MINUTES
POLK COUNTY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 26, 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. Chairman Costello asked Commissioner Doris Moore Bailey to lead
the prayer and Commissioner McLaughlin to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Costello said
he would like the record to show the Commission has a quorum.
Chairman Costello said the first
order of business was the approval of the Minutes for June 12, 2001. He
said before he asked for the Commission’s action on that, he would like to make
a couple of corrections. The first being, the correction in the spelling of
Mr. Keene’s name, and second the correction in the spelling of Sheriff Crow’s
name.
Chairman Costello asked
the Commission if they had any other corrections to the minutes other than those?
Commissioner Lindsey said he noticed
several occasions in the minutes where the date July 9th was mentioned,
and it should have been July 10th.
Chairman Costello said he should
have mentioned that as well. He said he did not know how that occurred,
but in his letter to the Commission he indicated July 9th and July
23rd when it should have been July 10th and July 24th,
so wherever in the minutes July 9th appears it should be July 10th.
Chairman Costello asked if there
were any additional changes to the minutes? There were none.
Commissioner Lindsey made a motion
to approve the minutes. Commissioner Nunnallee seconded the motion.
Chairman Costello asked if there
was further discussion. There was none. The motion carried.
Chairman Costello said the Commission
would be hearing Invited Guest Presentations, and the first speaker would be
Phillip E. Kuhn for Citizens for Truth in Government.
Chairman Costello invited
Mr. Kuhn to speak.
Mr. Kuhn began his presentation
by stating he represented Citizens for Truth in Government as well as the Home
Rule Charter Committee, and All Roads Lead to Polk. He thanked the Commission
for their invitation.
He said the first thing he wanted
to speak to the Commission about, was which standards they would employ to determine
what amendments would be presented to the voters. He said he didn’t think
the Commission was going to conduct any surveys, so that they would have a basis
for voter intent, and he didn’t think the Commission could decide solely upon
their own personal opinions. He said it was the premise of the people he represented,
and the Commission has both a moral and constitutional duty to place upon the
public referendum, for vote, all requests for amendments to the Charter made
by any citizen unless those amendments are unconstitutional on their face.
He said the Charter created the
Commission to meet periodically as a procedural formal body for the purpose
of collecting the requests, formalizing them into a ballot amendment, and submitting
those ballot amendments to the voters at the next general election. He
said they had two reasons for this, which he would like to present to the Commission.
He said, the first reason they believe the Commission should present to the voters all constitutional amendments requested to the Polk County Charter, is basically the political climate in which they now live. He said USA Today did an article a year ago called the “Invisible Voter Is Everywhere”. He said he couldn’t attest to their statistics, but he didn’t feel there was anyone in the room that would doubt democracy was suffering from a certain anemia and undernourishment. He said they had statistics that one out of three adults are registered voters, and of the registered voters, usually no more than 50% turned out for an election. He said he thought this was fairly evident, so basically they were supporting a democracy managed, directed, and controlled by the minority of citizens. He said this has created a growing alienation and distrust of the citizenry, and he didn’t feel it was the time to discuss the reasons for that. He said he didn’t feel blame should be cast on anybody, but he thought that was the democratic reality that now existed, which makes it incumbent upon those in authority, people that are given the power to take concrete, innovative, practical steps in giving the voter the perception that their concerns are being heard and are valid. He said the Commission had a unique opportunity to do that, by not substituting their opinion as to what is good for the County, and for the right of the voter to choose the kind of government that they wished to have.
He said he thought when the Commission
decided to place something on the ballot as a potential amendment they needed
to ask themselves the following questions: Does the decision give the people
of Polk County greater self determination? Does the decision give the
people of Polk County control over their own destiny? Does the Commission’s
decision give the people of Polk County a more responsible government? Does
the decision give the people of Polk County a guarantee of constitutional rights,
equal protection, and due process? Does the decision give the people of
Polk County the inalienable right of the individual citizen to decide his or
her own fate? Does the decision support the principle that all political
power is inherent in the people?
He said, when the Commission
decided on its issues, and formulated its arguments as to why they were not
going to put something before the people, he thought they should formulate their
arguments by answering each of the Preamble requirements.
He said, he thought the Commission’s
boundaries and limitations of discretion were the purpose of the Charter itself.
He said, he thought the people voted for a Charter in order to transfer political
power, and self-determination back to the people.
He said he was sure the Commission
would not agree with many of the suggested amendments that would be presented
to them over the course of their next succession of meetings. He said
he felt sure the Commission would be able to formulate some practical and theoretical
objections to them. He asked the Commission to ask themselves who ultimately
had the right to decide what government they wished to serve under, and since
they were not elected by the people, but were appointed by the Commission, and
the Constitutional Officers pursuant to the Charter, he thought they should
give great deference to recommendations, and allow the voters to decide.
He said that was not to say the voters were going to agree with the recommendation,
and it was not to say the recommendation was going to win at the ballot box,
so that the Charter is amended, and it was not to say the Commission could not
take a public position on the issue if they disagreed with it, but the ultimate
right to decide did not reside in that room, and does not reside with his group.
Mr. Kuhn said he appreciated the
Commission’s time and attention, and he would be happy to address any questions.
Chairman Costello asked
the Commission if anyone had questions.
Commissioner Nunnallee said she
had two questions. She asked how many members there were in Citizens for
Truth in Government?
Mr. Kuhn replied 50 to 75.
Commissioner Nunnallee said Mr.
Kuhn quoted that 72% of the people were in agreement. She asked if that
72% was from those that voted or from the population in the County?
Mr. Kuhn, replied, they were the
ones who voted for term limits and salary reductions; and there were a little
over 100,000 votes.
Commissioner McLaughlin thanked
Mr. Kuhn for his comments. He asked Mr. Kuhn how he would like to
see the Commission resolve conflicting amendments? Commissioner McLaughlin
said, for instance, the Commission could have a group in, and they might think
the Constitutional Officers should have a salary of $80,000, and then another
group could come in, and say they believe the Constitutional Officers should
have a salary of $60,000, and at that point, there would be two conflicting
amendments, and what he understood Mr. Kuhn to say, was that both groups were
entitled to be placed on the ballot. He asked who decides which one gets
on the ballot, and who decides the wording of that particular amendment?
Mr. Kuhn said he thought the Commission
should decide on the wording, but the people of Polk County have the right to
decide which one they want.
Commissioner McLaughlin
asked, put both on the ballot, and which one receives the highest number of
votes would be the deciding factor?
Mr. Kuhn replied, yes.
Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr.
Kuhn if there was any number that he believed would lead to voter confusion,
for example, if the Commission had 400 amendments that were proposed?
Mr. Kuhn replied, no. He
said that was the objection that had been used before, and he felt it was an
unwarranted and unjustified assumption.
Commissioner McLaughlin
asked if there were a gratuitous amendment placed almost as a joke, which did
not violate the constitutional rights of any citizen, and was constitutional
on its face, would the Commission have the responsibility to reject that amendment?
Mr. Kuhn said that he thought that
the Commission should put everything on the ballot that was facially constitutional.
Commissioner Lindsey said Mr. Kuhn
mentioned he didn’t think there would be an excessive number. He asked
him what was excessive?
Mr. Kuhn said he wasn’t sure what
would be considered excessive.
Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr.
Kuhn if each item was a yes or no ballot check, then how would he exclude Commissioner
McLaughlin’s example about a six year, $80,000 differential when both items
would be on the ballot? Commissioner Lindsey said if they were voting
on each one individually it would not be exclusionary.
Mr. Kuhn said, he didn’t understand,
if the Commission had a ballot for the Constitutional Officer to be paid $80,000
yearly, and then they received another ballot wanting him to be paid $60,000
yearly, then the ones that didn’t want him to be paid $80,000 should vote no,
and the ones wanting him to be paid $60,000 should vote yes.
Commissioner Lindsey said he thought
it was possible in theory to have a majority vote in both cases.
Mr. Kuhn said that might
be true.
Commissioner McLaughlin reconfirmed
with Mr. Kuhn that his position would be with the highest number.
Commissioner Moore Bailey said
the Commission hadn’t heard from the Constitutional Officers, and the County
Commissioners, but she feels they could come in, and make some recommendations,
and the Commission would be duty bound to put those issues on the ballot plus
whomever else comes. She said that Commissioner McLaughlin used the hypothetical
term 400, and she asked Mr. Kuhn if he still felt no matter how large the number
of issues they should still be placed on the ballot?
Mr. Kuhn said, yes.
Mr. Lindsey asked Mr. Kuhn if it
would be his position for simplification, in lieu of the Commission, if perhaps
two or three procedural lawyers could simply polish each request and add them
to the list?
Mr. Kuhn said he hadn’t discussed
that, but hypothetically they could establish by the Charter itself that this
is the way the voters have voted to review their Charter on a periodic basis
for amendments, so this is the procedural mechanism that has been established
by the voters.
Commissioner Lindsey reconfirmed
with Mr. Kuhn, that to carry his suggestion to its conclusion, any and all items
that meet constitutional muster should be placed on the ballot.
Mr. Kuhn replied, yes.
Commissioner Lindsey said, rather
than having any deliberation, discussion, or debate on the merits of it, that
any number of people could line up, appear before a desk of a Constitutional
Lawyer retained for that purpose, and make sure their request was phrased properly,
and then place it on the ballot, and then the next one would do the same ministerial
critique, and stack them up, and that would be the ballot.
Mr. Kuhn said, he could not, and
would not answer that question. He said Commissioner Lindsey was using
a hypothetical situation to create unfair debate.
Commissioner Lindsey replied, that
was not his intention, and he was only trying to understand Mr. Kuhn’s representation
that the Commission has no discretion, and if an issue simply meets constitutional
muster then that is good enough to place it on the ballot. He said if
that was the case, then it need not have any public debate, simply monitor it,
clean it to constitutional satisfaction, and stack them up.
Mr. Kuhn said that was correct,
and he felt that was what the Commission should do.
Chairman Costello asked Mr. Kuhn
if he was correct in his understanding, that even though the County is a Charter
county, that another restraint would be the General Laws of the State of Florida?
Mr. Kuhn stated that was
true.
Chairman Costello reconfirmed that
his question was true, and he said, as he understood it, there would the restraint
of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the United States Constitution,
and the general laws of the State of Florida.
Mr. Kuhn replied that was
correct.
Chairman Costello asked if there
were other questions from Commissioners? There were none.
Chairman Costello thanked
Mr. Kuhn for his presentation.
Chairman Costello invited
Doug Bark, of the Citizens Law Enforcement Watch to speak to the Commission.
Mr. Bark passed a handout to the
Commission members. (A copy is in the Commission files).
Mr. Bark expressed the concern
that while we say we believe in equal justice and freedom for all in America,
the principle is not being applied fairly. He said as a result of his
concern and the concern of others about civil rights violations, he formed an
organization called Citizens Law Enforcement Watch.
Mr. Bark said he would like - the
citizens of Polk County to have the opportunity to vote on a Citizen’s Review
Board, and initially he would like to have that Citizen’s Review Board have
the authority to review Police and Law Enforcement activity in Polk County.
To justify his proposal, Mr. Bark
began by citing several incidents involving local law enforcement agencies,
and using these incidents as the basis for the need to have a Citizen’s Review
Board.
He referred to a compilation of
articles, appearing mostly in local papers, which detailed actions by law enforcement
authorities, which argued for a Citizens Review Board. He cited one article,
which summarized so called blunders by police authorities. He talked about
some of the specific “blunders.”
These “blunders” in his view illuminate
the need for Citizens Review. He is not satisfied that those in authority
are taking adequate action to counter these “blunders.” He expressed concern
about problems involving prisoners in the county jail system, some of which
have led to lawsuits and subsequent settlements at taxpayer’s expense.
He expressed a concern that sixteen
people have died in Polk County Jails, and whether their deaths have been adequately
investigated. Liberty and justice for all should include everybody even
those in jail.
Enough questions have been
raised concerning the number of arrests in Polk County, the number of propagation
violations, that a Citizens Review Panel is necessary to investigate these findings.
Mr. Bark said he would have to
talk about the construction, and the method of selection for this panel at a
later date. He said one of the things that his group would like to see
is a Citizens Review Panel, with citizens only on that board. He
does not want law enforcement officials included on the panel.
Mr. Bark read from a letter describing
what he considered inappropriate action against a citizen by the Lakeland Police
Department suggesting inadequate training for police officers. He said
we desperately need this panel in order to ensure liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Bark thanked the Commission
for its time and attention.
Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Bark
for his presentation.
Chairman Costello said he had a
couple of questions for Mr. Bark. First, what jurisdiction would the proposed
Citizen’s Review Board have; and would they have jurisdiction over all of the
16 municipalities, as well as the Sheriff’s Department?
Mr. Bark replied he would hope
that it would.
He said they have a precedent that
was done by the Legislature when they passed a law forming the Public Safety
Coordinating Committee. He said the Legislature apparently has the authority
to dictate that those people will sit down and try to solve some of these problems.
He said the particular problem that they were
Chairman Costello said the second
question he had was with regard to fact finding. He said he noticed there
were a couple of systems in use, one was fact finding by professional police
officers with review of the fact finding and judgment by a Citizen’s Review
Panel, and another system was fact finding by the Citizen’s Review Panel coupled
with their judgment. He asked which of the two systems he recommended?
He said he would recommend the
Citizens Review Panel do the fact finding. He does not have faith in law
enforcement officers doing an adequate investigation.
Commissioner Masters asked if the
Citizens Review Panel would be reviewing all “blunders” for all of the municipalities,
and if so, what the percentage of blunders were versus total arrests?
Mr. Bark said he thought the only
percentage he could quote with any accuracy would be the audits that they actually
did. He said, all he knew was, of the 139,000 people law enforcement took
to Bartow, with $1,640 spent on each one, for booking them into the jail, half
of them were not found guilty of anything. He said that cost amounted
to over $100 million dollars.
Mr. Bark said he did not
know if the panel would be expected to do that, but the information that they
obtained was received from the Clerk’s office.
Commissioner Masters asked
Mr. Bark if there would be a committee that would go through the 50,000 or 60,000
cases, and if they would decide which cases needed to go to the other committee
that would be reviewing the case?
Mr. Bark said he didn’t know if
they could expect the committee to go backwards.
Commissioner Masters said,
no he was only referring to the future.
Mr. Bark replied, that for the
future, the annual number would be somewhere along the lines of 25,000.
Commissioner Masters asked
if that was for Polk County alone?
Mr. Bark said yes.
Commissioner Masters asked
if all of the 25,000 cases would be reviewed?
Mr. Bark said from what he had
seen from around the United States on civilian review panels, it’s those situations,
which cry for investigation by an independent body.
Commissioner Masters asked
who would choose that?
Mr. Bark said the Review
Panel.
Commissioner Masters asked,
so they would have to review all of them?
Mr. Bark said, perhaps, but the
ones that he was aware of did not choose all of them.
Commissioner Masters thanked
Mr. Bark for his comments.
Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr.
Bark how he proposed the structure of that committee would work?
He asked if it would be an appointed position, and it so, who would appoint
it?
Mr. Bark said that was a very good
question. He said his thought would be that they would like to have representation
from every segment, the NAACP, churches, and migrant representation, so that
everyone would be represented on the Citizen’s Review Panel. He said he
would particularly like to see the best cross section of the community.
Commissioner McLaughlin asked Mr.
Bark if he had a number in mind?
Mr. Bark said no.
Chairman Costello asked
who would appoint the members of the Citizen’s Review Panel?
Mr. Bark said he would hope that
this Commission would have something to say about it, but he could not give
him a definitive answer to that question. Some years ago he had asked
the Polk County Commission to establish a Citizens Review Panel, but they refused,
saying they did not think they had the authority.
Commissioner Moore Bailey asked,
when Mr. Bark talked about establishing a Citizen Review Panel, what kind of
timeframe was he looking at, and she asked if this was something he wanted to
put before the citizens to vote on? She said he also talked about 50%
of the 139,000 people that were arrested, and were not found guilty, and she
asked how he thought that could be curtailed?
Mr. Bark said he thought that supervision
would the first thing. He said he felt that an officer should not be allowed
to spend $1,640 of a taxpayer’s money without someone approving it. He
said he didn’t know of anyone in government that spent $1,640 on his own judgment,
with the exception of a police officer. He said he thought if an officer
was taking someone to jail, he thought someone should overview it.
Commissioner Moore Bailey asked
Mr. Bark if he thought the County had a sufficient number of law enforcement
officers?
Mr. Bark said he thought Commissioner
Moore Bailey was getting to the heart of the matter, and he was glad she asked
that question. In reply to her question he introduced a book with the
title of “Going Up the River” to the Commission, and stated that the author
of that book had studied that particular issue for ten years, and it was his
conclusion that the tail was beginning to wag the dog. He said, because
there was so much money being produced by the taxpayers, because of the hype
about crime, prisoners in some jurisdictions were considered assets, and not
liabilities.
Commissioner Dukes said,
when Mr. Bark referred to the Citizen’s Review Board, he talked about them investigating
certain incidents, and perhaps making recommendations to improve the process,
so those types of incidents didn’t happen again, and he asked Mr. Bark who the
recommendations would be made to?
He does not want the review Board
to report to the Sheriff. Mr. Bark said he would suggest that they
a process to request an official action one-way or the other included in the
ordinance. He said he thought that it would take lawyers, and other smart
people to arrive at a sensible and intelligent way to address that particular
question.
Commissioner Dukes asked Mr. Bark
in his opinion, if those recommendations for process improvement included disciplinary
action? Commissioner Dukes said Mr. Bark talked about the situation in
Frost Proof, and he wanted to know if he was suggesting the Committee review
the corrective measures as well?
Mr. Bark said that some do have
that authority.
Commissioner Nunnallee
asked how many members were in Mr. Bark’s organization?
Mr. Bark said 50.
Commissioner Nunnallee
asked of the cases that were mentioned, if any court monitoring had been done
by his organization?
Mr. Bark said yes. He has
followed up on several of the cases.
Chairman Costello said he thought
the Commission needed to move on, and he asked Commissioner Nunnallee if she
had further questions for Mr. Bark.
Commissioner Nunnallee
said no.
Chairman Costello asked Mr. Bark
in his responses be as brief as possible.
Commissioner Lindsey said he understood
the responsibility of leadership that Mr. Bark alluded to earlier. He
asked him if he thought that the situations he cited were systematic to the
Polk County Sheriff’s Department or were they the result of a few rogue cops?
Mr. Bark said when the Super Bowl
took place in Tampa the Lakeland Police Department, participated in it, by policing
the crowds, and when his people went over there, he said the Chief of Police
of Lakeland told him the following story. He said he had been warned not
to go to Lakeland as Chief by Federal Law Enforcement people because of the
reputation the Lakeland Police Department had for rough stuff.
Mr. Bark said, when his organization
went over for the meeting of law enforcement people for the Super Bowl, whoever
was in charge of it said, “You Lakeland PD people, we want to tell you no rough
stuff.” He said it sounded to him like they did have that reputation,
and it seems to be following them around.
Commissioner Lindsey asked
Mr. Bark which Super Bowl he was referring to?
Mr. Bark said this was the first
one.
Commissioner Lindsey asked
if there was a model board in the country that he would model?
Mr. Bark said that as of then,
he could not give him the name of a model board, but that was something that
he wanted to get, and he was making and effort to try to get that information.
Commissioner Lindsey asked
if it would be appropriate to give extraordinary authority to the State Attorney’s
Office for this purpose, or were they included with “law enforcement?”
Mr. Bark said he didn’t know if
they were inclusive with law enforcement or not.
Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr.
Bark in his dealings with law enforcement, if he or any member of his group
had routinely accompanied officers on patrol?
Mr. Bark said he had in
the past, but not recently.
Commissioner Nunnallee
asked what the timeframe was on the cases that Mr. Bark cited?
Mr. Bark said they were all dated
in the newspapers that the commissioners received.
Chairman Costello asked
if Mr. Bark had a handout for the Commission members?
Mr. Bark said he a copy of a document
of the Public Safety Coordinating Committee. (Handouts were given to
the Commission, and a copy is in the file).
Mr. Bark thanked the Commission
for its time.
Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Bark
for his presentation.
Chairman Costello asked if the
representative from the Parental Action Group was there?
Chairman Costello said that apparently
they were not attending the meeting.
Chairman Costello said if there
were no objections, he would like for the Commission to take a five-minute recess.
There were no objections.
The Commission reconvened at 7:20
p.m.
Chairman Costello invited Mr. Phillip
E. Kuhn, representing All Roads Lead to Polk, to speak to the Commission.
Mr. Kuhn said he wanted to speak
to the Commission regarding the establishment of the countywide office of the
Ombudsmen or Public Advocate. He said the Ombudsmen office was a public
office created by the Legislative Branch of government. He said the office
is a government office, that is a representative of the private citizen, to
resolve disputes between the citizen, and a government agency. He said
there were
The Ombudsmen is given broad investigatory
powers, and the right of a subpoena, however, the office is prohibited from
bringing suit to compel agency action. The power of the office rests exclusively
in persuasion, and negotiation based upon the mutual exchange of information
between the citizen and the agency. Acts of the Legislature and acts of
the County Commission are outside the scope of this office’s inquiry. The Ombudsmen
does not have jurisdiction over courts, or legal matters, and they don’t have
jurisdiction if the dispute is solely between private parties, and not involving
agencies of the government. The Ombudsmen cannot provide legal advice or legal
representation. Its sole function is to assist the citizen who has a dispute
with an agency of the County, and for the Ombudsmen to assist that citizen in
the resolution of that dispute, by gathering information, and contacting the
agency to see if the problem can be resolved. Usually states that have
this office give the Ombudsmen subpoena power, but under Florida’s broad Sunshine
Law, he said he thought they probably wouldn’t need subpoena power, because
the Sunshine Law could probably be used to gather whatever information was necessary
from the agency.
He said the advantages of that
office were as follows. It is a readily accessible office to receive complaints,
which enhance the citizens’ trust in government. It helps all without
regard to wealth, power, status, education or political affiliation.
It provides easier access to government
officials and records, has a year-round staff in growing expertise, and has
the ability to penetrate bureaucratic and agency symbols and catch phrases.
It is able to make government simpler for the person seeking assistance.
It is able to deal with problems involving more than one department, it is independent
and nonpartisan, and has the ability to evaluate, and recommend resolutions.
It has the ability to exonerate officials from unfair complaints. He said
this office was for the benefit of both the government, and the citizen.
He said this office could help avert legal suits against the government, and
could increase awareness of ethical standards through the cases they handled.
They can make recommendations that help administrators take proper action or
re-evaluate procedures, and they will encourage quality control of agency decisions.
He said he would like to give a brief history of that office. He said that office had been around in modern organized government for a number of years. It was created in 1809 by the Swedish parliament. The office functions effectively now in Norway, Finland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and all of the provinces of Canada, Austria, France, Israel, India, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and more importantly, eight states of the United States have created an office of statewide Ombudsman. He said the most notable office was that of Nebraska. It was created by the Legislature in 1969. He said his organization had been in contact with that office since 1998 gathering material. He said they had spoken with Mr. Marshall Lutz who is the state Ombudsman for the State of Nebraska, and he supplied them with an enormous amount of information, and procedure manuals as to how they might evaluate requests for assistance.
Mr. Kuhn said, yes.
Chairman Costello asked how a public
advocacy person would be appointed, and he asked if there were any county models?
Mr. Kuhn said, he didn’t know if
there were any county models, because all of the states were state models, and
they are employed by the Legislature.
Chairman Costello asked
how they would be appointed in a county jurisdiction?
Mr. Kuhn said in a county jurisdiction
they would probably need to be appointed by the County Commission, but there
would have to be some obvious protections for that office.
Chairman Costello asked
if their jurisdiction would extend to municipalities?
Mr. Kuhn responded, probably
not.
Commissioner Lindsey asked
if their jurisdiction would extend to Constitutional Officers?
Mr. Kuhn said because of Florida’s
Sunshine Law, he didn’t think there would be a problem getting information from
the Constitutional Officers, and it basically would depend upon whether the
Constitutional Officers wanted to cooperate, because no state has given the
Ombudsman office litigation power a right to enforce a subpoena,
and no state has given that office the right to seek a court order requiring
an agency to do something. He said, yes, he thought it would extend
to the Constitutional Officers.
Chairman Costello asked
if there were further questions.
Commissioner Moore Bailey
said that Mr. Kuhn mentioned that Nebraska has an Ombudsman office, and she
asked which other state had that olive branch that he referred to?
Mr. Kuhn said he could not remember
all of them. He said he thought Minnesota, Nevada and one of the Dakota’s
had one.
Commissioner Moore Bailey asked
how large those offices were in terms of numbers of persons working there, and
handling complaints.
Mr. Kuhn said the prototype was
Nebraska, and it was fairly large. He said they had branch offices all
over the state, and its employees were in excess of 100.
Commissioner Moore Bailey said,
given the fact they were talking about counties, she felt there would be less
than that.
Mr. Kuhn said yes, there would
be much less than that.
Commissioner Moore Bailey said
Mr. Kuhn mentioned a hypothetical situation earlier about someone claiming a
bill was wrong. She said for instance, in the situation in Tampa where
the pipe burst, and the bill was $1,500. She asked if he was referring
to the same type of complaint, and if it would overlap with the Zoning Board
or some office of that nature within the County, because he was talking strictly
about counties, and not the municipalities.
Mr. Kuhn said, yes there would
be some instances where situations would be overlapping, but he felt that office
could be a resolution center. He said that office has no jurisdiction
to enforce anything, and that was its beauty.
Commissioner Nunnallee
asked, if that particular office was not able to resolve a citizen’s complaint,
if there was an appeal process?
Mr. Kuhn said no. There was
no type of litigation process where rights are decreed or judgments are enforced
or reversed. It is strictly an office that works with both sides, because
they eventually know both sides. He said the only legal right the office
had was the right to spend, and to get information from agencies, so they could
give information to the citizen.
Commissioner Nunnallee asked if
he had a cost analysis.
Mr. Kuhn said he could get the
Commission a copy of the Nebraska reports to the Legislature, because all of
their cost analyses are included in their yearly reports.
Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr.
Kuhn if he thought there was a reluctance on the part of those who are grieved
to call on the elected officials to intervene on their behalf?
Mr. Kuhn said no, he thought
it was sometimes difficult to get in touch with them.
Chairman Costello asked if there
were further questions? There were none.
Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Kuhn
for his presentation.
Chairman Costello informed Mr.
Kuhn the Commission had the original letter from Mr. Smith, which included some
of his statements. He asked him if he had any additional material he would
like to give to the Commission?
Mr. Kuhn said, the outline, which
he used to read from contained statements, which came from a document that had
been forwarded to the Commission.
Chairman Costello said the Commission
had received those documents.
Chairman Costello said as he had
indicated earlier, Mr. Tillman was not there. He said, he thought he would
be sending a representative, but apparently not, so the Commission was going
to move on to Item VI on the Agenda.
Chairman Costello said he did have
a report. He said, at the last Commission Meeting commissioners asked
he and Kurt Spitzer to develop a plan for invited groups, and he told the Commission
they had before them a copy of a draft of that plan (a copy is attached to the
record copy of the minutes).
He said the invited group list
was attached to a letter that was sent to them, and that was the group list
that they approved earlier, with the exception of the groups that were previously
invited, which have been deleted from the list. He said the group invitation
was revised slightly, and that list of topics was included for them. He
said it was headed Polk Charter Review Commission, and it would be an enclosure
to the
Chairman Costello reminded the
Commission that on July 10th they would have presentations from Mr.
Dewey Smith, and his colleagues, and on July 24th and August 14th
commissioners would hear presentations by the groups that accepted the invitations.
He said these meetings could last longer than two hours in order to accommodate
all groups who may want to appear, and on August 28th the Commission
would complete its presentations, and then begin discussion/decisions of issues
to be considered.
Chairman Costello said, that was
the plan, and he was open to any comment or reaction that the Commission might
have.
Commissioner Lindsey moved for
the approval of the recommended plan as spelled-out, and Commissioner Nunnallee
seconded the motion. Chairman Costello asked if there was any discussion?
Chairman Costello said, there may
be some changes in the wording of the invitation, but nothing substantive, and
the changes would be made depending on the group to which the invitation went,
and not to hold him to the exact wording of each invitation, but generally speaking,
they would conform to the one he had presented.
Chairman Costello asked if there
was any further discussion? There was none.
Chairman Costello said, since there
was no further discussion the Commission was ready for a motion, which was to
approve the proposed plan, which was before them. He said the motion was made
by Commissioner Lindsey and seconded by Commissioner Nunnallee, and would all
of those in favor please say aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Costello said they would
begin work on getting those invitations out on Wednesday.
Chairman Costello said Commissioner
Nunnallee asked if the Commission had a budget, and the answer at that time
was no, but they had one before them now. He said they didn’t need to approve
it, and it was really for their information. He said, what they did need
to approve every month would be the Expenditures, which are required by the
Charter. He said, the budget was predicated on the experience they had
thus far, and there may be some more expenditures, for example, the sound technicians,
which they had not received at that point, which may change those figures somewhat,
but they were fairly accurate. He said that was a calendar year
total, and they didn’t go into the next year because they hadn’t established
the number of meetings for next year, but the calendar year total, was $73,246.
Chairman Costello asked
if there was any discussion on the budget document?
Mr. Watts said, from a standpoint
of discipline, his recommendation to the Commission would be they adopt a budget,
to authorize the expenditures they expected to incur. He said that didn’t
mean they could not amend them if they needed to increase or reduce a particular
line item. He said he believed the Commission was entitled to be funded
to the extent of their need, and he would recommend at some point after thorough
discussion, the Commission adopt a budget.
Chairman Costello said they were
a disciplined group, and he was sure they would take that advice to heart.
Chairman Costello asked if there
was a motion to approve that document as the budget for that calendar year?
Commissioner Nunnallee moved for
approval of the budget for that calendar year, and Commissioner Stoer seconded
the motion.
Chairman Costello asked if there
was further discussion? There was none. He asked for all of those in favor
of the motion to approve the budget for that calendar year, which was made by
Commissioner Nunnallee, and seconded by Commissioner Stoer to please say aye.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Costello said that the
Commission office would conform to that budget unless they approve otherwise.
Chairman Costello said he remembered
Commissioner Gernert mentioning early on in the Commission meetings, that they
could collect a catalog of issues that went before them, and he said they received
a letter from a gentleman in Lake Wales that they were sent a copy of, and the
Commission had Mr. Robert’s presentation, at the last meeting and they had the
two presentations this evening, and he said what he would like to do is to begin
keeping a list of issues that come before them, so nothing could fall through
the cracks.
Chairman Costello asked
Ms. Swearengin if she had a report for the Commission?
Ms. Swearengin indicated that she
did not.
Chairman Costello asked
Mr. Watts if he had a report for the Commission?
Mr. Watts said he did not have
a formal report, but he was always open to answering any questions.
Commissioner Lindsey asked
Mr. Watts if he concurred with the representation made earlier that they do
not have discretion to limit the number of items?
Mr. Watts said, no he did not.
First, if two groups came before them, and one group proposed that the Board
of County Commissioners be reconstituted with three members, and another group
came before them and argued the Board of County Commissioners should be reconstituted
with seven members, and they had an obligation to put both measures in front
of the voters, and both passed what would they do?
Mr. Watts said he thought it was
the obligation of that body to act as a filter, and offer those measures, which
seemed to have relatively strong bases for support. He said in the Charter
they provided several methods of amendment, one being that the Board of County
Commissioners could propose amendments, and that body was required to convene
periodically, and may propose amendments and the third was the petition method
by which the citizens can raise their own issues. He said it seemed to
him that the proposal that any issue propounded by whatever group of citizens
must be placed on the ballot by that body would merge the second, and the third
method of amendment and make them indistinguishable.
He said he did not believe that
was the purpose of the amendment article of the Charter, and he thought that
any group was free to place any item on the ballot as long as they collected
sufficient petitions to put any measure before the voters, whether it contradicted
another measure or not, but this body had the power to put an infinite number
of measures before the voters, but he said he thought it did have the duty to
exercise some judgment. He said the document from which Mr. Kuhn quoted
initially was the Declaration of Independence, and he said that Jefferson went
on in that document to write the government should not be altered for light
or transient causes, so he thinks that applies some rigor to the process, and
it should not be whimsical.
Commissioner Moore Bailey
asked in regards to the norm giving recommendations that might be agreed upon,
which should be presented to the County Commissioners for their approval before
going to the voters, and she asked in his experience what the norm was?
Mr. Watts said some Commissions
have said that anything that is supported by the majority should go forward,
and some have said it should be approved by a majority at two separate meetings
at the end of the process, and some bodies have said that no measure should
go to the ballot unless it is supported by two-thirds or some other number of
the Review Commission. He said it was really what the Commission wanted
to set as their rules of operations.
Chairman Costello said that they
have already set the rule.
Commissioner Moore Bailey
said they had already established that, but her question was when they agreed
upon a number of issues to go before the Commissioners that they recommend based
upon what they heard at the meetings, what would be a typical number used in
terms of recommendations?
Mr. Watts said there was no rule
on it, and in some cases there might be two or three. He said he had seen
as many as 15 or 20 on a ballot. He said just as a rule of thumb, if they
try to measure voter reaction to that, the more measures that are put before
the voters the more confusing the ballot, and the more likely the voter is to
simply vote against anything that is not understood.
Chairman Costello thanked Mr. Watts
for his comments.
Chairman Costello said that the
Commission was down to Remarks of Interested Citizens. There were no interested
speakers.
Chairman Costello said the Commission
was now down to New Business. He asked if there was any New Business to
come before the Commission? There was none.
Chairman Costello said that without
objection, the meeting would stand adjourned. The meeting adjourned at
8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Swearengin