CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2006
CHARTER COMMISSION: District 1 Tom Boyko
Jane
Hammontree
District
2 John Horan
Sid
Miller
District
3 Pam Ohab
Chairman
Ben Tucker
District
4 Larry Furlong
Paul
Lovestrand
Earl
McMullen
District
5 Ashley Johnson
Jeff
Triplett (late)
Vice
Chairman Egerton
van
den Berg
ABSENT: District
1 Richard Harris
District
2 Linda Dietz
District
3 Grant Maloy
ATTENDEES: County
Manager Cindy Coto
DCM
Don Fisher
Commissioner
Carlton Henley (late)
Chief
Deputy Clerk Bob Lewis
DCM Sally Sherman (late)
CRC
Attorney Alison Yurko
Steve
Olson, Community Information Dir.
Lisa
Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director
Eva Roach, Deputy Clerk
The
following is a non-verbatim transcript of the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING, held at 6:33 p.m. on Monday, May
8, 2006, in Room 3024 of the
Mr. Boyko gave the Invocation and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
Bob
Lewis, Chief Deputy Clerk, advised the Clerk’s office is trying to catch up
with the minutes and the May 1 & 3 minutes will be submitted during the May
15, 2006 meeting.
Mr.
Horan advised that the April 24, 2006 Subcommittee minutes have the wrong year
typed on the heading of the first page.
He stated it should be 2006 and not 2005.
Motion by Mr. Lovestrand, seconded by Mr. Horan to approve the
Subcommittee minutes dated April 24, 2006, as corrected.
All
members present voted AYE.
EMINENT
DOMAIN
Attorney
Alison Yurko stated the House and Senate have passed a bill that really puts a
stranglehold on the use of eminent domain for private property purposes. She stated it basically takes away the
authority of a CRA to use eminent domain and it takes away the authority of a county
or city to use eminent domain for purposes of eliminating a public nuisance or
blight. It also takes away the ability
to take public property for private purposes unless you are a utility or common
carrier, or if you have a lease and that part of that lease for public property
or public facility is going to be used for the purpose of providing something
for the public, or if 10 years have lapsed and you offer the property back to
the previous owner at the same price there is no more private purpose.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. van den Berg, Ms. Yurko advised it is not a constitutional amendment;
it is a revision to Chapters 73, 74, 163, and 166.
John
Horan advised that this action will take effect upon becoming a law and applies
to all properties for which a petition of condemnation has been filed pursuant
to Chapter 74 and 75 of the Florida Statutes.
He stated he doesn’t know of any indication that Governor Bush is not going
to sign this.
Ms.
Yurko advised that she has extra copies of the eminent domain bill if the CRC
would like to review it.
FINANCIAL
FUNCTIONS, AUDITING & AUDIT COMMITTEE
Ashley
Johnson advised the Subcommittee came up with three amendments. She stated the first amendment is Creation of
an Audit Committee, and the structure of the Audit Committee will comprise of
eight members with five voting members (appointed by each
Ms.
Johnson explained for Mr. Furlong what role the audit committee plays in
creating the internal audit and why there would be eight members.
Commissioner
Carlton Henley entered the meeting at this time.
Ms.
Johnson explained for Mr. Furlong what would be the purpose of the committee
structure.
Mr.
van den Berg stated he feels these amendments need some refining, but the
thoughts of the subcommittee are well preserved.
Mr.
Lovestrand stated he is wondering if a
Mr.
Furlong stated he feels that the way this is set up, a county commissioner
would have a high level of interest of being on the audit committee as a
liaison position.
Ms.
Johnson stated the CRC can decide whether they want to spell it out in tighter
language of charging the audit committee the ability to create their own
charter. The Charter would then lay out
the responsibilities and what the audit committee reviews and how detailed they
review it. The audit committee may be made
aware that a particular policy procedure that comes from the BCC needs to be
implemented, changed, and created as a result of something that is found through
the internal audit committee report then that Board member would have greater
knowledge as to how it should be formed and how it should be brought
forth. Discussion ensued between Ms. Johnson and Mr.
Furlong relative to how other audit committees and internal audit systems
function.
Mr.
Furlong stated he has concerns that you could end up with five political appointees
comprising with the purpose of the internal audit function for political or
other personal reasons. He stated he
feels the appointees must have X number of years experience.
Ms.
Johnson stated they can do that but she would hesitate making it too
tight. She stated the subcommittee felt
that a background of accounting and finance should be included. She said she wouldn’t limit it to CPAs as
many people have experience in finance for many years. She stated the other issue is whether or not
they should have a background in law.
She added she is not sure how to tighten it further without restricting
the pool of people who would be qualified to serve on the committee.
Jeff
Triplett entered the meeting at this time.
Mr.
Miller stated for the past seven years he has been the beneficiary of regular
audits by the State Auditor through Seminole Community College (SCC). He stated the worst audit they had was
tremendously useful to the college as they were able to change their accounting
software. When you make a major change
and have an independent auditor come in to see where the money is flowing and
how the procedure works is the best tool in the world for closing the gaps.
Mr.
Furlong stated the School Board would get 25% useful information and 75%
unnecessary paper with State Audits. He
recommended allowing the BCC appoint only two members and then each of the
Constitutional Officers appoint someone on that committee with the same
requirements. He stated they might get
less of their auditors coming in if they include all of those people in the
process.
Ms.
Johnson stated if the second amendment fails including the Constitutional
Officers and the scope of internal audit, then they would have three members of
the audit committee, for which the internal audit does not audit.
Mr.
van den Berg stated there might be a way to transition that.
Ms.
Johnson stated the whole point is to be independent as possible and any way they
can achieve that would be better all the way around. Discussion ensued.
Mr.
Furlong stated he feels that might be inclusive of the purpose of the scope to keep
it broad. He stated they are talking
about five entities beyond the
Mr.
Hammontree stated they may need to restructure the term according to the
district they were appointed from.
Mr.
Tucker stated Mr. Furlong is recommending two from the BCC and then five from
the Constitutional Officers.
Ms.
Johnson stated she has no objections to that.
Attorney
Yurko stated even though the Constitutional Officer Amendment doesn’t pass, it
might be a good check and balance to have them appointing some members. She stated she is concerned about creating
contingency for the amendments.
Ms.
Johnson stated paragraph two of the committee structure would require one
voting member selected by each BCC.
Mr.
Horan recommended two voting members from the BCC and five from the
Constitutional Officers.
Ms.
Yurko stated she cannot remember if ex-officio members are subject to the
Sunshine law. If they are, that may be a
complicating factor with the auditor and CFO not being able to discuss things
with each other. She stated she would
have to look into that.
Chairman
Tucker and Ms. Yurko discussed the issue of an ex-officio being subject to the
Sunshine law.
Mr.
van den Berg explained for Mr. Miller what action the audit committee can take
other than recommendations to the BCC or to the auditor.
Mr.
Miller stated he feels it should be clear whether they are creating authority
in this committee or creating them as an advisory board for recommendation.
Mr.
van den Berg stated in the first draft there was a provision for the committee
to create its own charter and in the interest of brievity, he suggested that be
removed. An ordinance would go into the detail
of that. If the CRC is more comfortable
making a provision for the committee to prepare a charter to govern its
activities and present that for approval, they can include that.
Mr.
Horan stated once the ordinance is passed and the audit committee is formed,
whether or not it is in the ordinance, he would presume the audit committee
would adopt certain by-laws or rules of procedure. Therefore, he doesn’t feel they need to
recite that in the amendment itself.
Mr.
van den Berg stated they could say they shall have a charter substantially
similar to the document that Ms. Johnson has as that would be very specific.
Mr.
Horan stated he is in favor of flexibility.
Chairman
Tucker stated if they go with seven members (two from the BCC and one from each
of the Constitutional Officers) that would resolve one issue. But if they go with non-voting members that would
create an unworkable situation.
Mr.
Furlong stated he feels the person responsible for the audit should be
eliminated.
Chairman
Tucker stated he believes the CRC is recommending that two voting members be
selected by the BCC, one voting member from each of the Constitutional Officers.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. van den Berg, Mr. Horan advised if Amendment #2 doesn’t pass, he
feels it will put in a check and balance independent from the outside because
the Constitutional Officers will be appointing five of the members. He explained how to control this in a
political sense.
Mr.
van den Berg stated he is not in favor of that.
He stated there are four of five charters in
Mr.
Furlong recommended having one or two stand-alone charter amendments instead of
three. He stated he would recommend
combining amendments one and two so that the audit committee structure and who
they are going to audit is voted on at the same time.
Mr.
van den Berg stated the subcommittee’s thought was if someone wanted the audit
committee but didn’t want Constitutional Officers included, then it would be to
the disadvantage of the audit committee’s proposition of lumping them
together. He stated he feels it would be
better to try to rewrite amendment number one so that, in the event that the
Constitutional officers fall within the purview of the committee, the
membership shall be different.
Mr.
Furlong stated he doesn’t have any objections to that.
Mr.
van den Berg stated Amendment #3 transfers the Clerk’s financial function to
the
Ms.
Johnson stated she believes they can say “if the Constitutional Officers at any
time are not subject to internal audit by the County, the committee shall be
designated as five members selected by each
Chairman
Tucker stated the non-voting members may be left out totally. He stated he believes there is consensus to
paragraph two of the first amendment. He
asked if there were any additions or changes to paragraph one.
Ms.
Hammontree stated they need to change it to seven members instead of
eight.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Tucker, Attorney
Yurko advised the word “eight” in line three will be changed to “seven”.
Ms.
Johnson explained for Mr. Miller how the committee ensures prompt consideration
of the audit findings.
Mr.
van den Berg stated they would report it to the BCC if audit findings are not
being followed up and something needs to be done about it.
Ms.
Johnson briefly reviewed paragraph three.
Mr.
van den Berg requested that the subcommittee be allowed to work out a new idea
of having an alternative in the event the Constitutional Officers come under
audit.
Chairman
Tucker asked if there are other issues the CRC wants the subcommittee to look
at and is there consensus with the changes noted to paragraphs one and
three. The CRC agreed to move forward with that.
Ms.
Johnson continued by reviewing Amendment #2, Audit of Constitutional
Officers.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Furlong, Mr. Horan advised the Constitutional Officers’ finances
are still subject to all the regulations of the State. He stated whatever the Constitutional
Officers have to do to comply with State requirements, he presumes they will
continue to do that. There is nothing in
this that is inconsistent with that.
Upon
further inquiry by Mr. Furlong, Mr. Horan advised he presumes that each of the
Constitutional Officers have different types of requirements in terms of their
internal financial operations. He stated
he believes the internal auditor and the audit committee will take all of that
into consideration when they do the audits of the Constitutional Officers.
DCM,
Sally Sherman, entered the meeting at this time.
Chairman
Tucker stated he believes there is consensus
to move forward with Amendment #2.
Ms.
Johnson reviewed Amendment #3, Clerk Function (Creation of Internal Auditor and
Finance Function). She stated after much
discussion about where the chief auditor would fall, the subcommittee thought
it would be best to promote a position of a county auditor that would report
directly to the BCC and the alternative would be through the
Chairman
Tucker asked if the subcommittee put any thought to whether or not the removal
of this position should be by more than a simple majority of the BCC or should
this be an elected position.
Ms.
Johnson stated the subcommittee did discuss about an elected position potentially
being compromised from a political standpoint; and determined that it should be
appointed, and the credentials of this person would be better evaluated by a
smaller group versus a popularity contest.
Mr.
van den Berg stated he would assume the auditor would have a negotiated
contract with the County which can be removed by three votes.
Ms.
Johnson stated with the audit committee in place, they can provide additional
input directly to the BCC on the performance of the
Mr.
Furlong stated he doesn’t think the
Ms.
Johnson concluded by reviewing the Finance Function of Amendment #3.
Chairman
Tucker asked what the ramifications would be if Amendments #1 & #2 passes
and Amendment #3 doe not pass.
Ms.
Johnson stated the functions would stay with the Clerk and the internal audit
supervisor will report to the audit committee.
The audit committee would still review items and make recommendations to
the BCC. The remaining functions would
still work the same way as they have been.
Chairman
Tucker stated he would like to see something pass to the system; but he has
strong reservations as whether or not Amendment #3 would pass. He stated he personally feels that appointing
is not a good idea but if that is the way the CRC wants to go, then that’s the
way they will go.
Mr.
van den Berg stated if they went through elected auditor now, it may be more
effective to have an elected auditor at a later date. He stated he feels this is a huge jump to
where they are now.
Chairman
Tucker stated he has great faith in the public making a decision on this
position.
Ms.
Hammontree stated the CRC has voiced that possibly if it was an elected position,
it would just be another position like it is now and not really cure as much as
it should be.
Ms.
Johnson stated if it is an elected position she would hate to see audit issues
become election fire.
Chairman
Tucker stated he would hate to see audit issues become the domain of a strong
commission.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr.
Lovestrand to adopt the three proposed amendments as redrafted, consistent with
the discussions held this evening.
Under
discussion and upon inquiry by Attorney Yurko, Ms. Johnson advised they are not
going to reference in Amendment #1 that there will be a charter for the audit
committee.
Mr.
Horan stated the language will be cleaned up as well and that will be part of
the motion as well.
A roll call vote on the motion was
taken with all members present voting AYE.
MEETING
SCHEDULE
Chairman
Tucker referred to the public hearing schedule (received and filed) and stated the
final wording for the private property rights issue is complete and voted
upon. He stated the CRC is not in
conflict with State Statutes.
Attorney
Yurko stated she will look into that.
She stated she will provide a summary of same and she will bring that
back to the CRC at the next meeting.
Chairman
Tucker stated the final verbiage on the amendments discussed tonight will be
provided at the next meeting. He stated
the following issues will be discussed at the next meeting (May 15, 2006): Private property rights; ethics; and BCC
salaries.
Mr.
Fisher advised the CRC voted to adopt the BCC salaries by ordinance.
Mr.
Horan stated he is planning to bring a final proposed amendment on the additional
public hearings for charter amendments.
Mr.
Furlong asked if they are going to review the issue of campaign contributions.
Attorney
Yurko referred to and reviewed the limitations of
Mr.
Furlong stated he would like to set it at $100.
Mr.
van den Berg stated the subcommittee on ethics did not report favorably on the
lobbyist issue.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Tucker, Mr. Fisher advised there were three other issues
that the CRC wanted to discuss and those were the Taxpayers Bill of Rights;
Various Actions Performed by Ordinance; and Officers of the County.
The
CRC discussed and determined that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights was voted down
by the CRC as well as the Various Action Performed by Ordinance.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Miller relative to Officers of the County, Mr. Horan advised he
had a specific proposed amendment for that and it was voted down.
Chairman
Tucker reiterated that the issues voted down were Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
Officers of the County and Various Actions Performed by Ordinance. He stated the lobbyist issue, Mr. Horan’s
issue, and campaign contributions will be discussed at the next meeting. The CRC agreed
to discuss the issue of campaign contributions this evening.
CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr.
Furlong stated he believes the way to improve the political landscape is to limit
campaign contributions to $100. He
stated this would make it more difficult to raise money and force candidates to
do more “non-cash related” or “paid-for” campaigning. This would potentially require the candidates
to spread their message and receive money from a broader spectrum of
people. This would include county
government as well as Constitutional Officers.
Mr.
Lovestrand stated he believes that this would give another advantage to the
incumbents who know more people. He gave
some examples of what happened in campaign contributions when he ran for office.
He stated he feels there are so many
ways around it that the incumbents will have more advantage than they have now.
Mr.
Furlong stated he feels that makes a pretty significant difference and it could
help the incumbent if they had better name recognition; but when you’re an
incumbent it’s a lot easier to raise money.
However, this would level the playing field.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Miller, Mr. Furlong advised he would recommend the limitation
for all countywide offices.
Mr.
Horan stated if you want to change politics for the better you should try to
eliminate it to the extent possible the effect that money has on campaigns. Every time you try to do it by setting a
limit on it, you do have to let everyone participate. It would
be great if people would take enough interest in political campaigns to donate
$10 to $20, but it doesn’t happen that way.
Attorney
Yurko stated she doesn’t think the CRC has the legal authority to include the
School Board, but she would check into that.
Discussion ensued.
Motion by Mr. Furlong to direct Ms.
Yurko to draft an amendment limiting campaign contributions to $100 for county
offices, including the BCC and Constitutional Officers, per cycle.
Chairman
Tucker called a second to the motion
three times without response, whereupon, the motion died for lack of same.
Chairman
Tucker stated there will be six topics of discussion scheduled for the May 15,
2006 meeting. He stated four have been voted
upon and two new ones.
Ms.
Hammontree advised that Salaries of the BCC issue has already been voted upon
by the CRC.
Attorney
Yurko advised she will put that issue into the proper form.
Chairman
Tucker advised those five items will be the topics of discussion scheduled on
May 15. He stated the first public
hearing is scheduled for May 30, 2006 and if there are no new issues at that hearing,
they will have a second and third public hearing on all the issues. They will have a fourth public hearing (July
12, 2006) if something new comes in. He
advised the CRC will meet on July 17, 2006 to confirm everything that they have
done.
Mr.
Miller asked Mr. Furlong if he would be interested in restating his motion with
a limit of $250.
Motion by Mr. Furlong, seconded by Mr.
Miller to limit campaign contributions to $250 for county offices, including
the BCC and Constitutional Officers.
A roll call vote was taken on the
motion with Mr. Miller and Mr. Furlong voting AYE. Mr. Horan, Mr. McMullen, Ms. Johnson, Mr.
Lovestrand, Mr. van den Berg, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Boyko, Ms. Hammontree, Ms. Ohab
and Mr. Triplett voted NAY, whereupon, the motion failed for lack of a majority vote.
Mr.
Fisher explained for Mr. van den Berg what the purpose was of the July 18, July
25, and August 9, 2006 dates.
Chairman Tucker stated he will not be
attending the third public hearing (June 29, 2006) as he will be out of town. The CRC consented to scheduling the July 17,
2006 meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Mr.
Triplett advised he probably will not be in attendance for the June 14, 2006
public hearing due to the birth of his son being scheduled at that time.
-------
There
being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Chairman
Tucker adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m., this same date.