CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

MINUTES

Motion by Ms. Dietz, seconded by Mr. Boyko to approve the CRC minutes dated May 20, 2006.

All members present voted AYE.

- - -

Motion by Ms. Hammontree, seconded by Ms. Dietz to approve the CRC minutes dated June 14, 2006.

All members present voted AYE.

NEXT MEETING DATE

Ms. Yurko stated she recommended at the last meeting to continue with a fourth public hearing. She stated she understands that there is a conflict with the July 12 and she believes they have several alternative dates.

Don Fisher, Deputy County Manager, advised that due to the July 4 holiday the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) rescheduled their meeting for July 12; therefore, there is a conflict. He stated he would recommend considering the CRC hearing for either July 11 or July 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. He added it may be a good idea to consider July 13, 2006 as that will give the CRC an extra day due to the holiday.

Ms. Hammontree stated she believes counsel will be out of town during that time and July 13 will be a better date.

Ms. Yurko stated she will be in town on Tuesday, July 11, 2006.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated if there are no objections, the fourth public hearing will be held on July 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. The CRC voiced no objections.

Ms. Yurko stated she will attempt to submit the ballot language to the CRC tomorrow.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated Chairman Tucker felt that they should have a separate meeting to consider the ballot language.

Mr. Maloy recommended that they do it at the end of the July 13 meeting in order to knock it out at once.

The CRC consented to considering the ballot language at the July 13 meeting.

-------

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated there is an item of business that requires action by the CRC. He stated the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) funded $15,000 for legal services based on the experience six years earlier. During that time legal counsel was only in attendance when specifically requested. This CRC has had a number of workshops and Ms. Yurko has attended every meeting. He stated $15,000 is not an adequate amount and the procedure is for the CRC to approve and recommend to the BCC an additional amount. He said he spoke to Ms. Yurko and she is willing to reduce the amount substantially and she believes she can finish her services for an additional sum of $20,000.

Motion by Ms. Hammontree, seconded by Mr. Horan to submit a recommendation of an additional amount of $20,000 to the BCC for legal services for the CRC.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Mr. Lovestrand, Vice Chairman van den Berg advised $175 an hour is the hourly rate being charged.

Mr. Horan advised that is far below the market rate.

All members present voted AYE.

Resolution #1

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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 County Commissioners and to set limits on increases.

Ms. Yurko read the pertinent language of Resolution #1 into the Record. She referred to and read into the Record Section 2.2(C) Salaries and Other Compensation that was amended.

No one spoke with regard to Resolution #1.

Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public input portion of the hearing.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing on Resolution #1.

RESOLUTION #2

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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. She stated she took the liberty of adding a paragraph to address “intent” that was brought up at the last meeting. She said she feels it would be helpful to have some legislative embodiment of what the CRC’s intent is with regard to the provision that deals with officials dealing with other officials’ campaigns. She read the proposed language into the Record: “With respect to the new language proposed to be added to the Charter at Article V B, the Charter Review Commission expressly declares that its intent is not to regulate the political speech or participation in campaigns by employees during their off duty hours but rather to prohibit any appearance of impropriety that could arise by virtue of accepting compensation for both government employment and for such outside campaign obligations”. She stated it appears that impropriety may not be the right term, it may be the CRC’s concern about conflicting interest and dual roles, and she want to explore that to see if there is a consensus on that.

Bob Webster, 3435 Holliday Ave., stated he really likes some of the proposals in this resolution, but he feels that to limit the action of the BCC acting as lobbyists is very offensive and he doesn’t feel they should be involved in that and it should not be tolerated. He stated he feels they are alright with limiting action of the BCC acting as lobbyists, but when it affects other constitutional officers the CRC is way out of step. There may be some personal merit to it but the legal aspect is what he is talking about. If they want to change the rules of the charter, they can do it under Chapter 125.60 thru 64 or do it by a constitutional amendment. He added the CRC has to stay within the law or they will fall in the category of being outlaws. At the request of Mr. Webster, the CRC had no objections of allowing him to speak an additional 5 minutes. Mr. Webster continued by discussing setting the BCC salaries. He suggested rescinding the charter and going back to the regular county form of government. He discussed the issue of executive and legislative branches of government.

No one else spoke with regard to Resolution #2.

Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public input portion of the hearing.

Mr. Horan stated the intent language came up at the last public hearing as it relates to Item B.3 because apparently there was some existing law that gave an impression whether or not this provision violated State law, and there was a general concern that it might be subject to a Constitutional attack. He stated he feels it is a good idea to have the intent language as part of the resolution.

Ms. Yurko stated it will not be in the charter itself.

Mr. Horan stated he is comfortable with including this language because anything that is put in the resolution might give someone an idea as to what they are after if this is challenged. He stated the first thing they will do is take a look at challenging these provisions on constitutional or legal grounds. He said he feels that any intent language included will assist the court and it will be helpful in upholding it. What the CRC would like to do is to have a code of ethics that is consistent with general law and is enforceable. The State Attorney has said he is not sure if he can enforce it. There is a question whether or not the County can impose criminal penalties and that would be left up to the ordinance process. He stated given the majority of what the CRC wanted; he feels this about the best product they can get. He feels Attorney Yurko has done an excellent job of drafting this and it reflects the majority opinion of what they would like to have done.

Upon inquiry by Mr. Maloy, Ms. Yurko advised the proposed language is not a proposed amendment on the revision to the charter and it is nothing that will be put in the charter.

Motion by Mr. Boyko, seconded by Ms. Hammontree to accept the wording for Resolution #2 as presented with the amendments.

All members present voted AYE.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #2.

RESOLUTION #3

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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. She advised she believes the wording to Article V Miscellaneous Provision, Section B should be Chapter 112.3134 instead of Chapter 112.3734. She said she will check that out. She continued by reading Sections C and D of the Miscellaneous Provisions.

Bob Webster, 3435 Holliday Ave., stated the only objection to this issue is, once again, they are referring to the Constitutional Officers and there are no Constitutional Officers in the charter. He stated he doesn’t mind the proposed resolutions referring to the members of the BCC and their employees, but they are running crossways when they are trying to involve the actions of other Constitutional Officers.

Mr. Lovestrand discussed with Mr. Webster the issue of the County Manager form of government providing for other officers.

No one else spoke with regard to Resolution #3.

Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public input portion of the hearing.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #3.

RESOLUTION #4

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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 Seminole County, Florida.

Ms. Yurko read the pertinent language regarding Resolution #4 into the Record.

No one spoke with regard to Resolution #4.

Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public input portion of the hearing.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #4.

RESOLUTION #5

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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. She referred to Section 3, Effective Date and Intent, and advised that Mr. Lovestrand brought up the wording “appropriate executive officer”, and stated she has included that in the intent section. She read same into the Record.

Bob Webster, 3435 Holliday Avenue, stated he is not in total disagreement of all the sections, but when the CRC gets involved with constitutional officers they are treading on bad ground. He stated the CRC does not have validity over any constitutional officers as the Florida Constitution makes it abundantly clear that any change has to be by Constitutional Amendment. The CRC is attempting to change the duties of an officer of a county and make it different from other constitutional officers in a different way and they cannot do that. He said he feels there is a lot of merit with some of things the CRC is trying to do, but they are off base with getting involved with constitutional officers.

No one else spoke with regard to Resolution #5.

Mr. Maloy stated he would like to know how is it going to work out structurally if departments are separate. He stated he also would like to know how this will follow under the County’s Administrative Code or will a different Administrative Code for this department be created.

Mr. Horan stated he feels A(2) was put in there to make it clear that the new County auditor shall have unrestricted access to County government employees and officials’ records. This would be someone who would be a new and independent officer that would report to the BCC but would be able to have access, not only to the County employees under the County Manager, but to have the right to audit the Constitutional Officers and have control over finance functions.

Mr. Lovestrand asked if this position would be full-time or part-time and will they get benefits as well. He stated this has not been addressed and he feels it should be in the language.

Ms. Johnson stated she believes the intent is this position would be separate from the County Manager and she doesn’t have any objections to that. She stated she believes the intent of the committee is it would be a full-time position. She said she doesn’t believe a day-to-day or a month-to-month directive from the BCC would be required. Most of the activities are well planned in advance and, if issues arise, they can report to the BCC or to a potential audit committee.

Upon inquiry by Mr. Maloy, Ms. Johnson advised if there is a county auditor position, that individual should have the ability to direct day-to-day operations and then have communication with the County Manager, County Attorney or whatever department director that is necessary. She stated she thinks it would be reasonable to have the financial function fall under the Administrative Code. She added she feels it would be reasonable to have the position full time and it would follow the County’s Administrative Code. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Horan stated the office of the County Attorney was created by a charter revision and he doesn’t believe there was anything in there that indicates that it is a full-time position. The County Attorney is a county employee and would be subject to the same code of conduct as the other County employees.

Mr. Lovestrand stated he feels they should specify this in the language.

Mr. Maloy stated he believes there is a separate code for the County Attorney’s office.

Mr. Horan stated he feels they can put it in the intent section, but he wouldn’t want to bother the language of the amendment.

At the request of Vice Chairman van den Berg, Ms. Johnson advised she believes the consensus of the CRC was to include the County Auditor as a full-time position subject to the existing Administrative Code of Seminole County.

Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Ms. Dietz to adopt the consensus of the CRC that the County Auditor shall be a full-time position.

A roll call vote on the motion was taken with Mr. Horan, Ms. Dietz, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Harris, Mr. van den Berg, Mr. Boyko, Mr. Maloy and Ms. Hammontree voting AYE. Mr. Lovestrand voted NAY.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #5.

RESOLUTION #6

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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. She also read into the Record Section 3, Effective Date and Intent.

Ms. Johnson stated in reviewing the intent language, the one question she has is how specific does the CRC want to be in the direction for the charter creation, and whether they want to point out the specific model to which they discussed. She said her recommendation is to change the word “allow” in the first sentence to “direct the audit committee”. She stated she believes the CRC’s intent was to direct the audit committee. She added she would recommend adding the following words after the word duties in the last sentence to “using the guidance provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants model charter matrix for audit committees for governmental entities”. This would be a very clear directive to refer back to a specific matrix and would include all of the items, direction, and timing.

Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr. Harris to accept the wording as additional language in the Effective Date and Intent section.

All members present voted AYE.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #6.

RESOLUTION #7

Vice Chairman van den Berg 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 stated she has included the meaning of county funds in Section 1.5, Audit of Constitutional Officers. She read into the Record the following: “meaning those funds appropriated to each such Officer by the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County”.

Vice Chairman van den Berg asked Mr. Fisher if he had a chance to determine whether that is a correct reference. For instance, if there was a state or federal grant to the Sheriff, it would not be subject to this particular audit provision, but if the funds were received through appropriation by the BCC, those funds would be subject to the internal audit.

Mr. Maloy stated some of the offices operate only on fees. He stated the BCC reviews the Supervisor of Elections and Sheriff’s offices, but do not review the Property Appraiser or the Tax Collector. If that is put in there, they are taking out auditing service of two offices.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated that is not his intent.

Bob Webster, 3435 Holliday Avenue, asked if the CRC is making them charter officers or doing away with the duties of the Clerk and giving them audit authority.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated the CRC is proposing that funds received from Seminole County activities and all sorts of revenue generated by government that are turned over to the Constitutional Officers would be subject to internal audit.

Upon inquiry by Mr. Webster, Vice Chairman van den Berg advised they are not taking the Sheriff and all the Constitutional Officers and putting them under the Charter in its entirety. Discussion ensued relative to whether or not the Clerk has the power to audit other Constitutional Officers.

Ms. Yurko stated the CRC deleted language at the last hearing that addresses what role, if any, the Clerk would have regarding auditing other Constitutional Officers. This provision deals strictly with the requirement that if an entity is designated in the charter, i.e. if the Clerk’s function as auditor is transferred out, then that audit function with respect to County funds would apply to the Constitutional Officers.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated the intent of the CRC was that either the Clerk of Court or an auditor appointed pursuant to the CRC’s recommendation would be authorized to perform internal audits of the Constitutional Officers’ funds.

Ms. Yurko stated at the last meeting the CRC deleted the default mechanism that would have the Clerk do the audit function. She stated this deals specifically with a situation that if and when the entity is designated in the Charter to do the internal auditor function, then that would encompass the constitutional officers with respect to County funds.

Upon inquiry by Vice Chairman van den Berg, Ms. Johnson advised she agrees the word “internal” in the title of Resolution 7 is needed and should be added after the words “designated by the Charter to perform”.

Mr. Fisher stated he feels it would be prudent to go back and clearly define the definition of County funds.

Mr. Horan stated what they are trying to do is not violate general law or the constitution but walk the fine line between properly authorizing an appropriate officer to audit county funds, but not duplicate the efforts of others who are already auditing or providing financial restraints on the Constitutional Officers.

Mr. Fisher stated many grants are leveraged with general fund dollars authorized by the budget of the BCC. He stated State and Federal revenues will be audited but at times they will be blending dollars that were authorized by the BCC. He said he believes there may be some interest on trying to have some evaluation of those dollars. He added he doesn’t know if that is legal, but he prefers doing further research and submitting that information at the next meeting.

Mr. Horan stated his understanding is that if the County funds are fee generated under this proposed amendment and if someone else is not reviewing it, the CRC would like the County auditor to review it.

Vice Chairman van den Berg recommended adding the following “with respect to all funds received by these officers with the exception of funds received under State or Federal grants”. He said that would not keep them from auditing blended County dollars.

Mr. Lovestrand stated even though the State may give a grant, how that is spent is at their discretion and he feels that should be included as well.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated the only factor the CRC might want to consider is those grants which carry with them specific requirements for detailed audits of every penny that is spent.

Ms. Johnson stated she would suggest adding the following for the definition: “with respect to County funds meaning those funds derived from collections of taxes and fees and other like revenue sources of Seminole County not subject to specific separate audit opinion by regulation or law”.

Mr. Maloy stated he would suggest adding in the intent section the same thing they did on the other audit resolution.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated he feels it is critical to know what it is that is legally subject to the audit. He stated the intent section may not carry that force.

Mr. Horan stated he feels it should be included in the amendment.

At the request of Vice Chairman van den Berg, Ms. Johnson reiterated the definition of county funds.

Ms. Yurko stated she would feel more comfort putting this in the intent section.

Vice Chairman van den Berg suggested using County funds with initial caps and then have a definition sentence which includes Ms. Johnson’s definition.

Ms. Yurko stated she doesn’t want the issue that they are violating the amendment to come up.

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated they are using the term County funds and that is going to mean different things to different people.

Upon inquiry by Ms. Hammontree, Mr. Fisher advised the Clerk performs audits on State funds as well as the State. Nothing in this would preclude someone inviting an auditor to perform audits.

Mr. Horan stated he doesn’t want to duplicate but to have the power to do it if they feel it is necessary.

Motion by Mr. Horan, seconded by Mr. Boyko to ask counsel to suggest a term that would be reasonably meaningful on the description of the funds to be audited and adding a definition close to or identical to that recommended by Ms. Johnson.

All members present voted AYE.

There was no additional discussion by the CRC, therefore, Vice Chairman van den Berg closed the public hearing for Resolution #7.

Ms. Yurko clarified that the CRC will be doing the formal adoption at the fourth public hearing.

-------

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

-------

Vice Chairman van den Berg stated this has been an interesting experience for him and everyone on the CRC has been dedicated to this very important work. He said there have been an incredible number of meetings and they have been proactive in the public’s interest. He added that he feels they are honing in on a very good product.

-------

There being no further business to come before the CRC at this time, the Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.