CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 2006
CHARTER COMMISSION: District 1 Tom Boyko
Jane
Hammontree
Richard
Harris
District
2 Linda Dietz (Late)
John
Horan
Sid
Miller
District
3 Grant Maloy
Chairman
Ben Tucker
Pam
Ohab
District
4 Larry Furlong
Paul
Lovestrand
District
5 Ashley Johnson
Jeff
Triplett
ABSENT: District
4 Earl McMullen
District
5 Vice Chairman Egerton van den Berg
ATTENDEES: DCM
Don Fisher
Mike
Ertel, Supervisor of Elections
Bob
Lewis, Chief Deputy Clerk
Sandy
McCann, Deputy Clerk
The
following is a non-verbatim transcript of the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING, held at 6:31 p.m. on Wednesday,
June 14, 2006, in Room 1028 of the
WORK
SESSION
Chairman
Tucker announced that Mr. McMullen called to say he would not be in
attendance. Also, Mr. van den Berg is
out of the country. He reported that he
will be out of town for the next public hearing and Vice Chairman van den Berg
will be chairing the meeting.
Attorney
Alison Yurko apologized for the late notice of this work session, but said there
were so many issues from the last hearing, that she thought it was important to
nail down some of the new language. She
reminded the CRC that under the Charter, they are required to hold at least
three public hearings on any proposed charter amendment or revision. She cautioned the Commission that from this
point on, they need to be careful with the changes they make to any of the
amendments so that no one can take the position that three public hearings were
not held. She said that because there
are so many changes from the first public hearing, she would recommend that a
fourth public hearing (July 12, 2006) be held.
Ms.
Yurko referred to her handout (copy received & filed) outlining the legal
points as a follow-up to the June 14, 2006 work session. She reviewed the “attorney changes” outlined
in the handout. With regard to Resolution
#1, Section 2.2(C), Salaries and Other Compensation, she added the following language,
“all in accordance with general law and the State Constitution”. In Resolution #2, Section 3.1, Ms. Yurko
advised she has clarified the language regarding conforming changes for
constitutional officers. She added that
this occurs in all the resolutions except for Resolutions #1 and #4.
Linda
Dietz entered the meeting at 6:39 p.m.
Mr.
Furlong expressed his concern, with regard to Resolution #1, if the Consumer
Price Index is ever done away with.
Mr.
Lovestrand stated the Index is published every month by the Department of Labor
and it is used by a multitude of businesses and millions of people depend on
it.
Chairman
Tucker stated that is an extensive “what if” and he said they would have to
cross that bridge when they get to it.
Ms.
Yurko suggested the language could be changed to “or other successive
index”.
Ms.
Ohab stated the Index is so widely used that the entire country would have to
change; and it is not likely that it is going to be all of a sudden not
used.
Ms.
Hammontree stated it could be addressed at that time. Discussion ensued.
Motion by Mr. Furlong to add the
language “or equivalent index” to Section 2.2(C) of Resolution #1.
The
Chairman called for a second three times without response, whereupon, the motion died for the lack of same.
Ms.
Yurko continued with her review of “attorney changes”, advising with regard to
Resolution #3, she has clarified Section B of Article V, Miscellaneous
Provisions, changing Chapter 112 to Chapter 122.3143. So both Resolutions #2 and #3 would be
changed by defining “Relative”. With
regard to Resolution #4, Article V(A), the following language was added, “or a
minority interest representing less than 2% of the whole”. In Resolution #5, Ms. Yurko advised she
changed the resolution number from 6 to 5; and under Section 2.5, County
Internal Auditor has been changed to
Motion by Ms. Ohab, seconded by Ms.
Hammontree to approve all the “attorney changes” as presented.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
and all members in attendance voted AYE.
-------
Ms.
Yurko advised the next set of changes deal with the enforcement provision for
the three ethics resolutions (#2, #3 & #4) and they have the same
language. She stated she looked at the
Motion by Mr. Maloy, seconded by Mr.
Boyko to adopt the language as presented by Ms. Yurko regarding the enforcement
of Resolutions #2, #3 and #4.
Under
discussion, Mr. Horan stated he would like to go through the public hearing
process first before deciding on this language.
Ms.
Yurko stated she has more of a comfort level if they go into the public hearing
without making a lot of substantive changes so there is no question of having
held three public hearings.
Mr.
Horan stated he still has a problem referring to the State Attorney when he has
said he does not want to be named in the amendment. He said he would prefer to take the language
out that refers specifically to the State Attorney and substitute language to
the effect, “to enter into negotiations to compensate the legally appropriate
prosecuting authority”.
Mr.
Maloy withdrew his motion.
Ms.
Yurko offered the following language:
“shall enter into negotiations to compensate the legally appropriate
prosecuting authority for costs to be associated with prosecution of any such
violations upon terms acceptable to any such prosecuting authority”.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr.
Maloy to approve the substitute language for Resolutions #2, #3 and #4 as
offered by Ms. Yurko.
A roll call vote of the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
- - -
Ms.
Yurko referred to her handout and Resolution #7, advising she is recommending
three changes to Article V, Section 1.5.
They are: (1) Adding the
language, “with respect to County funds”; (2) Deleting, “(or, if none is so
designated as per the Florida Constitution by the Clerk of the Court)”; and (3)
Delete the word “also”.
Motion by Ms. Johnson, seconded by Ms.
Hammontree to approve the three recommended changes to Article V, Section 1.5
of Resolution #7 as outlined by Ms. Yurko.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
- - -
Ms.
Yurko discussed Mr. Lovestrand’s concern dealing with Resolution #5, regarding
the creation of the
Mr.
Lovestrand stated Ms. Yurko’s recommendation addresses his concern.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr.
Boyko to accept the recommendation by Ms. Yurko with regard to Resolution #5
and direct her to draft an “intent” section clarifying that the CRC intends the
newly created
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
- - -
Ms.
Yurko discussed the tax collector prohibition in Resolution #2. Memo from Ray Valdes, Tax Collector, dated
June 9, 2006 was received and filed. She
advised that after review, she has determined that nothing has been revealed
which would undermine the legal authority of the CRC to present this issue to
the voters, although the CRC may want to consider the following issues: (1) The necessity of the provision in light of
Resolution #3 which address “influencing the outcome of a matter coming before
one’s agency”; and (2) Possibly overbroad inclusion of term “relative” in the
provision and redundancy of term within provision given that wording already
addresses direct or indirect participation.
She said at a minimum the CRC may want to delete the reference to
“relative”. She added that the decision
to delete the amendment altogether is totally a policy decision for the
CRC.
Mr.
Maloy distributed a policy from Hillsborough County Tax Collector’s Employee
Handbook (copy received & filed) referencing the State Statutes as far as
limitation. He said they go a step
further by prohibiting the tax collector and his employees from specifically
purchasing tax certificates and tax deeds.
He also distributed an editorial of the The Tampa Tribune
dated September 23, 2002 (copy received & filed). He said he still thinks it is a good idea to
have clarifying language in the charter that would prohibit this type of
activity because he does believe it crosses the line.
Motion by Mr. Furlong, seconded by Mr.
Horan to delete Section B(2) regarding the Tax Collector and employees thereof,
of Resolution #2 in its entirety.
Under
discussion, Mr. Furlong stated he believes this is redundant. He said this is covered by multiple sections
of the Statutes.
Chairman
Tucker stated he is going to vote against the motion because he believes it is
one the people of
Mr.
Horan stated he will be voting against the motion also.
Ms.
Ohab said she believes it is time for the CRC to take the position to be tough
on ethics and, therefore, she will be voting against the motion.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with Ms. Dietz, Mr. Harris, Mr. Furlong and Mr. Triplett voting AYE. Mr. Horan, Mr. Miller, Ms. Johnson, Mr.
Lovestrand, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Boyko, Mr. Maloy, Ms. Hammontree, and Ms. Ohab
voted NAY, whereupon, the motion failed
for the lack of a majority vote.
Motion by Mr. Lovestrand, seconded by
Mr. Maloy to approve the language in Section B(2) of Resolution #2, as
follows: “Neither the Tax Collector of
Seminole County, nor any employee of the Tax Collector’s office, shall be
permitted directly or indirectly to bid on any Seminole County tax certificate
sales”.
Motion by Mr. Furlong, seconded by Mr.
Triplett to amend the previous motion to include striking the following words
in Section B(1) of Resolution #2: “of
any municipality in
Under
discussion Mr. Furlong stated he believes that if someone is a county
commissioner, they should not be a paid lobbyist at all, either with other
counties, inter-agencies, or other boards.
Chairman
Tucker stated Section B(1) was something that was not changed and it was an
item that was discussed. He said Mr.
Furlong’s motion substantially changes this provision and, therefore, ruled
that the amended motion is out of order.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Furlong, the Chairman stated Mr. Furlong can challenge his
ruling on the motion being out of order.
Mr.
Furlong challenged the Chairman’s ruling.
Discussion ensued.
Ms.
Yurko advised she believes it is within the Chairman’s prerogative to rule a
motion is out of order. She reminded the
CRC that they are half an hour past the public hearing time.
Chairman
Tucker clarified the motion on the floor is for Section B(2).
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with Mr. Horan, Ms. Dietz, Mr. Miller, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Lovestrand, Mr. Tucker,
Mr. Boyko, Mr. Maloy, Ms. Hammontree, Mr. Furlong, and Ms. Ohab voting
AYE. Mr. Harris and Mr. Triplett voted
NAY.
The
Chairman stated the CRC can take up Mr. Furlong’s request at another time.
-------
The
Chairman adjourned the work session at 7:34 p.m., this same date.
CRC
PUBLIC HEARING
The
Chairman called the CRC Public Hearing to order at 7:43 p.m.
Jane
Hammontree gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The
Chairman introduced members of the CRC who were in attendance. He also announced the next public hearing
dates are June 29 and July 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
Proof
of publication for the CRC public hearing was received and filed.
RESOLUTION
#1
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #1 – Amendment of Article II
of the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to provide: A method of setting
salaries of
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language of Resolution #1 into the Record.
Bob
Webster,
Mr.
Webster asked if the CRC has read Florida Statutes 125.80 thru 125.89 and if
they have reviewed any document other than the
Rocky
Harrelson,
The
Chairman advised Mr. Harrelson needs to address his comments specifically to
Resolution #1; and will have time at the end of the meeting to address his
other concerns.
Mr.
Harrelson stated he agrees with setting the Commissioners’ salaries.
No
one else spoke with regard to Resolution #1.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing on Resolution #1.
RESOLUTION
#2
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #2 – Amendment of Article V of
the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to include provisions which prohibit: (1)
Certain Lobbying by Seminole County Commissioners; (2) Bidding by the Seminole
County Tax Collector or his or her employees on tax certificate sales; and, (3)
Certain officials and their employees from accepting compensation for working
in others’ election campaigns.
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language of Resolution #2 into the Record.
Bob
Webster,
Rocky
Harrelson,
No
one else spoke with regard to Resolution #2.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Ms.
Yurko stated that in the course of doing final research on some of these
issues, she came across a section in the Election Code, Section 104.31 which
specifically addresses the political activity of State, County and Municipal
officers and employees. She said at the
end of that section it says the following:
“Nothing contained in this section or in any County or Municipal Charter
shall be deemed to prohibit any public employee from expressing his or her
opinions on any candidate or issue, or from participating in any political
campaign during the employee’s off-duty hours so long as such activities are
not in conflict with the provisions of subsection 1 or section 110.233”. She advised that in addition to that Statute,
an Attorney General’s opinion (75-195) construes this section broadly as, “an
expressed legislative prohibition or preemption of the municipal regulations of
the political activities of all municipal officers and employees and as an
impediment to the exercise and municipal legislative power to regulate such
activities”. She reviewed two cases that
are somewhat relevant.
Mr.
Horan stated this is likely to be challenged and the cases on political speach
do not seem to draw too much of a line between compensation and
non-compensation. He questioned if there
is any way to fix this to insulate it from the Statute.
Ms.
Yurko said that she could not think of a way.
Mr.
Tucker stated the action itself is very controversial just like a lot of the
things they are talking about regarding commissioners. He said if this doesn’t conform to a legal
challenge, then so be it. He added he
believes the
Mr.
Horan stated they are going beyond prohibiting a public official from doing
something. They are prohibiting employees
from participating under the Statute. He
said the Statute doesn’t say for pay or not for pay.
Mr.
Lovestrand stated he believes what an employee does on his time is his own
business.
Motion by Mr. Lovestrand, seconded by
Mr. Triplett to strike paragraph 3 of Article V, Section 1.3(B) of Resolution
#2, dealing with compensation to aid in the election of a person who is running
for office.
Under
discussion, Mr. Horan said the CRC needs to keep in mind what they are really
swooping up under this provision is the young man who works in the sanitation
department of the county who only makes $6 an hour. He said he would like to keep this provision
limited to the officials only.
Mr.
Maloy said he would not want to delete the entire provision and would rather
have Mr. van den Berg present because this was his concept.
Mr.
Horan said he thought the motion was to just take employees out of it. Whereupon, Mr. Lovestrand stated his motion
was to kill the entire provision, but he would be agreeable to an amendment to
limit it to just officials.
Mr.
Horan said that when they go beyond the public official and limit an employee’s
ability to participate in the political process, whether for compensation or
not, there will be a legal challenge.
Mr.
Triplett and Mr. Lovestrand withdrew
their motion.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr.
Triplett to delete the words “and no employee” in paragraph 3 of Article V,
Section 1.3(B) of Resolution #2.
Under
discussion, Ms. Johnson stated that if the CRC limits this to officials, it
will not have any real effect. She said
they are basically covering an ethical situation that should be covered by the
ethical polices, both by the County and the Constitutional Officers.
Mr.
Triplett said he does not believe the CRC can limit him on his extracurricular
activities, whether it the First Amendment or working after hours on a street
corner for an official he wants to get elected.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with Mr. Horan, Ms. Dietz, Mr. Miller, Mr. Lovestrand, Mr. Harris and Mr.
Triplett voting AYE; and Ms. Johnson, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Boyko, Mr. Maloy, Ms.
Hammontree, Mr. Furlong and Ms. Ohab voting NAY. Whereupon, the motion failed for the lack of a majority vote.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing for Resolution #2.
RESOLUTION
#3
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #3 – Amendment of Article V of
the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to add new provisions: (1) prohibit certain gifts to officials (or
any of their relatives); (2) prohibit attempts by officials to influence
actions coming before their agency which could result in private gain to the
officials or their relatives and providing for enforcement.
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language of Resolution #3 into the Record.
Bob
Webster,
No
one else spoke with regard to Resolution #3.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Mr.
Horan stated he thought the CRC had decided to change the word “personal” to
“private” in paragraph C under Article V, Section 1.4. Discussion ensued.
Mr.
Furlong stated he believes the word that deals with this is “special” private
gain.
Ms.
Yurko said she does not recall anyone changing that.
The
Chairman suggested Ms. Yurko research the minutes; but that the consensus of
the CRC is that the word be changed to “special private”.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr.
Furlong to amend paragraph C of Article V, Section 1.4 of Resolution #3 by
changing the word “personal” to “special private”.
The
Chairman clarified that since there is a motion, Ms. Yurko does not need to
research the minutes.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing on Resolution #3.
RESOLUTION
#4
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #4 – Amendment of Article V of
the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to provide: new requirements of full disclosure of
ownership of property which is the subject of land use approvals in
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language regarding Resolution #4 into the Record.
No
one spoke with regard to Resolution #4.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Mr. Furlong pointed out in paragraph A of
Article V, Section 1.5, that land use amendments have been left out and those
should have been included. He said these
are different from rezonings.
Chairman
Tucker agreed that land use amendments or comp plan amendments should be
included in the listing.
Ms.
Yurko stated she will add the phrase, “comprehensive plan amendment”. She said that is within the scope of
notice.
Motion by Mr. Furlong, seconded by Mr.
Miller to include “comprehensive plan amendments” in paragraph A, Article V,
Section 1.5 of Resolution #4; and to follow the same language on the last line
of the paragraph.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing for Resolution #4.
-------
The
Chairman recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m., reconvening it at 9:00 p.m.
RESOLUTION
#5
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #5 – Amendment of Article II
of the Seminole County Home Rule Charter by adding new sections to
provide: that the functions and duties
now prescribed by the Florida Constitution to the Clerk of the Circuit Court
which relate to Clerk’s duties as Auditor of County funds be transferred to a
newly created auditor position serving at the pleasure of the Board of County
Commissioners; for powers, duties and qualifications of said auditor; and for
the Clerk’s duties which relate to custodian of County funds to be transferred
to the County Manager.
Mr.
Yurko read the pertinent language regarding Resolution #5 into the Record.
Rocky
Harrelson,
No
one else spoke with regard to Resolution #5.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
The
Chairman stated that there were a number of alternatives, including an elected
comptroller, but the majority of the CRC went with this recommendation. He said, in his opinion, this was a
compromise and to him this is an improvement.
Mr.
Furlong stated he is not sure that this is an improvement.
Ms.
Johnson said that she does not believe that the separation of the county
auditor was necessarily meant to address Mr. Harrelson’s concerns. She further said it was meant to highlight
and emphasize the role of internal audit and the function of audit is not
necessarily to create the policies but to make sure the policies already in
place are enforced.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing for Resolution #5.
RESOLUTION
#6
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #6 – Amendment of Article II
of the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to provide for: adding a new section to create providing for
a volunteer advisory audit committee; for setting forth the powers, duties,
terms and qualifications of said audit committee; and for conforming changes to
Sections 2.2(3) and 3.1 of the Charter.
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language for Resolution #6 into the Record.
Rocky
Harrelson,
No
one else spoke with regard to Resolution #6.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Mr.
Horan stated the proposed amendments empower the BCC to create two boards – one
is an ethics board and the other is an audit committee. He said that he thinks they will see the
opportunity for people who want to participate in government expanded by
this.
Mr.
Harris stated that in looking at this, he does not see any establishment of standards. He questioned what specific oversight does
the CRC want the audit committee to exercise.
Ms.
Johnson said they thought the audit committee should set its own charter that
would delineate the standards of expectations of the audit committee. She said the intent of the CRC was to create
an audit committee charter similar to the one suggested by the AICPA.
Upon
inquiry by Mr. Harris, Ms. Yurko advised she believes this is a perfect example
of where intent language would come in very handy. She said she would suggest Ms. Johnson draft
some intent language to be brought back to the CRC. The CRC voiced no objections to same.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing on Resolution #6.
RESOLUTION
#7
The
Chairman opened the public hearing on Resolution #7 – Amendment of Article V of
the Seminole County Home Rule Charter to provide for: adding a new section which includes the
Sheriff, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Clerk of the Circuit Court and
Supervisor of Elections within the scope of internal audits conducted by the
person designated by the Charter to perform audits for conforming changes to
Section 2.2.(E) and 3.1 of the Charter.
Ms.
Yurko read the pertinent language for Resolution #7 into the Record. She advised of additional language “or
entity” after the word “person” in Section 1.5.
Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Ms.
Dietz to add “or entity” after the word “person” under Article V, Section 1.5
of Resolution #7.
A roll call vote on the motion was taken
with all members in attendance voting AYE.
No
one spoke with regard to Resolution #7.
The
Chairman closed the public input portion of the hearing.
There
was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, the Chairman closed the
public hearing on Resolution #7.
ITEMS
FOR DISCUSSION/NEW ISSUES
Rocky
Harrelson,
Mr.
Maloy stated he appreciates Mr. Harrelson’s input; and advised in the
beginning, the CRC asked for public input but was disappointed only a couple of
people showed up. He added that he wished
the CRC had more input early on.
Mr.
Lovestrand thanked Mr. Harrelson for his comments and explained he was not in
the process at the beginning. In
particular, he liked his comments relative to corporate welfare.
Mr.
Miller commented on Mr. Harrelson’s perspective that if someone had a personal
agenda, he or she would be disqualified from being on the CRC; and said that
statement is not accurate.
Speaker
Request/Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
-------
The
Chairman announced the next public hearing of the CRC is scheduled for June 29,
2006 at 7:00 p.m., and the last hearing will be held on July 12, 2006.
-------
There
being no further business to come before the CRC at this time, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 9:36 p.m.