Mr.
Koch said that if the Commission would take time to listen to what Mr. Hughes
told them and the rest of Mr. Hughes’ listening audience yesterday, they would
get an idea of why so many people are placing so much hope on each person on the
Commission. He said that they were
counting on the Commission to do what their fellow citizens wanted.
Mr. Koch passed the tapes out to the Commission members.
Chairman
Costello thanked Mr. Koch for his comments.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked Mr. Koch where Mr. Hughes was based. Mr. Koch stated that he was in Lakeland.
He is a Lakeland resident.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was only one tape recording. Mr. Koch replied, yes. Chairman
Costello said that the Commission would enter the tape into the public record.
Mr. Koch said that the recording was approximately 50 minutes on one
side. Chairman Costello asked Mr. Koch if he was finished
with his comments and Mr. Koch said, yes.
Chairman
Costello invited Mr. Dewey Smith, of the Home Rule Charter Committee to speak.
Mr. Smith said that he did not have any notes, as he generally did, but
that he would like to speak from the heart and what was on his mind.
He said that he wrote a letter (letter dated May 11, 2001) to the
Chairman of the Commission last week asking him to revisit the 20 minute rule.
He didn’t think that it was fair to him or to anyone else to put a five
minute time limit on a subject they wanted to bring to the Commission. He said
from day one they have tried to do things right. They have sent correspondence
to every member on the board stating the subjects that they were going to talk
about, and how long they wanted to talk, and he feels that they have done things
right. He said that he didn’t
feel that the Commission had requests from many other groups, and that the
Commission has 10 months of the year to meet.
He asked what was wrong with listening to the people, and what the people
wanted. He asked the Commission
didn’t they want the truth? He
said that they would tell the Commission the truth, and what the people want.
He said that he did not think that it was fair when he had four
subjects for the committee and he is limited to five minutes on one subject.
Mr. Smith said that if that is the way it is, fine, but treat everyone
the same, but don’t be like the County Commission has been for the last two or
three years and partially the other charter committee.
He said that he requested time before the County Commission about one and
one-half years ago, and brought his attorney along; and after he made that
request the County Commission had a special meeting on Friday.
He said that he thought that the sole purpose of that meeting was to
change the rules of the County Commission to shut him and his attorney down.
He said that he only asked for ten minutes, and they allowed him three
minutes. He said that he hoped that
this committee was not a part of what the County Commission set out to do, not
to listen to the people. Mr. Smith
said that he could live by the 20-minute rule, but he feels it should be on each
issue that he has to present to the committee.
Chairman
Costello thanked Mr. Smith for his comments.
Chairman
Costello asked the Commission members if they would read the draft letter to
invited groups that was in their packages.
He said that he drafted that letter based upon his understanding of what
the commissioners’ vote was, and it was 20 minutes per group.
Chairman Costello said that anyone who is on the affirmative side of that
secure vote can make a motion to reconsider revisiting that particular motion,
and he stated that he understood what Mr. Smith wanted.
He said that Mr. Smith wanted the focus to be on 20 minutes per issue, as
opposed to 20 minutes per group.
The
groups that were included in Mr. Smith’s earlier letter of April 28, 2001
included a total of 6 groups with a total of 11 issues.
Chairman Costello said that some groups, for example The Home Rule
Charter Committee, had four issues and another might have had just one issue, so
the total amount of time based upon the Commission’s guidance was 120 minutes
for those six groups. Chairman
Costello said that he was not saying that those six groups all think
differently, but that they have different issues to discuss.
He said that he pointed out to the Commission that in the list of groups
that they approved as of May 8th, if half of the invitations were
accepted, it would mean a total of 30 groups, each of whom would have 20
minutes. That’s 600 minutes or
ten hours, and extra time would need to be allowed for questions and comments.
He
said that it appears the Commission has a lot of time because its report is not
due until April of 2002, but considering that we meet twice a month, and with
the Committee not meeting on December 11th and at Christmas time,
with the Commission needing to make its report by April 9th, having
at least 3 public hearings and allowing time to prepare the report, there
isn’t as much time as one would think. He
said that he thought that the issue was not to be inattentive to what people
have to say, the issue is a matter of how the Commission can best use their
time. He said that maybe the
consultant could advise the Commission to that effect or maybe the Commission
might want to revisit this issue.
Chairman
Costello told Mr. Smith that because there was some confusion about whether or
not he was sending his letters directly to the commissioners he took the liberty
of sending them copies in case they didn’t receive them.
He told Mr. Smith that he thought the Commissioners were well aware of
what his situation was, and if they had any doubt, that he thought his remarks
tonight clarified that.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he was on the prevailing side and that he moved to reconsider
the motion, Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the motion.
Chairman Costello said that it has been moved and seconded that the
Commission reconsider the motion that was passed at the last meeting to limit
invited groups to 20 minutes per group with the understanding that the
Commission Chairman could extend that time.
Chairman Costello asked if there was discussion.
Commissioner
Gernert said that since he submitted the suggestion in the first place, that he
wanted to go on record and remind all of the commissioners that there is an
opportunity for anyone who has issues of such magnitude that they cannot present
them in a 20 minute time frame, to communicate those issues to the Commission in
writing in advance which would give the Commission the opportunity to review its
position, and ask questions accordingly, and that would be entered into the
public record, and it would become an official part of the records of the
deliberations.
Chairman
Costello said that he did not think that debate was allowed on this motion.
Commissioner Gernert said that he apologized.
Commissioner
Masters asked whether the motion to reconsider would require a two-thirds vote
under the By-Laws.
Chairman
Costello said that the motion to reconsider was not on a matter included in the
By-Laws so he was going to rule that this particular motion was in order and did
not require a two-thirds vote. His
decision was subject to being overruled by the Commission if it did not agree
with it.
Chairman
Costello said on the motion to reconsider he would like to take a roll call.
Chairman Costello asked Ms. Swearengin to call the roll.
Chairman Costello reminded the Commission that the motion being
reconsidered is the motion which was passed that invited groups would receive 20
minutes presentation time before the Commission, with the understanding that
paragraph one and two of Commissioner Gernert’s memorandum to the Commission
would apply. Chairman Costello said on the motion to reconsider, please take the
roll Ms. Swearengin; Commissioner Allen: For, Chairman Costello: For,
Commissioner Dukes: For, Commissioner Gernert: For, Commissioner Hunt: For,
Commissioner Lindsey: For, Commissioner Masters: For, Commissioner McLaughlin:
For, Commissioner Moore Bailey: For, Commissioner Nunnallee: For, Commissioner
Price: For, Commissioner Strang: For, Commissioner Stoer: For, Chairman Costello
stated that the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman
Costello asked if it was the commissioners wish to discuss the issue then, or
did they prefer to place it on the agenda for the next meeting.
Commissioner
Strang said that he would like to see the Commission delay it at least until the
Commission’s consultant is there to advise them.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that this was the fourth or fifth meeting of the Commission, and
everything that had been done so far had been procedure, and he felt that it was
time to move on to the issues, and more to the business that the Commission was
charged to do. He said that he
wanted to make a motion to set a 20 minute time limit per issue in lieu of 20
minutes per person or interest group.
Chairman
Costello said that Commissioner Lindsey moved that the Commission impose a 20
minute time limit per issue in lieu of a 20 minute time limit per person or
interest group in appearances before the Commission, and Commissioner Masters
seconded the motion. Chairman
Costello asked the Commission if there was discussion.
Commissioner
Strang asked Commissioner Lindsey if he would like to make his motion per issue
per person and Commissioner Lindsey agreed.
Chairman
Costello asked Commissioner Lindsey to restate the motion.
Commissioner Lindsey said 20 minutes per issue per person.
Commissioner Masters seconded the restated motion.
Chairman
Costello said that he would like to repeat the motion.
The motion is to allow a 20-minute time limit per issue per person in
lieu of a 20-minute time limit per interest group.
Chairman Costello stated that the difference was that
“per person” has been added instead of just “per issue.”
Chairman
Costello said that we have a new motion on the floor, and Commissioner
Lindsey’s earlier motion had been withdrawn.
Commissioner
Moore-Bailey expressed concern because she felt that 20 minutes per issue per
person could be very lengthy, and she wanted the Commission to rethink that
motion.
Commissioner
Masters asked the Chairman what motion could be used to allow Mr. Smith and the
Lakeland Chamber to talk on the same issue.
Chairman Costello said that he had a suggestion.
He
said that Mr. Smith has made a request to the Commission, which is less
extensive than Commissioner Lindsey’s motion .
Chairman
Costello said that the Commission could vote to withdraw the motion, and then
another motion could be made granting the request in Mr. Smith’s letter of May
11, 2001,and that would take care of the matter.
Mr.
Smith in his letter of May 11, 2001 requested that the Home Rule Charter
Committee speak on four issues for twenty minutes each for a total of 80
minutes, and Citizens for Truth in Government speak on three issues for twenty
minutes each for a total of 60 minutes.
Commissioner
Masters said that was his intent.
Chairman
Costello said that Commissioner Lindsey could make a motion to withdraw his
motion, and then the Commission would need to vote on the withdrawal.
Commissioner
Lindsey made a motion to withdraw his previous motion, and Commissioner Chris
McLaughlin seconded the motion.
Chairman
Costello said that the motion is to withdraw Commissioner Lindsey’s motion,
which he stated earlier. Commissioner McLaughlin seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if there was further discussion. There was none, the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairman
Costello asked Commissioner Lindsey if he would like to make another motion.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he made his motion with the intent of honoring Mr. Smith’s
request of May 11, 2001 under the
limited issues and time frames that he requested, so he would like guidance from
the Chair in accomplishing this.
Commissioner
Gernert asked the Chairman if the Commission’s motion now being reconsidered
included giving the Chairman the discretion to extend additional time.
Chairman
Costello replied, yes it did.
Commissioner
Gernert asked, why another motion was needed if the Chairman felt that Mr. Smith
needed additional time? He
suggested that the Chairman listen to one of Mr. Smith’s 20 minute
presentations, and decide whether or not he needed the 20 minute time frame.
Chairman
Costello said, it was his understanding, that the additional time he was
authorized to give was contemporaneous with the presentation and not in advance
of it. He said, he did not think
that his authority extended beyond that.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked if she could address Mr. Smith.
Chairman
Costello said, yes she could address Mr. Smith.
Commissioner Moore Bailey asked Mr. Smith if he would compromise with the Commission and speak for 15 minutes ins