MINUTES
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23, 2001
Chairman, Dan
Costello, called the meeting of the Polk County Charter Review Commission to
order at 6:00 p.m. on the 3rd floor conference room of the Citrus
& Chemical Bank, Bartow. Commissioner Hunt led the prayer and Commissioner
Strang led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman
said he would like the record to show the Commission had a quorum.
The first order
of business was for the approval of the Minutes for October 9, 2001.
There
were no corrections.
Commissioner
Nunnallee made a motion to approve the minutes.
Commissioner Lindsey seconded the motion.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was further discussion, there was none. The motion
carried.
Commissioner
Strang said relative to the minutes he wanted to make a brief statement to the
Commission.
He said the
minutes of the October 9th meeting reflected the question of
Commissioner Price as to the votes on the two local referenda on last
November’s ballot, and a more precise answer to her question was that on the
question of term limits for county commissioners, more than 74% of the voters
voted in favor of term limits, while 73% voted for the proposal to reduce
salaries of county commissioners.
Additionally,
the minutes showed that Commissioner McLaughlin inquired about his votes on the
Initial Discussion List items. He
said yes, they were public record, and he said he copied Ms. Swearengin when he
e-mailed his votes to Kurt Spitzer. He
said he had an extra copy to share with Commissioner McLaughlin if he was still
interested.
He said
regarding the Initial Discussion List as determined at the October 9th
meeting, he was pleasantly surprised that some subjects made the cut, but it was
distressing that so many subjects dear to so many people were not retained on
the list, and what disturbed him even more was the fact that, apparently, all of
the subjects proposed by incumbent officials, which he referred to as the
“ruling class”, were included on the Initial Discussion List, while many
subjects proposed by the citizenry were excluded. He said in his opinion, it was particularly unseemly that so
many of the successful issues concerned matters involving the perpetuation of
political power and the personal pecuniary emoluments of members of the ruling
class.
He reminded the
commission members that each of them was appointed to that Commission by an
incumbent government official or, in the case of the constitutional officers, by
a number of such officials, and therefore it was understandable that one might
feel beholden to the individuals or the system, which placed them in their
present prestigious position. He
said they might feel that they had a personal stake in pleasing the present
incumbents, and they might be hesitant about disturbing the present status quo,
and if they were subject to those
kinds of divided allegiances, he urged them to rise above those personal
loyalties, and strike a blow for the people of Polk County.
Chairman
Costello thanked Commissioner Strang for his comments.
Chairman
Costello asked if anyone wanted to respond to Commissioner Strang’s statement?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said the reason why he was interested in his e-mail tally was there
was a tie vote regarding an elected county mayor or elected county chairperson,
and if he chose the affirmative that perhaps might make a difference in
subsequent voting should it come up later.
The Chairman
said the Commission had before them a Charter Review Commission Budget Revision
dated October 23, 2001, which was the budget that was approved on June 26, 2001.
He determined that it was necessary to increase that budget by $3,711.53.
He said with respect to the other items on the budget, they felt they
were fairly on track, and the revised budget would be $76,957.87, and he asked
for their approval on that revision.
Commissioner
Strang made a motion for the approval of the budget revision, and Commissioner
Stoer seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion? There
was no further discussion. The motion carried.
The Chairman
said he would be submitting a budget for the next six months beginning on
January 01, 2002 at the first or second meeting in November, which would include
the expenditures so far that year.
The Chairman
said they were down to Kurt Spitzer’s report.
Mr. Spitzer said
he thought that the timeline was first on the Agenda, which had been provided to
them, and it was similar to what was prepared as a draft timeline toward the
beginning of their deliberations, and what he had done with the Chairman’s
concurrence was to take those issues that were identified at their last meeting
for inclusion in the Discussion Agenda and match them up with the balance of
their meetings between then and April. He
said those issues were identified under the subject area and the numbers which
they saw were the numbers that were tagged to those particular issues in the
Discussion Matrix, which was passed out to them previously.
He said there were two or three meetings, which had been added to the
original timeline, which was subject to their approval to allow them to finish
by their April meeting date with some cushion.
He said January 22, 2002 and February 26, 2002, which were identified but
with no actions were placed on those days, and if those additional days were
needed they were there, and it they were not needed they would not have to use
those days.
He said he
grouped the issues together that related to one another.
He said the first four issues related to the Legislative body of the
county government and the county commission, and the next two issues were those,
which related to the constitutional officers.
He said the constitutional officers in general was a broad subject and
the second one was somewhat more specific, but there were a wide range of
subtopics under constitutional
officers, and there were two meetings which had been set aside for that subject
matter. The third grouping was
ordinances by initiative and charter amendments, and there was an item on the
Charter Review Commission; and finally there was the appointed Superintendent
and the Government Efficiency Commission and there were two meetings set aside
for any other issues that they might want to discuss.
The Chairman
said he would like to add there were three Public Hearings scheduled on February
19, 2002, March 5, 2002, and March 19, 2002, and he reminded the Commission
those Public Hearings were required by the Charter, and they must be at least
ten days apart. He said what he
would like to do that evening was talk about that schedule and get some clear
direction from the Commission.
He said he
thought the Public Hearings should probably be in three different cities, and
his suggestion would be Lakeland, Bartow, and Winter Haven.
He asked the Commission to give them some guidance not only regarding the
schedule, but where the Public Hearings should be held, and then they could make
advance arrangements. He said
perhaps Commissioner Masters and Commissioner Strang might be able to give them
some insight regarding how many people attended the Public Hearings of the first
Charter.
The Chairman
said with respect to getting their preferences with respect to those issues,
they could either take them as groups or do them separately. For example, after
the Composition and Districting Scheme was thoroughly discussed he hoped each
commissioner would have the opportunity to speak regarding those issues, and
after that, if they felt ready at that point in time to do a “test vote” to
determine whether or not there was a two thirds approval, and that wouldn’t
mean that was the final vote, just as the “Initial” Discussion Agenda
didn’t mean that was the final discussion agenda, and it could be revised
either by taking things off or adding things to it.
He said if they preferred to vote after each issue, perhaps the
consultants could get not only the draft language but any additional information
that they might need on that particular item, and if there was clearly not much
interest in a particular item and it was not going to garner near a two-thirds
vote, in order to save consultants time, maybe they should move on to issues
that were closer to the two-thirds threshold.
He said the
final thing that he wanted to add was that they were scheduled to make a report
to the BCC and the deadline date was April 9th, but he asked Mr.
Spitzer to move that to April 2nd, so that there was some flexibility
because they didn’t want to violate the Charter which they were supposed to be
revising.
He said he hoped
that all of the commissioners would be there to present that report.
The Chairman
said he was opening for discussion the proposed schedule.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was in agreement with the locations of Lakeland, Bartow
and Winter Haven, and would offer a motion if it was appropriate at that time to
have those three locations as the place for the Public Hearings.
The Chairman
said Commissioner Moore Bailey moved to have Lakeland, Bartow, and Winter Haven
as the cities where the Public Hearings would be held, and Commissioner
McLaughlin seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said that he liked the idea of Winter Haven and Lakeland, but he felt
Bartow was the “belly of the beast”, and he wondered if they might not want
to consider Lake Wales, the south half of the county, as a possible
consideration.
The Chairman
said the Commission had an agreement on at least two cities with the possibility
of substituting Lake Wales for Bartow.
Commissioner
Masters said perhaps an alternative to Bartow would be East Polk, and he had
seen substantial growth in East Polk as they all had been reading about, and he
felt it would be important to send a message up to those folks on the Ridge when
fifty percent of the growth in the county was happening there in that area.
Commissioner
Price said she supported that thought especially since they had a lot of groups
that came in who felt there was a lack of representation, specifically with
regards to the Haines City Chamber of Commerce, and she felt that would be an
opportunity for them to have input in their own back yard.
Commissioner
Strang asked if there was anyone from Haines City on the Commission?
The Chairman
said no.
Commissioner
Strang said he thought that was an argument in favor of doing something up
there.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she wanted to change her motion or have someone else amend it
for her.
Chairman
Costello said that she could not change her motion because it was on the floor,
and he suggested that they continue the discussion.
The Chairman
asked if instead of having the meeting in Winter Haven was she suggesting having
it in Haines City?
Commissioner
Stoer said instead of Bartow.
The Chairman
asked if it would still be Winter Haven, Haines City, and Lakeland?
The Commission
said that was correct.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion? There
was no further discussion regarding that issue.
The Chairman
said the original motion needed to be amended, and it was for Winter Haven,
Lakeland, and Bartow. He said now
it had been suggested that the meetings be held in Winter Haven, Lakeland, and
Lake Wales, and Commissioner Strang was leaning towards Winter Haven, Lakeland,
and Haines City.
The Chairman
asked if Commissioner Moore Bailey would like to offer a substitute motion?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked if she needed to make an amendment to her motion?
The Chairman
said without objection her motion could be withdrawn.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said that she would like to withdraw her motion, and restate it.
She said the final motion was to have the three Public Hearings in
Lakeland, Winter Haven, and Haines City, and Commissioner Allen seconded the
motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion? There
was no further discussion. The
motion carried.
The Chairman
said they would make arrangements for meeting sites in Haines City, Lakeland,
and Winter Haven. He said if anyone
had any suggestions for possible meeting sites in those cities to please advise
him.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Masters what kind of turnout they had at the previous
Charter’s Public Hearings, more or less than one hundred?
Commissioner
Masters said less than one hundred.
He said he thought at the City of Lakeland they had the largest
gathering, but it was far below one hundred, and the public input that was
received came primarily from the same groups.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked Commissioner Masters where that Public Hearing was held at in
Lakeland?
Commissioner
Masters said it was off of Lake Morton in the Magnolia Building, and it was an
excellent location.
The Chairman
asked if that was part of the Civic Center?
Commissioner
Masters said no, it was between the parking garage and the shuffleboard courts.
Commissioner
Price said it was located by Hollis Gardens.
Chairman
Costello asked if that facility belonged to the City of Lakeland?
Commissioner
Price said yes.
Commissioner
Stoer said that she had just had a reception there, and she didn’t believe
they were booking there any longer.
The Chairman
asked in any event were there less than one hundred?
Commissioner
Masters said absolutely.
Mr. Spitzer said
there were about fifty people there.
Commissioner
Lindsey said that he would suggest that they try City Hall in the respective
cities. He said the acoustics in
the Magnolia Building were terrible, but he thought the respective cities would
be willing to host the meeting.
The Chairman
said that some had aversions to the “beast”, and he asked if that was in the
belly of another “beast?”
The Chairman
said that City Hall was another suggestion.
Commissioner
Masters said that he would like to make a motion that the Commission yield to
the Chairman and the Administrative Assistant to line up locations for the
Public Hearings.
The Chairman
said without objection, they would go ahead and do that.
There was no objection.
The Chairman
thanked the Commission for the guidance on the Public Hearings, and said he
would like to go back to the issue of the timeline.
Commissioner
Strang said he understood the Chairman to say that he had conferred with Mr.
Spitzer regarding the timeline issue, and the Chairman agreed with it?
Chairman
Costello said yes in detail, and he agreed with the timeline.
The Chairman
said the disadvantage was that it deviated some from the second and fourth
Tuesday format, but there was no way in avoiding that.
He said he thought with notice perhaps everyone could adjust his or her
calendars accordingly.
Commissioner
Strang said he would like to move that the Commission adopt the timeline
schedule proposed by the Chairman and Mr. Spitzer, and Commissioner Hunt
seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Price said she had some questions regarding the schedule.
She said she knew that the Commission had previously discussed not
meeting in December, and she asked if that was correct?
The Chairman
said that was correct.
Commissioner
Price said she noticed that the constitutional officers issue was split because
of the depth of the subject matter, and that it would take two meetings to have
that discussion. She said she felt
there were two ways to look at the issue that she was presenting, and one was
from November 27, 2001 to January 8, 2002 would give them a lot of time to do
research after the first discussion on November 27, 2001, but she felt that a
lot of time could be lost during that six week period, and she felt it was a
long span. She said from a personal
standpoint she would prefer to have that discussion closer together if they were
going to split that issue between two meetings. She asked if perhaps they might consider meeting once in
December, so that they could be ahead rather than having the spare time, which
made her uncomfortable, especially since she knew she would not be there on
April 2, 2002, and she wanted to participate in that presentation.
The Chairman
said that originally a meeting was scheduled for December 11, 2001, and there
was discussion regarding canceling that, and they agreed not to meet on
Christmas for obvious reasons.
Commissioner
Price said her other question was that there was a blank on March 12, 2002, and
she asked if that was left blank purposely, and if they weren’t going to meet
that evening?
The Chairman
said they had a Public Hearing the week before that, and because those meetings
were two weeks apart they didn’t want to add another meeting in between, but
if they needed to use that time they could.
Commissioner
Price said if they felt as if the constitutional officers issue would take two
meetings, she would like to see the meetings moved closer together.
The Chairman
asked the Commission how they felt regarding Commissioner Price’s comments,
and he clarified that would mean a meeting in December?
Mr. Spitzer said
another solution might be to reverse the constitutional officers discussion with
the ordinances by initiative and the remainder of that grouping which were only
set for discussion for one evening, and that could occur on November 27, 2001,
and then have the constitutional officer discussion on January 8, 2002 and
January 15, 2002.
The Chairman
asked if that meet with everyone’s approval?
The Chairman
said if there were an amendment to that effect they would move the items that
were under January 15, 2002 to November 27, 2001, and then the items, which were
under November 27, 2001 would be moved to January 8, 2002, and then the items
which were under January 8, 2002 would be moved to January 15, 2002.
The Chairman
asked if there was an amendment to that effect?
Commissioner
Price moved to amend the original motion to move the January 15, 2002 schedule
to November 27, 2001, and the November 27, 2001 schedule to January 8, 2002, and
the January 8, 2002 schedule to January 15, 2002, and Commissioner Moore Bailey
seconded the motion.
Commissioner
Strang asked Commissioner Price if that would solve her problem with April 2nd?
Commissioner
Price answered no, but she felt the motion under consideration was more
important.
Chairman
Costello asked if there was further discussion on the move to amend the main
motion? There was no further
discussion. The motion carried.
The Chairman
asked in going back to the main motion as amended if there was further
discussion?
Commissioner
Masters asked if the Chairman could repeat the main motion?
The Chairman
said the main motion was to approve the timeline as proposed with the amendment
that the January 15, 2002 schedule would be moved to November 27, 2001, and the
November 27, 2001 schedule would be moved to January 8, 2002, and the January 8,
2002 schedule would be moved to January 15, 2002.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Masters asked Commissioner Strang or Mr. Spitzer if the previous Charter Review
Commission used only one meeting to adopt final recommendations?
Mr. Spitzer said
the final charter was adopted as proposed in one meeting, but he thought that it
took two meetings to take final votes.
He said presently they had set aside two decision meetings, and then
during the second meeting the Commission would adopt final recommendations.
Commissioner
Strang said the way he perceived the timeline was that it was not cast in stone,
and he felt some situations might occur that could possibly require the
Commission to alter the timeline slightly.
The Chairman
said yes, the principal landmark was to get the Public Hearings set, and then
the timeline could be adjusted accordingly.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion on the main motion as amended?
There was no further discussion. The
motion carried. A copy of the time
line is attached to these minutes.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Sptizer if had heard from Mr. Watts?
Mr. Spitzer said
yes, he had heard from Mr. Watts’ office, and they said he would be
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes late.
The Chairman
said in that case, he would like to defer Mr. Watts’ report until later in the
meeting, and he would like to precede to the Issues Agenda, Item 6A, BCC
Composition and Districting.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Spitzer to comment.
Mr. Spitzer said
he thought that was a continuation of the discussion from the Commission’s
last meeting. He said he had no new
information to provide to them. He
said that discussion centered on the number of county commissioners and the
districting scheme. He said Polk
currently had five commissioners elected on an at-large basis and they were
required to live in certain residence areas, but they were elected by all of the
electors on a countywide basis, and that was what most counties had in Florida,
but there were several different alternatives that were not restricted by
general law. Suggestions he thought
that would be in the realm of possibilities for consideration in Polk County
were: leaving the system completely unchanged; five commissioners elected
at-large, changing that to five elected from single-member districts, and
perhaps changing the number of county commissioners to seven county
commissioners either elected at-large or from single-member districts or from a
mixed districting scheme, such as Pinellas and Hillsborough where there were
three commissioners elected on an at-large basis and four single-member
districts.
The Chairman
asked if that could possibly be broken down, for example, one issue that they
had heard about was the number of commissioners, and that could remain as five
or it could go to something more than five, and there was no limit to the number
that could be had theoretically?
Mr. Spitzer said
that was correct, there were no limits, but when there were more than seven
commissioners that typically would be tied to a more fundamental change in the
structure of the government meaning it would be paired up with an elected mayor
or a directly elected chair of the county commission, such as the one that
existed in Orange County where there were six commissioners who were elected
from single-member districts and then one chair who was directly elected by the
voters countywide and that person was both a ceremonial and managerial pet of
the government.
The Chairman
asked if the Commission would like to discuss the number of commissioners first?
Commissioner
Lindsey said for the purpose of discussion, he would like to make a motion that
they recommend the county commissioners be increased from five to seven, and
Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the motion.
The Chairman
clarified that they were not discussing anything concerning the districts, but
were only discussing the number of commissioners.
The Chairman
asked that each commissioner, if they felt comfortable, to comment on that
issue.
She said another
concern she had was that a couple of the School Board Members told her in their
opinion, increasing the number of members on the Board did not improve anything,
and all that it did was bring two more egos to the table, and she felt there was
enough of that. She said she looked
forward to hearing their comments, because at that point, she was undecided.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she was a woman of few words, and would say that she supported
seven and move on from there.
Commissioner
Hunt said she did not support the move to seven, and she did not feel that it
was fiscally responsible especially at this time, whether the current salaries
were maintained as they were then or they were restored to what they were
before. She said she didn’t see
where adding more commissioners would benefit the county, and financially she
felt that it would become more of a burden, especially at that time.
She said she thought if they looked at how the School Board had conducted
its business since its increase, they would see that it had not changed much
there, and she was absolutely opposed to the increase.
Commissioner
Dukes said he was somewhat undecided, and at that point he was leaning more
towards increasing the number to seven. He
said he was looking forward to hearing everyone’s comments relative to the
pros and cons of that as well.
He said coming
from the part of town from which he comes he was looking to increase
representation in the county government and hopefully by increasing the number
of commissioners to seven and looking at single-member districts, he felt that
might be accomplished. He said he
wasn’t sure if seven was enough to accomplish that, and he was looking forward
to further comments and input from the other commissioners.
Commissioner
Stoer said she too was looking forward to the other commissioners’ comments.
She said she would need to be convinced more of the purpose of going from
five to seven. She said the two
things she remembered which were discussed, was trying to help add a minority
commissioner and the increase in the number of members helping in terms of
voting, with 4-3 or 3-2, and if the salaries were increased it would increase
that amount, and she looked forward to hearing further comments from others.
Commissioner
Nunnallee said at that point she was in support of going to seven, but her
question would be the fiscal repercussions, because certainly two more salaries
would need to be added as well as office space and logistics of that nature, and
she wanted the Commission to be certain they considered it was not just a matter
of bringing two more people, it was creating the available space, providing the
necessary equipment, and all of the costs which would be necessary when bringing
two more individuals into the Board.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he thought moving to seven members was long overdue. He said seven members would give the people greater and
broader representation for the entire county.
He said fiscally he didn’t feel it would make a significant difference
including the costs associated with that office. He said part of what was said by the County Administrator,
and he believed those feelings were echoed by the Chairman of the School Board,
that with seven members even if one or two were likely to engage in a tangential
issue the order of the business of the county could continue.
He said that didn’t stop the debate and it didn’t limit the debate
and it didn’t stifle the debate, but it would allow the order of the business
to continue. He said that one
forgets that government, in spite of all of its inefficiencies, was still the
partner to enterprise to effect commerce throughout the community, and when
there was gridlock in that process then sometimes that enterprise and that
commerce were stymied. He said with the growth of the community, and what the
people expected in the near future in spite of the temporary setbacks that had
been had lately, he felt the bounce was going to be tremendous, and there was
going to be a need to have more smarter people to help move the county beyond
where it had been in the past. He
said it was time to stop being the butt of the jokes, and the redneck and the
backward county that Polk was known to be, and it was time to be more
progressive, and adopt the more progressive views, and give the structure that
would allow the county to meet the challenge of the future instead of driving to
the future looking in the rearview mirror.
He said he thought the whole process was a great opportunity to move the
county light years ahead.
Commissioner
Masters said he met with Jim Keene on Friday and talked to him about some other
issues and his opinion, and thanked him for coming and talking to the
Commission. He said his opinion of
the Board was that it was a policy making board, and it does nothing but make
policy or agree on policy, and the administration of the county was run by the
County Manager. He said he didn’t
know if having two more board members would allow them to make policy more
easily. He said his concern was
more wasn’t always better, but he was open-minded to the task.
He said he wanted the Commission to keep in mind that the County
Commission was a policy making board, and it was not to do anything but vote on
policy and they did not administer the county.
He said the
Commission had discussed having a strong County Manager or a County Manager that
could possibly vote, and he thought that would be coming up in future
discussions and perhaps in that one if they wanted to somehow make provisions
for the County Manager to have some type of input to that policy making board.
He said he was not opposed to the seven members, but he felt he needed to see
the value. He said he knew there was tremendous growth in the eastern part of
the county and those people should be represented effectively. He said there was concern that there was not a minority vote
on the Commission, and he felt they needed to consider that, and he reminded
them that it was still a policy making board, and he wanted to ensure that the
Commission did not lose sight that the board doesn’t do anything but agree
with or approve policy, and he said he was open minded to discussing it, but
with those concerns.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he echoed mostly George Lindsey’s comments, and he felt seven
members would help smooth out some of the tension, and would allow for more
reasonable debate. He said one
thing that they had discovered was that because of the Sunshine Laws they were
no longer allowed to go and speak to persons one-on-one, and he felt that seven
members would allow the consensus to better form, as it did often at their
Commission meetings. He said
sometimes with five members it was sometimes whoever screamed the loudest who
got the most votes, and he thought it would help with diversity, because now the
county commission consisted of five white men.
He said the one reservation that he had about moving from five to seven
members was regarding the issue of single-member districts. He said he thought if they ended up with seven single-member
districts that would not be good for the county and there would be a lot of
fiefdoms, and no one would be looking out for the county’s interests.
If that were the case, he would prefer the existing structure.
He said if we could agree on a countywide vote for each county
commissioner and if we could move it to seven there would be less tension, more
reason to debate, and more effective policy making from the county
commissioners.
He said if there
was one thing that the Commission had learned, it was that Polk was a very
complicated county, and there were many issues that the county commissioners
faced. Moving to seven would also allow for different leaders to develop with
certain policy expertise. He said
there could be one commissioner that might be very familiar with budget issues,
and one could be familiar with waste management, and one familiar with what have
you, and he did favor moving to seven with the caveat being that if they had
single-member districts he didn’t feel that would be helpful to the county.
Commissioner
Strang said he agreed with Commissioner McLaughlin, and increasing the number in
his opinion, would add a more leavening affect on the legislative process. He
also agreed with Commissioner Lindsey and all of his arguments with the
exception of the notion of county government as his partner.
Commissioner
Allen said he was inclined to go with seven commissioners because it would be
responsive to the increase in population, but also he echoed Commissioner
McLaughlin’s ideas regarding not having single-member districts.
Chairman
Costello said back in 1970 when he moved to Polk County, the population was
slightly under 300,000, maybe 280,000 people.
He said he realized that Polk County was not districted now, but as a
matter of fact, from his experience as a county commissioner, one spent more
time in the districts in which they resided, and he felt in a sense there was
districting. He said it was not
legal and everybody could vote for everybody else, but the fact of the matter
was that one spent more time in his or her particular district, so that when one
divided five into 300,000 each commissioner had about 60,000 people that he or
she was representing. With a
population of 500,000 each commissioner now had about 100,000, and if we
expanded to seven commissioners that would bring the total per commissioner to
about 70,000.
He said he
thought that one of the most important responsibilities of a county commissioner
in addition to leading, and he thought that the county was very short in that
skill, was to respond to constituents’ letters and phone calls, and he made a
practice of doing that within 24 hours for both phone calls and letters.
He said considering the fact there were 100,000 constituents, with some
requiring more time than others, it was a hefty responsibility, and just from
the standpoint of management he would go to seven members.
He said the second reason, and not necessarily the second priority
reason, was that he felt it would give minority candidates a better chance, and
he thought that was a significant shortcoming. Polk County not only missed
gender diversity, which was presently the case, but racial diversity on the
county commission as well. He said
he thought that reflected poorly on us as a county, and he thought that needed
to be overcome. He said they all
knew that would be difficult to achieve through districting alone, unless they
went to nine or eleven commissioners, and he didn’t think anyone would favor
that suggestion, but he thought going to seven commissioners would give minority
candidates an opportunity, and he said there were many good ones out there. He
said he would support seven commissioners.
The Chairman
said he did not know what the Commission wanted to do regarding that issue, but
he wanted them to keep in mind that was more or less a straw vote, and it was
not a final vote by any manner or means, but it would indicate whether they were
near a two-thirds vote or not. He
said a two-thirds vote that evening would be eight members.
Commissioner
Masters said that some valid comments had been made, and he asked if some of
those comments could be discussed among themselves?
The Chairman
said absolutely, but it had to be in public forum.
Commissioner
Masters said that was what he meant.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Spitzer if based upon what he had heard people saying if he had any
comments in response to any of the issues that had been raised?
Mr. Spitzer said
he wanted to make a couple of observations, and some of those were in the memos
that he provided to the Commission at their last meeting.
He said he thought there was a greater likelihood even if they did stay
with an at-large districting scheme to get greater diversity on the county
commission, because he assumed that the Commission would want to keep the
requirement for residence areas even though people might be elected on an
at-large basis that they would still be required to live in residence areas so
it would narrow the geographic area from which they could come from.
He said he recalled in Pinellas County a couple of years ago they had
decided to go to seven county commissioners, and at least one reason was due to
Commissioners had to participate
with other advisory boards, water policy boards in Pinellas County where votes
were actually taken. He said they
were not just advisory groups, but votes were actually taken on behalf of
Pinellas County, and they simply did not have adequate time to handle that
workload, and that was one of the reasons why they decided to go with seven
commissioners.
Commissioner
Masters asked Mr. Spitzer who would draw the district lines for the seven
commissioners?
Mr. Spitzer said
the district lines would still be drawn by the county commission, and they
should be in the midst of redrawing their district lines then and they were
required to do that every ten years after the census.
He said if that was to pass in 2002 there would be a transition mechanism
put into the Charter or along with the ballot question itself, and it would
probably be phased in beginning with the 2004 election and there would be a
mechanism whereby the incumbents would probably keep the balance of their terms,
but the new seats would be transitioned in. He said the county commission was required by law, and was
the body that drew the district lines.
He said as they discussed at the last meeting, they could implement a
Citizen’s Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to the county
commission, and some of those could be in the form that the county commission
could accept or reject. He said
they still had to be consistent with Federal and State law, but if there was an
interest in “removing” the politics from the redistricting process they
could have a Citizen’s Committee do that, but ultimately the county commission
had to say yes or no.
The Chairman
reminded the Commission that, Charter Article 2.2 governed districting at the
present time, and if it was not changed then the Charter would still govern
districting. He read Charter
Article 2.2 to the Commission, and said unless they changed that language that
would be what was controlling.
Commissioner
Masters said the second part of his question was that someone had made the
statement that seven members were necessary because of the number of people that
resided in Polk, and he asked Mr. Spitzer what his opinion was on that because
he had worked with some of the other counties.
He said he had noticed that Brevard had 474,000, and they had five
commissioners, and Polk County had five, and Volusia had seven, and Lee County
had 417,000, and only had five commissioners, and he asked if he had any idea
why they continued with five instead of increasing the number to perhaps seven?
Mr. Spitzer said
he worked with Lee County a few years prior to that and that subject didn’t
come up, but the point that
he made regarding population was that the grouping of counties with a population
of over the high four hundreds were generally greater than five commissioners.
The Chairman
asked if there were further questions?
Commissioner
Price said her thought on that was on pure land mass, not that the population
impacted it, but trying to get from Point A to Point B to try to make other
meetings, did deter one sometimes in being timely and just getting there, and as
the county continued to grow that might present another problem with roads and
additional population.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he thought Commissioner Price had a good point regarding trying
to find a model government that could be looked at regarding showing whether or
not increasing from five to seven was a good idea. He said he would like to point out that the Lakeland
City Commission had actually voted to recommend to them to increase the county
commission to seven, and he said he thought they did that because they were
familiar with the problems of the county, and he thought they also did that
because they were presently at seven and felt that number worked well.
He said he thought that the City Commission, and the government in
Lakeland worked extremely well.
The Chairman
said he recalled the Polk County School Board’s Chairman, Bob Macey’s
comment that with seven, if extremists were on either side that would still give
a vote of five, and some sort of consensus could be reached in the middle and
that was another advantage.
Commissioner
Strang said he would like to make two observations.
He said he still favored the seven, but if one was looking for a model of
an efficiently run county, there was at least one county in the State of Georgia
that functioned very efficiently with one county commissioner.
Commissioner
Strang said the other observation was regarding the decennial redistricting.
He said it seemed to him that each time the state legislature or the
county redistricted they seemed to go out of their way to cut districts across
precinct lines, and he felt it was a pity that something couldn’t be placed in
the charter to encourage whomever was in charge of redistricting to try not to
disturb existing precinct lines, because it drove the Supervisor of Elections
crazy.
Chairman
Costello said when he was on the commission the boundary line in Winter Haven
ran down First Street, and that was unavoidable because of the need to balance
on the one hand a fairly even distribution of population, and on the other hand
to try to get city boundaries coincident with district boundaries.
Commissioner
Lindsey asked if the Commission could impose that the precincts be nested within
each district, and if that was within the Commission’s purview?
Mr. Spitzer said
he was not sure, and they were involved with a few different counties that were
redistricting, and the data came down from the Census Bureau in census blocks,
which were all different kinds of shapes, and generally speaking the Census
people tried to draw blocks based upon convenient existing boundaries whether it
be a water body or a road or a city block.
He said they were not equal in population, but generally speaking blocks
were what the supervisors used to draw precincts, and if they redrew the
commission districts in midstream, he said he thought it might be possible that
a precinct could be split, and hopefully that would be done in communication
with the Supervisor of Elections, but in that year especially in the urban
counties, and after the Legislature finishes with redistricting, there would be
renumbering of all of the voter precincts, and probably some redrawing of the
voter precincts. The ones that they were drawing then had been done in
communication with the Supervisor of Elections knowing that they were following
block boundaries, and not necessarily precinct boundaries, and they had not
expressed any problems with that because they were resigned to the fact that
they were going to have to redraw precincts anyway after the Legislature got
done.
The Chairman
said he would like to get back to the topic of the main motion, which was the
number of commissioners, and he asked if there was further discussion on the
main motion?
Commissioner
Price said just as a process question, and she said she knew that the Chairman
said that was sort of a straw vote issue, and for her clarification she asked if
they were going to go through every one of those issues on a straw vote basis?
The Chairman
said when using the term “straw vote”, it was a vote that was not final.
It was to give the Commission and the consultants an indication of where
they were at that particular stage. He
said that didn’t mean that it could not be changed in the future, just like
the Discussion Agenda happened to be fixed then, but that could be changed as
well.
Commissioner
Price asked based on the Commission’s schedule in looking at the Adopt Final
Recommendations, if that was the date where there would be no further discussion
or additions or deletions?
The Chairman
said that was not entirely correct. He
said that was the final adoption prior to the public hearings, but in the course
of the Public Hearings they could hear some comments, which would prompt them to
review, and when they meet after the Public Hearings they would review a draft
report. He said he had
checked that out early on, and if they weren’t going to be flexible with
respect to Public Hearings, what would be the sense in having a Public Hearing.
He said they would be hearing from the people, and want to determine,
what their input was so they could decide if they wanted to change things.
He said the first adoption would be strictly to be able to publicize
something to the public, to say that this is what we have come up with.
What do you all think?
Commissioner
Price said in that train of thought how many changes were made the last time
after they adopted a plan and went to Public Hearing?
The Chairman
said he would refer that question to Commissioner Strang or Commissioner
Masters.
Commissioner
Strang said as Commissioner Masters said earlier, most of what they heard during
the Public Hearings was a rehash of what they had heard earlier, and he didn’t
recall that there were any real significant changes in recommendations.
Commissioner
Masters said that he would agree with that.
Commissioner
Price thanked Commissioner Strang and Commissioner Masters for their comments.
The Chairman
asked if there was any additional discussion?
Commissioner
Strang said he inferred from what the Chairman said earlier that the motion that
was made earlier to recommend seven commissioners would require a two-thirds
majority.
Chairman
Costello said a two-thirds vote.
Commissioner
Strang said he thought it was a two-thirds vote to get it on the docket, but he
thought a simple majority was all that was necessary in that case.
The Chairman
said no, the simple majority vote was used for items to be added to the
Discussion Agenda, but in order for something to make its way to the
revision/amendment it would have to have two-thirds of those present with a
minimum of seven votes.
Commissioner
Strang clarified that they needed to have eight votes or two-thirds passage on
that evening or the subject would be dead for the time being?
The Chairman
said yes, dead for the time being, but it could be brought back.
Commissioner
Strang said all right.
The Chairman
said that the other option that they had would be to wait, but he was concerned
about waiting because it would feed indecision and they would have many issues
piling up, and they would not know what direction to go in.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
McLaughlin asked Mr. Spitzer if they voted that evening to increase the county
commission members from five to seven and that was the only thing that they
could agree upon, for instance, if they could not agree on the districting the
default then would be that they would have seven elected at-large in their own
districts?
Mr. Spitzer said
that was correct.
The Chairman
said that would be the only change.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that was right, and what he was saying was that they wouldn’t
have to tie that issue with the districts, and they could just put on the ballot
that they were moving the commission members from five to seven.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey called for the question.
The Chairman
said rather than calling the question, which would require a two-thirds vote,
because it would limit debate, he was going to hold the issue open a little
longer, and he asked if that was all right with Commissioner Moore Bailey?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said that would be fine. She
said in regards to going from five to seven commissioners she did not say much
earlier, and she did support going to seven whole heartedly, and for some of the
very same reasons that she had heard some of the other commissioners speak.
She certainly supported moving to seven because of the growth, and in
looking at some of the other counties under the Florida charter counties, she
said she saw where there was a mix. She was trying to understand Commissioner
McLaughlin’s question regarding single-member districts. She personally felt
if they did not have single-member districts where there was a mix 3-4 or 5-2 or
whatever she could assure them, and she was from northwest Lakeland, if they did
not have a single-member district there would not be any minority representation
on the county board. She said they
had some good candidates to run before for county office and they were very well
qualified and they didn’t make it. She
said she thought the question came up when Attorney Hardaway was there, and she
said she thought that Chairman Costello raised the question as to why he thought
there was not a minority representative in county government or at the School
Board in regards to a Superintendent. She
said that was because some people were just not ready, and going back to
Commissioner Lindsey’s comments she was not going to be the one who said it,
but she did not want it to be said that she was saying that someone was redneck
or whatever, but if the mentality was there, and people were saying that all
over the State of Florida, she felt they needed to look at that, and they needed
to find out ways they could be more creative so they could be more inclusive.
She said that was her comment, and she did support some form of
single-member district, and she knew that people didn’t want to think about
voting for seven without knowing specifically what they were looking at, and if
she was voting for seven she hoped that there was in that mix somewhere some
single-member districts.
The Chairman
thanked Commissioner Moore Bailey for her comments.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he had a reply to Commissioner Moore Bailey’s comments.
He said he didn’t favor electing them on a single-member district
basis. He said, for instance, they
would still have a county commissioner who would have to reside in a particular
district as opposed to anywhere in the county. He would agree with her that it
would be more difficult, but he thought since they were coming from specific
communities he felt it did lend itself towards getting more minority
participation.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked if she could respond?
The Chairman
said if the next comment was regarding single-member districting he was going to
cut it off because it was not germane to the issue and the main motion, which
was increasing the county commission from five to seven members.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Moore Bailey if she was going to talk about single-member
districting?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she wanted to make the following comment, and then she would
be finished with comments on that issue. She
said she would support seven and she would support seven with single-member
districts with the understanding that the person not only resides in that
district, but is elected by that district.
The Chairman
said that vote was strictly with respect to the number and not with respect to
whether it was single-member districted or not.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he was getting back to the point that the Chairman had made
earlier, and the first step in that progress was getting seven, and felt that
staying at five was not going to get them any closer whether it was that year or
in ten years or whenever, and the first step was to get to seven and he felt
that would be a giant step. He said
he thought Polk County needed to be a leader to the larger counties, and not
wait until they did something to do it, and that it was time that they be
proactive instead of reactive and be bold and go with seven commissioners, and
take the knuckles off about single-member districts.
Commissioner
Lindsey made a motion to amend the Charter to increase the number of county
commissioners from five to seven, and Commissioner Moore Bailey seconded the
motion.
The Chairman
said he just wanted to clarify for those who weren’t present when they were
discussing that issue that it was not a final absolute unchangeable vote, and
that it was strictly an initial indication.
He asked all those in favor of moving the motion to seven to please
answer aye. He asked Ms. Swearengin
to call the roll, and to record the votes.
The results were 11/1 with the ayes in the majority. The motion carried.
The Chairman
asked the Commission take a ten minutes recess, if there were no objections.
The Commission recessed at 7:15 p.m.
The Commission
reconvened at 7:25 p.m.
The Chairman
said the next item on the agenda was Districting, and he asked Mr. Spitzer to
speak regarding that.
Mr. Spitzer said
they had already touched on some of the issues that evening, and they were
discussed in his memo to them that was provided to them prior to their meeting
the last time they met. He said
there were four or five options that were available to them given the fact they
at the present time would recommend that there would be seven county
commissioners, and one obviously would be to have seven county commissioners
elected on an at-large basis, but required to live in specific residence areas
of the county, and those areas would be required to be as nearly equal in
population as is possible, and that generally meant that any one area could not
be greater than five percent larger or smaller than the average district size.
He said a second option would be to have a system of three and four such
as Hillsborough and Pinellas counties where there were three commissioners
elected on at-large basis and four elected from so called single-member
districts, with only the electors of that district being able to vote for the
candidate from that district. He said there were two slightly different nuances
between those two different systems, and Pinellas did have a residency
requirement for the at-large county commissioners, and they were required to
live in specific residence areas of the county, and Hillsborough did not, and
the at-large commissioners in Hillsborough County could reside in any particular
area of the county. He said a third
option would be to have a system of five and two.
Five single-member districts, and two elected at-large. He said that was a statutory option that was available to
non-chartered counties, and Volusia County had that particular system in place.
He said the fourth option would be to have seven single-member district
commissioners. He said his quick
research for the Charter Commission from a few years earlier showed that they
could draw a district boundary with seven single-member districts, and they
could achieve one of those seven single-member districts drawn in a fashion
where they could get an African American population of thirty-eight percent. He said a final option that he would give, although he
was not sure it was something that they were considering, but that they could go
to a system such as Orange County where there were six single-member district
commissioners and one member of the Board of County Commissioners who was
elected directly as the Chair of the County Commission with or without
managerial powers.
The Chairman
asked Mr. Spitzer if there were really only three choices, and they were: stay
the same; go to all single-member districts; or to have a mixed system?
Mr. Spitzer said
that was correct.
The Chairman
said the following were the options that they should discuss: stay where they
were at the present time, which basically was the commissioners had to reside
within districts, but everyone got to vote for each commissioner; all
single-member districts or a combination of some single-member and some
at-large. The Chairman asked the
Commission what their pleasure was?
The Chairman
said they would discuss the issue first and then go to the motion.
Commissioner
Allen said that his inclination was seven at-large.
The Chairman
said so it would stay the same in a sense?
Commissioner
Allen said yes.
Commissioner
Strang said he favored a mixed with either a 5-2 or 4-3, and he felt it offered
something to everybody.
Commissioner
McLaughlin said he favored a mixture as well, but when he said mixture he meant
residing within their districts, and then two at-large, but all of the
commissioners being voted on at an at-large basis.
The Chairman
said that was really a fourth option that he had not mentioned.
Mr. Spitzer said
that was true.
The Chairman
said the commissioners would not be resident bound and could live anywhere in
the county, so theoretically there could be three commissioners from one
district?
Mr. Spitzer said
yes theoretically.
The Chairman
said that was a fourth option.
Commissioner
Masters said he would go with mixed.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he would go with same, in that things stayed the way they were.
The Chairman
asked Commissioner Lindsey if his choice was the same as Jim Allen’s?
Commissioner
Lindsey said yes.
Commissioner
Nunnallee said she would go with mixed.
Commissioner
Stoer said she would go with mixed.
Commissioner
Dukes said he would go with seven single-member districts.
Commissioner
Hunt said that she would like for things to stay the same as they presently
were.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey asked if they were taking a vote then?
Chairman
Costello said no, it was just discussion.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said she would like the districts to be six single-member districts
to one county-wide.
Commissioner
Price said that she would like to go with the mixed districts.
The Chairman
said there had been a wide range of views with four different options: stay with
the same districting scheme, which
was what we currently had even though the number of county commissioners would
go to seven, based upon a previous vote; all single-member districts, and there
was one expression to that affect, and then one would be six single-member
districts, and one, which would really be in the mixed category, and he asked if
there was a motion as to one of the four options?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said what he was referring to when he said five and two was some
people were saying the five should be elected within those particular districts,
and what he was favoring was having the five live in the districts, but then
having them elected on a countywide basis, and also having two extra elected on
a countywide basis, and he thought that was very similar to the Lakeland
framework for the Lakeland City Commission where they have five and two, with
five commissioners that reside in the area and their particular precincts or
districts and then two elected on at-large basis with everyone being elected on
an at-large basis.
The Chairman
asked if that would not have the tendency to favor Lakeland even beyond the
demographics?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that people were saying that, but he thought if they kept it as
seven and they redrew the districts with the population he thought they would
find that Lakeland would end up with four or close to it.
The Chairman
said with four out of the seven?
Commissioner
McLaughlin said that was right, and that might favor other interested areas.
He said the Ridge and other interested areas might actually favor the
five to two as opposed to just seven single-member districts.
The Chairman
asked if that answered Commissioner Moore Bailey’s question?
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said yes it did.
Commissioner
Dukes said on the last issue they had some discussion on why they wanted to vote
the way they voted, and he said even though he said that he would like to see
seven single-member districts he was flexible, and he was hoping to get some
more information regarding how others were thinking.
The Chairman
asked him if he received that input?
Commissioner
Dukes said no.
The Chairman
said that he was in favor of a mixed system, and he worried some about all
single-member districts because he was concerned about the parochial nature that
might induce, and he thought they really needed to think as one county, and when
there were six or seven single-member districts and the voters were strictly in
one’s own backyard he thought it would be difficult to do that.
He said the Legislature was in a different mode because they had
leadership groups and committees and a lot of work was done through that power
structure where that same situation did not exist at the county level, but on
the other hand he felt they needed to get away from the present system because
he didn’t think it was fair. He
said while the mixed four to three or five to two whatever that might be because
they weren’t really to that point of deciding how it would be mixed, but he
did favor the mixed, and he thought it would enhance not as much as Commissioner
Dukes’ suggestion would, but he thought that it would enhance somewhat the
opportunities for minorities, but at the same time one would be able to get
around the tendency to be excessively parochial when what was really needed was
people that could see long distances for the whole county, and that was where he
stood.
He asked others
who had a position on that issue to explain what their position was a little
more clearly.
Commissioner
Strang said he shared the mixed idea for the same reasons that the Chairman did,
and for additional reasons in that having four or five single-member districts
where the candidate needed to live in that district and was elected solely from
that district, and he felt the voters were more likely to know the candidates
well, and they should be able to elect better people, and he thought that was
one important additional consideration in the single-member district scheme, and
he thought having either two or three elected at-large would apply a leavening
influence on the parochialism that he referred to.
The Chairman
asked if others would like to explain their positions?
Commissioner
Lindsey said he thought to say that the only way that minority representation
would be included was by having single-member districts was really a slap in the
fact to the Brenda Reddout and the Carrie Odoms and the J.J. Corbett and the Gow
Fields who all ran within their jurisdiction, and Ms. Reddout and Mr. Corbett
countywide and on a citywide basis with Carrie and Gow.
He said there were opportunities, granted there had been few and far
between, but the opportunities for those who were offering themselves were
greater, and that was the first step in the process.
He said if they wanted to take care of potholes on their street and the
playground at the end of the block then they would want single-member districts,
because those were the people that were going to take care of that because they
were going to see that their particular neighborhood was taken care of, because
they really didn’t care what happened in Frostproof or Polk City or Lake Wales
or anywhere else, and they were going to take care of fifty-one percent of those
people who lived in that little fiefdom. He
said if they wanted to address the needs of a growing county, countywide and
have people who have an interest countywide, then they needed to vote at-large
because they needed to sell themselves at-large.
He said they needed to be aware of the issues at-large and not so
narrowly focused that the broader needs of the county, weren’t seen.
He said as those people regardless of race or creed have issues that they
can sell the voting population, then they would represent the voting population
regardless of their background, but he felt the opportunities were being
expanded and everyone was being encouraged, and everyone knew that leadership
was needed as was mentioned earlier, and he thought the breath of fresh air of
those who would offer themselves like the Reddout’s, Fields’, Corbett’s,
and the others that were yet to come, and they would come, and they had heard
from some wonderful people there in the last six months that he wished they
could encourage them to run the various offices not only for the county
commission, but the other constitutional offices as well, but it wasn’t going
to happen over night.
Commissioner
Moore Bailey said in regards to that comment she personally did not feel that
she was myopic in her thinking, but she did look at other candidates who had run
for countywide seats, such as Larry Hardaway, Virginia Cummings Lane, and most
recently Commissioner Ann Darby, and they were not elected, and she said they
were very capable people. She said
if one looked at the history of Lakeland, Cary Odoms did a good job as a
commissioner and mayor; however, there were some problems with Commissioner
Fields from the community. She said
as Commissioner Strang mentioned earlier, the people in the community knew the
people who were representing them, and she felt the issue was larger than
potholes when one was representing a specific area. She said that most of the members of the Charter Review
Commission were from Lakeland, but they were sympathetic to the needs of Haines
City, Lake Alfred, Lake Wales and the entire seventeen municipalities in the
county, and she felt Commissioner Lindsey’s previous comments were not a fair
assessment of her personally, but she would say that she felt strongly about the
single-member districts when it came to having diverse representation at the
county level.
The Chairman
asked if there were further comments?
Commissioner
Strang said he would like to respond to what Commissioner Lindsey said.
He said he thought another consideration in single-member districts that
leveled the field some as far as minority candidates were concerned, was it
lessened the importance of fund raising and the ability to raise money to run a
campaign, because it took less money to run a single-member district campaign
than a countywide campaign. He said
that was another reason why he liked having at least some single-member
districts.
The Chairman
said they did not have a motion, and with due respect to what Commissioner
McLaughlin said they did have three options, and the first option was that all
of the voters in the county vote for all commissioners, the second was voters
vote only for commissioners in their districts, and that was all single-member
districts; and the third option was all of the voters in the county vote for
some of the commissioners, but for the other commissioners only the voters in
their district vote for them. Those
three options were A, B, and C. The
Chairman asked if there was a motion for either A, B, or C?
Commissioner
Lindsey made a motion that all of the voters in the county would be able to vote
for all commissioners, and Commissioner Allen seconded the motion.
The Chairman
asked if there was further discussion?
Commissioner
Lindsey said earlier they spoke about limiting the rights of the people, and
they wanted to avoid that. He said
as it stood then, they had the right to vote for five commissioners, and a
single-member
Commissioner
Lindsey said his reason for speaking in favor of his motion was it allowed him
to vote for seven and he felt anything less than that would be a reduction of
his voting rights then.
Commissioner
Masters said he had a question for Mr. Watts or Kurt Spitzer. He said he personally liked the idea of voting for all of the
commissioners, but he would also like to see a minority have a chance to either
raise the funds or feel like they had a chance of being placed on the ballot.
He asked in their dealings with other counties that had wrestled with
that issue what had been done in those areas, and was there a way to give a
minority a chance of getting on the ballot other than changing the districting?
Mr. Spitzer said
he would like to talk about Pinellas who recently went to seven, and it was a
three and four system. He said one
of the four single-member districts was an area that encompassed all of south
central St. Petersburg, which was an area that had a high African American
population, and in that single-member district the African American population
of that district was around twenty-seven percent and there was an African
American candidate who was successful for the county commission from that
district. He said at the same time
he had seen other counties such as Leon County, after a five and two system was
put into place, which had an African American commissioner who was elected
at-large countywide. He said in
Pinellas there was an African American commissioner who was appointed to fill a
vacancy by Governor Chiles, but had been subsequently elected on a countywide
basis. He said he did not know of
any other method, and perhaps Mr. Watts could offer some suggestions.
Commissioner
Lindsey said, as he understood it, there was a greater chance of minority
representation the smaller the district, and if there were seven districts there
would be a greater opportunity to have minority representation than if there
were four single-member districts and three at-large or some other combination.
The Chairman
said that he understood the point that Commissioner Lindsey was making, and he
had not spoken as to the combination that he would be for, but if there were,
for instance four single-member districts, and three at-large, there would in
affect be about 125,000 people per single member district.
He said he thought the City of Lakeland had approximately 75,000 people.
He said at that point, for an African American to succeed what they had
to do was to be able to get a majority of 125,000, and even if all the seven
districts weren’t single-member, and there were only four the opportunities
for individuals would be enhanced, in addition to the other benefits.
Commissioner
Lindsey said he did not agree with that statement.
Mr. Watts said
common wisdom was that it was easier to elect minority candidates if a number of
small single-member districts were had, but that conventional wisdom was based
upon an assumption that minority communities were going to live together in
identifiable spots, and that they were not going to disburse, and therefore
lines could be drawn around those communities and concentrate minority
populations in those communities. He
said just as an observation from someone who had grown up in Polk County, and
that was the way that it had been. He
said he thought that a lot of what happened in the desegregation of school
systems not only in the south, but across the country was based upon the
assumption that the schools could handle desegregation, and the way that it was
done was that everybody continued to live in the same neighborhood and people
were bussed out to make proper mixtures within the school system.
He said probably in hindsight there were many people in all-racial groups
who think that was not exactly a social success.
He said one grappled with the question of whether one makes the
assumption that we were going to divide people and neighborhoods by ethnicity.
The Chairman said he t