CAPTIONING JULY 13, 2010 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>MITCHELL THROWER: GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE JULY 13th PUBLIC HEARING. TO BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING, MR. FRANK REDDICK IS GOING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] OKAY. NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS -- EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED -- EXCUSE ME. EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CLERK OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, PAT FRANK. WE JUST HAVE DISCUSSION OF THAT LETTER. BASICALLY EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT IN THEIR PACKET AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. SHE JUST RESPONDED TO AN E-MAIL THAT I HAD RECEIVED FROM MR. SAM McCALL, THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE AUDITOR, WHICH I HAD FORWARDED TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, SO ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM OR ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE NEXT ITEM? >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE THING THAT I READ IN IT AFTER I READ IT LAST NIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: SHE SAID -- SHE STATED HERE THAT -- AND I'M LOOKING AT THE SECOND -- THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS, IN THE COURSE OF MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M GOING TO JUMP DOWN TO WHERE SHE SAYS, IF THE BOCC CHOOSES TO USE OUR OFFICE FOR THAT PURPOSE, I WOULD ACCOMMODATE THEM, PROVIDED THAT THE BOCC WOULD FURNISH FUNDS FOR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AS NEEDED. SO TO ME SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE WOULD DO SOMETHING, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO COST MONEY, SO IF WE ELIMINATE THE POSITION, WE STILL DON'T CUT OUT THE COST, AND THEN WHAT WE DO IS -- THE WAY THIS IS STATED TO ME, THIS LETTER, IS THAT IF I CAN WORK IT IN MY SCHEDULE BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY GOT SEVERAL THINGS I'M DOING, AN INTERNAL AUDITOR -- BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO SAY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE ANYMORE, I'M GOING TO SAY INTERNAL AUDITOR -- IS AT THE WILL [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] COUNTY COMMISSION BECAUSE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] CHECK SOMETHING OUT. IT'S A LOT MORE EASIER IF YOU GOT YOUR OWN PERSON, SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I SAW IN THE LETTER THAT I THOUGHT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS DOING THOSE AUDITS AND STUFF FREE. >>FRANK REDDICK: MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. REDDICK. >>FRANK REDDICK: I ALSO WANT TO JUST TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUDITOR IN TALLAHASSEE. THAT INFORMATION HE RESPONDED TO YOU WITH -- THE INFORMATION HE PROVIDED YOU I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY VALUABLE >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>FRANK REDDICK: AND HE GAVE ME A LOT OF INSIGHT ABOUT THE AUDITING PROCESS. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO HIM. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS LETTER BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT -- PUBLIC HEARING. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, I SEE -- MR. CHAIR, I SEE MR. TARR IS HERE TONIGHT, AND I HOPE HE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS TO -- TO WHAT HE BELIEVE THE APPROPRIATE FIX SHOULD BE RELATED TO THIS ISSUE TONIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH. HE IS THE FIRST ONE TO SIGN UP, SO HE IS ON THE LIST. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, NOT JUST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT TO SPEAK WHEN WE ACTUALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE UP THE ISSUE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. IF -- DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THE THREE MINUTES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL. IF HE'S WILLING TO STAY AROUND TILL LATER, WE CAN POSSIBLY ASK HIM QUESTIONS, BUT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP EVERYBODY TO THREE MINUTES. SO -- >>GERALD WHITE: I UNDERSTAND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: I DON'T THINK THAT -- OH. MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S NOT CLEAR ON THIS AGENDA HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES. I KNOW USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, YOU HEAR FROM EVERYBODY AND YOU DEAL WITH ONE ISSUE AND THEN YOU MOVE ON AND HEAR FROM PEOPLE AGAIN ON THE NEXT ISSUE. ARE YOU -- OR ARE YOU INTENDING TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY AT ONE TIME AND THEN DEAL WITH THEM TOGETHER? >>MITCHELL THROWER: I WAS GOING TO -- I WAS GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF HOW THEY SIGNED UP THE DIFFERENT ISSUES IN TERMS -- I WASN'T GOING TO SEPARATE THEM, I WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH THEM AS WE GO THROUGH. >>GERALD WHITE: MR. CHAIR -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: THEN -- YES, MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: I RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY COME TO THE PODIUM AND BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER PLATT HAS JUST SAID, LET US KNOW, MAKE SURE WE'RE PROCEEDING LEGALLY APPROPRIATELY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >>GERALD WHITE: COULD SHE JUST COME UP AND SAY SHOULD WE HEAR BOTH ISSUES, SEPARATE THE ISSUES? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: GOOD EVENING. MARY HELEN FARRIS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAY WE DID IT THE LAST TIME IS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC COMMENT TO COMMENT ON EITHER -- EITHER ONE OF THE PROPOSALS. THEY HAD THREE MINUTES PER PROPOSAL, BUT THEN NOW THAT WE ARE DOWN TO THE POINT OF WHERE WE WILL BE VOTING ON SOMETHING, I WOULD TAKE ONE ISSUE UP AND DISCUSS IT AND VOTE IT AND THEN GO ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WAITING, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF HOURS OR HOWEVER LONG THIS IS GOING TO BE, WE SUGGEST TO JUST LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR COMMENTS UP FRONT ON EITHER ISSUE, AND THEN YOU TAKE ISSUES ONE AT THE TIME FOR THE VOTING. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU, MRS. FARRIS. MY THOUGHT WAS ON THAT, I WAS JUST GOING TO PROCEED LIKE WE HAD BEEN IN TERMS OF THE LAST HEARING, THE ORDER THAT THEY SIGNED UP IS THE ORDER I'D CALL THEM UP. I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT IF -- IN SECTION 8.02, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A FULL BOARD TONIGHT SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE, BUT IN THE FUTURE, SECTION 8.02, I WAS GOING TO READ THIS. THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD SHALL AFTER TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND UPON APPROVAL OF TWO-THIRDS OF ITS MEMBERS -- I WANTED TO STATE THAT -- FOLLOWING ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER, UPON APPROVAL OF TWO-THIRDS OF ITS MEMBERS. WE HAVE 14 MEMBERS, SO IT WOULD BE TEN INDIVIDUALS. MY UNDERSTANDING, AND MRS. FARRIS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF WE ONLY HAVE 12 INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOW UP, IT'S STILL TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS, SO YOU HAVE TO STILL HAVE TEN VOTES, SO IT'S CRITICAL AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ESPECIALLY AT THE ONE WE VOTE ON, WE GET A FULL -- WE GET ALL THE MEMBERS HERE. IF WE ONLY HAVE NINE MEMBERS SHOW UP AT THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE OUT OF LUCK, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE TEN VOTES. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, IT'S TEN OF THE 14, SO IF WE ONLY HAVE 12, IT'S STILL TEN OF THE 14. IT'S THE FULL MEMBERSHIP. >>GERALD WHITE: WE HAVE PERFECT ATTENDANCE TONIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. SO IT'S A NONISSUE. I'M JUST -- >>GERALD WHITE: 14 MEMBERS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I WANTED TO STATE THAT JUST FOR THE RECORD AND SO THE BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND IN THE FUTURE SINCE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE -- WE'VE GOT A PUBLIC HEARING -- WE'VE GOT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS IN AUGUST. IT'S -- I MEAN, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON ITEMS AND FOR ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS GOING FORWARD, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. MRS. STEWART HAD MENTIONED THAT SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT THAT PRIOR TO THE MEETING, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. NEXT UP IS OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING -- WELL, THE PUBLIC HEARING'S ALREADY OPEN, BUT PROCEEDING WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. FIRST UP IS MR. RICHARD TARR. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR ADDRESS. >> OKAY. RICHARD TARR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND EVERYONE HAS THREE MINUTES, AND STATE -- IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON MORE THAN ONE ISSUE, IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR MORE THAN ONE ISSUE, PLEASE STATE THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING SO THE BOARD KNOWS. >> ALL RIGHT. THE ONLY ISSUE I'M SPEAKING ON IS THE IPA ISSUE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, SIR. >> OKAY. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU, ONE ABOLISHING THE IPA POSITION AND THE SECOND ONE TO ADJUST THE TITLE AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IPA POSITION. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ADJUSTING -- OR CHANGING THE TITLE AND ADJUSTING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IPA POSITION, WHICH IS THE PRESENTATION I MADE IN FRONT OF YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO. THE THING I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS VERY QUICKLY IN THE SHORT TIME THAT I HAVE IS THE FACT THAT I KNOW THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT HAS SAID THAT HAVING TWO AUDIT SHOPS WOULD BE REDUNDANT AND WOULD BE REPEATING THE AUDIT FUNCTION. WHAT I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE -- WHICH I THINK MR. ROBINSON HAS STOLEN MY THUNDER ALREADY THIS EVENING, POINTED OUT TO THE FACT THAT THE CLERK'S AUDIT FUNCTION IS NOT DOING OPERATIONAL AUDIT WORK OR PERFORMANCE AUDITS. AS SHE STATED IN HER MEMO, IF SHE WERE TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY, THEN, IN FACT, SHE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DO THAT. CLEARLY THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDITS THAT THE CLERK PERFORMS IS TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS BECAUSE THAT, IN FACT, IS THE CHARGE SHE WAS GIVEN, AND IT WAS DEFINED I THINK VERY NICELY IN A FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 1977. THE CASE WAS ALACHUA COUNTY VS. POWERS. THE CLERK HAS THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM AN THE AUDITING FUNCTIONS, BOTH AS AN ARM OF THE BOARD IN AUDITING THE RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND AS A WATCHDOG OF THE BOARD IN THE CASE OF PREAUDITING ACCOUNTS OF THE BOARD IN DETERMINING LEGALITY OF EXPENDITURES. THE PHRASE "LEGALITY OF EXPENDITURES" INCLUDES -- INCLUDES THAT THE FUNDS ARE SPENT FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, THAT THE FUNDS ARE SPENT IN CONFORMITY WITH COUNTY PURCHASING PROCEDURES OR STATUTORY BINDING PROCEDURES, THAT THE EXPENDITURES DO NOT OVERSPEND ANY ACCOUNT OR FUND OF THE BUDGET AS FINALLY ADOPTED AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. AND IN FACT, THAT IS THE TYPE OF AUDIT WORK THAT THE CLERK'S AUDIT FUNCTION PERFORMS BECAUSE THAT IS, IN FACT, WHAT THE CLERK IS MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, WHETHER OR NOT FUNDS ARE SPENT LEGALLY. THE BOARD, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS LOOKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT FUNDS ARE BEING EXPENDED IN AN ECONOMICAL, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE MANNER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BOARD'S MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS, SO, IN FACT, WHILE THERE ARE TWO AUDIT FUNCTIONS, THEY HAVE TWO VERY DISTINCT OBJECTIVES THAT ARE DIFFERENT, THEY DO NOT OVERLAP, THEY HAVE TWO SEPARATE PURPOSES IN CONDUCTING THE AUDITS THAT THEY PERFORM, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE AN OVERLAP IN THOSE SERVICES. THANK YOU. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU, MR. TARR. NEXT UP IS MRS. STILES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WHAT TOPIC YOU'RE SPEAKING ON. >> I WONDER WHICH ONE THAT IS. MY NAME IS MARY ANN STILES. MY ADDRESS IS 16201 SONSOLES DE AVILA, TAMPA 33613. I'M HERE TONIGHT -- I -- AS YOU KNOW, I'M OPPOSED TO YOUR TAKING A VOTE TONIGHT ON THE VETO. I DO POINT OUT TWO THINGS. THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE FELT STRONG ENOUGH THAT A VETO POWER SHOULD EXIST OR IT WOULDN'T HAVE CREATED THE PROVISION TO ALLOW FOR IT IN CHAPTER 125. NUMBER TWO, YOUR RESOLUTION STATES THAT YOU DID A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE CHARTER AND I ASSUME THE LAW, AND I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. YOU STATE THAT BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW -- WHEREAS, IT'S INCONSISTENT AND VIOLATES CHAPTER 1G OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, THEREFORE, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I REFER YOU AGAIN TO 125.86 THAT STATES THAT THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS AND ANY LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROGRAMS AND ALSO -- IT ALSO STATES IN THE POWERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE BOARD -- BECAUSE A LOT OF LAW THAT'S BEING RELIED ON WAS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THIS STATUTE -- ALL THE POWER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCONSISTENT WITH GENERAL LAW IS RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED BY THE CHARTER. THE LAW HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE CHARTER, AND IT IS ACCEPTABLE. AND IN MY OPINION AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S, IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, AND IF YOU QUESTION THAT AND YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE STATUTE, THEN I ASK YOU TO AT LEAST PUT IT OFF UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE OPERATING ON MISINFORMATION FROM MS. LEE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. THANK YOU, MRS. STILES. NEXT UP, MR. JARVIS EL-AMIN. EL-AMIN. WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> JARVIS EL-AMIN, 4818 EAST 99th AVENUE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33617. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COUNTY MAYOR BRIEFLY AND THE IPA. I WANT TO START WITH THE IPA. I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT. I THINK THE PROFESSIONAL THAT JUST CAME BEFORE ME MADE IT VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THE DISTINCT ROLES OF THE BOTH, AND REALLY, I THINK THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT HAS REALLY GOT HER HANDS FULL, AND HOW SHE DOES AUDITING DOES NOT AFFECT HOW THE COUNTY COMMISSION -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION OPERATE. SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT -- ADJUST THE TITLE AND THE POSITION AND THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH THE STATUTE AND KEEP IT. WE CAN'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER. I MEAN, MR. BARNES DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB. THAT DON'T MEAN THE POST ITSELF, THE FUNCTION OF THE POST IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU'RE CHARGED WITH A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE WHEN YOU STARTED BECAUSE YOU-ALL PUT THE IPA ON. NOW YOU WANT TO TAKE IT OFF, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS A CITIZEN THING THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON, SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE EVEN THE AS THE WORLD TURNS THAT HAPPENED DOWN AT COUNTY CENTER, A LOT OF THAT WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN CAME OUT IF IT WASN'T FOR THE IPA, THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. THE COUNTY -- COUNTY MAYOR, IT'S A LOT OF WORK GOT TO BE DONE ON THAT. MY CONCERN WITH THE COUNTY MAYOR STILL IS LATINOS AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS BEING REPRESENTED IN THE COUNTY MAYOR SYSTEM, BUT I AM FOR MAKING SOME CHANGES IN THE WAY OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WORK BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING NOW, SO COUNTY ELECTED CHAIR, I THINK THAT'S REDUNDANT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A COUNTY -- HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR THAT'S GOING TO WORK AT THE PLEDGE OF THE COUNTY CHAIR. YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR WITH A LIMITED VETO POWER OR YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP THE SAME SYSTEM AND GET BETTER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND DON'T LET THEM STAY SO LONG. WHO GET A GOLDEN PARACHUTE LIKE A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS? PLEASE. SHE GOING TO COME BACK AND SUE, AND SHE END UP COSTING THE COUNTY $900,000. YOU-ALL THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER WHITE COST THE COUNTY. I MEAN, COME ON, AND THEY WERE JUST ALL HA-RA-RA-RA, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU-ALL DIDN'T SEE THAT, WHY THE COUNTY COMMISSION DIDN'T SEE THAT. THEY DIDN'T SEE THAT. IT'S GOING TO COST THE COUNTY $900,000. YOU KNOW SHE'S LAWYERING UP NOW. THAT'S WHY AIN'T NOBODY HEARD FROM HER. SHE'S LAWYERING UP. WHEN SHE COME BACK, SHE GOING TO KNOCK THE BLOOP OUT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION. WATCH WHAT I TELL YOU. AND I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW DON'T DO IT. YOU GOT -- YOU GOTTA GET THAT POSITION, NOT WORKING FOR FOUR BOSSES BECAUSE WHAT YOU GOT -- THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WE GOT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT WE GOT -- AND I SAW SOME PEOPLE ADAMANT AGAINST THE COUNTY MAYOR. YOU KNOW WHAT WE GOT IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW? SEVEN MINI MAYORS THAT POSTURE AND PLAY TO THE VOTER, PLAY DURING ELECTION TIME. THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT. AIN'T NO EFFICIENCY. THIS IS A BIG COUNTY THAT'S GROWING. LET'S COME UP TO THE 21st CENTURY, MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION, AND BE VERY PRUDENT IN YOUR DECISION KNOWING THAT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY. THANK YOU. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS MR. GRAY, STANLEY GRAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE TOPIC YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STANLEY GRAY. I RESIDE AT 3020 WEST HARBOR VIEW AVENUE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33611, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF THE VETO ISSUE AS WELL AS THE COUNTY MAYOR. FORGIVE ME BRIEFNESS, AS I ONLY HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO SHARE MY CONCERNS, FEELINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE VETO ISSUE AND THE ISSUE OF THE COUNTY MAYOR. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD ARE APPOINTED, AND BEING SO, THEY HAVE THE LATITUDE TO OPERATE WITHOUT CONCERNS OF REELECTION AND OTHER DIRECT CONSTITUENT CONCERNS. MEMBERS HAVE THE OPTION OF VOTING THEIR INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE BASED UPON THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND THE RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUE TO THE CHARTER. THE BOARD IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A RUBBER STAMP PER SE FOR OUR COUNTY'S COMMISSIONERS. I BELIEVE IT IS FITTING FOR THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ILLUSTRATED LITTLE POLITICAL MOTIVATION TO DO. THE ISSUE FOR A COUNTY MAYOR -- FOR A COUNTY MAYOR IS A VIABLE ONE. IF ONE WAS TO BELIEVE HALF OF WHAT I HAVE READ AND LISTENED TO IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE, ONE CANNOT HELP BUT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH INTEREST BY THE COUNTY'S CONSTITUENTS FOR THIS REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT BALLOT. IF ANYTHING, THE BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE INTEREST HAS GROWN, YET THE VOICES OF OPPOSITION SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN LOUDER IN VOLUME, YET NOT NUMBERS. I BELIEVE THAT AN ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR IS NEEDED BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS TO DERIVE, GAIN CONSENSUS FOR, EXECUTE IT, AND BE EVALUATED ON THE STRATEGIC NEEDS OF THE COUNTY, ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES OF LIMITED RESOURCES. MY OBSERVATION IS THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REALLY BEHOLDING TO THE COUNTY'S COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR WORK CONTENT, DIRECTION, AND PACE. THIS PRACTICE NEGATES A STRATEGIC EXECUTION AND MAINTAINS A TACTICAL ONE, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MUST AND WANT TO KEEP THEIR CONSTITUENTS CONTENT. IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE ARE A GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED AND DIVERSE POPULATION THAT NEEDS TO HAVE A KNOWN PLAN OF ACTION THAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTY, NOT AS GEOGRAPHIC VOTING BLOCKS. IF A COMPANY -- LET'S SAY A COMPANY THAT'S $10- TO $20 BILLION -- OR A CORPORATION WAS ENTERTAINING COMING TO OUR COUNTY, WHAT GOVERNMENT ENTITY WOULD BE BEST TO ENTERTAIN THEIR INTEREST, NEEDS, AND ACCOMMODATION ABILITY FOR THE COUNTY? ENVISION THE GROUP ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION, MASS TRANSPORTATION, AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAILING SPOUSES BECAUSE OF THE REQUESTING MANUFACTURING OR DISTRIBUTION ORGANIZATIONS COMING FROM A MAJOR LARGE U.S. CITY. YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. ONE IS THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT CITY ADMINISTRATORS OR LIKE POSITIONS WOULD TALK TO THIS GROUP OR A COUNTY MAYOR AND THE COUNTY'S MAYORS. I BELIEVE THE SECOND OPTION WHICH I HAVE MENTIONED PROVIDES THE BEST PERCEPTION FOR ACCOMMODATIONS, DECISION-MAKING, AND DATA POINTS FOR VISITING ORGANIZATIONS. I AM AGAIN ASKING THIS BOARD TO COORDINATE WITH THE APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO GET THE ISSUE OF THE COUNTY MAYOR PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE VERY NEXT ELECTION. THANK YOU. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU. LET ME REMIND EVERYONE, IN TERMS OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S -- IT'S -- THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE VETO POWER OF THE COUNTY MAYOR AND THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, THE ELIMINATION OR THE MODIFICATION OF THE DUTIES OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR OR THE ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE VETO POWERS OF THE COUNTY MAYOR, SO PLEASE DIRECT YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS TOWARDS -- SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THOSE COMMENTS, AND THE BOARD WHEN WE GET INTO OUR DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LIMIT -- WE'VE GOT TO LIMIT OUR DISCUSSION TO THOSE TOPICS TOO, SO NEXT UP, MR. AL DAVIS. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AL DAVIS. I'M AT 3717 EAST WILDER AVENUE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33610. I EXTEND GREETINGS TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND I WISH YOU WELL IN YOUR CONTINUED DELIBERATION. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN. I FILLED OUT TWO SLIPS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. IF YOU -- >> DOES THAT MEAN -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR EACH ITEM. >> SO I HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES? >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, SIR, IF YOU WANT TO USE THREE MINUTES FOR EACH ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY? >> THREE MINUTES FOR EACH. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON EACH OF THE TWO. SIX MINUTES TOTAL. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON BOTH ISSUES, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST ONE, THREE MINUTES FOR THE SECOND ONE. THAT'S THE SAME WAY -- >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I'M GOING TO TRY MY BEST, AND I APPRECIATE YOU-ALL'S PATIENCE WITH ME BECAUSE I HAVE LOW VISION, AND SOMETIMES THAT INTERFERES WITH MY ABILITY TO SEE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND COMMENT ON VERY QUICKLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE TWO ISSUES IS THE VETO ISSUE AND THE SO-CALLED -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. >> INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD TO SUPPORT THE DELETION OF BOTH FROM THE CHARTER. I'LL TELL YOU WHY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU-ALL'S ATTENTION TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE CHARTER, AND I HAVE -- IT'S A CUTE LITTLE BOOK -- [LAUGHTER] -- BUT IT'S VERY POWERFUL IN ITS LANGUAGE, VERY POWERFUL IN ITS STRUCTURE, AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS COUNTY UNDER OUR HOME RULE, THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE, AND I BELIEVE WHEN YOU LOOK AT ARTICLE 3, IT GIVES YOU THE GUIDANCE -- I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM "GUIDANCE" -- THAT THEY SHOULD BE WHAT, SEPARATE. ONE SHOULD NOT INTRUDE ON THE OTHER. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEED A [INCOMPREHENSIBLE], SO THIS IS MY SUPPORT FOR WHY YOU SHOULD ELIMINATE THAT VETO POWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ONE TO EXERCISE IT, AND FOR THE INTERNAL AUDIT, WHY, YOUR CLERK OF COURT HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY NOT ONLY CONSTITUTIONALLY BUT ALSO STATUTORILY, AND IT DOES WHAT I HEAR MANY COMMENTS ABOUT, INDEPENDENCE. I'VE HEARD MANY ANALOGIES CONCERNING THAT, AND SO I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU REVISE THE CHARTER TO HAVE THOSE TWO POSITIONS DELETED -- OR I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL DELETE WHEN YOU REVISE THE LEGISLATION -- OR REPEAL, THAT'S IT, REPEAL. I WON'T GET INTO THIS COUNTY MAYOR THING YET. THAT'S COMING LATER, ISN'T IT, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>MITCHELL THROWER: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR EACH RESOLUTION ACCORDING TO OUR -- >> OKAY. WELL, THE COUNTY MAYOR IS NOT ON -- >> NO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OH, NO, NO, NO. OH, YOU'RE TALKING -- OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT -- YEAH, THE MAYOR -- I'M SORRY. >> YOU-ALL HAD MADE A RESOLUTION CONCERNING WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO HEAR AT PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THAT; RIGHT? >>MITCHELL THROWER: THIS IS JUST THE MAYOR'S VETO POWER, THIS PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT HERE. >> OKAY. GOOD. SO I DO HAVE SOME SENTIMENTS ABOUT THIS THING CALLED THE COUNTY MAYOR, THE COUNTY CHAIR, OR THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THAT'S -- THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS JUST LIMITED TO THE VETO POWER AND INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. >> VERY WELL. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.01, AND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.01. THAT DESCRIBE THE STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNANCE -- SELF- GOVERNANCE RULE, AND THERE'S ONLY TWO. NOW, THE WISDOM COME IN HOW YOU BIFURCATE. IS THE EXECUTIVE -- OR IS THE AUDITOR, THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, IS THAT EXECUTIVE OR IS THAT -- OR IS THAT LEGISLATIVE? OKAY. THE VETO POWER, IS THAT EXECUTIVE OR IS THAT LEGISLATIVE? SO I CAN EASILY, YOU KNOW, PUT DOT -- CONNECT THE DOTS HERE AND CONNECT THE DOTS THERE, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO REVISE OUR CHARTER. I WOULD BE SO HAPPY WHEN THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I'LL BE SO HAPPY WHEN THE CLERK OF COURT DOES THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT, AND WHEN IT COMES TO THIS MATTER ABOUT THE ELECTED HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, I GOT SOME MORE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. YOU GOT A LITTLE MORE TIME. AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE -- ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE FORMS, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. >> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> SECOND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED? >>GINA GRIMES: I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY ONCE WE CLOSE THE HEARING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE THAT MIGHT BE IN THE AUDIENCE? >>MITCHELL THROWER: AS A BOARD, IF -- YES. >>GINA GRIMES: OKAY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE CAN DO THAT IF WE WANT. MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND TO THE BALLOT THE VETO MEASURE NUMBER 2 THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY TO AFFECT THE BUDGET. >> VETO POWER NUMBER 2. >>GERALD WHITE: THE ONE THAT READS, SHALL PROVIDE SETTING FORTH THE VETO POWER OF ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR OVER THE BUDGET OR ANY COMPONENTS CONTAINED HEREIN BE ELIMINATED FROM THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THAT'S LABELED VETO NUMBER 2 RESOLUTION. >> SECOND. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: [INAUDIBLE] UP IN THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER. >>GREG PRESEAU: MR. CHAIR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>GREG PRESEAU: I THINK AS A MATTER OF PRUDENCE, THE WAY THESE THINGS WERE INTRODUCED, I THINK THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD REALLY FOLLOW IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. WE'LL ADDRESS -- WE'RE GOING TO START -- WE'LL START WITH THE VETO POWER. JUST -- THAT'S THE FIRST ONE BROUGHT UP. WE'LL DISCUSS THE VETO POWER AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, OKAY. ACTUALLY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHICH ONE YOU'RE DISCUSSING. THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING AT IT. THE VETO POWER NUMBER 2, I'M GOING TO GIVE THE BOARD MEMBERS A MINUTE TO LOOK AT IT TO JUST UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHICH ONES. COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: NOW, CAN WE SPEAK TO HIS MOTION? >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>JAN PLATT: I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT OUGHT TO BE ELIMINATED COMPLETELY BECAUSE EVEN THE -- NUMBER 2 IS FLAWED. EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE JUST REMOVING THAT ONE ITEM ABOUT THE -- THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHEN THIS WAS DRAFTED AND WHEN IT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, IT WAS WITH A NONPARTISAN MAYOR. NOW WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS A PARTISAN MAYOR, WHICH MAKES A WHOLE DIFFERENT POLITICAL SCENARIO AS IT DEALS WITH VETOES, AND SO IN MY OPINION, THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN, AND THEN IF A MAYOR DOES PASS THIS TIME ON ITS OWN, THEN DOWN THE LINE THEY CAN DEAL WITH THE VETO AND REWRITE IT, BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL COMPOUND THE PROBLEM BY PURSUING THE SUGGESTION THAT -- THAT JUST ONE SECTION OF IT BE -- BE DEALT WITH. I THINK THE WHOLE THING NEEDS TO BE DELETED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY? >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT, IS THAT AN AMENDED MOTION? >>JAN PLATT: WELL, NO, NO, BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY OPPOSITE THAT'S CONTRARY. I'M FOR NUMBER 1. YOU'VE GOT TO VOTE HIS DOWN. I'M URGING YOU TO VOTE HIS DOWN AND CLEAN THE SLATE, NUMBER 1. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. REBACK AND MR. FISHER. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER PLATT SAID. I THINK IT'S -- IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE VETO PROVISION FROM THE -- FROM THE CHARTER, AND I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT MRS. STILES SUGGESTED THAT IT WASN'T UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT INADEQUATE RESEARCH HAD BEEN DONE IN THAT REGARD TO SAY THAT I'VE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY ELSE HAS DONE, BUT I'VE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH AS AN ATTORNEY, AND I'M CONVINCED THAT THE PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON SEVERAL LEVELS. WE -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT MYSELF IN THE PLACE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUT I WILL JUST ADD TO WHAT THEY SAID, THE FACT THAT I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE SOME ADVISORY LEGAL OPINIONS RENDERED ON -- ON SIMILAR ISSUES BY THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER THE YEARS, AND ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IS RELATED TO WHETHER OR NOT THE POWERS OF THE VARIOUS OFFICERS, COUNTY OFFICERS, HAD TO BE DEFINED, HOW AND WHERE AND WHEN THEY HAD TO BE DEFINED, AND THEY HAVE TO BE DEFINED EITHER IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THEY HAVE TO BE DEFINED IN THE CHARTER, AND I THINK IT'S -- IT'S -- IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS, THEN, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR DEFINED IN THE CHARTER THAT WE CAN'T HAVE AN AD HOC POWER OF AN OFFICE THAT ISN'T DEFINED IN THE -- IN THE CHARTER ITSELF, AND SO THAT'S LIKE, TO MY WAY OF THINKING, AN EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THAN THAT THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DISCUSSED WITH US BEFORE, AND I WANT TO JUST ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER PLATT SAID EARLIER THAT IF AND WENT WE HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR OR A COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS, THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS JUST AS IT DID LAST TIME TO DEVELOP THE POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF THAT COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION IN A BALLOT REFERENDUM, BUT THIS SHOULD NOT REMAIN THERE. IT HAS NO PURPOSE, NO EFFECT, AND IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND IF IT'S CONFUSING TO THE ELECTORATE TO HAVE A CHARTER - - CHARTER PROVISION VOTED ON IN THE SAME ELECTION AS THE POSSIBILITY THAT APPROVAL OF A COUNTY MAYOR REFERENDUM IS - - IS ON THE BALLOT -- IF IT'S CONFUSING, THEN IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THIS BOARD TO GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY, TO SPEAK TO THE EDITORIAL BOARDS OF THE NEWSPAPERS, TO GO ON THE RADIO STATION AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO WHY THIS PROVISION IS IMPORTANT AND WHY -- WHY IT'S DIFFERENT FROM AND SEPARATE AND APART FROM ANY OTHER CITIZEN INITIATIVE THAT MANAGES TO MAKE ITS WAY ON THE BALLOT. THAT'S PART OF DEMOCRACY. I MEAN, THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS PUBLIC -- YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SERVANTS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. FURTHER COMMENT? >> MR. FISHER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. FISHER. >>RALPH FISHER: I'M NOT NEARLY AS ELOQUENT AS YOU ARE, DEAR, BUT I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER PLATT AND MY FELLOW ATTORNEY JUST SAID, AND THAT IS THAT THIS PROVISION ON THE VETO THAT'S SITTING IN THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW IS A KIND OF HANGING CHAD -- [LAUGHTER] -- FROM A -- FROM A CHARTER STANDPOINT. IT IS SITTING THERE WITHOUT ANY COMPANION, AND WE KNOW FROM WHAT MS. STILES TOLD US LAST NIGHT THAT SHE'S NOT GOING TO GET THE SIGNATURES TO EVEN GET THE COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION ON THE BALLOT. SHE WAS FAIRLY CANDID WITH US. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS A PROVISION SITTING IN THE CHARTER THAT BASICALLY HAS NO PURPOSE, AND IN THIS ELECTION I'M GOING TO MAKE A PREDICTION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR ON THE BALLOT. SO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE, HOPEFULLY, IF AT LEAST THE THREE OF US HAVE OUR WAY, IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VOTERS TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING THAT'S AN ABERRATION, AND AS I -- AS WAS MORE ELOQUENTLY STATED BY THESE LADIES, THERE WILL BE A TIME IF THE COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION PROPERLY FORMS, POSSIBLY NONPARTISAN, POSSIBLY PARTISAN, IS PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS THAT THERE WOULD BE A VETO PROVISION PUT IN, BUT THIS IS NOT THE TIME AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE. WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE CHARTER, AND I RECOMMEND THAT WE -- AS MUCH AS I RESPECT MR. WHITE -- VOTE AGAINST HIS MOTION, AND THEN I HOPE SOMEONE WILL REQUEST AND THEN GET A SECOND TO PUT ON THE BALLOT TO ELIMINATE ENTIRELY THE VETO PROVISION. THANK YOU. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. TOKLEY AND THEN MR. PRESEAU. >>JAMES TOKLEY: I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF VOTERS WHO PERHAPS ARE NOT AS WELL VERSED IN THE WAY POLICIES ARE WRITTEN. WHEN FIRST I HEARD AND READ ABOUT THE VETO POWER POLICY, I FOUND IT STRANGE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A POLICY THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO A NONENTITY. ONE COULD UNDERSTAND IF -- AND I SUPPOSE I'M -- I'M -- I'M ECHOING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT ONE COULD UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS INDEED A COUNTY MAYOR WHEREIN THE VETO POWER WOULD BE GIVEN, BUT TO GIVE A NONENTITY SUCH -- SUCH POWER IS TO PLAY CHESS WITH THE VOTERS, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DESERVE TO BE GIVEN A CHIMERA. THIS IS NOT ALICE IS WONDERLAND. THIS IS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND AS MUCH AS WE MIGHT DREAM ABOUT THE FUTURE, WE ARE HERE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE HERE AND NOW IS PRACTICAL AND RIGHT, AND BASED ON THAT ALONE, I -- I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY FELLOW THREE THAT I -- THAT I COULD NOT -- I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO ALONG WITH ELIMINATING PART OF THIS WHEN THE ENTIRE ENTITY SHOULD GO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MR. PRESEAU. >>GREG PRESEAU: YES, I MUST ALSO ECHO THEIR CONCERNS, BUT WHAT I WAS SPEAKING TO EARLIER AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A LITTLE JUMPING OF THE GUN TO GO AUTOMATICALLY TO ISSUE NUMBER 2. WE SHOULD PRETTY MUCH FIRST VOTE TO SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE IT, AND THEN IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ELIMINATED, THEN WE CAN, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF HOW TO CHANGE IT AND THEN VOTE ON THAT. WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY JUMP TO NUMBER 2, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS SPEAKING TO THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT IN THAT RESPECT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: MR. CHAIR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I WANT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE PUT BOTH OF THEM ON THE BALLOT, THAT WE PUT BOTH VETO 1 AND VETO 2 ON THE BALLOT. THE VOTERS ARE SMART ENOUGH. NUMBER ONE, AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION IS NOT PERSUASIVE, IT'S NOT LEGALLY BINDING, SO HAVING ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION IS NOT PERSUASIVE, OKAY? NUMBER TWO. THE VOTER -- EVEN IF WE PUT ONE OR THE OTHER ON, THE VOTERS MAY VOTE THEM BOTH DOWN. I BELIEVE THAT IF IT'S BOTH ON THE BALLOT, THE VOTERS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO EITHER VOTE FOR GETTING RID OF IT ALL OR KEEPING IT PARTIALLY THERE. THERE IS NO HARM, SO I MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OKAY. THAT FAILS. >>JAN PLATT: WOULD IT BE PARLIAMENTARY CORRECT IF I OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE PUT NUMBER 1 ON THE BALLOT? >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU CAN DO THAT. >>JAN PLATT: AND I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: ACTUALLY, I'M -- YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH MRS. FARRIS -- >> I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR MR. [INAUDIBLE] >>JAN PLATT: WHICH IS WHAT -- >> HE MADE THE MOTION, SO I THINK OUT OF COURTESY [INAUDIBLE] IF HE'S GOING TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION OR WHETHER HE WANT TO CARRY -- FOLLOW THROUGH WITH A VOTE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE'RE DISCUSSING IT RIGHT NOW. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND IT'S SECONDED, WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT, SO IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO -- >>JAN PLATT: IF IT'S PARLIAMENTARILY ACCEPTABLE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I WAS JUST CONFIRMING WITH MRS. FARRIS TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CORRECT, BUT I BELIEVE -- MS. FARRIS, IS THAT OKAY? IN A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, AS LONG AS IT'S SECONDED, WE CAN VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND GO FORWARD WITH THAT. IF NUMBER ONE PASSES, IT'S A DEAD -- IT'S DONE, SO -- IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, COMMISSIONER PLATT? >>JAN PLATT: YES. >>GERALD WHITE: I SECOND THAT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 1. >>GERALD WHITE: CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, DISCUSSION. >>GERALD WHITE: MY GOAL TONIGHT WAS TO REALLY TRIGGER A VOTE ON BOTH ISSUES. I THINK WE -- WE HAVE CITIZENS THAT VOTED FOR THE -- THE -- THE CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT CREATED THE VETO POWER, AND WE'VE HAD CITIZENS, LEGITIMATE CITIZENS COME HERE AND SAY KEEP IT, AND SO I WANT -- I DIDN'T WANT TO SILENCE THEIR VOICE TONIGHT. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE REPRESENTED ALL THE PEOPLE AND HAVE THEIR ISSUE DISCUSSED BEFORE WE JUST TAKE IT TO BALLOT, AND SO I WASN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR MY OWN MOTION, BUT I WANTED TO -- I WANTED COMPLETE CLOSURE ON IT, AND WE GOT IT TONIGHT. I WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD I WAS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THIS ISSUE TO THIS BOARD, AND SO I WANTED IT VETTED COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY, AND I THINK SO FAR OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF MEMBERS HAVE SPOKE PUBLICLY THAT THEY INTENDED NOT TO VOTE FOR THE NUMBER 2, VETO NUMBER 2, THAT WOULD REVISE AND JUST TAKE OUT THE FINANCIAL PIECE. I AM -- I AM AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AGAINST THIS VETO MEASURE BECAUSE I FELT -- I FELT AND I STILL FEEL THAT IT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AFRICAN- AMERICAN CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND SO -- BUT I DIDN'T JUST WANT TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THE VOICE IS OF THE CITIZENS, SO THEIR VOICE HAVE BEEN HEARD THROUGH VOTE THROUGH MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD TONIGHT, AND SO I -- I SUPPORT ELIMINATING THIS FROM THE CHARTER. >>FRANK REDDICK: HEARING THAT FROM MR. WHITE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >>GINA GRIMES: I WANTED TO ASK ONE QUESTION -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. QUESTION. >>GINA GRIMES: -- IF THAT'S OKAY. I AGREE WITH WHAT MR. FISHER SAID. I WAS INITIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE COUNTY MAYOR ISSUE TO ALSO BE ON THE SAME BALLOT AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE CONFUSING. NOW THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE BASED ON WHAT MS. STILES TOLD US THAT IT WON'T -- THE COUNTY MAYOR ISSUE WILL NOT BE IN ON THE BALLOT, I THINK IT MAKES COMMON SENSE TO INCLUDE THIS ON THE BALLOT, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RECITAL CLAUSES, THAT WE -- THE WHEREAS CLAUSES THAT WE'VE INCORPORATED INTO THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THE -- IF THE PRECISE REASON THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT IS BECAUSE -- AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF THE VETO POWER PROVISION -- IS BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCY WITH FLORIDA LAW OR -- I MEAN, DO WE -- SHOULD WE SAY THAT? SHOULD WE SAY THAT IS THE BASIS FOR REMOVING THIS FROM THE CHARTER, OR SHOULD WE SAY IT'S BECAUSE THE -- THE POSITION OF THE COUNTY MAYOR IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER? I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS TO SOME EXTENT THE LAST TIME, BUT THAT -- THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE ARTICULATE WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS ISSUE THAT THE REASON WE BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TAKE OUT THE VETO POWER IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR. >>JAN PLATT: THAT'S NOT MY REASON. >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: IT'S BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AND ALSO THE ISSUE -- THE FACT THAT IT DEALT EVEN WITH A -- EVEN WITH THIS MAYOR THING IF IT IS ON THE BALLOT, THAT IT'S A NON -- WHEN THIS WAS PASSED, IT WAS FOR A NON -- >>GINA GRIMES: I UNDERSTAND. >>JAN PLATT: SO IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH, AND WE MADE A BIG POINT OF SAYING THAT IT WAS INCONSISTENT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT MAYOR'S ISSUE THAT MUCH. >>GINA GRIMES: I JUST -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OR IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH -- WITH ARTICLE 8, SECTION 1G OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON THAT? LESS SAID IS SOMETIMES BETTER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME LET -- >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION WHEREAS CLAUSES THAT YOU'D SO DESIRE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. STILES. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: MRS. STILES, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REASON FOR YOU TO SAY YOU HAVE HOPE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. STILES, WE'RE IN DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MRS. GRIMES AND THEN MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: LADIES FIRST. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WERE YOU FINISHED, MRS. GRIMES? >>GINA GRIMES: I WAS DONE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: LET ME SAY THIS. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME REMIND YOU 53% OF THE VOTERS PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. TEN VOTES IS GOING TO PUT IT ON THERE TO COME OFF. MY PREDICTION IS THEY'RE GOING TO NOT VOTE TO TAKE IT OFF, SO THEN WHAT? THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW FIVE YEARS FROM NOW IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. BY THAT TIME YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR ON THE BALLOT. RIGHT NOW TO SAY JUST BECAUSE MARY ANN STILES DOESN'T HAVE HER PETITIONS THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A COUNTY MAYOR ON THERE IS A PRESUMPTION. IT'S A PRESUMPTION BY HER SAYING THAT -- YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YET. SO YOU'RE SITTING HERE MAKING A DECISION TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AND WE HAVE NO DEFINITIVE STATEMENT WHATSOEVER THAT ALL WAYS OF PUTTING THE COUNTY MAYOR ON THE BALLOT IS NOT GOING TO OCCUR. I DON'T THINK WE'VE EXHAUSTED -- OUR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HAVE EXHAUSTED THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S OVER UNTIL IT'S OVER, AND TODAY ISN'T JULY 31st, IT'S JULY 13th, SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE PRESUMING THAT THE COUNTY MAYOR WILL NEVER GET ON THE BALLOT ANY KIND OF WAY IT CAN. COUNTY COMMISSION MAY PUT IT ON THERE. THEY'VE STILL GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T. IT'S NOT OVER YET. THERE'S NOT FINALITY YET. IF IT WAS FINALITY, I MIGHT WANT TO GO ALONG WITH THIS, BUT IT'S NOT FINAL. COUNTY COMMISSION CAN STILL COME BEHIND US AND PUT IT ON THERE, SO, YOU KNOW -- AND WE KNOW THAT, AND IT DON'T TAKE TEN VOTES THERE, IT TAKE PROBABLY FIVE, SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION THAT IS NOT PREDICATED UPON FACT, AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY CAN EVEN LEGALLY CHALLENGE US PUTTING IT ON THERE, JUST LIKE SOMEBODY CAN LEGALLY CHALLENGE THE PETITION, SO YOU CAN GET A LEGAL CHALLENGE EVEN WITH US PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT, THAT IT WAS IMPROPER SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, IT AIN'T CONSTITUTIONAL, BUT THE REAL REASON WE PUT IT ON THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR TO EVEN TALK ABOUT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT HAVE FINALITY. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT SOMETHING BECAUSE MARY ANN STILES MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT I THINK A COUNTY MAYOR STILL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ON THERE. NOW, UNTIL THAT DATE RUNS OUT, IF THAT DATE HAD RAN OUT TONIGHT, OKAY, THEN I'D HAVE A SECOND LOOK AT IT, BUT I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPROPER TO TAKE SOMETHING OFF THE BALLOT THAT THE VOTERS, 53%, VOTED TO PUT ON THERE, AND TO NOT RESPECT THAT, NOT TWEAK IT UP LIKE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY -- THEY DIDN'T RECOMMEND TAKE IT OFF, THEY SAID THERE WAS A PORTION OF IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY DIDN'T SAY THE ENTIRE SECTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, A PORTION OF IT WAS, SO I THINK THAT EVEN TO STRIKE IT ALL OUT WITH OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, NOT ANY LAWYERS UP HERE BUT OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION, WHICH IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, HAS TOLD US WHAT PART OF THAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. THE OTHER THING IS THIS PARTICULAR SECTION WHEN I GOT HERE IN FEBRUARY WAS NEVER, EVER IN THIS BOOK. IT STILL ISN'T IN THIS BOOK, OKAY. IT STILL IS NOT HERE. I HAD TO SMOKE IT OUT, OKAY. IT HAS NOT GONE TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SO I THINK THAT WE'RE SETTING UP PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T THINK WE WANT TO SET UP BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAY CHALLENGE THIS, EVEN IF YOU PUT IT ON THERE, AND COUNTY COMMISSION, THEY HAVE STILL A RIGHT TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. THEY CAN PUT THE COUNTY MAYOR ON THERE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I WOULD SUPPORT AN ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS THE FIRST MOTION PASSED, BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE THE VOTERS HAVE VOTED, AND I DON'T THINK THAT US 14 ARE ANY SMARTER THAN THE 53% THAT VOTED ON THIS, AND I THINK THE VOTERS ARE JUST AS SMART AS ANYBODY SITTING UP HERE WHEN THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING TO PASS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY JUST PASSED THAT BECAUSE THEY JUST WENT DOWN AND CHECKED YES ON EVERYTHING. I THINK THAT THEY REALLY WANTED THE OTHER PART THERE AS WELL, BUT IT JUST HAPPENED TO GET THROWED OUT, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE WILL AND THWART THE VOTERS' INTENTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT AND THEN MRS. REBACK. >>JAN PLATT: WELL, THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE WHEREASES, AND THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE WAS AT THIS POINT. WE HAD DISCUSSED AND DEBATED THOSE WHEREASES. >>GINA GRIMES: I REMEMBER. >>JAN PLATT: AND I THINK WE ALL DECIDED ON THESE WHEREASES SO THAT WE WERE UNRELATED TO THE BALLOT ISSUE, WHETHER IT GETS ON THERE OR NOT. WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. THE -- THE -- THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS, IF YOU REMEMBER, IS THE LEGAL OPINION FROM MRS. LEE THAT BASICALLY SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THEN THE SECOND ISSUE WAS WHEN IT WAS FIRST VOTED ON THERE WAS A NONPARTISAN MAYOR, AND NOW IF THIS ONE DOES GET ON THE BALLOT, IT'S A PARTISAN MAYOR, WHICH MAKES IT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION, SO IN MY OPINION, WE JUST NEED TO LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE AND MOVE FORWARD. >>GINA GRIMES: BUT THE REASON -- CAN I RESPOND? >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. GRIMES, AND THEN -- >>GINA GRIMES: THE RECITAL CLAUSE THAT I'M REFERRING TO IS THE SAME ONE THAT'S IN THE VETO PROPOSAL NUMBER 2, WHICH IS A LIMITED REVISION THAT DEALS ONLY WITH THE VETO POWER OVER THE BUDGET, BUT YET THAT SAME RECITAL CLAUSE IS IN VETO OPTION NUMBER 1, WHICH ELIMINATES ENTIRELY THE VETO POWER. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S A -- THAT ISN'T -- AT LEAST AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE -- THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE CHARTER. TO ME -- I'M SORRY, BUT WE CAN SAY THAT WE'RE RELYING STRICTLY ON WHAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SAID AND THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT SOMETIMES COMMON SENSE NEEDS TO BE INJECTED INTO CERTAIN PROCESSES, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM, AND IT MAKES NO COMMON SENSE TO INCLUDE A VETO PROVISION IN THE CHARTER WHEN THERE ISN'T -- THERE'S NO ONE THAT CAN EXERCISE THAT POWER. >>JAN PLATT: RIGHT. MAY I JUST SUGGEST WOULD YOU OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND -- >>GINA GRIMES: I WAS JUST GOING TO PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: ELIMINATE THE WHEREASES? >>GINA GRIMES: JUST THAT ONE RECITAL CLAUSE. >>RALPH FISHER: [INAUDIBLE] >> WHICH ONE? >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: WHICH ONE YOU SAYING? >>GINA GRIMES: IT WOULD BE -- >>RALPH FISHER: THE FOURTH ONE. >>GINA GRIMES: -- ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, RIGHT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO LIMIT OURSELVES OR RESTRICT OURSELVES AS TO, YOU KNOW -- YOU MAY BE VOTING FOR IT FOR ONE REASON, I MAY BE VOTING FOR IT FOR ANOTHER, BUT IF WE VOTE COLLECTIVELY AND IT'S PLACED ON THE BALLOT, IT'S ON THE BALLOT. IT MAY NOT -- I DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK AND CREATE SOME ISSUE AS TO WHY IT GOT PUT ON THE BALLOT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: RIGHT. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO ADD A DIFFERENT -- SOME DIFFERENT - - I AGREE WE SHOULD TAKE THAT OUT, AND WE NEED TO SUBSTITUTE SOME VERBIAGE THAT IS BETWEEN THE ONE THAT SAYS THE VETO POWERS PROVISION WAS A CHARTER AMENDMENT APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS AND THEN ONE THAT SAYS THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD BELIEVES TO -- TO SAY WHEREAS THE -- THE COUNTY MAYOR -- THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH THE COUNTY MAYOR APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 2008 HAS BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY A COURT, AND, THEREFORE, NO COUNTY MAYOR EXISTS, SEMICOLON -- >>JAN PLATT: THAT'S NOT SO. THAT'S NOT SO. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WHATEVER THE FACTUAL BASIS -- WHATEVER THE FACTUAL -- WE CAN ELUCIDATE WHATEVER THE FACTUAL BASIS WAS FOR THE FACT THAT WE NOW HAVE NO COUNTY MAYOR AND THEN GO INTO -- >>JAN PLATT: NO. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- WHEN -- THE BOARD BELIEVES THAT THE ELECTORATE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO REPEAL THE VETO POWER. THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING SUBSTITUTED IN THERE, AND -- >>GINA GRIMES: I THINK FROM A LOGIC STANDPOINT, SHE'S RIGHT. WE NEED -- EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THERE'S NO PROVISION IN THE CHARTER FOR A COUNTY MAYOR. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: RIGHT. OKAY. SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING. WITHOUT -- WITHOUT A REASON -- EXCUSE ME, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT MR. ROBINSON SAID TOO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: ONE SECOND. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: BUT -- BUT SOMETHING, SOME EXPLANATION NEEDS TO BE INTERJECTED IN THERE SO THAT IT MAKES -- IT JUST MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. >>GINA GRIMES: JUST SAY SOMETHING LIKE, HOWEVER, THERE'S NO PROVISION IN THE CHARTER FOR A COUNTY MAYOR. THEY APPROVED -- THE -- THE THIRD RECITAL CLAUSE; WHEREAS, THE VETO POWERS PROVISION WAS A CHARTER AMENDMENT APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN 2008; AND WHEREAS, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE COUNTY CHARTER FOR A COUNTY MAYOR. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WITHOUT A REASON? >>JAN PLATT: THAT'S THE REASON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, WILL YOU GET SOME ORDER HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIALOGUE HERE -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: WAIT A MINUTE. POINT OF ORDER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON, PLEASE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: IF YOU'RE GOING TO LET GO ON, I'M GOING TO GET A POINT OF ORDER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. LET ME -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THERE'S ONE PERSON TALK, THEN THE OTHER PERSON TALK. I GOT MY HAND UP. WRITE DOWN WHO'S SAYING WHAT BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIALOGUE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] DRAFT THIS, I'M GOING TO ASK THE ATTORNEY [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. >>GINA GRIMES: LET'S DO THIS TO BE FAIR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. GRIMES, ARE YOU MAKING A SUBSTITUTE? AND I WAS GOING TO ASK MRS. FARRIS -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE'VE GOT ANOTHER -- WE'VE GOT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ALREADY OUT THERE. >>GINA GRIMES: I UNDERSTAND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: ARE YOU MAKING ANOTHER, AND IS THAT APPROPRIATE? >>GINA GRIMES: AT THIS STAGE, ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS DISCUSS THE ISSUE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: SOUNDS TO ME -- >>GINA GRIMES: I'M NOT READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- LIKE YOU-ALL ARE REWRITING THE DOCUMENT. >>GINA GRIMES: I'M NOT READY TO MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE. >>GINA GRIMES: JOE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE -- >>GINA GRIMES: -- WE'RE DISCUSSING THE MOTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE. >>GERALD WHITE: MR. CHAIR, CAN YOU KEEP SOME ORDER HERE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE, PLEASE, ORDER. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING, OKAY. >>GINA GRIMES: NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON, PLEASE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU GUYS [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] DOCUMENT -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US, PERIOD. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE. PLEASE, BE RESPECTFUL TO THE BOARD, PLEASE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: CHAIR BE RESPECTFUL TO THIS MEMBER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE. ACTUALLY, WE'VE GOT A WHOLE BOARD HERE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU LETTING THEM TALK, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING UNLESS YOU BRING UP SOME ORDER HERE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND I ALLOWED YOU TO SPEAK QUITE A BIT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: NO, YOU DIDN'T. [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. LET'S CALM DOWN. OKAY. MRS. GRIMES. AND I DO AGREE WE NEED TO GET SOME ORDER HERE, SO I'LL TRY TO DO A BETTER JOB HERE. MRS. GRIMES, I'LL LET YOU FINISH -- >>GINA GRIMES: ALL I WANT TO DO AT THIS STAGE IS -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: -- AND THEN WE'LL FURTHER DISCUSS. >>GINA GRIMES: -- IS TO ALLOW EVERYBODY TO HAVE INPUT AND DISCUSS IT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS IS TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN AN EXACT CERTAIN WAY. I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYBODY HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT. WE LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS IT. WE DON'T -- WE SHOULDN'T BE SO, YOU KNOW -- SO DETERMINED THAT WE CAN ONLY -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO -- SO PROCESS ORIENTED THAT WE CAN'T HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO. I'M NOT READY TO MAKE A MOTION, I'M NOT READY TO AMEND A MOTION. I DON'T THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON IT. LET'S DISCUSS IT AND MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. IT'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR NUMBER 1, SO WE'VE EITHER GOT TO PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION, HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, OR WE'VE GOT TO -- WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION. IT'S A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. >>JAN PLATT: WELL, SHE CAN AMEND IT. SHE CAN AMEND IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. SO -- MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, I LIKE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BECAUSE THIS LANGUAGE WAS WRITTEN BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY. I'D LIKE MARY HELEN TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THIS MEMBER'S CONCERN HERE BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FIRST TO KEEP SOME ORDER, AND IT'S -- IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD THAT WE VOTE OUT SOMETHING THAT CAN WITHSTAND A LEGAL CHALLENGE, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO VOTE OUT ANYTHING THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT. WOULD THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. MINCEY. >>GERALD WHITE: MS. MINCEY. THE CONCERN RELATED TO THE VETO POWER PROVISION, INCONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA LAW, VIOLATE ARTICLE 8, SECTION 1G OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION BECAUSE ONLY THE COUNTY COMMISSION CAN ADOPT A BUDGET, SET -- SET PROPERTY MILLAGE RATES. WILL -- STRIKING THAT FROM THIS LANGUAGE, WILL THAT JEOPARDIZE THIS AMENDMENT LEGALLY? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: NO. THIS IS YOUR RESOLUTION. WHAT WILL BE BEFORE THE BOARDERS -- THE VOTERS, I'M SORRY, IS THE BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT QUESTION, SO, I MEAN, CERTAINLY WHATEVER IT IS YOU-ALL DECIDE TO PUT IN YOUR WHEREAS CLAUSES IN THE RESOLUTION WON'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON WHAT GOES TO THE -- TO THE VOTERS UNLESS YOU'RE CHANGING THE BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT QUESTION. >>GERALD WHITE: I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: ARE YOU SAYING THIS DOESN'T GO TO THE VOTERS? >>GERALD WHITE: I HAVE THE FLOOR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. REBACK. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: IT'S A QUESTION TO HER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED. MR. WHITE HAS THE FLORIDA. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: THE RESOLUTION HAS THE RECORD, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT GOES TO THE VOTERS. WHAT GOES TO THE VOTERS IS YOUR BALLOT TITLE AND YOUR BALLOT QUESTION, AND AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT, THEN IT IS WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED HERE TO YOU. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, I -- >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: THAT'S WHY I TOLD YOU EARLIER WHATEVER IT IS YOU-ALL DECIDE TO PLACE IN YOUR RESOLUTION, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE CERTAINLY, YOU-ALL HAVE TO BE HAPPY WITH THE GROUNDS THAT YOU SET FOR PLACING THIS BEFORE THE VOTERS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. REBACK. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE FORM OF THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT -- THAT WHATEVER THE RESOLUTION IS, THE FORM OF IT THAT WE APPROVE DOES NOT THEN BECOME THE LANGUAGE OF THE BALLOT QUESTION, THAT YOU ARE PLANNING TO COME BACK TO US WITH DIFFERENT BALLOT -- >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: NO. IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 2. >>MITCHELL THROWER: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OH, I'M SORRY. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: IT'S THE BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT QUESTION. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I'M LOOKING AT MY PAGE 2. I DIDN'T TURN IT OVER TO THE BACK. I APOLOGIZE. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: ON THE SECOND PAGE, THERE'S YOUR BALLOT TITLE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: SO THERE WON'T BE THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTERS THAT'S IN THE RESOLUTION ANYWAY? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: NO, JUST THE BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT QUESTION. IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THOSE TWO, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S FINE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. COMMISSIONER PLATT, THEN MRS. GRIMES. >>JAN PLATT: WELL, AND JUST TO TELL YOU THAT WITH THIS CHARTER, WHEN WE WROTE THIS CHARTER, THERE WERE ABOUT TWO PAGES OF WHEREASES, ALL KINDS OF WHEREASES, AND YET IT'S NOT IN THIS CHARTER. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FIND THAT IS TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC RECORD ON THE DAY WE PASSED IT, SO THE WHEREASES ARE THE TODAY. THEY'RE IN THE RECORD, BUT -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MRS. GRIMES. >>GINA GRIMES: I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS SAYING, THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. MY CONCERN WITH THE RECITAL CLAUSES IS THEY ARE PART OF THE RECORD AND THEY ESTABLISH WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU IF ANYONE WAS GOING TO CHALLENGE WHY IT'S ON THE BALLOT, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK TO, YOU KNOW, THE -- THE RECORD OF THIS HEARING AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, ESPECIALLY AS STATED IN A RECITAL CLAUSE, SO THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IT. >>RALPH FISHER: MITCH. >>GINA GRIMES: JUST -- AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO OPEN IT UP FOR EVERYBODY TO DISCUSS AND FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT IT SAYS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. PRESEAU, MR. AMON, AND MR. FISHER. >>GREG PRESEAU: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. MINCEY. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: YES, SIR. >>GREG PRESEAU: THANK YOU. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WAS IT 75 WORDS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE AS FAR AS THE BALLOT TITLE AND QUESTION? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: IN THE BALLOT TITLE YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 15 WORDS. >>GREG PRESEAU: 15 WORDS. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: AND THEN THE BALLOT QUESTION AT 75, YES, SIR. >>GREG PRESEAU: BALLOT QUESTION AT 75, SO IF WE WANTED TO AMEND THIS BALLOT QUESTION TO I GUESS BE MORE EXPLANATORY, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE TO ME IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT REACHES A VOTER, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HERE IS -- IS EDUCATING VOTERS AND DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO TO ME THE QUESTION ITSELF DOESN'T SAY MUCH, SO IS IT OKAY TO -- THAT WE CAN AMEND THAT HERE AND NOW, AND WILL WE DO THAT BEFORE OR AFTER, YOU KNOW, DECIDING ON THE MOTION? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: IT IS OKAY TO AMEND IT AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE YES FORM AND IT DOES NOT EXCEED 75 WORDS. >>GREG PRESEAU: OKAY. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: AND WHATEVER WORDS OR EXPLANATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THAT BALLOT QUESTION, IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. >>GREG PRESEAU: AND DOES THAT NEED TO BE DONE BEFORE WE DECIDE ON THE MOTION AT HAND? >> YEAH. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: YES. SO THAT CAN BE PART OF WHATEVER IT IS YOU VOTE FOR. >>GREG PRESEAU: OKAY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. AMON, AND THEN MR. FISHER. >>JOE AMON: I AGREE WITH MS. GRIMES. MY CONCERN IS NOT THAT IT'S INACCURATE, THE WHEREAS, IT'S INCOMPLETE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT HAVE -- BE MORE CLARIFIED, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT IT'S A MOOT POINT. WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY MAYOR. THAT WOULD SATISFY FROM WHERE I'M SITTING RIGHT NOW. AND THE SECOND THING IS I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THE BALLOT QUESTION IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH. IF WE CAN CLARIFY THAT, HELP THE VOTER UNDERSTAND WHY, I'LL VOTE FOR THIS. >>RALPH FISHER: MR. THROWER. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: CAN I MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION? >>MITCHELL THROWER: ACTUALLY, MR. FISHER HAS THE FLOOR. >>RALPH FISHER: I'M GOING TO MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION ON THIS TO HOPEFULLY DEAL WITH WHAT MS. GRIMES AND MR. PRESEAU'S VALID OBJECTIONS ARE. THE FOURTH WHEREAS WE SHOULD CHANGE, SUBSTITUTE THE EXISTING WHEREAS AND SAY, WHEREAS, THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR AT THE PRESENT TIME IN THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO FACTUALLY COMPORT IT WITH THE REALITY, AND THEN DEALING WITH MR. PRESEAU'S VALID OBJECTION ON THE BALLOT QUESTION, AND ALSO CONSTRAIN OURSELVES TO LESS THAN 75 WORDS IN THE BALLOT QUESTION, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PUT IN THE WORDS, SINCE THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR AT THE PRESENT TIME IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SHOULD THE PROVISION SETTING FORTH VETO POWERS OF AN ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR BE ELIMINATED FROM THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY? SO ALL WE DO IS ILLUMINATE FOR THE VOTERS WHY IT IS THIS BALLOT QUESTION IS BEFORE THEM, SO THAT'S MY AMENDED MOTION. >> SECOND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: I'LL READ IT -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT - - >>RALPH FISHER: SURE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- TO SIMPLIFY YOUR LANGUAGE? >>RALPH FISHER: READ IT OUT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: ON THE BALLOT QUESTION? >>RALPH FISHER: YES, MA'AM. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AFTER IT SAYS, CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, TO ADD THE WORDS, BECAUSE THE POSITION OF COUNTY MAYOR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CHARTER, PERIOD, BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE AT THE PRESENT TIME. >>RALPH FISHER: OH, OKAY. SO IT SHOULD SAY, SHOULD THE PROVISION SETTING FORTH VETO POWER OF AN ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR BE ELIMINATED FROM THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BECAUSE -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: BECAUSE THE POSITION OF COUNTY MAYOR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CHARTER. >>RALPH FISHER: THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: LET ME TELL YOU THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IF THEY'RE -- IF THEY DO GET ENOUGH BALLOTS OR SIGNATURES TO BE ON THE BALLOT, THEN IT'S GOING TO -- THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE CONFUSION. I MEAN, IT REALLY WILL. THAT'S WHY YOU WORDED IT THE LAST TIME TO BE MORE BROAD IN ITS APPROACH BECAUSE -- DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M GETTING AT? >>RALPH FISHER: YEAH, I REMEMBER. >>JAN PLATT: BECAUSE THAT -- THE CONCERN -- AGAIN, THERE ARE OTHER CONCERNS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO MAYOR RIGHT NOW. ONE WAS THAT WE WERE TOLD IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS THAT WAS A NONPARTISAN VERSUS THE PARTISAN, AND THEN THE THIRD WAS THAT THERE WAS NO MAYOR, SO THE NO MAYOR WAS JUST ONE PART OF IT, BUT YOU PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT WITH A MAYOR ON THE BALLOT AND IT'S GOING TO BE -- CAN YOU THINK -- THINK IT THROUGH AGAIN, PLEASE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH, PLEASE. AND LET ME LET MR. FISHER AND -- >>GINA GRIMES: OKAY. >>RALPH FISHER: WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO COME UP WITH MAGIC LANGUAGE, BUT MR. PRESEAU, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY QUESTION MR. PRESEAU. HOW ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY VOTING -- SOME OF THEM READ THE NEWSPAPER. I MEAN, I'VE HEARD THAT. AND IF THEY ACTUALLY DO READ THE NEWSPAPER, SOME OF THEM -- SOME OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY READ MIGHT ACTUALLY REALIZE THE GREATER CONTEXT OF WHY WE HAVE A BALLOT QUESTION ON THAT SAYS, SHOULD THE PROVISION SETTING FORTH AN ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR BE ELIMINATED? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO ASSUME -- I MEAN, MR. ROBINSON HAS A POINT HERE. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT READ THAT KNOW WHAT THE HECK'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY, AND THESE ARE VOTERS, AND I'M -- MAYBE WE SHOULD TRUST THEM AND MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T JUST SPOON-FEED THEM AND TELL THEM WHY WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING AND LET THEM READ AND FIND OUT WHERE THEY'RE DOING IT, AND ONCE THEY DO, THEY'LL REALIZE THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, SO MAYBE WE DO KEEP IT SIMPLE AND DO NOTHING AND JUST KEEP WITH THE FULL ELIMINATION OF THE VETO PROVISION IN THE MOST SIMPLE LANGUAGE POSSIBLE SO THAT IT SAYS, SHOULD THE PROVISION SETTING FORTH VETO POWERS OF AN ELECTED COUNTY MAYOR BE ELIMINATED FROM THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY? AND AS THIS THING GETS PRESENTED IN A SAMPLE BALLOT -- BECAUSE I JUST GOT A REQUEST FOR DO YOU WANT TO GET -- HAVE AN ABSENTEE BALLOT SENT TO YOU -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START READING THIS BALLOT AND SAYING, WELL, WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT? THEY'RE GOING TO START CALLING PEOPLE. AND PEOPLE WILL SAY, OH, THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR, THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE VETO PROVISION. >>JOE AMON: QUESTION, MR. FISHER. WOULD YOU THEN ADJUST OR MODIFY THE WHEREAS CLAUSE ANYWAY? >>RALPH FISHER: I WOULD SAY WE DO MODIFY THE WHEREAS CLAUSE BECAUSE OF THE -- YOU KNOW, THE BACKGROUND OF WHY WE'RE DOING IT. THE GREATEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD FROM THIS -- ON THIS BOARD IS FROM MS. GRIMES WHEN SHE SAID, LET'S BE PRACTICAL, SO I THINK MY -- NOBODY SECONDED MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: NOBODY SECONDED [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>RALPH FISHER: MY AMENDMENT IS THAT THE FOURTH WHEREAS CLAUSE BE ELIMINATED -- >> SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: -- WHEREAS THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR AT THE PRESENT TIME IN THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THEN WE LEAVE IT AT THAT, LEAVE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE THE SAME AND LET PEOPLE FIGURE IT OUT. >> I SECONDED IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: IS THERE A SECOND? MR. SULLIVAN? OKAY. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. ANY -- MRS. GRIMES. >>GINA GRIMES: I WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING MR. ROBINSON SAID AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE -- I THINK HE THOUGHT I WAS MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COUNTY MAYOR ISSUE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT, AND MAYBE I DIDN'T HEAR MS. STILES CORRECTLY LAST NIGHT, BUT I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT SHE SAID THAT IT DID NOT SEEM TO HER LIKE SHE WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO HAVE THAT MEASURE PLACED ON THE BALLOT, THAT SHE HAD HOPE AND THAT SHE HAD ALWAYS -- ALWAYS HAD HOPE BUT IT DIDN'T LOOK THAT WAY, AND THAT WAS WHAT I -- THAT'S WHAT I WAS RELYING UPON TODAY WHEN I STATED MY POSITION BECAUSE REMEMBER, I WAS THE ONE THAT DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT AT ALL BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONFUSION IT WOULD CREATE TO HAVE ELIMINATION OF THE VETO POWER ON THE SAME BALLOT WHERE THERE COULD BE A MEASURE VOTING ON THE COUNTY MAYOR, SO I WANTED TO AVOID CONFUSION AND I DON'T WANT TO ADD TO IT BY INCLUDING THIS ON THE BALLOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN POSTPONE SUBMISSION OF THIS -- OF THIS BALLOT MEASURE UNTIL WE FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY MAYOR ISSUE IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT INTENDING TO -- I DON'T WANT TO CREATE CONFUSION. I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BE ON THE SAME BALLOT. THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO PREDICT WHEN THE COUNTY MAYOR ISSUE IS GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT AND WHEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO PUT THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT, BUT I'M -- I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE VOTERS AND HAVE BOTH ISSUES ON THE SAME BALLOT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. LET ME -- MS. MINCEY. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT, MS. GRIMES. THE PETITION SIGNATURES ARE DUE BY THE END OF JULY. YOUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS AUGUST 2nd. SO POTENTIALLY YOU CAN HEAR THIS -- POSTPONE THIS DISCUSSION AND HEAR IT AT YOUR AUGUST 2nd PUBLIC HEARING. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. LEYTHAM AND THEN COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: OR CONTINUE, I'M SORRY. >>BETH LEYTHAM: YOU MENTIONED THAT WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS IF SOMEONE IS HERE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>BETH LEYTHAM: I JUST WANT TO GIVE MARY ANN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP, CLARIFY HER POSITION, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, SINCE IT'S RELATED TO THIS MOTION. >>FRANK REDDICK: SHE'S BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. [LAUGHTER] >> [INAUDIBLE] HAVE HELPED. I DID SAY THAT I HAVE FAITH THAT I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT I COULD NOT GIVE YOU ANY GUARANTEES, BUT I WILL TELL YOU I GOT SEVERAL THOUSAND IN TODAY. I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE UP UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. I TOLD YOU I'M A VERY STUBBORN WOMAN, AND I AM, BUT I CANNOT TELL YOU TODAY IF I'M GOING TO MAKE IT OR NOT. >>GINA GRIMES: HOW MANY MORE DO YOU NEED? >> A LOT. >>GINA GRIMES: HOW MANY IS A LOT? >> A LOT. >>GINA GRIMES: THOUSANDS, TENS OF THOUSANDS? >> THOUSANDS. NOT TENS OF THOUSANDS, THOUSANDS. >>GINA GRIMES: AND HOW MANY DO YOU ALREADY HAVE? >> A LOT. >>GINA GRIMES: OKAY. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY -- >> NO, I DON'T. >>GINA GRIMES: -- THEN WE -- THAT'S FINE. >> I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT I DON'T -- I DID NOT SAY I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, AND TWO PEOPLE SAID THAT I SAID -- >>GINA GRIMES: NOBODY SAID THAT WE SAID YOU WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT. WE SAID THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES. >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING EVERY DAY TO GET THEM. I EXPECT 10,000 BY FRIDAY OR MONDAY. I'VE BEEN PROMISED THAT NUMBER. SO ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS I DON'T KNOW. BUT EVERY TIME I COME TO THE HEARING I GET MORE VOTES, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP COMING. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. LEYTHAM. ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, MRS. REBACK. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS VETO POWER NEEDS TO GO NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THESE OTHER REASONS BUT BECAUSE IT WAS A COMPANION MEASURE TO A FORMER BALLOT INITIATIVE FOR A COUNTY MAYOR THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT MRS. STILES AND HER GROUP ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN NOW, SO EVEN IF MS. STILES IS SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SUFFICIENT SIGNATURES TO PUT HER NEW COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION ON THE CURRENT BALLOT, I STILL BELIEVE THAT IF IT WAS TO PASS, IF HER POSSIBLE NEW COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION GETS ON THE BALLOT AND WAS TO PASS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTOMATICALLY THE SAME VETO POWER THAT WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS WITH A PROVISION THAT WAS THEN NOT PARTISAN, AND I THINK THAT WE DO THE VOTERS A DISSERVICE BY SHIRKING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN UP THE CHARTER AND TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT INCONSISTENCY AND TO -- AND WE SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE VOTERS TO NOT ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AGAIN. IF SHE GETS A COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION ON THE BALLOT THIS TIME AND THIS PROVISION IS ALSO ON THE BALLOT THIS TIME, I THINK IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF CONFUSION. I THINK THE VOTERS NEED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, HEY, NOW THAT IT'S A PARTISAN COUNTY MAYOR THAT'S BEING VOTED ON, DO I WANT THAT PARTISAN OFFICE TO HAVE THE SAME VETO POWER I MAY HAVE VOTED FOR WHEN IT WAS A NONPARTISAN COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION? AND IT -- AND THE VOTERS DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD ON THAT. AND IF WE DON'T PUT THIS CLEANUP PROVISION TO REMOVE THE VETO POWER ON AT THE SAME TIME AS SHE WAS TO GET A COUNTY MAYOR PROVISION, THE NEW ONE, ON -- ON THE BALLOT, THEN THE VOTERS WILL NEVER HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY OR IT WILL BE LEFT TO SOME FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO CLEAN IT UP THEN, AND THIS IS ALL REGARDLESS OF ALL THE OTHER REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR WHY THE VETO POWER, I THINK, IS IMPROPER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. THANK YOU, MRS. REBACK. >>FRANK REDDICK: MR. ROBINSON AND THEN -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: MAKE SURE I GET EVERYBODY. MR. ROBINSON. AND I WANT TO CATCH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T SPOKEN. MR. WHITE'S NEXT. >>FRANK REDDICK: WELL, I WAS AFTER MR. ROBINSON. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN. I'M TELLING YOU, YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THIS BALLOT, AND I GUARANTEE WHEN I MAKE A PHONE CALL, IT AIN'T GOING TO PASS. THE VOTERS ARE SMARTER THAN WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING. THEY VOTED AND PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. YOU GUYS ARE ACTING LIKE THEY'RE CHILDREN, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN THEY VOTED TO PUT THIS ON HERE, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME. YOU'RE SAYING NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE GOT SOME NEW INTRODUCED EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S NOW PARTISAN VERSUS NONPARTISAN, PARTISAN VERSUS -- THAT NEVER CAME UP, WHAT DOES THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING, OKAY? THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL JUST LIKE IT'S HYPOTHETICAL IT AIN'T GOING TO GET ON THE BALLOT. JUST LIKE IT'S HYPOTHETICAL IF WE GET TEN VOTES TONIGHT TO PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT ON HERE OR WHATEVER I WANT ON HERE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. WELL, IF IT GETS ON THERE, THERE'S GOING TO BE CAMPAIGNS TO VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN. THERE'S GOING TO BE PHONE CALLS MADE TO SAY GO STRAIGHT NO. THERE'S GOING TO BE PHONE CALLS MADE IN THIS COMMUNITY TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND I'M TELLING YOU IF YOU KNEW THAT 53% OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR A PIECE OF SOMETHING, THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT THEY WANTED THE WHOLE PIE, SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE VOTERS THAT VOTED -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I DISAGREE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO YELL AT ME. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: EXCUSE ME. YOU LOOKED OVER HERE WHEN YOU TALKED TO ME SO I'M GOING TO LOOK AT YOU. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YOU'RE YELLING AT ME. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU'RE DOING THE VOTERS A DISSERVICE TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING THIS WHEN I'M HEARING THERE'S ONLY 14 PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE IS THOUSANDS OF PETITIONS, THOUSANDS OF REGISTERED VOTERS THAT HAVE SAID WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT WITH THE COUNTY MAYOR, THOUSANDS. THERE AIN'T BEEN THOUSANDS IN THIS ROOM. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING TO YOU, SO I SUGGEST THAT, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU WANT TO BE FAIR -- THAT'S WHY I MADE THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION -- PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. WHAT DIFFERENCE DO IT MAKE? YOU SCARED IT MIGHT PASS? PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. WHAT DIFFERENCE DO IT MAKE? IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE THING ABOUT IT NEEDS TO BE GONE, ARE YOU SCARED THAT THEY MIGHT BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WE ONLY WANT TO CHANGE A FEW THINGS AND NOT TOTALLY ELIMINATE IT? PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE, AND THIS ISSUE ABOUT PARTISAN IS NONSENSE. THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, OKAY. SO ALL I'M TELLING YOU IS PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? LET THE VOTERS HAVE A CHOICE. HAVING ONE IS NO CHOICE, OKAY, AND HAVING TO ELIMINATE ALL, AGAIN, IS NO CHOICE. I SAY PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. LEAVE THE LANGUAGE LIKE IT IS BECAUSE THE WHEREASES AND ALL THAT, THAT'S ONLY FOR US LEGAL BEAGLES THAT KNOW HOW TO CHALLENGE STUFF, OKAY, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO DO IS HELP YOU WHEN YOU GO TO THAT JUDGE OVER THERE AND HE SAYS, HEY, WHY DID YOU-ALL DO THIS? WELL, WE DID IT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT MARY STILES WAS NOT GOING TO HAVE IT ON THE BALLOT, WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE PARTISAN VS. NONPARTISAN, WE THOUGHT THAT IT SHOULD BE OFF THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR. THERE'S NO LEGAL STANDING THERE. THERE'S NO LEGAL FACTUAL BASIS. SO I'M JUST SAYING PUT THEM BOTH ON THERE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. REDDICK. >>FRANK REDDICK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE PATIENTLY LISTENING TO ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH, AND I'M JUST THINKING IF I WAS SITTING HOME WATCHING THIS ON TV, I'D TURN IT OFF. THIS IS A JOKE. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH. WE GOT A CHOICE. WE'RE EITHER GOING TO VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN, BUT WE DONE SPENT ALMOST 40 MINUTES TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AND NOT GOING NOWHERE. THIS IS A JOKE, AND JUST IMAGINE WHAT THE PEOPLE, THE TAXPAYERS AT HOME SITTING THERE WONDERING WHAT WE'RE DOING. I MEAN, WE ARE PROFESSIONALS, AND WE SHOULD BE STANDING UP HERE ACTING LIKE PROFESSIONALS, AND WE'RE ACTING LIKE KIDS. THIS IS A JOKE. NOW, WE EITHER NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, CALL THE QUESTION, VOTE ON IT, MOVE THE AGENDA, OR LEAVE THIS ALONE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS -- AND WHAT'S TICKING ME OFF, WE GET THIS MESS BY E-MAIL. ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE CAME TO US BY E-MAIL. YOU HAD TIME TO READ THIS, REVIEW ALL THIS BEFORE WE CAME HERE TONIGHT. WE KNEW WE WAS HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THIS, BUT WE GET HERE AND WE BEEN EMBARRASSING OURSELF BEFORE THOSE TAXPAYERS SITTING AT HOME WATCHING US OPERATE, SO WE NEED TO MOVE ON, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND CONDUCT OURSELF LIKE PROFESSIONALS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE REASON -- AND AGAIN, THE FIRST MOTION WAS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR VETO MEASURE NUMBER 2 THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE FINANCIAL PIECE OF THE VETO. THE BOARD DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT THAT. NOW THERE'S A CALL NOT TO SUPPORT ELIMINATING BECAUSE OF WHAT ANOTHER PIECE OF THE CHARTER MAY DO. WE'RE SEPARATE. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO AMEND THE COUNTY CHARTER. I'LL SAY AGAIN, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN PLACE SOMETHING ON THE -- ON THE BALLOT, THE CHARTER REVIEW CAN - - BOARD CAN, THE PETITION PROCESS CAN, EVEN THE LEGISLATORS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAVE THE POWER -- THROUGH THE DELEGATION CAN PLACE SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT, SO WE SHOULD NOT BE GUIDED BY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MAY DO, AND THE REASON IS -- I BELIEVE THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT THIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT AND ASK THE CITIZENS TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE THIS WOULD HAVE A RETROGRESSIVE EFFECT ON THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS WOULD DILUTE THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE AFRICAN- AMERICAN CITIZENS. WE ONLY HAVE ONE MINORITY, ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN THAT SITS ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT THE MINORITIES COULD BE VETOED OUT OF THE COUNTY BUDGET. THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS CAN BE VETOED OUT OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT WITH THIS POWER. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THROUGH THE PETITION PROCESS, WE ARE A PRECLEARANCE COUNTY. ISSUES HAS -- IF WE VOTE OUT SOMETHING, IT HAS TO GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PASS THE TEST, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEIR DOCUMENT CHECKED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE MINORITY CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND SO IT'S A LOOSE CANNON, THIS VETO THING. IT HASN'T BEEN CHECKED BY THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION VOTING SECTION. IT WILL HURT BLACK FOLKS, AND SO IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE BALLOT AND WITH DUE HASTE, AND SO I STAND WITH COMMISSIONER PLATT'S MOTION. WE NEED TO TRUST THE COUNTY ATTORNEY -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. FISHER'S AMENDED MOTION. >>GINA GRIMES: [INAUDIBLE] >>JAN PLATT: HE AMENDED MY MOTION. THAT'S AN AMENDMENT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. FISHER'S AMENDED MOTION IS THE ONE THAT -- >>GERALD WHITE: I STAND WITH THE MOTION TO GET THIS THING TO THE PEOPLE AND LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. PRESEAU. >>GREG PRESEAU: ALL RIGHT. I'M ALSO NOT A PROPONENT OF DOING THINGS IN THE IF SCENARIO, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WELL, THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO THEN? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND WE HAVE A CHARTER THAT'S FLAWED IN THIS MANNER, SO I WOULD OFFER, YOU KNOW, A SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE OF IN AN EFFORT TO CLEAN UP OUR COUNTY CHARTER, SHOULD THE PROVISION SETTING FORTH VETO POWERS OF AN ELECTED MAYOR BE ELIMINATED FROM THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY? SO THEN IT KIND OF ADDRESSES ALL YOUR CONCERNS. IT GETS THE JOB DONE. >>GERALD WHITE: SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: WHEREAS? >>GREG PRESEAU: THAT'S NOT THE WHEREAS. IT WOULD GO ALONG WITH YOUR WHEREAS. >>GERALD WHITE: I SECOND THAT. >>RALPH FISHER: READ THE WHOLE THING. >>GREG PRESEAU: IN AN EFFORT TO CLEAN UP OUR COUNTY CHARTER -- >>JAN PLATT: WHEREAS? >>GREG PRESEAU: NO, THIS IS THE BALLOT QUESTION. >>JAN PLATT: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE CLEANUP? >>GREG PRESEAU: WELL, OKAY. >> NO, I THOUGHT YOU WAS TALKING ABOUT RESOLUTION. >>GREG PRESEAU: OFFER ANOTHER -- OFFER ANOTHER METHOD. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE'RE CLEANING UP OUR CHARTER. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE STATE THE WHOLE THING. I'M NOT -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >>RALPH FISHER: THE -- MAY I -- >>GREG PRESEAU: GO AHEAD. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH. >>RALPH FISHER: YOU KNOW, MR. PRESEAU, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. THE PROBLEM IS THESE BALLOT QUESTIONS SHOULD BE SO POINTED AND SO TO THE POINT WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T PUT ANY -- WE SHOULD MAKE IT AS TARGETED AS POSSIBLY AND CANDIDLY AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO OFFER EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY WE'RE DOING A PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION. THAT'S FOR THE MEDIA AND FOR THE GREATER DISCOURSE. I MEAN, IT'S KIND LIKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS CANDIDATE OR THIS CANDIDATE, BEFORE THE CANDIDATE'S NAME YOU DON'T SAY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S GREG PRESEAU AND HE'S A GREAT GUY AND I KNOW HIM, PLEASE VOTE FOR GREG. IT JUST SAYS GREG PRESEAU ON THE BALLOT, SO I THINK WHAT WE DO, WE JUST PRESENT THE BALLOT QUESTION, AND, YOU KNOW, ROBINSON MAKES A GREAT POINT TOO. WE'RE HAVING ALL THIS DEBATE. IT MAY NOT EVEN PASS, BUT I DO AGREE WITH MR. REDDICK. LET'S -- I CALL THE QUESTION. LET'S VOTE ON THIS AND LET'S JUST DECIDE -- >>GERALD WHITE: WE NEED TO MAKE SURE -- I DID SECOND HIS MOTION. >>RALPH FISHER: OH, YOU DID? LET'S DO THAT. >>GERALD WHITE: I'LL WITHDRAW -- >>GREG PRESEAU: I NEVER DID MAKE A MOTION. I WAS OFFERING -- >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >> MAKE SURE WE DO IT RIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: HE NEVER DID MAKE A MOTION. >>RALPH FISHER: I INTERRUPTED HIM. >>GERALD WHITE: MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE VOTE I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE -- I DON'T WANT THIS JEOPARDIZED, SO CAN THE ATTORNEY JUST COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS THING IS ABSOLUTELY -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND I'LL HAVE MR. FISHER RESTATE IT SO THE ATTORNEY CAN HEAR. >>RALPH FISHER: OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE CALLING FOR ON THE -- I GUESS, MADAM ATTORNEY, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS IT OKAY TO CHANGE THIS WHEREAS TO SAY, WHEREAS, THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR AT THE PRESENT TIME IN THE CHARTER, IN LIEU OF NUMBER 4 THERE, AND THEN NO CHANGE TO THE BALLOT QUESTION? IS THERE ANY LEGAL PROBLEM WITH THAT I GUESS IS MR. WHITE'S QUESTION? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: AGAIN, I -- I'LL JUST RESTATE WHAT I'VE SAID EARLIER. THE ONLY TWO PROVISIONS THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE VOTERS WILL BE THE BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT QUESTION. CERTAINLY YOUR RESOLUTION AND ALL THE WHEREAS CLAUSES IN YOUR RESOLUTION WILL JUST BE ON RECORD, PLACED AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE. IF ANYONE WANTS AN IDEA OF WHAT YOUR LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS TO PUT OR PLACE THIS BEFORE THE VOTERS, THEY CAN ALWAYS LOOK TO THE RESOLUTION, BUT WHAT WILL BE BEFORE THE VOTERS WILL BE YOUR BALLOT TITLE AND YOUR BALLOT QUESTION, AND AT THIS POINT IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES FOR YOU. >>RALPH FISHER: CALL THE QUESTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>JAN PLATT: SECOND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE GOT A CALL TO QUESTION. SECOND. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I RAISED MY HAND BEFORE HE SAID CALL TO QUESTION. LET ME BE RECOGNIZED. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME LET MR. ROBINSON -- HE IS CORRECT. MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, MS. MINCEY, WILL YOU GET BACK HERE FOR ME TO ASK YOU A QUESTION? I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: YES, SIR. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU'VE HEARD WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. HE WANTS TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH 4. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: YES. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: IS IT TRUE THAT ONCE -- IF THIS PASSES, THAT IT CAN BE CHALLENGED BY ANYBODY? >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: I WOULD ASSUME SO. I DON'T -- YES. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT GROUNDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THANK YOU. >>DEBORA CROMARTIE-MINCEY: -- BUT CERTAINLY, YES. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION -- >>RALPH FISHER: I CALL THE QUESTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: CALL TO QUESTION. GOT A SECOND FOR THE CALL TO QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE CALL TO QUESTION RIGHT HAND. OKAY. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. NEXT WE'RE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. MR. FISHER, I'M GOING TO LET YOU STATE IT ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD. >>RALPH FISHER: OKAY. THE WHEREAS CLAUSE NUMBER 4, THE EXISTING WHEREAS IS ELIMINATED IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND THERE IS A NEW WHEREAS TO PUT IN IT'S PLACE. IT SAYS, WHEREAS, THERE IS NO COUNTY MAYOR AT THE PRESENT TIME IN THE CHARTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>RALPH FISHER: AND OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ARE NO CHANGES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. MR. ROBINSON WAS OPPOSED. OKAY. NEXT UP IS THE SECOND ITEM, THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. WE -- AND ACTUALLY, LET ME -- I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT REAL QUICK. WE HAVE THE TWO DRAFTS, THE TWO ITEMS. I DO WANT TO MENTION, I THINK MR. PRESEAU HAD A VERY VALID POINT IN TERMS OF THE ORDER THAT WE TAKE THEM. I MEANT TO DISCUSS THAT IN ADVANCE. I WOULD THINK THAT WITH THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, MY -- FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS AND EVERYTHING, EVERYBODY IS AWARE THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH THIS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. MY THOUGHT IS WE PROBABLY AS A BOARD SHOULD TAKE ON THE ELIMINATION OR THE STRIKE-THROUGH FIRST AND THEN MOVE BACK BECAUSE IF WE TAKE ON THE OTHER -- THE MODIFICATION FIRST AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO VOTE ON THE STRIKE- THROUGH, THEY MAY PASS UP THE MODIFICATION HOPING THAT THE STRIKE-THROUGH WILL PASS, SO IN MY OPINION -- I THINK THIS IS WHAT MR. PRESEAU IS GETTING AT, AND I AGREE WITH HIM -- WE DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THE STRIKE-THROUGH AND THAT DOES NOT GET THE TEN VOTES, THEN WE CAN PULL BACK AND VOTE ON THE MODIFICATION, AND I THINK -- I THINK OTHERWISE WE MAY END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE WE VOTE ON THE MODIFICATION AND WE MAY HAVE SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T VOTE FOR THE MODIFICATION BECAUSE THEY'RE HOPING THE STRIKE-THROUGH WILL PASS. THEN THE STRIKE-THROUGH DOESN'T PASS, AND THEN WE'RE BACK WITH THE MODIFICATION, SO I THINK -- I THINK IT WILL BE CLEANER FOR EVERYBODY IF WE APPROACH IT THAT WAY. LET ME -- COMMISSIONER PLATT, THEN MR. TOKLEY. >>JAN PLATT: WELL, FOR PARLIAMENTARY PURPOSES, I WILL MOVE THE DRAFT NUMBER 1 OR OPTION NUMBER 1, IPA, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS -- DEAL WITH THAT ONE FIRST. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>JAN PLATT: SO I WOULD MOVE THAT ONE -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAN PLATT: -- THAT WE ELIMINATE THE WHOLE THING. >>BETH LEYTHAM: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>JAN PLATT: AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT SINCE I MADE THE MOTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>JAN PLATT: I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO GO, AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU WHY IS BECAUSE EVEN MR. TARR HAS GIVEN US SUGGESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN THE CHARTER, AND THEN THERE ARE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SO THAT, IN FACT, THERE NEEDS TO BE CHANGES AT TWO LEVELS. WE COULD MAKE A CHANGE AND THE VOTERS COULD VOTE FOR THE CHANGES, BUT UNLESS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAKES THEIR CHANGES, THERE STILL ARE GOING TO BE PROBLEMS, AND SO IN MY OPINION, IF WE WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN AND THEN URGE THE COUNTY COMMISSION -- BECAUSE THEY CAN HAVE -- BY FIVE VOTES THEY CAN PUT -- THEY CAN PUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON THE BALLOT AND AT THE SAME TIME TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THEY ARE MAKING THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, BECAUSE MR. TARR IS SUGGESTING CHANGES AT TWO LEVELS, ONE IN THE CHARTER AND ONE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IF THE VOTERS APPROVE THE ONE IN THE CHARTER AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOES NOT DO THEIRS, THEN IT'S STILL GOING TO BE CHAOS, AND SO IN MY OPINION, THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT IS JUST ELIMINATE IT COMPLETELY AND THEN LET THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH FIVE VOTES PUT THE CHANGES THAT THEY PERCEIVE WITH MR. TARR ON THE BALLOT ALONG WITH -- AND TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THEY ARE MAKING ALSO THAT SECOND GROUP OF CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL BECAUSE IF YOU PASS -- IF YOU -- IF YOU DON'T, THEN THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE. YOU CAN'T GO TO THE PUBLIC WITH THOSE AMENDED CHANGES IN THE SECOND DRAFT AND SAY THAT YOU'RE -- THIS IS A CURE-ALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT A CURE-ALL, AND THAT'S WHY JUST WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN AND START FROM SCRATCH. THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MRS. LEYTHAM. >>BETH LEYTHAM: AND AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR IT AND GO ON AND ON. I THINK THAT THIS IS A FAILED POSITION. I -- I THINK THE VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT AND WE SHOULD ALLOW THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PLATT, THAT WE NEED TO START OVER AND WE NEED TO GIVE IT BACK TO THE BOARD THEMSELVES TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT IN LARGE PART THEY CREATED THEMSELVES. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. REDDICK. >>FRANK REDDICK: WELL, I THINK WE'RE PUTTING TOO MUCH FAITH IN THE BOARD. [LAUGHTER] AND I'M NOT GOING TO PUT THAT FAITH IN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. AND I THINK IF YOU HEARD FROM EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT CAME BEFORE US, THEY STATED THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE THIS POSITION ELIMINATED, AND THEREFORE, WE'RE TRUSTING A JUDGMENT BY POLITICIANS TO MAKE A DECISION TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BOARD TO GO BEFORE THE PUBLIC. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A NEW BOARD COMING IN ON BOARD AND THEY DON'T -- THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO FOLLOW ANY ORDER THAT WE MIGHT SEND THEM, SO I WON'T SUPPORT THIS MOTION. >>JAMES TOKLEY: I HAVE -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. TOKLEY. >>JAMES TOKLEY: I HAVE TWO COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. ONE IS ABOUT -- A COMMENT ABOUT WORDS. I BELIEVE I CAN SPEAK ABOUT THEM SINCE I'VE BEEN A COLLEGIATE PROFESSOR FOR 43 YEARS. WE MUST BE THE MASTER OF OUR WORDS, OUR WORDS MUST NEVER MASTER US. I, AS AN EDUCATOR, SAY THAT TO YOU AS POLITICIANS. WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IS CLARITY. WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IS SIMPLICITY. GOOD GOVERNMENT -- AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME, I DON'T MEAN TO LECTURE YOU, BUT I'M SIMPLY AIRING WHAT IS ON MY MIND AND WHAT HAS BEEN ON MY MIND FOR MANY YEARS. WHAT THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WANT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE, GOOD GOVERNMENT. GOOD GOVERNMENT IS NOT COMPLEX NOR COMPLICATED. GOOD GOVERNMENT IS RIGHT-MINDED WITH RIGHT ACTION. THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WANT. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY VOTERS REALIZE THAT SOMETIMES GOOD GOVERNMENT TAKES PATIENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SEEING -- IF THEY'RE WATCHING TELEVISION, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SEEING TONIGHT. THEY'RE NOT SEEING A RABBLE, THEY'RE NOT SEEING CONFUSION. THEY'RE SEEING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TO TALK ABOUT IT I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM "AD NAUSEAM." THAT MEANS TO TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, AND I CANNOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THE VOTERS WOULD NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT IPA. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN SAID EUPHEMISTICALLY IS THE -- THE IMAGE OF THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH, SINCE WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, TALKING ABOUT THE IPA POSITION, BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU THIS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE BATHWATER IS COLD AND THE BABY IS A MONSTER? THEN PERHAPS WE ARE FORCED WITH SOMETHING WHICH WE DO NOT WISH TO CONSIDER. A RADICAL CHANGE MUST BE MADE. THE BATHWATER IS COLD. IT HAS BEEN COLD. THE BABY IN THE BATHWATER WAS A MONSTER. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. I SUPPORT THE DOING AWAY WITH THE POSITION WITH THE -- BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN WHAT IT HAS DONE. WE DON'T HAVE TO -- WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT IT HAS DONE, WE KNOW WHAT IT HAS DONE, AND BASED UPON WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR FRIENDS FROM COUNTY COMMISSION, IT RUNS THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THAT AGAIN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WANT US TO RELEASH THE MONSTER AGAIN, SO THAT'S HOW I VOTE AND THAT'S HOW I SEE IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MR. SULLIVAN. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: I'M ALWAYS HESITANT TO FOLLOW MR. TOKLEY, HE'S SO ELOQUENT. I DON'T SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THE OFFICE. I THINK IT'S PRUDENT THAT EVERY CORPORATION, IN PARTICULAR GOVERNMENTS, HAVE AN INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION, BOTH FOR EFFICIENCIES AND FOR PERFORMANCE REASONS. I FULLY AGREE THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT -- CIRCUIT COURT, MS. FRANK'S OFFICE, SHOULD DO THE FINANCIAL AUDITS, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY DESIGNED BY HER OWN ADMISSION TO DO PERFORMANCE AUDITS OR PROCESS AUDITS. THAT'S A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS POSITION DOES. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT THE POSITION WAS NEVER PROPERLY ESTABLISHED OR GIVEN THE PROPER GUIDELINES. I BELIEVE IF WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING, WE SHOULD INCORPORATE ALL OF MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATIONS INTO OUR RESOLUTION BECAUSE HE SET FORTH SOME VERY PRUDENT THINGS, ONE OF WHICH IS AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, WHICH WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY HERE, WHICH WOULD HELP BRING SOME INDEPENDENCE TO THIS POSITION SO THAT IT'S NOT SO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED IN HOW THE PROCESS IS DONE. IT IS A VERY PRUDENT PROCESS. IT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT AND IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE TO HAVE AN AUDITOR. EVERY CORPORATION THAT I KNOW THAT I WORK WITH HAS AUDITORS, WHETHER THEY'RE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL, DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE. I KNOW I WORK FOR A FINANCIAL CORPORATION. WE HAVE AN INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION THAT DOES ALL SORTS OF PROCESS AUDITS. WE HIRE THE OUTSIDE PEOPLE TO DO THE INDEPENDENT WORK. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THE POSITION. I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD BUSINESS TO HAVE IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU. MR. AMON. >>JOE AMON: I'VE BEEN AN ENGINEER FOR ABOUT 38 YEARS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED AS A YOUNG ENGINEER IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF PROCESS REVIEW, WHETHER YOU'RE DESIGNING A BUILDING OR POND OR WHATEVER, AND THAT'S A PART OF THIS AUDIT TRAIL OR AUDIT SYSTEM THAT I BELIEVE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. I DON'T SEE THIS FUNCTION AS A MONEY OR BUDGET ISSUE. I THINK THE CLERK'S OFFICE TAKES CARE OF THAT, AND I THINK THERE IS A DUPLICITY THERE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION CAME FROM IN THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION. AUDIT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT I WANT TO SEE IN THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS THE PROCESS, AND I THINK GOOD PROCESS IN LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE -- IN THE -- WORKING THE GOVERNMENT, JUST LIKE WE DO IN ENGINEERING WORK, NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED INDEPENDENTLY. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THIS WAS SET OUT TO BE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, SO FOR THAT, I CAN'T THROW OUT THE IPA. I DO NEED IT CHANGED, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT COMPLETELY THROWING IT OUT. I THINK IT'S COUNTER TO -- TO BUSINESS, IT'S COUNTER TO WHAT MOST CONSULTANTS TODAY IN LOOKING AT THE BEST GOVERNMENT OR EVEN BEST PROCESS -- YOU NEED THE AUDIT, AND I WANT TO SEE THE AUDIT CONTINUE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: ALL OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AT LEAST THE ONES THAT CAME UP HERE, KEVIN BECKNER AND MARK SHARPE LAST NIGHT, SAYS, HEY, WE DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF THAT. THIS IS WHAT -- THE PEOPLE THAT APPOINTED YOU-ALL HERE SAY THAT, BUT I KNOW WE GOT ENOUGH INDEPENDENCE, WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY TELL US; RIGHT? THE IPA HAS BEEN IN A LOT OF NEWS STORIES. THE IPA HAS BEEN A -- SOMETHING THAT THE VOTERS PUT IN BECAUSE I'M ALL FOR WHAT VOTERS VOTE FOR, AND IT'S BEEN CONTROVERSIAL. WE KNOW ALL THAT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IS THAT IF WE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT ONCE AGAIN, THAT DON'T MEAN IT'S GOING TO PASS. IT PROBABLY WILL STAY ON THERE, YOU KNOW, SO -- WHETHER WE PUT SOMETHING OR NOT. I THINK THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 WHERE WE DO EXACTLY WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS, MR. TARR, WHAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE TWO THAT CAME, TOLD US, WHAT I'M HEARING IN THE COMMUNITY, THE BLACK COMMUNITY, OKAY -- AND I COME FROM A DIFFERENT BLACK COMMUNITY, THAN MOST BLACK PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS -- >>FRANK REDDICK: EXPLAIN THAT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: HUH? I STAY IN WEST TAMPA. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS IS THAT -- OLD WEST TAMPA, SCAGLIONE, DIECIDUE, TRAFFICANTE, SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IS THAT THE IPA IS NEEDED AS A TOOL FOR EACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIG INTO ISSUES THAT DEAL WITH THE BUDGET. SOME INFORMATION NEED TO BE CHECKED OUT. FOR EXAMPLE, MR. WHITE, THE PERSON THAT APPOINTED ME, KEVIN WHITE, HAD THE AUDITOR LOOK AT OFFICE DEPOT. WELL, I THINK I READ ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO OFFICE DEPOT PAID 4.5 MILLION, 4.5 MILLION BECAUSE OF BILLING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THAT WAS JUST A SMALL AMOUNT. THEY STILL I GUESS ARE NEGOTIATING, SO WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE MOVE ALTERNATIVE 2. >>FRANK REDDICK: SECOND. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THAT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS THAT WE USE THE IPA, I GUESS THE WAY THEY'RE LABELING IT IS IPA -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: BEFORE WE GO ON WITH THAT, LET ME JUST MENTION, AS I TRIED TO CLARIFY IN THE BEGINNING, IF WE VOTE FOR THAT -- IF WE DO THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION, IF WE DISCUSS IT AND WE VOTE ON THAT -- I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER THAT MOTION -- SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAUSE IF WE VOTE ON THAT, THERE'S GOING TO BE THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ABOLISH THAT AREN'T GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT, SO IT MAY FAIL. THEN WE'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE -- WE'RE GOING TO -- IT'S JUST GOING TO BE CYCLICAL. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE VOTE ON THIS, VOTE IT UP OR DOWN, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. THAT'S MY THOUGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE VOTES FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RECOMMENDING ABOLISHING IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HOLD OUT FOR ABOLISHING IT. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE VOTES FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO MODIFY. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE VOTES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WANT THE SECOND ONE, SO, I MEAN -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: BUT MY NAUGHT IS THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF ABOLISHING, IF THEY REALIZE THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR ABOLISHING OR ELIMINATING THE POSITION, THEY MAY REALIZE, OKAY, THE SECOND BEST THING IN THEIR OPINION - - BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL -- MOST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH -- WITH IT, SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE IF YOU CAN'T GET WHAT YOU WANT, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO FIX WHAT YOU GOT. THAT'S WHAT I'M BASICALLY SAYING, SO YOUR MOTION -- YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE I THINK MAY FAIL ON THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE VOTES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING HERE WHO ARE RECOMMENDING ABOLISHING IT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE VOTE ON ABOLISHING IT, AND THEN YOUR MOTION COULD BE THE NEXT MOTION TO COME UP. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: YOU'RE THE CHAIR AND I'LL ABIDE BY THE CHAIR, AND FRANK SAID WE NEED TO MOVE FASTER ON THESE, SO I'LL ABIDE BY THE CHAIR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHEN I WAS A COMMISSIONER -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: THANK YOU. >>JAN PLATT: -- WE HAD ALL THE KINDS OF AUDITS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND WE WOULD HIRE OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS DO TO THOSE JOBS IF THE CLERK WAS NOT AVAILABLE, AND THAT MEANT THAT THOSE AUDITORS WERE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. WE WERE NOT GOING TO PAY THEM STATE PENSIONS, WE WERE NOT - - THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE STATE SYSTEM BECAUSE ONCE YOU CREATE THESE STATE -- WHEN YOU CREATE THIS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT, THEY GET PENSIONS, THEY GET HEALTH CARE. YOU'VE GOT COUNTY EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE STATE EMPLOYEES, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE DONE. THE COUNTY HAS EXISTED BEFORE THIS WAS EVER CREATED HAVING ALL THE AUDITS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT HIRING WHETHER IT BE ERNST & ERNST OR, YOU KNOW -- WE'D HIRE THE MAJOR GROUPS TO COME IN AND DO THE JOB, AND THEN THEY WERE NOT ON THE COUNTY PAYROLL FOREVER. THEY DIDN'T HAVE OFFICE SPACE AND THEY WEREN'T UNDER THE THUMB OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS TO DO FOUR-HOUR PROJECTS, AND TO ME THAT'S MORE COST-EFFECTIVE AND MORE -- MORE -- YOU'RE GOING TO GET A MORE HONEST ANSWER THAN IF YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE SOMEBODY WHO'S NOW A COUNTY EMPLOYEE SITTING IN AMONG THE GROUP, AND OF COURSE, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AREN'T GOING TO WANT TO ELIMINATE IT NOW BECAUSE IT'S A -- THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME POWER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'VE GOT THE POWER OVER THAT INDIVIDUAL, LIKE IT OR NOT. THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO WONDER -- THERE'S MORE WAYS THAT ONE TO SKIN THE CAT, AND THAT IS TO GO OUT AND GET THESE INDEPENDENT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN CREATE MORE COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE STATE EMPLOYEES WHO GET PENSIONS, WHO GET HEALTH CARE, WHO GET ALL THAT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. REBACK AND THEN MR. SULLIVAN, MR. WHITE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I JUST WANT TO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PLATT -- >>JAN PLATT: OKAY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I THINK THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE A PERMANENT POSITION, CERTAINLY THE POLITICIANS THAT SERVE ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN THE POSITION OF BEING ABLE TO SAY IT'S TOO COSTLY TO GO OUT AND HIRE AN AUDITOR, PARTICULARLY FOR THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY -- THEY MAY NOT WANT TO HAVE AUDITED, AND THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE OF A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. IF IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SEEK AN AUDIT, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY NOT TO SEEK AN AUDIT AND SAY SIMPLY IT WAS TOO COSTLY, AND SO I THINK THESE ARE -- THIS IS A POSITION THAT WE HAVE TO JUST BITE THE BULLET AND FUND BECAUSE IT'S NECESSARY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT MR. SULLIVAN AND MR. AMON AND THE OTHER PROPONENTS HAVE SAID. I WON'T -- I WON'T REITERATE THAT, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE RAISED, IT SEEMS TO ME -- AND I'M NOT MAKING THIS AS A MOTION NOW, CHAIR, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO WOULD BE TO ADD TO THE BALLOT QUESTION AS IT APPEARS IN VERSION 2 -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: ACTUALLY, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND HOLDING OFF -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WELL, I DO WANT TO FINISH THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER PEOPLE VOTE -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AS MR. ROBINSON SAID, IT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER PEOPLE VOTE UP OR DOWN ON QUESTION 1 IF THEY THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE QUESTION 2 BETTER, SO I DO WANT TO SAY IT NOW BUT I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR IT NOW, AND THAT IS I THINK THAT I WOULD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME MOVE TO AMEND THE BALLOT QUESTION IN VERSION NUMBER 2 TO INCLUDE ESTABLISHING AN AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ADVISE -- TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND AMENDING IT TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT -- AND I'M NOT MARRIED TO THIS LANGUAGE BUT TO THE EFFECT THAT -- THAT THE -- THE BOARD AND THE AUDITOR ADOPT BEST PRACTICES FORMAT OF -- AND I WOULD ASK MR. TARR IF HE WOULDN'T MIND ASSISTING US -- AND MAYBE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. DON'T JUMP UP, MR. TARR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OKAY. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD ASK MR. TARR TO HELP US CRAFT LANGUAGE TO BE ABLE TO STATE IN A SIMPLE BALLOT QUESTION FORM HOW TO -- HOW TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ADOPTING BEST PRACTICES FOR AUDITS GIVEN THE FORMAT THAT WE HOPE THE COMMISSION ITSELF WILL -- WILL ADOPT. BUT -- SO I THINK -- I JUST WANT TO -- AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION, BUT I WANT TO URGE MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND QUESTION 2 TO ADD THE AUDIT COMMISSION -- OR THE AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND A REQUIREMENT IN THE CHARTER THAT BEST PRACTICES BE ADOPTED WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO GET RID OF THE POSITION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. LET ME -- I WANTED TO LET MR. SULLIVAN, AND I WANTED TO RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER PLATT'S COMMENT. PERSONALLY I'VE WORKED AS AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, I'VE WORKED AS AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR. I'M A CPA, CIA. I'LL TELL YOU, AS AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, THERE IS A MAJOR BENEFIT. YOU WORK FOR THAT COMPANY, WORK FOR THAT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. YOU ARE IN TOUCH -- YOU'RE GOING TO LUNCH, YOU KNOW, OR YOU'RE AROUND THE EMPLOYEES. THERE'S A LOT YOU LEARN. AS AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR, YOU COME IN, THERE'S A LEARNING CURVE. THEY PAY PREMIUM PRICES. THERE'S A LEARNING CURVE. YOU DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF HAVING EMPLOYEES COME UP TO YOU GIVING YOU ADVICE OR GIVING YOU -- TELLING YOU WHAT'S GOING ON. AS AN INTERNAL AUDITOR YOU LEARN A LOT. A LOT OF THE INFORMATION YOU GET IS TIPS FROM EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, YOU -- YOU LEARN A LOT FROM EMPLOYEES. I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT. I'VE WORKED BOTH SIDES, I'VE WORKED AS AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, I'VE WORKED AS AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR, AND YOU KNOW, AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR, YOU COME IN AND EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AFRAID TO TALK TO YOU. THEY REALIZE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BEING HIRED. I'M NOT SAYING ALL, BUT A LOT OF EMPLOYEES ARE AFRAID TO TALK TO YOU. AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, THEY'LL SEE YOU AROUND, THEY GET COMFORTABLE WITH YOU. YOU'RE -- YOU KNOW, A GOOD INTERNAL AUDITOR, YOU'RE PART OF THE TEAM. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU'RE THERE TO MAKE THINGS BETTER, AND MOST EMPLOYEES SHOULD REALIZE AS AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, YOU'RE -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STILL AVOID YOU. PEOPLE STILL DON'T TAKE YOUR CALLS BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU'RE AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, BUT YOU'RE PART OF THE TEAM, AND IF YOU'RE A GOOD INTERNAL AUDITOR, YOUR PURPOSE IS TO BE THERE AND HELP THE AGENCY, THE ORGANIZATION GET BETTER AND IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, AND MOST EMPLOYEES WILL REALIZE THAT, AND IF THEY SEE A PROBLEM, THEY'LL BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY A LOT OF INTERNAL AUDIT TEAMS HAVE A -- YOU KNOW, A LOT OF INTERNAL AUDIT SHOPS HAVE THE WHISTLER BLOWER PHONE NUMBERS OR WHATEVER -- >> WHISTLE-BLOWER LINES. >>MITCHELL THROWER: -- WHISTLE-BLOWER LINES BECAUSE THEY REALIZE, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN INTERNAL AUDIT AND EXTERNAL AUDIT, AND THERE IS A BENEFIT TO HAVING THE INTERNAL AUDIT. SO MR. SULLIVAN. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: AGAIN -- AND I'M GLAD YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION BECAUSE I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE SECOND ONE GOES FAR ENOUGH. MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATION, A KEY COMPONENT OF THAT WAS HAVING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. THAT SOLVES A LOT OF THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH, COMMISSIONER PLATT. IT KIND OF MAKES THAT PERSON REPORTABLE TO A GROUP THAT'S BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION WHO THEN REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION. THEY SET UP THE AUDIT SCHEDULE SO THAT THERE IS AN ORDER IN WHICH THEY GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. THEY LOOK AT THE PROCESSES, THEY LOOK AT THE EFFICIENCIES. IF THERE'S AN AREA THEY THINK NEEDS MORE LOOK, THEY STILL CAN BRING IN AN OUTSIDE FIRM TO DO IT. THEY WON'T NECESSARILY DO ALL THE WORK THEMSELVES. IS IT THE MOST COST-EFFICIENT METHOD? PROBABLY NOT. IS IT PROBABLY THE MOST PRUDENT GOVERNANCE STANDPOINT? YES, IT IS. THAT'S THE REASON I DON'T SUPPORT. I'M THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR THE PAST EIGHT OR TEN YEARS HAS BEEN HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL, IT'S BEEN HIGHLY COSTLY TO THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. I DON'T LIKE THAT EITHER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A KNEE- JERK REACTION TO A BAD PROCESS AND THROW OUT A GOOD IDEA JUST BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A BAD PROCESS. WE NEED TO FIX THE PROCESS. SO I DON'T THINK OUR MOTIONS HAVE GONE FAR ENOUGH, SO I'LL -- THAT'S THE REASON I DON'T SUPPORT ELIMINATING. I THINK IT'S A GOOD POSITION. IT'S BEEN POORLY IMPLEMENTED, IT'S BEEN POORLY GOVERNED AND STRUCTURED, AND I THINK WE NEED TO FIX THAT, AND I THINK LEAVING THAT UP STRICTLY TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, IT MAY NEVER HAPPEN, AND I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY SERIOUSLY ADDRESS THAT. >>FRANK REDDICK: AMEN. AMEN ON THAT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I SEE MR. WHITE. MR. AMON, DID YOU WANT TO -- I DIDN'T YOU KNOW IF YOU RAISED YOUR HAND. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T MISS ANYBODY. MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST, THIS POSITION HAS JUST BEEN AN OUTRIGHT TOTAL WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS. SINCE '06 I CALCULATE $2,872,000 THAT HAS BEEN SPENT ON A TOTAL OF FIVE AUDITS. THAT IS JUST AN OUTRIGHT WASTE. WE'RE THROWING TAX DOLLARS IN A BLACK HOLE, AND I ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED THIS POSITION. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REJECTED THIS POSITION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE HAVE NOT GOT ANY PERFORMANCE. THEIR PROPOSED BUDGET THAT'S ON THE INTERNET TODAY PROPOSE TO DO FOUR AUDITS A YEAR. THEY'VE ONLY DONE FIVE AUDITS SINCE THE POSITION'S BEEN CREATED AT A COST OF $2.8 MILLION. GIVE ME A BREAK. HOW MUCH -- HOW MUCH MONEY WE GOING TO WASTE, ALL RIGHT? THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DON'T WANT THIS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FIX IT, ALL RIGHT. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BAIT US. THEY'RE BAITING US. THEY PUT THIS ON THEIR BOARD AGENDA TO BAIT US SO THEY CAN HAVE THEIR PLAY TOY AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT WHILE CITIZENS ARE BEING LAID OFF, THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY ARE PUTTING MONEY IN -- IN THE GENERAL REVENUE TO HOLD THIS GOVERNMENT UP. WE SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING, VOTE THIS ISSUE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO GET RID OF THIS WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS. AND THIS AUDIT COMMITTEE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT ALREADY EXISTS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST THE 18th, 2004, PASSED A BOARD POLICY, SECTION 02-11-02-00. PERFORMANCE AUDITS OR BUDGET REVIEWS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS POLICY THAT THEY PUT IN PLACE TO DECIDE WHAT AUDITS TO LOOK AT, DO THE SCOPE OF AUDITS, AND ALL THIS STUFF EXISTS ALREADY, AND LOOK AT ALL THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN WASTED. IT HAS NOT WORKED. IT'S BEEN -- IT'S -- THIS POSITION HAS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL WITH NO END ZONE, AND SO I JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE SCRAP THE POSITION, AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SCRAP IT, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT AMENDING IT, AND SO IT'LL STAY LIKE IT IS AND SEND THE PROBLEM WHERE IT BELONGS, BACK TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF WE CAN'T ELIMINATE IT. LET THEM DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE MONSTER THAT THROUGH THEIR ORDINANCE HAS CREATED. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PASS A NEW ORDINANCE THAT WILL CREATE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO MAKE THIS POSITION TO WORK, AND IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE STRENGTH AND THE WILL TO DO THAT, SO YOU EITHER SCRAP IT OR LEAVE IT AS -- AS IS. THAT'S THE -- THAT'S MY OPINION THE WAY WE SHOULD GO. I'M GOING TO VOTE TO ELIMINATE IT, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST ANY KIND OF CHANGES TO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND SEND THE PROBLEM WHERE IT BELONG, BACK TO THE PEOPLE THAT CREATED IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I JUST WANTED TO MENTION ONE THING IN RESPONSE TO MR. WHITE. I SERVED AS CHAIR OF CAC FOR A COUPLE YEARS, SINCE 2004. THE CAC NEVER DID FUNCTION AS AN AUDIT COMMITTEE. WE HAD THE -- ACCORDING TO -- I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD REVIEW AND WE COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOCC. WE NEVER SERVED AS A TRUE AUDIT COMMITTEE. AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, WILL SIT THERE AND THEY'LL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY'LL REVIEW THE AUDIT [INAUDIBLE]. THE AUDITOR WOULD COME TO THEM, THEY'D REVIEW IT, THEY'D MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE AUDITED, THEY'LL REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE. THEY MAY REPORT BACK TO THE BOCC, KIND OF AS MR. TARR HAS RECOMMENDED. THE CAC BASICALLY FUNCTIONED AS A CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP THAT COULD REVIEW AUDITS, THEY COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOCC ON WHAT SHOULD BE AUDITED, BUT IT WAS NOT AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND I -- I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. ROBINSON AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE STILL -- WE HAVE THIS MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND I THINK WE NEED TO COME TO A POINT WHERE WE JUST VOTE ON THIS. >>RALPH FISHER: I CALL THE QUESTION. >> SECOND. >>MITCHELL THROWER: CALL TO QUESTION. OKAY. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE CALL TO QUESTION PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OKAY. ALL OPPOSED PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND ONE MORE TIME SO I CAN READ THE NAMES -- OR TELL THE CLERK. MR. QUINTELA IS OPPOSED -- OR IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE POSITION, COMMISSIONER PLATT IS IN FAVOR, MR. TOKLEY, MR. WHITE, AND MRS. LEYTHAM. THE MOTION FAILS. OKAY? MR. FISHER. >>RALPH FISHER: I WANT TO ASK MR. SULLIVAN A QUESTION ABOUT THIS AUDIT COMMITTEE BECAUSE I HAVE PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO AMEND NUMBER 2 TO PUT IN AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS SOMETHING THAT YOU AND MS. REBACK COULD AGREE WITH. I'VE WRITTEN UP A PARAGRAPH -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S LOOKING AT THE PROPOSAL IN NUMBER 2, BUT ON PAGE 2 OF PROPOSAL NUMBER 2, IT STARTS OUT WITH SECTION 4.1, AND IT'S LISTED 1, 2, 3, 4 ON THAT PAGE, AND I'VE WRITTEN IN A I CALL IT 3.5 BECAUSE IT GOES BETWEEN 3 AND 4, AND I'VE WRITTEN A SENTENCE THAT SAYS -- SO -- SO ARE YOU-ALL WITH ME ON THIS, 1, 2, AND 3 -- ON PAGE 2 OF THE RECOMMENDED -- IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RESOLUTION? >>RALPH FISHER: IPA NUMBER 2, OKAY, THAT WAS HANDED TO US. AND THEN ALL THE WHEREASES ARE ON THE FIRST PAGE. AND ON THE SECOND PAGE IT'S GOT SECTION 4.1, SHALL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS. >> RIGHT. >>RALPH FISHER: AND IT'S GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, SO ON 3.5 -- OF COURSE, THAT'S GOING TO BECOME, YOU KNOW, 4 AND NUMBER 4 WILL BECOME 5. I'VE WRITTEN 3.5. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL ESTABLISH -- EXCUSE ME. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL BIANNUALLY ESTABLISH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF SEVEN MEMBERS WITH EACH COMMISSIONER APPOINTING ONE MEMBER WHO SHALL MEET WITHOUT COMPENSATION FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INTERNAL AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>RALPH FISHER: THEN ON PARAGRAPH 4 I'VE ADDED -- WHERE IT SAYS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL ANNUALLY, I'VE ADDED IN, AFTER RECEIVING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, GIVE DIRECTION TO, ET CETERA. THEN THE BALLOT QUESTION ITSELF, WHICH IS ON THE NEXT PAGE, THE THIRD PAGE, THE THIRD LINE DOWN, WHICH STARTS WITH, TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO BUDGET ANALYST, COMMA, ESTABLISH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME, AND REQUIRE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANNUALLY TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE INTERNAL AUDITOR REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF INTERNAL AUDITS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS IDEA OF AN AUDIT COMMITTEE IS SOMETHING THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS OF STUFF THAT THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE. COMMISSIONER SHARPE WAS EXTREMELY ARTICULATE WHEN HE SAID HE WANTS TO LOOK INTO THE CHILDREN'S BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS OF WHAT'S NOT RIGHT, AND THESE ARE THE IDEAS, AND I ALSO LIKE COMMISSIONER PLATT'S COMMENT EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS. WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY SAYING GO GET THEM, GO GET THEM, THESE LITTLE FOUR-HOUR DEALS, SO THEY NEED TO DO IT ANNUALLY. WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT. THEY NEED SOME STRUCTURE ON, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY DO IT, GIVE THE LIST, GO GET THEM. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND I HATE TO HAVE YOU REPEAT IT. >>RALPH FISHER: SURE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: CAN YOU STATE IT AGAIN -- >>RALPH FISHER: SURE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: -- ESPECIALLY THE PART ABOUT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE COMPOSITION. >>RALPH FISHER: SO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE WOULD BE A NEW PARAGRAPH ON 4.1, AND IT'S GOING TO SAY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL BIANNUALLY ESTABLISH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF SEVEN MEMBERS WITH EACH COMMISSIONER APPOINTING ONE MEMBER WHO SHALL MEET WITHOUT COMPENSATION FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INTERNAL AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS. NOW, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'M THINKING OF. THEY'RE GOING TO PICK PEOPLE THAT ARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, AND THESE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE KNOW INSIDE THE COUNTY. THEY'RE GOING TO HELP FEED THEM INFORMATION. >> NO, THEY'RE NOT. >>RALPH FISHER: WELL, MAYBE THEY WON'T. MAYBE THEY WON'T. BUT IN OTHER WORDS -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: I WOULD THINK YOU'D PROBABLY PROHIBIT THAT FROM A COUNTY -- I MEAN, YOU -- >>RALPH FISHER: OKAY. WELL, MAYBE THEY WON'T BE, BUT THE POINT IS THEY HAVE SOME -- I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS BY MY TWO FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS HERE BECAUSE I REALLY THINK WE -- WE CAN FIX THIS IPA POSITION TONIGHT. AND THEN I'D JUST SAY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL ANNUALLY, AFTER RECEIVING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, GIVE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY INTERNAL AUDITOR REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF INTERNAL AUDITS FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ANNUALLY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO ADHERE TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEM. MS. LEYTHAM. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: CAN I ASK A QUESTION -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- A CLARIFICATION? YOU SAID BIANNUALLY, SO ARE YOU ASSUMING THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS GOING TO SERVE FOR TWO YEARS -- >>RALPH FISHER: YEAH, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE AFTER THE FIRST YEAR THEY'LL GO WOW, LAST YEAR WE RECOMMENDED THIS AND THIS YEAR WE'VE GOT ALL THESE NEW IDEAS, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT BRAIN TRUST FROM THE FIRST YEAR, SO I THINK BIANNUALLY -- >>GINA GRIMES: KIND OF LIKE US. >>RALPH FISHER: WHAT? >>GINA GRIMES: KIND OF LIKE US. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. LEYTHAM. >>BETH LEYTHAM: I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS, I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY KNOW THAT. >>RALPH FISHER: I GUESS SO. >>BETH LEYTHAM: BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS AUDIT COMMITTEE. I DON'T THINK IT JUST BRINGS IN A LAYER OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ATTENDANT COSTS, I THINK IT BRINGS IN A LAYER OF POLITICIZATION, AND IF YOU THINK THESE GUYS, THIS BOARD, ALL OF THEM FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS HAVE USED THIS IPA AS A HENCHMAN, IT HAS JUST EVOLVED THAT WAY. IT WILL DRILL DOWN, IT WILL BECOME MORE CUMBERSOME. AS GERALD SAID, THEY'VE NEVER TRULY EMBRACED IT BUT AS A TACTIC. IT'S A POLITICAL YEAR. NOBODY'S COMING OUT SAYING, HEY, I DON'T WANT TO BE AUDITED. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RALPH, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND -- YOU'RE GOING TO DO GOOD WORK AND YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND REALLY FIX THIS, AND THE NEXT BOARD IS GOING TO BE SITTING HERE WITH ANOTHER WHOLE HOST OF PROBLEMS, LAYERS EVEN DEEPER, SO I'M NOT SUPPORTING YOU. I'M OFFERING THAT UP TO YOU JUST FROM A PRAGMATIC POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. SULLIVAN AND MR. PRESEAU. >>BETH LEYTHAM: AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT, I'M JUST SAYING IT IS. >>RALPH FISHER: OKAY. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: YOU NEVER REMOVE POLITICS FROM IT. IT IS A POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT. IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE DO IS PRUDENT GOVERNMENT. AS TO YOUR QUESTION, I'M OPEN TO SOME LANGUAGE. PERSONALLY, AT THIS POINT I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO SET SOME TIME ASIDE TO LOOK AT THE ADVICE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM MR. TARR AS WELL AS FROM MR. SAM McCALL IN THE LETTER THAT HE SENT TO OUR CHAIRMAN. THERE WAS SOME VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS IN THERE ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORTING, HOW THE AUDITS ARE SET UP. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M PREPARED AT THIS MEETING NECESSARILY NOR DO I HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME ENTIRELY TO AGREE TO SOME CHANGES TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT MY POINT BEING I THINK IT'S A NECESSARY POSITION, I THINK IT'S A GOOD BUSINESS GOVERNANCE POSITION IN THAT POLICY TO HAVE. I THINK WE NEED TO HELP IMPLEMENT IT PROPERLY. IT HAS NOT WORKED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN USED FOR POLITICAL MEASURES. IT'S EVOLVED INTO THAT. I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS BEEN INTENTIONAL, BUT IT'S EVOLVED INTO THAT. I THINK ANY TIME THAT ONE COMMISSIONER CAN AT HIS OWN WHIM SAY SPEND FOR OR SIX HOURS AND GO TO THIS DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER COMMISSIONER CAN DO THAT, YOU CAN KEEP THESE PEOPLE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] WHERE WE DO SPEND $2 MILLION AND ONLY GET FOUR OR FIVE AUDITS IN SEVERAL YEARS. I THINK WHEN YOU LIMIT THEIR ACCESS TO THIS WHERE THEY HAVE OVERSIGHT THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THEM, THE COMMITTEE KIND OF DETERMINES THE PROCESS, THESE ARE THE AUDITS WE'RE GOING TO GET DONE THIS YEAR, I THINK YOU REMOVE SOME OF THAT POLITICIZATION OUT OF THIS PROCESS, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO. IT'S A GOOD POSITION. IT'S BEEN POORLY IMPLEMENTED AND WE'VE WASTED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DATE ON IT. I'M THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S A VERY NECESSARY POSITION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. PRESEAU. >>GREG PRESEAU: YEAH. I THINK THAT WE COULD ASK MR. TARR'S OPINION ON THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, AND ALSO KIND OF THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO GET OUT OF THE LOCKER ROOM AND START PLAYING THE GAME, YOU KNOW, SO LET'S GET ON THE FIELD AND LET'S START PLAYING. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. TARR. >>GREG PRESEAU: SO IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP AND ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS. I ALSO HAVE ONE OTHER THING, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD WORK, AND MR. TARR, YOU'D PROBABLY KNOW. HOW ABOUT FOR ALL THOSE FOUR-HOUR STUDIES THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, HENCHMAN TYPE STUDIES, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE PUT IN THE CHARTER THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THEIR STUDIES SO THEY CAN'T JUST ONE PERSON GO OUT AND SAY, I WANT TO GO GET THEM, SO -- >>RALPH FISHER: WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE WITH THEIR ANNUAL LIST. THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. THEY HAVE TO -- >>GREG PRESEAU: NOT FOR THE FOUR-HOUR STUDIES. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FOUR-HOUR STUDIES WHERE THEY CAN TELL THE AUDITOR, HEY, I WANT YOU TO GO PICK ON THAT GUY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET'S LET MR. TARR SPEAK, PLEASE. >> TOMORROW MORNING AT 10:30 A.M., A DOCUMENT THAT I HAVE GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADDRESSES ALL THE THINGS YOU'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT. I'M GIVING THEM FOUR -- THREE DOCUMENTS. ONE IS A CHARTER FOR AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE SECOND IS A CHARTER FOR AN INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION, AND THE THIRD IS A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE INTERNAL AUDITOR OR INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, WHICHEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE. THE LANGUAGE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT I'VE DEFINED AND IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD -- BY THE BOARD TOMORROW THAT ADDRESSES THE THINGS YOU'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT. NUMBER ONE, IN KEEPING WITH WHAT'S CONSIDERED BEST PRACTICES NOW AND IS ENDORSED BY THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT AND THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD UNDER THE SEC IS THAT AN AUDIT COMMITTEE WOULD BE MADE UP OF INDEPENDENT PEOPLE; IN OTHER WORDS, NOT MANAGEMENT, WHO WOULD THEN REVIEW AND DECIDE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE AUDITED, AND WHAT I'VE DEFINED HERE IN THE AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER I'M RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS THAT NO SINGLE COMMISSIONER COULD ASK THE IPA OR THE INTERNAL AUDITOR TO GO DO A FOUR-HOUR AUDIT OR A SIX-HOUR AUDIT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. THE AUDIT COMMITTEE WOULD THEN DISCUSS THE -- WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUEST WOULD MAKE SENSE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE VOTED ON AND PUT INTO THE SCHEDULE, AND THEN THAT SCHEDULE WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE ENTIRE BOARD SO THAT ONE COMMISSIONER COULD NOT USE THE INTERNAL AUDIT OR THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT DEPARTMENT AS ITS OWN SLEDGEHAMMER, SO TO SPEAK, TO GO BEAT UP ON AREAS THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT ABOUT. AND SO YOU MIGHT -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: COMMISSIONER PLATT. >> -- WANT TO CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE THAT I'VE ALREADY OUTLINED AND HAVE GIVEN OUT AND WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING TOMORROW MORNING AT 10:30 THAT I THINK ADDRESSES WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. NOW, THE DESIGN HERE WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE ADOPTED AS A COUNTY ORDINANCE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER TAKING, IF NOT ALL, A PORTION OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT I'VE PUT TOGETHER HERE FOR THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE CHARTER IF YOU SO DESIRE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET MR. ROBINSON ASK A QUESTION, THEN COMMISSIONER PLATT AND MRS. REBACK. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THIS IS WHY -- THIS IS WHY I BROUGHT FORTH THIS ALTERNATIVE APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO THROWING THE WHOLE THING OUT BECAUSE, REMEMBER, WE HAVE HEARD AS A MINIMUM THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER HAS TO BE CHANGED, SO IT MIGHT BE A MONSTER, BUT I THINK, GERALD, YOU CREATED THE MONSTER WHEN YOU VOTED FOR IT THE LAST TIME, SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE MONSTER THIS TIME. THE THING ABOUT IT IS IS THAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE PROFESSIONALS THAT THE WORD "INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO INTERNAL AUDITOR. THAT CLEARS UP THAT. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT PERSON BE THE BUDGET ANALYST. SO TO SAY, GERALD, THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING, IT'S EITHER MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, I THINK IS SKIPPING YOUR DUTIES HERE AS A CHARTER REVIEW BOARD MEMBER. YOU NEED TO STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU FEEL FOR, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RUN AWAY FROM IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE PROFESSIONALS, BY THE PROFESSIONALS -- I'M ASKING THOSE PEOPLE -- ONE OF THEM THAT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE -- I THINK WE HAD NINE LOOKING LIKE WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING, MAYBE WE NEED ONE THAT'S GOT A HEART OR SOME SENSITIVITY HERE, THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, OR ELSE WHAT GERALD IS SAYING IS TRUE. IT WILL GO BACK TOMORROW, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT YELLOW BOOK -- IT'S YELLOW. THAT'S JUST COINCIDENCE. THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT BOOK OF MR. TARR, AND MR. TARR IS PROBABLY -- I SAY MR. TARR, MR. SULLIVAN, HE'S A BANKER, MR. FISHER OVER HERE, AND OUR CHAIR, THESE PEOPLE DO THIS FOR A LIVING. THEY DEAL WITH THIS TYPE OF FINANCE AND ALL. I'M AN ENGINEER LIKE JOE, AND I BELIEVE IN THE PROCESS, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT JOE SAID ABOUT THE PROCESS IS MESSED UP. WE NEED TO GET THE PROCESS STRAIGHT. AS AN ENGINEER, I AGREE WITH YOU, JOE. I AGREE WITH YOU. SO I'M SAYING THAT'S WHY I PUT THAT ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE I FIGURED WE'D GET TO A POINT OF NO RETURN BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY UP HERE, WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR THAT FIRST MOTION OR NOT, YOU KNOW THAT THAT CHARTER CAN'T STAY WITH INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR WORDS AND IT CAN'T HAVE BUDGET ANALYST IN IT. THAT'S A GIVEN. THAT WAS GIVEN FROM DAY ONE WHEN WE HEARD THIS ISSUE. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT -- IF WE CAN COME UP WITH LESS LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THAT'S ALL I WANT TO ASK. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- BETWEEN FISHER, BETWEEN HIM, BETWEEN THE EXPERT, SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE HERE TONIGHT WITHOUT HAVING SOME MODIFICATION SOMEWHERE AND LET'S JUST GET SOMETHING -- GET SOMETHING OUT THERE TO THE VOTERS. ONCE AGAIN, WE CAN SIT HERE AND COME UP WITH THE PERFECT LANGUAGE. IF WE DON'T GET THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS THAT ARE GOING TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER TO BASS IT, THEN IT'S ALL FOR NAUGHT. SO THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY ABOUT IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MRS. REBACK. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I JUST WANTED TO ASK MR. TARR BECAUSE I PROMISED I WOULD EARLIER, IS THERE SOME WAY TO SUM UP WHAT YOU'VE PREPARED IN TERMS OF BEST PRACTICES WHERE WE COULD USE A VERY SHORTHANDED KIND OF -- >> YOU COULD -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- LANGUAGE -- >> YOU COULD REQUIRE THAT ALL THE AUDIT WORK THAT'S PERFORMED BY THE IPA OR THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, WHATEVER TERM YOU COME UP WITH, IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNAL AUDITING. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AND DOES THAT COVER MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MATERIAL THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TOMORROW TO THE BOCC? >> YES, IT DOES. YES, IT DOES. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: SO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THEN -- MR. FISHER, MAYBE WE CAN ADD THIS TO YOUR AMENDMENT. WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THAT THE WORK DONE BY THE AUDITOR BE GOVERNED BY -- SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE. >> THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSION -- OR FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNAL AUDITING. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OKAY. THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR -- >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>ROCHELLE REBACK: BUT THAT WOULD GOVERN THE AUDITOR'S FUNCTION, BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY GOVERN OR PRECLUDE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- IN ABUSING THE AUDITOR'S TIME SUCH AS THE FOUR HOURS? >> WELL, WHAT WOULD SERVE THAT PURPOSE WOULD BE THE CREATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE THAT WOULD OVERSEE THE -- THE INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITIES. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: BUT IN FACT, EVEN WITH THE CREATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THEY COULD BY ORDINANCE DECIDE TO CREATE THE AUDIT COMMITTEE -- COMMITTEE AND THEN EXEMPT ANY FOUR-HOUR AUDITS FROM IT? >> YES, THEY COULD. IF, IN FACT, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE WERE SET UP BASED ON ORDINANCE, THEN CLEARLY THE BOARD COULD CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AT ANY TIME. IF YOU INCLUDED THE AUDIT COMMITTEE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER, IT COULD ONLY BE CHANGED -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, BUT I'M TRYING TO DO IT IN A VERY SHORTHANDED AND EFFICIENT WAY IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE WE CAN USE. >> SEE, THE STANDARDS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNAL AUDITING -- THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNAL AUDITING, LET ME GET THE TERM CORRECT, CALLS FOR AN AUDIT COMMITTEE, BUT THAT'S NOT DEFINED SPECIFICALLY HOW THAT AUDIT COMMITTEE SHOULD OPERATE, SO SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES, SOMEONE, EITHER IN THE CHARTER OR BY COUNTY ORDINANCE, HAS TO ESTABLISH, OKAY, HOW THAT AUDIT COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED, HOW THEY'LL OPERATE, WHAT THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE PROPOSED IN WHAT I'VE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE -- OR AM PRESENTING TO THE COMMITTEE TOMORROW. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL ADOPT THAT AND PUT IT IN A COUNTY ORDINANCE AND DEFINE HOW THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS GOING TO OPERATE, AND IF THEY SET IT UP IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT I'VE OUTLINED HERE, IT WILL MINIMIZE THE ABILITY OF ANY ONE COMMISSIONER TO POLITICIZE THE INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: SO -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: I'VE GOT -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I JUST WANT TO SUM UP. SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THEN, REALLY, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEVOLVE OUR BALLOT LANGUAGE DOWN TO MUCH MORE MINUTE AND SPECIFIC DETAILS IN ORDER TO HAVE WHAT WE WANT TO SEE HAPPEN ENCOMPASS ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN YOUR PROPOSAL? >> CORRECT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AND SO WE MAY -- ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE IS WE MAY WANT TO DELAY OUR VOTE ON THIS UNTIL WE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MR. TARR'S PROPOSAL'S ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO RECOMMEND IS MAYBE WE COULD BY REFERENCE IN OUR RESOLUTION INCORPORATE HIS ENTIRE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH HE'S GOING TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION TOMORROW? >>ROCHELLE REBACK: HOW WOULD WE DO THAT IN BALLOT LANGUAGE? >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME -- >>DAVID SULLIVAN: YOU WOULDN'T DO IT IN THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, YOU'D DO IT IN THE RESOLUTION. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THAT DOESN'T GO TO THE VOTERS. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: RIGHT. THEY GET ONE QUESTION, THAT'S ALL THEY SEE, BUT THE RESOLUTION HAS ALL THE SUPPORT DOCUMENTS. THE RESOLUTION'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE PART OF THE RECORD. I MEAN, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HIRED HIM FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS, SO WHY DON'T WE INCORPORATE THEM BY -- THROUGH THE RESOLUTION AS PART OF THE PROCESS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER PLATT IS NEXT, BUT I DID WANT TO STATE MR. TARR'S INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WERE REMOVING THE BUDGET ANALYST AND THE -- >> CHANGING THE NAME. >>MITCHELL THROWER: -- CHANGING THE NAME, AND THOSE WERE THE INITIAL CHARTER ISSUES. I THINK IF WE START FOCUSING IN ON ALL THE DETAILS, THAT CAN BE -- I MEAN, I LIKE MRS. REBACK'S SUGGESTION THE OTHER DAY, POSSIBLY, OF A LETTER TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDING THAT THEY HAVE AN ORDINANCE, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE IF WE START FOCUSING ON ALL THE DETAILS, THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS TO MAKE IT WORK. >> TYPICALLY [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] HIGH-LEVEL OVERARCHING GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE LEFT UP TO THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I PERSONALLY LIKED YOUR INITIAL RECOMMENDATION. WHEN WE START FOCUSING ON THE DETAILS, THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS. IT'S GOING TO BE CONFUSING, AND THEN WE MIGHT END UP WITH A MESS IN THE CHARTER THAT NO ONE CAN COMPLY WITH. IF THEY DO IT BY ORDINANCE, IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO -- I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT WILL WORK OUT BETTER PERSONALLY, BUT COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS INTERNAL AUDITOR, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS -- ONE REASON, IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT I HAD THE CIVIL SERVICE PERSON COME IN AND SPEAK IS TO GIVE YOU THE BREADTH -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAN PLATT: -- OF THE COUNTY. DOES THIS AUDITOR JUST AUDIT THE OPERATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR DOES THIS AUDITOR HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY -- AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, CAN THEY AUDIT THE SHERIFF, CAN THEY AUDIT THE COURT -- >> NO, THEY CAN'T. >>JAN PLATT: -- CAN THEY AUDIT THE CLERK, CAN THEY AUDIT? >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>JAN PLATT: WHERE ARE THE BOUNDS? >> THE BOUNDARIES ARE IN HOW WE DEFINE WHAT THE AUDITOR CAN LOOK AT, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S DEFINED AS ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >>JAN PLATT: THEN DOES THAT MEAN ALL OF THE -- LIKE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION, THE -- ANY -- ANY GROUP THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FUNDS? WHAT ARE YOU DEFINING AS UNDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? >> WELL, WHATEVER IS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >>JAN PLATT: AND WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THAT? >> NOW, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IF -- IF THE COUNTY FUNDS A FUNCTION, THEY -- THE BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR AN AUDIT BY AN INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL AUDITOR BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN AND ACTUALLY DO AN OPERATIONAL AUDIT JUST BECAUSE THEY FUND AN AREA. SO THE FACT THAT THE -- THE COUNTY COMMISSION FUNDS THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN GO IN AND DO AN INTERNAL AUDIT OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. THEY CAN, HOWEVER, ASK FOR AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM TO DO A FINANCIAL AUDIT OF HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT AND WHETHER OR NOT THE MONEY IS SPENT LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. SO THERE ARE LIMITS AS TO WHAT THE AUDIT FUNCTION CAN AUDIT, AND OSTENSIBLY, IT'S BASICALLY -- IT SAYS THAT THE INTERNAL AUDITOR CAN AUDIT THOSE OPERATIONAL AREAS THAT ARE UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF THE BOARD. >>JAN PLATT: CONTROL OR FUNDED? >> CONTROL. ONLY AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR CAN DO THE FUNDING AUDITS FOR AREAS LIKE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR OTHER AREAS. >>JAN PLATT: OR THE COURTS OR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER? >> NO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: NO. >>JAN PLATT: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY SURE? WHAT IF -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>JAN PLATT: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHAT IF THEIR LITTLE COMMITTEE THAT THEY APPOINT COMES UP WITH AND SAYS, OH, WELL, YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE COURT SYSTEM? >>GINA GRIMES: IT'S ALREADY -- >> LEGALLY -- THE COURTS COULD SAY NO, YOU LEGALLY DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. IN FACT, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED IN PREVIOUS COURT CASES BROUGHT BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. YOU COULD ASK THE ATTORNEYS PRESENT TO DO THAT RESEARCH. >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >> BUT IN FACT, THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. THERE WOULD BE A DEFENSE IF I WERE -- IF I WERE THE SHERIFF, I'D SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU CAN'T LEGALLY DO THAT BECAUSE, IN FACT, THE -- THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. QUINTELA, AND DO I HAVE A LIST OF NAMES. I'M GOING DOWN THE LIST. MR. SULLIVAN'S NEXT. I'M TRYING TO RIGHT IT SO AS SOON AS YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, I PUT YOUR NAME ON THE LIST, SO MR. QUINTELA. >>ARIEL QUINTELA: THANK YOU, MR. TARR. I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES, AND -- AND I VOTED ON THE ELIMINATION OF THIS BECAUSE WHAT I THINK THAT -- I AM A TRUE BELIEVER THAT WE DO NEED AN INTERNAL AUDITOR, BUT WHAT I SEE AS "A," THE COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED WITH THIS POSITION HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, WASTED MONEY -- >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, SIR, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THE PROCESS WAS BROKEN. WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROCESS. >>ARIEL QUINTELA: WHICH I AGREE, BUT EVEN WITH THESE AMENDMENTS THAT I SEE, I DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE PROCESS, AND IT'S LIKE ADDING MORE PEOPLE, A COMMITTEE, TO A SYSTEM THAT HAS NOT FUNCTIONED. DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE THE PROPER WAY OF STARTING FROM SCRATCH. >> THE COMMITTEE PROVIDES THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GUIDE THE PROCESS, WHICH DID NOT EXIST -- DOES NOT EXIST AT THIS POINT. IN ESSENCE, WE -- WE -- WE HAD THE -- THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR -- WE SAID, YOU HAVE NO GUIDELINES, WING IT, DO WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU WANT TO DO, AND WE DID NOT ESTABLISH A BEST PRACTICE PROCESS WHEREBY WE WOULD BE DIRECTING THE IPA AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD DO AND HOW HE SHOULD DO IT. HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ANY PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND WAS NOT -- AND, IN FACT, THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT BROUGHT ME IN. A BOARD MEMBER SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE CONDUCTING THIS WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS? PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT PERIODICALLY THERE BE A PEER REVIEW, AN EXTERNAL PERSON COME IN AND REVIEW WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S EVIDENCE THEY'RE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS. I DID THAT PEER REVIEW AND CONCLUDED THAT THE IPA WAS NOT FOLLOWING ACCEPTED PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, AND THUS WAS THE BASIS FOR THE REPORT THAT I -- THAT I ORIGINALLY MADE. >>ARIEL QUINTELA: OKAY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. SULLIVAN. YOU'RE NEXT. >>GINA GRIMES: GO AHEAD. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>GINA GRIMES: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL CHECK AND BALANCE, THIS POSITION IS A CRITICAL CHECK AND BALANCE. NOT JUST IN GOVERNMENT BUT IN ANY ORGANIZATION YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN INTERNAL AUDITOR. WHAT I HEARD FROM KIND OF JUST OVER TIME IS THAT THIS -- THE INTERNAL AUDITORS NEVER WERE GIVEN ENOUGH DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. >> CORRECT. >>GINA GRIMES: SO SOMETIMES THEY CREATED WORK AND SOMETIMES THEY JUST DID WHATEVER LITTLE WORK THEY WERE GIVEN. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO PUT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE CHARTER THAT WE'RE ALL DISCUSSING, AND I THINK -- AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF TIMES IN OTHER PROVISIONS IN CHARTERS THAT SAYS THAT, FOR INSTANCE, YOU SHALL HAVE AN ADVISORY -- THERE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE -- AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT -- WHOSE DUTIES WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE OR, YOU KNOW, YOU ALLOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH BY ORDINANCE THE DETAILS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE IN YOUR CHARTER. YOU DON'T WANT TO BOG DOWN YOUR CHARTER WITH THAT -- THOSE LEVEL OF DETAILS BECAUSE, NUMBER ONE, IT CAN'T BE AMENDED THAT EASILY. >> CORRECT. >>GINA GRIMES: NUMBER TWO, IT ENDS UP BEING MORE OF A LIMITATION THAN IT DOES -- THAN IT DOES TO EMPOWER THAT INDIVIDUAL, AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THIS SET OF -- THESE SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD AND -- AND I GUESS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TOO -- >> CORRECT. >>GINA GRIMES: -- IS APPROPRIATE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING ISN'T INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING OR MAYBE WE NEED TO ENHANCE WHAT WE'RE DOING TO MORE CLOSELY MIRROR OR MATCH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO REFERENCE -- WE NEED TO HAVE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IN THE CHARTER, BUT WE NEED TO SAY WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY ORDINANCE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE -- WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE IPA HAS CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS. MAYBE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE HE FOLLOWS CERTAIN STANDARDS, AND THEN WE SAY AS -- YOU KNOW, TO BE -- >> TO BE DETERMINED BY ORDINANCE. >>GINA GRIMES: RIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MR. PRESEAU. >>GREG PRESEAU: YEAH, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH MR. FISHER. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THAT REFERS, YOU KNOW, TO AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, AND I'M KIND OF WARY ABOUT LEAVING THE ORDINANCE UP TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN TAKE IT IN WHATEVER DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT AT THAT POINT, AND, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE, IT STILLS LEAVES A LOT OF LATITUDE, AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE -- DO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THAT GIVES SOME -- SOME DYNAMIC DIRECTION IN WHERE THE PEOPLE WANT THIS TO GO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. COMMISSIONER PLATT. >>JAN PLATT: WHERE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT LIMITS IT? YOU -- I KEPT HEARING YOU TRYING TO INTERRUPT ME. >>GINA GRIMES: I'M SORRY. >>JAN PLATT: I DON'T SEE IT IN THE LANGUAGE. >>GINA GRIMES: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. >>JAN PLATT: NO, I KNOW. >>GINA GRIMES: IT'S IN -- AT LEAST THE LANGUAGE I THINK HE'S REFERRING IS IN 4.10 PAREN SUB 4, WHERE IT SAYS, AS DIRECTED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOCC, THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SHALL CONDUCT PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND BUDGET REVIEWS OF ALL ASPECTS OF THIS CHARTER GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICES AND OFFICIALS WITH WRITTEN REPORTS SUBMITTED TO BOTH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. CHARTER GOVERNMENT MEANS JUST THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S COVERED BY THIS CHARTER. >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>GINA GRIMES: AND THAT'S WHY -- AND THAT'S HOW IT DOESN'T EXTEND OUT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. >>JAN PLATT: IS THERE A LEGAL OPINION TO THAT EFFECT? >>GINA GRIMES: I WOULD BE -- I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON THAT. >> THERE IS -- I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT AN INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT UNDER A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN LOOK AT A CONSTITUTION -- >>GINA GRIMES: YOU KNOW WHAT, IT ADDRESSES IT EVEN FURTHER UNDER NUMBER -- UNDER SECTION 1.02. IT SAYS, AS USED IN THIS CHARTER, THE TERM "COUNTY GOVERNMENT" MEANS THE GOVERNMENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, BUT SUCH TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE AND THIS CHARTER DOES NOT AFFECT ANY COURT, ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER AS DEFINED BY SECTION 1-D OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, THE CLERK OF THE COURT, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE TAX COLLECTOR, THE SHERIFF, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, AND ANY MUNICIPALITY. SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY OF THOSE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THE AUDIT -- THE INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD COULDN'T GO AUDIT THE CLERK. >>GINA GRIMES: RIGHT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME LET MRS. REBACK -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I JUST WANT TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO WHAT YOU SAID IN THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. IT REMOVES THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU -- >>GINA GRIMES: DOES IT REALLY? >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YEAH. AND SO WE NEED TO -- AND THERE'S NO REASON THAT IT'S REMOVED BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE STOPPED -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THAT, SO IT WOULD READ -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THAT'S A MISTAKE. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: IT WOULD JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD "PERFORMANCE" AND TAKE OUT THE WORDS "AND BUDGET REVIEWS" - - >>ROCHELLE REBACK: RIGHT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: -- AND THE REST WILL STAY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YEAH, THE REST SHOULD STAY. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: AND THE OTHER THING IS IF THE MOTION SHOULD PASS -- MR. FISHER, IF I COULD GET THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE LIKE WE DID LAST TIME JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YEAH. SO YOU ALREADY SEE -- YEAH, OKAY. >>RALPH FISHER: SAY THAT AGAIN. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WHAT I'M SAYING IS IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US, NUMBER 2, IN THE -- PAGE 2, NUMBER 4, IT'S STRICKEN. AFTER THE UNDERLINED THIRD LINE DOWN REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF INTERNAL AUDITS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, COMMA, THERE BEGINS LANGUAGE WHICH IS STRICKEN, WHICH READS, SHALL CONDUCT PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND BUDGET REVIEWS OF ALL ASPECTS OF THIS CHARTER GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICES AND OFFICIALS, AND WHAT I JUST DISCUSSED WITH MRS. FARRIS WAS THAT'S WRONG. THE ONLY -- THE ONLY VERBIAGE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRICKEN ARE THE WORD "PERFORMANCE" AND THE WORDS "BUDGET REVIEWS." AND SO THEN WHAT SHOULD REMAIN IS, SHALL CONDUCT AUDITS OF ALL ASPECTS OF THIS CHARTER GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICES AND OFFICIALS, AND THAT SHOULD REMAIN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. MR. SULLIVAN. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: I WAS WONDERING SINCE MR. TARR IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS TO THE COMMISSION TOMORROW THAT WE BOTH MAY BE CHASING THE SAME RABBIT. PERHAPS IT'S PRUDENT THAT WE LET THEM MEET TOMORROW AND HAVE STAFF REPORT BACK TO US ON THEIR ACTIONS SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY'RE THINKING, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF POOL OUR THOUGHTS. WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THIS TONIGHT. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL. WE NEED TO FIX THE POSITION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE WE FIX IT AND WE FIX IT CORRECTLY, SO IT MAY BE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION SAYS, YES, LET'S INCORPORATE ALL OF THEIR -- MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEY CAN MAKE -- THEY CAN PUT IT ON THE BALLOT IF THEY SO DESIRE OR WE CAN COME BACK AND DO IT. PERHAPS WE SHOULD MAYBE WAIT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING AND HAVE STAFF REPORT BACK TO US ON THE ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TOMORROW. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I MEAN -- MRS. REBACK, SHE HAD A COMMENT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YOU EARLIER RAISED AND WE NEVER DID GET TO DISCUSS -- IT'S RESPONSIVE TO MR. SULLIVAN. PERHAPS WHAT WE WANT TO DO TONIGHT IS VOTE ON SENDING THEM A LETTER -- >>DAVID SULLIVAN: A RESOLUTION. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: A RESOLUTION. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: ABSOLUTELY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WE WANT TO PASS A RESOLUTION TO SEND THEM A LETTER TO BE DELIVERED TOMORROW WHEN MR. TARR MAKES HIS PRESENTATION FROM THIS BOARD THAT ENCOURAGES -- >>DAVID SULLIVAN: IF YOU MAKE THAT A MOTION, I'LL SECOND IT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OKAY. I'LL TURN IT INTO A MOTION. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: SECOND. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- THAT ENCOURAGES THEM TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MR. TARR IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING AND THEN THAT THAT BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PURPOSES OF HIS APPEARANCE TOMORROW. THAT'S MY MOTION. >>DAVID SULLIVAN: THEN WE CAN ACT LATER IF WE NEED TO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: DISCUSSION? MR. WHITE, THEN MR. ROBINSON. >>GERALD WHITE: YES. I WANT MR. TARR TO COME UP BECAUSE I'VE BEEN READING HIS REPORT THAT HE MADE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW -- WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR SCOPE FOR YOUR REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, I NOTED THAT YOU MET WITH SIX OF THE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS. >> CORRECT. >>GERALD WHITE: WHICH COMMISSIONER YOU DID NOT MEET WITH? >> I DID NOT MEET WITH THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. >>GERALD WHITE: YOU DID NOT -- >> I REQUESTED TO HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH HIM. HE NEVER RESPONDED TO ME. >>GERALD WHITE: YOU NEVER MET WITH THE LEADER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE CHAIR? >> I NEVER MET WITH THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, THE BOARD CHAIR. >>GERALD WHITE: OKAY. ARE YOU RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD TOMORROW WHEN THE BOARD - - REGULAR MEETING -- ARE YOU RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD A CHARTER CHANGE? >> I HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD MY COMING TO YOU AND RECOMMENDING A CHARTER CHANGE WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. THAT WAS ALREADY DONE AT A PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING. I THEN ALSO COMMITTED TO THE BOARD TO COME BACK TO THEM WITH WHAT I THOUGHT THEY NEEDED TO ADOPT IN THE WAY OF AN ORDINANCE TO FURTHER ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN MY PEER REVIEW OF WHY THE IPA FUNCTION WAS NOT WORKING AS IT SHOULD. IT WAS A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH. ONE WAS BECAUSE OF TIMING BECAUSE YOU -- YOU-ALL ALREADY WERE LOOKING AT CHARTER CHANGES THAT I CAME TO YOU FIRST WITH WHAT I RECOMMENDED BE DONE AT THE CHARTER LEVEL, AND THEN I'M NOW COMING BACK TO THE BOARD WITH WHAT I RECOMMEND TO BE DONE AT THE ORDINANCE LEVEL. >>GERALD WHITE: YEAH. I AGREE, WE SHOULD STAND DOWN AND NOT VOTE TO AMEND THE CHARTER AS IT RELATE TO THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. WE NEED TO ALLOW WHAT THE TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR - - YOU'RE UNDER -- YOU'RE UNDER COUNTY CONTRACT; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>GERALD WHITE: SO YOU'RE BEING PAID TO DO A JOB, AND YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLETE YOUR REPORT TO THE BOARD TOMORROW? >> CORRECT. >>GERALD WHITE: WE NEED TO STAND DOWN AND ALLOW THAT TO TAKE PLACE, AND SO -- THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. ROBINSON. AND MR. AMON NEXT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: INTERESTING. INTERESTING. FIRST THING I WANT TO GET CLARIFIED IS -- AND I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN. I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS GOING TO VOTE FOR A CHARTER CHANGE TOMORROW. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING -- VOTE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL. EXPERT HAS SAID -- I'M GOING BACK TO BASICS -- WE NEED TO CHANGE THE NAME AND WE NEED TO GET RID OF BUDGET ANALYST, PERIOD. NOW, THE NEXT QUESTION IS TO THE ATTORNEY. WE GOT 14 PEOPLE UP HERE, AND THIS IS ONE VOTE AWAY. WE MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART HERE. IF WE WANT TO DELAY THIS VOTE -- MY PROBLEM IS IS THAT WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE 14 HERE. WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE 14 HERE BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW IN AUGUST IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO GET 14. WE ALREADY HAD PEOPLE PUBLISH THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AT THEM PARTICULAR MEETINGS. WE GOT 14 PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT, AND I WOULD ASSUME -- THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARINGS CAN BE CONTINUED; HOWEVER, THE -- AND THE WAY IT WOULD BE CONTINUED WOULD BE BASED -- PREDICATED ON THE RESOLUTION THAT MR. SULLIVAN AND MRS. REBACK HAS SAID THAT WE NEED TO SEND TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD THEN GIVE THEM RELIEF TO DO SOMETHING, LISTEN TO MR. TARR, HAVE THEM A CHANCE TO VET THAT OUT. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO THE ATTORNEY. CAN WE CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING, HOLDING OFF A VOTE ON THIS? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. CAN WE DO THAT? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YES. YOU HAVE A -- YOU VOTED YESTERDAY OR LAST NIGHT TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE WILL BE AUGUST 2nd, AND I BELIEVE ONLY MS. REBACK IS THE ONE THAT WILL NOT BE HERE AT THE AUGUST 2nd, SO YOU COULD CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IPA TO THAT. WE CAN MAKE SURE THE NOTICE GETS OUT ON THE WEB SITE THE SAME WAY WE ALREADY DID IT, AND THEN WE CAN -- YOU'LL KNOW WHAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO DO VIS-A-VIS -- YOU MAY KNOW. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL COME TO A FINALITY, BUT YOU'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO DO WITH MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATION. >>RALPH FISHER: CAN SHE GIVE ME A PROXY IF SHE'S OUT OF TOWN? >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OR I COULD BE MOTIVATED ENOUGH TO CHANGE MY PLANS AND BE HERE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: WHOA, WHOA, THEY DONE STOLE THE FLOOR FROM ME. NOW HOLD ON. OKAY. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE NOTICE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] NOW. THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THIS UP NOW. WE'RE GETTING THERE. WE'RE GETTING THERE. I'M COMING AROUND. NOW ON THE RESOLUTION -- SO WE CAN EXTEND IT AND -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- WE WANT YOU HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A CLOSE ONE. SO -- NOW, THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE CHAIR WOULD DRAFT, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO DRAFT? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: WHAT I -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: MY ONLY THING THERE IS ARE WE GOING TO TELL THEM WE'RE GOING TO GO IN HOLDING PATTERN OR SOMETHING OR ARE WE GOING TO TELL THEM WE WANT THEM TO ADOPT MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATION? IS THAT A MOTION, RIGHT, TO ADOPT -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I MADE A MOTION -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: TO ADOPT? >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- AND MR. SULLIVAN SECONDED -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: TO ADOPT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MR. TARR. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO SEND A RESOLUTION TO THEM SAYING THAT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: VERY SIMPLE. OKAY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AFTER A FULL AND FAIR DISCUSSION, WE RESOLVE -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: I GUESS -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AFTER THAT ON THIS OTHER DATE AND THEN MAKE SURE -- BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT DEAL WITH -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: RIGHT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- THE TITLE, WHICH IS ALL I'M AFTER, BUT YOU GUYS ARE REALLY DOING GOOD -- IS THE TITLE AND GETTING RID OF THE BUDGET ANALYST. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: CORRECT. IF -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: SO WE CAN STILL DO THAT EVEN AFTER THE BOARD MEETS AND DO ALL THAT. WE CAN COME BACK AND THEN DEAL WITH WHAT MR. -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: I WOULD HAVE A DRAFT OF THAT [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- FISHER WAS SAYING, HAVE YOU TIME TO DO THAT, CORRECT THE ERROR WE JUST FOUND IN HERE -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: RIGHT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: -- THAT GINA FOUND. I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT, SO I'M ALL FOR IT. I'M ALL FOR IT. I'M ALL FOR IT. LET'S ROLL WITH IT. I'M ALL FOR IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. AMON. >>JOE AMON: CLARIFICATION. COULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE COULD HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 29th OR 30th? >>GINA GRIMES: DON'T WE HAVE A MEETING ON THE 30th? >>JOE AMON: WE ALREADY HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: DAYTIME. >>JOE AMON: CAN'T YOU HAVE IT -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>RALPH FISHER: WE COULD MAKE THAT A PUBLIC HEARING. >>GINA GRIMES: CAN'T WE -- YEAH, EXACTLY. CAN'T WE DO THAT? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YOU CAN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REGULAR MEETING. >>GINA GRIMES: MEETING, RIGHT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: [INAUDIBLE] >>GINA GRIMES: YOU'LL BE -- SO EVERYBODY WOULD BE HERE? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YES. WE WOULD JUST ADVERTISE IT THAT WAY, AND YOU'D HAVE YOUR REGULAR MEETING, AND THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>RALPH FISHER: 9:00 A.M. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: BUT IT WOULD -- IF I COULD HAVE ONE SUGGESTION. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EITHER DOING A RESOLUTION OR A LETTER TO THE BOARD. IT'S A 10:30 A.M. TIME CERTAIN. I WOULD BE HAPPY WHEN MR. TARR COMES UP TO, AS THE COUNSEL TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, VERBALLY TELL THE BOARD THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSED THIS, THAT THEY WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, TO ADOPT OR TO IMPLEMENT MR. TARR'S -- THAT YOU ARE ALSO LOOKING AT A CHARTER CHANGE THAT WOULD BE A COMPANION TO WHAT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, JUST DO IT VERBALLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: GET A LETTER WRITTEN. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YOU KNOW, I JUST -- MY CONCERN ABOUT DOING IT THAT WAY IS FRANKLY, IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE IMPORT OF A RESOLUTION OF THIS BOARD, AND IF YOU'RE -- AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN ACTUAL WRITTEN RESOLUTION, THEN I -- I WANT TO URGE YOU IN THE STRONGEST OF TERMS TO TELL THE BOARD THAT THIS BOARD HAS URGED THEM IN THE STRONGEST OF TERMS TO ADOPT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I -- AND I WOULD PREFER THAT IT -- YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW -- >> MR. CHAIR. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- THAT IT HAVE THAT -- THAT IT HAVE THAT STRONG LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT OTHERWISE -- I MEAN, OUR -- OUR SENTIMENTS WITHOUT BEING IN WRITING ARE KIND OF AT THE MERCY OF HOW YOU FEEL THAT MORNING, AND I'M A LITTLE -- YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: THAT'S FINE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: I MEAN, A RESOLUTION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLERK SIGN IT. I MEAN, I COULD DO AN UNSIGNED ONE OR, BUT -- I MEAN, I COULD PUT TOGETHER A LETTER, BUT WE'D HAVE TO GET MITCH TO SIGN IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. MR. TARR HAS GIVEN THE INITIAL PEER REVIEW AND HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN HE HAS THIS PACKET WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO US WHICH IS SOME ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF -- TO ENACT THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- THERE ARE A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. I GUESS -- I THINK THAT'S KIND OF -- YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THAT'S WHY I KEEP ASKING MR. TARR, IS THERE A WAY TO -- TO STATE THIS IN TERMS OF TO URGE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ADOPT BEST PRACTICES FOR THE AUDITOR'S POSITION, A SHORTHAND WAY THAT WE CAN -- WE CAN MAKE OUR -- OUR SENTIMENTS KNOWN THAT WE WANT THEM TO ADOPT BEST PRACTICES AND FROM THAT HAVE THEM SAY TO YOU WHILE YOU'RE PRESENT TOMORROW, MR. TARR, TELL US, WHAT DO THEY MEAN BY BEST PRACTICES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE IT'S PRACTICAL FOR US TO ALL AGREE ON SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS A STANDARD? >> UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST OF WHAT ARE BEST PRACTICES IN EVERY CASE. THERE ARE -- THERE'S SOME LEEWAY AS TO HOW WE DO IT. FOR INSTANCE, SHOULD THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE THREE MEMBERS OR FIVE MEMBERS OR SEVEN MEMBERS, OKAY, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO IT DEPENDS UPON HOW DEFINITIVE YOU WANT TO GET. WE CAN CERTAINLY SAY THAT AS FAR AS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ARE CONCERNED, WE WOULD WANT THE BOARD TO ADOPT AND FOLLOW THE -- THE STANDARDS I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WELL, LET ME CLARIFY THAT'S ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> IF THAT'S ALL WE WANT, THEN WE CAN DO THAT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: YES. I DON'T WANT THIS -- I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD WANTS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE MINUTIA OF -- >> NO, AND I DON'T THINK YOU DO. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- DICTATING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SHOULD BE -- >> CORRECT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- OR HOW MANY TIMES A YEAR THEY MEET - - >> THANK YOU. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT THEY NEED TO ADOPT A SET OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS THAT THEY -- THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE THE AUDITOR TO ADHERE TO AND THAT THEY AS A BOARD WOULD REQUIRE THE AUDIT PROCESS TO ADHERE TO. >> THEN THAT'S SIMPLE TO DO IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE AT THAT LEVEL. THEN WE'D SAY THAT WE WOULD WANT -- WANT -- ENCOURAGE THEM TO ADOPT A SET OF RECOGNIZED PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS. WE CAN GO TO THE POINT OF RECOMMENDING THAT THEY FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNAL AUDITING. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: OKAY. THEN I WANT TO TURN THAT INTO A MOTION, THAT THIS BOARD ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO BE COMMUNICATED BY -- I GUESS WE HAVE TO ASK MS. FARRIS TO COMMUNICATE IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME JUST CHECK. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: I'M SORRY. WHAT, MRS. FARRIS? I WAS READING THROUGH MR. TARR'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I APOLOGIZE. I MISSED THAT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: OR ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE CAN -- >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: -- CAN GO AS WELL. I MEAN, THERE'S A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, AND I'M SURE THAT IF A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS THERE DURING THIS DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD WOULD ALLOW THEM TO RELAY THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD. >>MITCHELL THROWER: DO THEY HAVE A TIME CERTAIN FOR THIS? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: 10:30 TIME CERTAIN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: 10:30? >>GINA GRIMES: I NOMINATE ROCHELLE TO GO TO THE MEETING. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: THEN THAT WAY, IT'S NOT COMING -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I'M SORRY? >>GINA GRIMES: I NOMINATE ROCHELLE TO -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: NO, NO, I'M NOT GOING. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: THEN THAT WAY IT WOULDN'T BE COMING FROM ME, IT WOULD THEN BE COMING FROM A REPRESENTATIVE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I'M NOT GOING, BUT I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR TO GO. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I CAN'T PROMISE BECAUSE I DO WORK FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY. I'VE GOT A BOSS THERE. I CAN'T PROMISE. I'LL STRONGLY LOOK INTO IT AND SEE IF I CAN TAKE UNI-LEAVE TO GO TO THAT, BUT I CAN'T PROMISE ANYTHING BECAUSE I DO HAVE A BOSS MYSELF THAT I REPORT TO. >>JAN PLATT: FOR PUBLIC RECORD SERVICES, I REQUEST THAT THOSE WHO VOTE AGAINST IT BE LISTED ON THERE SO THAT THEY DON'T THINK IT'S UNANIMOUS. >>BETH LEYTHAM: AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT -- >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>BETH LEYTHAM: -- BECAUSE I DON'T STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AT ALL. >> [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON IT. >> WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON IT. >>BETH LEYTHAM: WELL, BUT YOU'VE GIVEN DIRECTION TO HER HOW STRONGLY THIS BOARD -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>BETH LEYTHAM: -- AND I DISAGREE, AND IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH, WE -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: IT HASN'T EVEN PASSED. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH, WE STILL HAVE TO -- >>BETH LEYTHAM: I KNOW, BUT I HEARD THE DIRECTION AND I'M DISAGREEING WITH IT. >>MITCHELL THROWER: PLEASE, PLEASE. OKAY. WE'VE STILL GOT TO VOTE ON IT. NO DIRECTION'S BEEN MADE, AND NO ACTION'S GOING TO BE TAKEN UNTIL IT PASSES, IF IT PASSES. SO LET ME LET MR. AMON. >>JOE AMON: THE RECOMMEND -- MR. FISHER'S RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN TO US I STILL LIKE. I THINK THEY'RE APPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A NOTE IN THERE ABOUT WHAT LEVEL -- WHAT STANDARD THEY NEED TO RUN BY. THAT'S NOT IN MR. FISHER'S DOCUMENTATION BUT SHOULD BE ADDED. IT COULD BE VERY SIMPLE. JUST REFERENCE THE -- THE STANDARD THAT MR. TARR REFERENCED. I THINK THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE VERBIAGE ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THIS COMMITTEE, THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE DOCUMENT, AND SEVEN IS FINE EXCEPT THAT I WOULD MAKE IT -- INSTEAD OF PUTTING A NUMBER THERE, I'D JUST SAY THAT EACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER HAS ONE REPRESENTATIVE ON IT IN CASE THERE'S SOME CHANGE DOWN THE ROAD. >>RALPH FISHER: WE HAVE A -- WE'RE DEALING WITH THE RESOLUTION FIRST. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION RIGHT NOW. >>RALPH FISHER: I CALL THE QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD SEND A RESOLUTION -- >> SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: -- TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR PRESENTATION AT 10:30 TIME CERTAIN TOMORROW. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I THINK SHE'S SAYING THAT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY. >>RALPH FISHER: WELL, MAYBE SO. THEN WE -- SOME OF US MIGHT VOTE AGAINST THAT. >>JAN PLATT: WHAT WOULD BE THE CONTENT OF THE RESOLUTION? >>RALPH FISHER: YEAH, WHAT IS THE EXACT CONTENT? WHAT IS THE EXACT MOTION? >>ROCHELLE REBACK: I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. SHE'S TELLING US WE CAN'T SEND A RESOLUTION OF ANY SORT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: WELL, THE FORM OF THE RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE CLERK TO SIGN OFF ON IT. TYPICALLY I -- YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE COMES BACK TO THE BOARD. >>MITCHELL THROWER: YES. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WE COULD SEND A LETTER? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: IF YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT TO DO, THEN -- I DON'T KNOW, MITCH, IF I CAN GET YOUR SIGNATURE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: I MEAN, I'M AVAILABLE. I'LL STAY -- >>GERALD WHITE: MR. CHAIR. >>MITCHELL THROWER: -- BUT MY CONCERN IS I DON'T THINK WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO PUT IN THIS RESOLUTION. I THINK WE'RE -- >>GERALD WHITE: YES. I THINK, JOE -- MR. CHAIR -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: THERE'S A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS. >>GERALD WHITE: -- JOE HAD A GOOD POINT. ALL RIGHT. THIS BOARD IS DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE. JOE HAS MADE A GOOD POINT TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. JUST DO THAT. I'M SURE EVERY COMMISSIONER IS WATCHING THIS MEETING. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: ABSOLUTELY. [LAUGHTER] >>JAN PLATT: THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING BETTER TO DO. >>GERALD WHITE: IF NOT, I'M SURE THEY'LL BE -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: MR. NORMAN DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO MR. TARR. >>GERALD WHITE: EXCUSE ME. LET ME FINISH. I'M SURE THAT THIS IS HIGHLY COVERED BY THE TAMPA TRIBUNE AND THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES. THEY'LL GET THE MESSAGE BY MORNING. AND CONTINUE THE HEARING. ALLOW THE PROCESS TO MOVE ON. THEY'RE ALREADY CONTRACTED TO HEAR FROM THIS AUDITOR. THAT'S DONE. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. LET THAT PROCESS TAKE PLACE. TAKE JOE'S RECOMMENDATIONS, CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING, AND LET'S JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS. YOU'LL HAVE A BETTER VIEW. YOU WON'T HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE GLASS [INAUDIBLE] >>RALPH FISHER: [INAUDIBLE] >>GERALD WHITE: I CALL -- I SUPPORT THE CALL -- LET'S JUST CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, DON'T SEND ANYTHING. DON'T SEND SOMETHING THAT CAN DO HARM, ALL RIGHT. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON HER MOTION. >>GERALD WHITE: I'LL JUST REALLY REQUEST JUST DON'T EVEN VOTE ON IT, JUST WITHDRAW IT AND JUST -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE DOING OKAY, ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE DOING OKAY. JUST CONTINUE -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>GERALD WHITE: CONTINUE YOUR PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT THEY'VE SCHEDULED TOMORROW. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME LET MR. AMON SPEAK REAL QUICK. >>JOE AMON: I HAPPEN TO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD -- WE SHOULD HOLD THIS OFF, HOLD THE VOTE OFF, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE IDEAS THAT MR. FISHER HAS PUT FORWARD AND THE ONES I'M TRYING TO PUT FORWARD GIVEN TO US IN AN E-MAIL SO THAT WE HAVE IT SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND READ IT BEFORE WE COME BACK ON THE 30th AND THEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN I'M READY TO -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: THAT'S WHAT -- YES. I WAS PREPARED TO -- IF I COULD GET THE LANGUAGE FROM MR. FISHER -- >>RALPH FISHER: I'LL E-MAIL IT TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING, AND I'LL GIVE IT OUT IN ADVANCE SO THAT I CAN BE -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: YEAH, IF YOU COULD GET MR. FISHER AND MR. AMON'S COMMENTS IN ANY -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: AND MRS. GRIMES CORRECTED US HERE, YOU KNOW. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND IF WE COULD GET THAT E-MAILED OUT, WE COULD BRING IT UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY -- OR WE'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHEN WE WANT TO DO - - IF WE WANT TO EXTEND IT. >>JOE AMON: WELL, I'M HEARING THAT THE MEETING IS GOING TO BE ON THE 30th AND THAT WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT MEETING. IF IT'S WRONG, I NEED TO HEAR DIFFERENT. >>GINA GRIMES: NO, THAT'S CORRECT. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YOU CAN DO THAT. I JUST NEED DIRECTION. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE'LL JUST HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THAT. WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW STILL CONCERNING THE RESOLUTION. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: WE CAN'T SEND A RESOLUTION, SO I HAVE TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>RALPH FISHER: I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: -- PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 3rd. WE'LL HAVE AN ALREADY EXISTING -- >>MITCHELL THROWER: IT'S NOT AUGUST 3rd. IT WAS AUGUST 2nd ACTUALLY. >>RALPH FISHER: AUGUST 2nd. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. AUGUST 3rd. AUGUST 2nd. >>GINA GRIMES: BUT ROCHELLE IS NOT GOING TO BE HERE FOR THAT MEETING. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: NO, I'LL -- >> JULY 30th. >> 30th. >>MITCHELL THROWER: JULY 30th IS OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: JULY 30th IS DURING THE DAY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THAT TIME -- >>RALPH FISHER: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I MOVE WE CONTINUE THIS -- >> SECOND. >>RALPH FISHER: -- HEARING UNTIL JULY -- >> 30th, 9:00 A.M. >>RALPH FISHER: -- 30th AT 9:00 A.M. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A SECOND. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I SECONDED. >>MITCHELL THROWER: DISCUSSION. LET ME LET MR. TOKLEY AND THEN MR. PRESEAU. >>JAMES TOKLEY: I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE A VERY BAD IDEA BY THE THROAT AND WE LET IT GO. WE ARE ABOUT TO LET IT GO. I'M NOT AT ALL HAPPY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ARE HAPPY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MR. PRESEAU. >>GREG PRESEAU: MS. FARRIS -- MS. FARRIS. >>MITCHELL THROWER: MS. FARRIS. >>GREG PRESEAU: JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IF WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 30th, WILL WE STILL HAVE TIME TO GET THE LANGUAGE OUT AND GET IT TO POSSIBLE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YES, YES. >>GREG PRESEAU: OKAY. >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: YES. >>GREG PRESEAU: AND MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT ON SOMETHING IN THERE FOR THIS NOVEMBER, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWING ANOTHER TWO YEARS OF DYSFUNCTION, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO WRAP THIS UP IF WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THIS TO THE 30th. WE NEED TO GET THIS WRAPPED UP PROPERLY. MR. TARR, HE BROUGHT -- AND I THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS -- YOU KNOW, BROUGHT A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, YOU KNOW, TO US, AND I THINK MAYBE DURING THIS TIME WE CAN ALL TAKE A BETTER, STRONGER LOOK AT THAT, BUT HIS APPROACH WAS, YOU KNOW, TWO-PRONGED. IT WAS ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE -- THE BOCC, BUT IT'S ALSO CHARTER RELATED BECAUSE THE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, IT -- THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN OVERSIGHT IN THAT FASHION, SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE IT MAKES THE BOARD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CHARTER, SO WE CAN'T FORGET THAT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: RIGHT. >>GREG PRESEAU: SO WE DO NEED THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IN THERE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT A LETTER TO THE BOARD IS STRONG ENOUGH BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF WE SIT ON OUR HANDS NOW AND WE DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE BY NOVEMBER AND -- AND WE'RE HOPING THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DO THE RIGHT THING -- AND, YOU KNOW, SAY THEY DO ADOPT EVERYTHING MR. TARR HAD PROPOSED, BUT THEN TWO YEARS FROM NOW THEY GO AND CHANGE THEIR ORDINANCE WITHOUT THAT CHARTER LANGUAGE. THEN, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS EFFORT IS FOR NAUGHT, SO WE NEED TO GET THAT CHARTER LANGUAGE IN AND MAKE IT APPROPRIATE AND MAKE IT CONCISE AND MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. >>MITCHELL THROWER: AND ACTUALLY, BEFORE I LET MRS. REBACK -- MAYBE ONCE WE GET THE INFORMATION FROM MR. FISHER AND MR. AMON AND MRS. GRIMES, THE CORRECT INFORMATION IN THERE, MAYBE I COULD TALK TO MRS. FARRIS, WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH MR. TARR AND JUST SEE -- YOU KNOW, GET HIS INPUT ON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND IF POSSIBLY YOU'RE AVAILABLE JULY 30th -- >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THAT WAS MY QUESTION. COULD WE ASK MR. TARR -- INVITE MR. TARR BACK TO GIVE A REPORT? >> THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AT 9:00 A.M. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>GERALD WHITE: I JUST HOPE TOMORROW WHEN THEY MEET -- I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. JOE HAS A GOOD IDEA, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD WHEN THEY MEET TOMORROW AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO PASS THESE FUNCTIONS ON TO THE CLERK OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND VOTE TO PUT A BALLOT QUESTION ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER TO ELIMINATE THIS POST. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD DO TOMORROW. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. >>RALPH FISHER: I MOVE WE ADJOURN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE'VE STILL GOT TO VOTE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: WE AIN'T VOTED YET. >>MITCHELL THROWER: WE STILL NEED TO VOTE -- >>RALPH FISHER: NOBODY'S MADE A MOTION TO PUT NUMBER 2 ON. >>MITCHELL THROWER: NO, A MOTION FOR JULY 30th. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: [INAUDIBLE] CONTINUE THIS. >>GINA GRIMES: YEAH, CONTINUING THE HEARING. >>RALPH FISHER: OH, CONTINUING. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. CALL THE QUESTION. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: CLARIFICATION, THOUGH. I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE NOW, MAKE SURE WE GOT THIS -- WE HAVE CLOSED THE COMMENTING FOR PUBLIC; CORRECT? >> YES. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: SO WHEN WE COME BACK NOW -- SO IT'S JUST DELIBERATIONS. >>GINA GRIMES: WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE -- >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW. >>MITCHELL THROWER: LET ME ASK MS. FARRIS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, JUST -- >>GINA GRIMES: BECAUSE IF WE CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR PROPOSAL, WE TALKED ABOUT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: I WOULD SUGGEST ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NEW ONE. >>JOSEPH ROBINSON: OKAY. WITH THAT CLARIFICATION? >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: CORRECT. WE'LL MAKE SURE THE AGENDA REFLECTS THAT. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: AND COULD WE ASK FOR A E-MAIL REPORT AS TO WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: ABSOLUTELY. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: -- AND MAYBE A LINK, IF POSSIBLE, TO THE CLOSED CAPTION PORTION -- >>MARY HELEN FARRIS: SURE. IT TAKES A COUPLE OF DAYS TO DO THAT, BUT WE CAN REPORT TOMORROW -- SEND OUT AN E-MAIL OF WHAT THEY DID AND THEN FOLLOW UP AS SOON AS THE CLOSED CAPTIONING IS AVAILABLE. WE CAN MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE 30th. >>ROCHELLE REBACK: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON MR. FISHER'S MOTION TO -- I GUESS THE PROPER TERM IS CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 30th AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING? OKAY. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT MOTION PLEASE RAISE -- MR. WHITE IS OPPOSED, SO THE MOTION PASSES WITH MR. WHITE OPPOSED. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN. >>MITCHELL THROWER: OKAY. SECOND? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MITCHELL THROWER: ALL IN FAVOR. ANYONE OPPOSED? WE'RE ADJOURNED. 1