State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for February 9, 1998 (File size=354K)


          1                        STATE OF FLORIDA



                                  COMMISSION MEETING



              DATE:                   February 9, 1997
              TIME:                   Commenced at 1:00 p.m.
         11                           Concluded at 5:50 p.m.

         12   PLACE:                  The Senate Chamber
                                      The Capitol
         13                           Tallahassee, Florida

         14   REPORTED BY:            KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
                                      JULIE L. DOHERTY
         15                           MONA L. WHIDDON
                                      Court Reporters
         16                           Division of Administrative Hearings
                                      The DeSoto Building
         17                           1230 Apalachee Parkway
                                      Tallahassee, Florida









          1                           APPEARANCES


          3   CARLOS ALFONSO
              CLARENCE E. ANTHONY
          4   ANTONIO L. ARGIZ  (ABSENT)
              PAT BARTON
          6   ROBERT M. BROCHIN
          7   KEN CONNOR
              CHRIS CORR  (EXCUSED)
              VALERIE EVANS
              PAUL HAWKES
              DICK LANGLEY
         13   JOHN F. LOWNDES
              STANLEY MARSHALL
         14   JACINTA MATHIS
              JON LESTER MILLS
         15   FRANK MORSANI
         16   CARLOS PLANAS
              JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
              SENATOR JIM SCOTT
         18   H. T. SMITH  (EXCUSED UNTIL 4:21 p.m.)
              ALAN C. SUNDBERG
              PAUL WEST
              STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
              IRA H. LEESFIELD  (ABSENT)





          1                           PROCEEDINGS

          2             (Roll taken and recorded electronically.)

          3             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Unauthorized visitors, please

          4        leave the chamber.  All commissioners indicate your

          5        presence.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Madam Secretary, are we

          7        ready?

          8             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  If everybody

         10        would please take their seats.  Will the commissioners

         11        and guests in the gallery please rise for the opening

         12        prayer, given this afternoon by the Reverend John F.

         13        Green by the Bethel A.M.E. Church in Tallahassee.

         14        Reverend Green, if you would come forward, please.

         15             REVEREND GREEN:  Let us pray.  Eternal God, who

         16        committest to us the swift and solemn trust of life,

         17        since we know not what a day may bring forth but only

         18        that the hour for serving thee is always present, may

         19        we approach the afternoon of this day with the zeal to

         20        do thy holy will.  Increase in us, O God, a true

         21        knowledge of thy holy will so that we may devote

         22        ourselves to thy service in word and deed, and that

         23        doing thy will with cheerfulness and diligence, and

         24        bearing all of our trials with patience, we may go on,

         25        through thy mercy into the joy of everlasting life.


          1        Amen.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you.  Commissioner

          3        Langley, will you come forward, please, and lead us in

          4        the Pledge of Allegiance.

          5             (Pledge of Allegiance.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I have been informed that

          7        Commissioner Corr's father died over the weekend.  He

          8        was apparently in a tractor accident resulting in his

          9        death.  And so Commissioner Corr will not be with us

         10        this week because of that, and we all, I think, really

         11        want to extend to him and his family our sincere

         12        sympathy during their bereavement.  Sudden deaths of

         13        this nature are always quite hard and we know what

         14        he's going through.

         15             All right.  We'll now proceed to the daily order

         16        of business.  And I recognize the Chairman of Rules

         17        Committee, Commissioner Barkdull.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         19        Members of the Commission, you have on your desk the

         20        calendar of the Commission for today and the remainder

         21        of this week; it's blocked out on the first page.  You

         22        will note that you also have on your desk a gold

         23        packet.  This is the order of the proposals that will

         24        be considered on the special order.  And if we do not

         25        conclude these today, of course, retain these because


          1        we will pick up tomorrow where we left off today.

          2             There are committee meetings scheduled, as you

          3        will notice on the block calendar, for this afternoon,

          4        the Select Committee on Initiatives, and tomorrow

          5        afternoon, the Select Committee on Sovereign Immunity.

          6        And Commissioner Mills, do you have any report on the

          7        Select Committee on Article V?

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills, you are

          9        recognized.

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, yes, we met

         11        this morning and have made some progress.  We intend

         12        to meet again this afternoon in Room 317C at five

         13        o'clock.

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  As you have indicated in

         15        the materials that were indicated to you last week,

         16        the Chairman has set three public hearings.  The one

         17        in March, which will be up here, on Friday, March the

         18        20th, will be a televised call-in program from around

         19        the state.  As has been indicated in the previous

         20        materials sent to you, there will only be a limited

         21        participation by members of the Commission.  Those of

         22        you that would like to attend that, I suggest that you

         23        deliver your names to the executive director or

         24        another member of the staff.

         25             And with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes


          1        announcements, and we are ready to proceed to the

          2        order of business on reconsideration and special

          3        order.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The first item on

          5        reconsideration is Proposal 107, which we have

          6        deferred a couple of times, and it was on a motion to

          7        reconsider.  The motion to reconsider has not been

          8        voted on as to whether or not it will be reconsidered.

          9        I believe that's correct; is it not, Commissioner?

         10        Correct.

         11             So, what we have to do first is vote whether or

         12        not to reconsider Proposal 107, which was -- did not

         13        receive a majority vote when it came up on

         14        January 14th, 1998, and therefore it's here now on

         15        reconsideration.  Incidentally, the rules allow the

         16        debate on a motion to reconsider on the issue of

         17        whether or not to reconsider since the underlying

         18        question is a proposal.  Therefore, the debate is

         19        limited to whether or not we grant reconsideration.

         20        It's not to be a debate on the merits.  The debate on

         21        the merits would come if the vote for reconsideration

         22        carries.  And it requires a majority of those present

         23        and voting to carry.

         24             With that, I believe I'm right, am I not, Madam

         25        Secretary?  Reasonably close.  And who would like to


          1        be recognized on the motion to reconsider?  I think it

          2        was made by Commissioner Connor.  You are recognized,

          3        Commissioner Connor.

          4             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you.  It's not my

          5        intention to belabor the discussion that we have

          6        already had as it relates to this matter.  In terms of

          7        why I believe you should reconsider this matter, I

          8        would simply call your attention to two different news

          9        articles that have come to light since our last

         10        discussion which I feel may have a bearing on your

         11        decision to reconsider or not.

         12             One of those articles published in the Orlando

         13        Sentinnel most recently reported on a settlement in a

         14        lawsuit that was arrived at with respect to a claim

         15        filed on behalf of parents against a church in the

         16        Orlando area where the church had, without the

         17        parents' consent, baptized their children.

         18             As a consequence of that, and frankly, I don't

         19        know if they were sprinkled and dunked, as far as that

         20        goes, but the upshot of it was that a claim was

         21        brought against the church or a violation of privacy

         22        rights and the rights of the parents to secure and to

         23        protect and to bring forth the upbringing of their

         24        children and said that this church acted in a tortious

         25        manner in acting without their consent.


          1             So, by sprinkling them or dunking the children,

          2        under those circumstances, that gave rise to a private

          3        cause of action, which ultimately resulted in a

          4        settlement.

          5             In a second case, I read a report in the Saturday

          6        edition of the St. Petersburg Times in which the State

          7        Supreme Court ruled that two 15-year-old Ocala boys

          8        who had had sex with 12-year-old girls could be

          9        prosecuted under one of Florida's statutory rape laws.

         10        That was a unanimous decision.  The Court stated that

         11        whatever privacy interest a 15-year-old minor has in

         12        carnal intercourse is clearly outweighed by the

         13        State's interest in protecting 12-year-old children

         14        from harmful sexual conduct, irrespective of whether

         15        the 12-year-old consented to the sexual activity.

         16        Justice Harry Lee Amstead wrote for the Court,

         17        according to the report of the Times.

         18             I only bring those matters to the body's

         19        attention, Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate what I believe

         20        is a schizophrenic pattern that's developed as it

         21        relates to the ability of minor children to consent to

         22        medical treatments, specifically, to abortion.  And I

         23        urge your favorable reconsideration of the vote.

         24        Thank you.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Your debate was well within


          1        the limits of anybody's requirements.  Commissioner

          2        Langley.

          3             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          4        I would like to add to that, in conversation with

          5        Commissioner Connor and others, if perhaps this matter

          6        could be reconsidered and tabled for now, that a

          7        fall-back position, so to speak, a parental

          8        notification might be considered that would solve a

          9        lot of the problems that were brought up by some of

         10        the opponents of this.  We did not have that

         11        opportunity previously and that opportunity would be

         12        before us if we were to reconsider it.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does anyone else

         14        want to be heard on the motion to reconsider?  If not,

         15        we'll proceed to vote.  All in favor of

         16        reconsideration, say aye.  Opposed?

         17             (Verbal vote taken.)

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Chair is in doubt, unlock the

         19        machine.  All right.  Everybody vote?  I think there

         20        were more present than have voted.

         21             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         22             READING CLERK:  Thirteen yeas, 14 nays,

         23        Mr. Chairman.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If I voted and made it a tie,

         25        it wouldn't help, would it?  Record me -- oh, you have


          1        already announced it.  Record me as voting yea.  All

          2        right.  We'll move on the next item.  Committee

          3        Substitute for Proposals 138 and 89 by the Committee

          4        on Education.  Commissioners Nabors and Riley.  Let's

          5        see, it's on reconsideration.  The motion was made to

          6        reconsider by somebody.  Who made the motion to

          7        reconsider?  Commissioner Barkdull.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The journal or calendar

          9        indicates that it was made by Commissioner Alfonso.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         11        Alfonso moved to reconsider the vote by which

         12        Committee Substitute for Proposals 138 and 89 by the

         13        Committee on Education and Article IX, by

         14        Commissioners Nabors and Riley.  Would you read that

         15        please?

         16             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         17        Nos. 138 and 89, a proposal to revise Article IX,

         18        Section 15, Florida Constitution; limiting the use of

         19        State Lottery net proceeds to financing certain

         20        educational facilities or funding early childhood care

         21        and education programs.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Who wants to be

         23        heard on the motion to reconsider?

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman, I would urge

         25        a motion to reconsider.  If you will recall, we


          1        discussed whether or not -- what some of the committee

          2        uses should be, particularly the parent councils.  We

          3        had a conference call this week and worked out all of

          4        the language.  It's not on the desk yet, but I would

          5        like us to reconsider it and temporarily table it to

          6        the amendments on the desk.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The sponsor, one

          8        of the sponsors and I presume the other one, urges you

          9        to vote for the motion to reconsider.  All in favor of

         10        reconsideration say yea.

         11             (Verbal vote taken.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is reconsidered.  Now,

         13        it's on reconsideration.  You have a motion,

         14        Commissioner Nabors?

         15             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Chairman, I would like to

         16        temporarily table it.  We have an amendment which

         17        deals with the issue of potential appropriations to

         18        school advisory councils and also the issue of the

         19        phasing in of the Lottery money, which has been agreed

         20        to in a conference call, but I don't think the

         21        amendment is on the table as yet.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I can tell you that I have

         23        had indications that there's more amendments than that

         24        that are going to be posed, and this will not be just

         25        a single amendment process.  Commissioner Scott, you


          1        are recognized.

          2             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I tried to be

          3        recognized on that motion to reconsider and I wasn't.

          4        And those motions are debatable.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's right.  And we allowed

          6        the debate in the previous one.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, I just wanted to make

          8        a point.  I tried to be recognized.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, go ahead and make your

         10        point.  I would love for you to make it.

         11             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That was the point.  Did it

         12        fail?

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I didn't see you or I would

         14        have recognized you.  All right.  We are moving on to

         15        the special order.  Oh, wait, all in favor of

         16        temporarily passing Proposals 138 and 89, signify by

         17        saying yea.  Opposed?

         18             (Verbal vote taken.)

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  To temporarily pass it.  I'm

         20        going to rule it passed.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  How long, until the end

         22        of the day or until when?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think the proper motion is

         24        to postpone to a time certain, which requires a

         25        majority vote.  There was no motion to a time certain.


          1        I would so recognize such a motion.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, if we don't have

          3        that, it's going to reoccur tomorrow on our motions

          4        for reconsideration; is that correct?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It'll just go back on the

          6        calendar, not for reconsideration.  But if you want to

          7        move to delay it to a time certain, I think that's

          8        appropriate.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'll consider it.  I want

         10        to wait a while though.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Well, right now

         12        it's in limbo for the rest of the afternoon.  It can

         13        be brought back up.  At this point, we move to the

         14        special order calendar for today.  We left Proposal

         15        No. 40 by Commissioner Marshall when we adjourned or

         16        recessed last meeting.  And at this point, it was

         17        amended and consideration deferred until today.  Now,

         18        can you read, first of all, can you read the proposal

         19        as amended?

         20             READING CLERK:  Proposal 40, Proposal to revise

         21        Article IX, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution;

         22        authorizing certain counties to be divided into more

         23        than one school district.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Can you read those?  All

         25        right.  There have been two amendments that were


          1        adopted at the last session, one by Commissioner Riley

          2        and one by Commissioner Butterworth.  I would like to

          3        ask the clerk to read those two amendments.

          4             All right.  They are in the journal if you will

          5        turn to your journal we won't have to read them.

          6        Those amendments were adopted, one by Commissioner

          7        Riley and one by Commissioner Butterworth.  They are

          8        on Page -- the last page of what we got today, which

          9        is 161.  Is everybody in tune on this now?

         10             We are going to proceed with the debate on the

         11        proposal.  And there were two amendments that have

         12        already been adopted.  The first amendment, which you

         13        will see in the journal, changed the number -- 45,000

         14        to 75,000.  That was by Commissioner Riley.  And then

         15        Commissioner Butterworth moved the -- was moved by

         16        Commissioner Marshall on Page 1, Line 14, delete and

         17        add.  And what it did, you will have to read it, it's

         18        fairly long.  All right.

         19             Who is ready to debate this, Commissioner

         20        Marshall?  We have another amendment on the table.

         21        Commissioner Mills has an amendment on the table.

         22        Would you read the amendment, please?

         23             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Mills, on page 1,

         24        Line 14, through Page 2, Line 4, delete those lines

         25        and insert lengthy amendment.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills, you are

          2        recognized to explain your amendment.

          3             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, actually this

          4        is not a lengthy amendment, it's only the inclusion of

          5        the words, After Federal law, on Line 11 and, To

          6        ensure racial and ethnic balance.  Let me explain the

          7        purpose of this.  It's my understanding that the

          8        intention of this is to create school districts that

          9        are smaller, more manageable, provide additional

         10        access and are better for our students and for

         11        parents, a cause with which I agree.

         12             It's also my understanding it's not the intention

         13        to return to separate but equal schools in an

         14        unconstitutional way.  I have a particular case that I

         15        think demonstrates the need to consider racial and

         16        ethnic balance.  This is a 1989 case, and it is

         17        Spencer vs. State.  There was a statute, which is

         18        surprisingly analogous, 40.015, which authorizes

         19        counties of more than 50,000 to determine their

         20        boundaries of jury districts at a smaller number,

         21        6,000, specifically.  This particular case involved a

         22        Palm Beach district which was divided north and south,

         23        in which the west half of the district ended up being

         24        approximately a jury pool of 50 percent

         25        African-American.  And the jury pool on the east side


          1        of the county ended up being 90 -- approximately

          2        97 percent white.

          3             The Supreme Court decided that this was

          4        unconstitutional, and all I would suggest here is that

          5        this Commission needs to emphasize that any passage of

          6        smaller districts is not done for the purpose of

          7        creating racial divisions or apartheid.  And this

          8        simply adds the words, And to ensure racial or ethnic

          9        balance.  I will be glad to answer your questions.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody

         11        understand the amendment?  Commissioner Marshall, this

         12        is your original proposal, which has now been amended

         13        to be 75,000 population counties, and has now, it's

         14        been amended before, but now it's being amended to add

         15        the provisions that were discussed by Commissioner

         16        Mills.  Would you like to be heard on the amendment?

         17             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank

         18        you.  With respect to the two earlier amendments, I am

         19        in favor of those, I think they strengthen the

         20        proposal.  And maybe this one does too, I'm not sure.

         21        If you will grant me the opportunity to ask

         22        Commissioner Mills a question or two.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You have that opportunity.

         24             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  The sentiment being

         25        expressed by those words, those new words,


          1        Commissioner Mills, I'm totally in harmony with.  As a

          2        matter of fact, if I thought this proposal intended to

          3        order or provide an opportunity for any kind of racial

          4        resegregation or that kind of differentiation of

          5        communities, I wouldn't have proposed it.  So, the

          6        idea you advance, I'm very much in favor of.  My

          7        question has to do with the meaning of racial and

          8        ethnic balance.  I would not want to deny anybody in

          9        the community, racial groups, ethnic groups, or

         10        anybody else, the right to express themselves on what

         11        sort of schools they attend and what kind of division

         12        they would undertake.  Can you define further racial

         13        and ethnic balance, as the courts might interpret

         14        that?

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

         16             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commissioner Marshall, the

         17        case I referred to, in talking about the jury pool's

         18        unconstitutionality suggested that what a

         19        constitutional jury pool would be would be one that

         20        reflected a true cross-section of the county with no

         21        systematic exclusion of any group in the jury

         22        selection process, and it does not otherwise violate

         23        the protection requirements.  So, it would be my

         24        intention and understanding that this would emphasize

         25        that requirement.  And as it's articulated in this


          1        section, it says, All of which shall be -- all issues

          2        shall be subject to review and approval by the circuit

          3        court in compliance with state and federal law and to

          4        ensure racial and ethnic balance.

          5             In the context, it would be my intention that the

          6        circuit court would consider the racial and ethnic

          7        balance as representative of the county.  And I simply

          8        think that it's almost in the sense fair notice

          9        because I believe that if they didn't do it, it would

         10        be unconstitutional.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody

         12        understand?  Any further debate on the amendment?

         13        Does everybody understand the amendment?  Do you have

         14        anything further?  You had the floor, Commissioner

         15        Marshall.

         16             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         17        With Commissioner Mills' response to my question and

         18        with the understanding that the meaning might be

         19        further clarified, since we agree on the intent by

         20        style and drafting, I would support the amendment.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

         22        discussion on the amendment?  If not, we'll vote on

         23        the amendment.  All in favor, say aye.  Opposed?

         24             (Verbal vote taken.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's adopted.  Now, we are on


          1        the proposal as amended.  It's been amended now three

          2        times.  Would you like to close, or at least tell us

          3        now what it really tells, Commissioner Marshall, it's

          4        your proposal?  Commissioner Sundberg, I'll call on

          5        you if you have a proposal.

          6             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I have a question, but it

          7        can wait until he has explained this.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let's, for the benefit of all

          9        of us, to refresh us on where we were Friday,

         10        Commissioner Marshall, can you give us briefly what

         11        this does and then let Commissioner Sundberg ask his

         12        question and then you may proceed then.

         13             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Mr. Chairman, I heard

         14        that comment about briefly and I heard you use the

         15        word close.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I didn't really mean close.

         17             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Let me point out that

         18        there were only 21 or 22 members of the Commission in

         19        the chamber when we debated this the last time.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are absolutely right.

         21             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  So, if it's not an

         22        imposition, I would like to as briefly as possible go

         23        through the brief arguments in favor of this proposal.

         24        May I do that, sir?  When we considered this proposal

         25        on January the 28th, I distributed a packet of


          1        information, or rather the staff did, on selective

          2        aspects of Florida's public schools.  And I walked you

          3        through those, those of you who were present.  And I

          4        won't take time to do that again, but I think the data

          5        included there does have some bearing on this issue

          6        and I hope to get your vote on it.  And I suspect that

          7        the staff still has copies of those, and if they are

          8        available and those of you that weren't here on the

          9        28th of January and would like a copy, I suspect one

         10        would be available.

         11             That information, those data were provided in

         12        belief that facts ought to trump assumptions.  I beg

         13        your pardon, trump opinions.  Most of the time, if we

         14        are fully in possession about the facts about our

         15        schools, we can avoid much of the time-wasting

         16        arguments about whether the schools are good or bad.

         17        The facts are stubborn things, and the schools are

         18        what the facts show them to be.

         19             Incidentally, in the exchange on the 28th,

         20        Commissioner Morsani discovered a discrepancy that

         21        escaped our attention.  This one having to do with the

         22        percentage of staff members who are classroom

         23        teachers.  We had two sets of data, one prepared by

         24        the Department of Education showing the figure to be

         25        88 percent, another prepared by a national


          1        organization that collects school data showing it to

          2        be 48 percent.  Those two figures are not easy to

          3        reconcile.

          4             I went back to the Department of Education and

          5        had them recalculate their figures, and they now give

          6        me a figure of about 81 percent of professional staff

          7        who are teachers, to clear up that discrepancy,

          8        Commissioner Morsani.  Proposal 40 would authorize the

          9        Legislature, subject to local referendum, to subsidize

         10        our larger county school districts into smaller

         11        districts, which I believe would be more manageable,

         12        more accountable, and more responsive.  The idea

         13        behind proposal 40 was a proposal by Representative

         14        Tom Warren, a Republican, and Senator Ron Kline, a

         15        Democrat.

         16             Proposal 40 addresses the matter of school

         17        district size by stipulating the following, this is

         18        the brief part.  Counties with more than 75,000,

         19        75,000 students would be permitted to vote to divide

         20        the district into two or more districts.  The newly

         21        established districts would have no fewer than 15,000

         22        students.

         23             A special law must be enacted to establish a

         24        commission which would draw school district boundary

         25        lines.  The boundary lines drawn by the commission


          1        would then be subject to review and approved in

          2        circuit court for compliance with applicable state and

          3        federal law.  Funding for operations and capital

          4        outlay would be calculated on a county-wide basis and

          5        allocated as provided by general law.

          6             The school districts eligible to conduct a

          7        referendum on the question of subdividing would be

          8        Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Duval,

          9        Orange, and Pinellas.  Polk County appears to be right

         10        at about 75,000, so that could possibly make an eighth

         11        county.

         12             Research by professor Lawrence Kenney at the

         13        University of Florida indicates that the lowest

         14        administrative cost, per student, occurs in school

         15        districts with 30 to 50,000 students, and that test

         16        scores are significantly higher in those districts.

         17             But the most compelling argument, Commissioners,

         18        in favor of Proposal 40 is not reduced costs, or

         19        improved student performance, in my opinion, but the

         20        opportunity smaller school districts would provide for

         21        better accountability and better responsiveness.

         22             The historic theme of the American public school

         23        is that of a neighborhood institution in which

         24        citizens elect from among their friends and neighbors

         25        people to serve on school boards, and so to represent


          1        the interest of parents and taxpayers, and what is

          2        surely the most important and the most personal

          3        involvement of citizens in their government.

          4             The system worked well throughout most of our

          5        country's history, but the condition of many public

          6        schools today, especially those in the large cities,

          7        compels us to reexamine the structure of public

          8        education.

          9             Dade is Florida's most populous county.  It has

         10        350,000 students and nine school board members.  I

         11        find it beyond belief to think that any of the parents

         12        of those 350,000 students has any realistic

         13        expectation of getting his or her ideas or opinions

         14        about the schools into the hands of a member of the

         15        school board.  A little Florida history might be in

         16        order.  The Newman (phonetic) Foundation that

         17        established this 67 school districts in 67 counties

         18        was established by the Legislature in 1947.  That's

         19        when the decision was made to organize school

         20        districts on a county-wide basis.  Florida's

         21        population then was 2,221,305 people.  And the student

         22        population in Dade County was 55,539 students.

         23             One of the issues on which the people, and nearly

         24        all professional educators, agree is that the

         25        management of our schools should be decentralized.


          1        That's why we have gone to site-based management,

          2        school advisory councils, and greatly increased

          3        authority by school principals.  We seem to have

          4        sought every available opportunity within the present

          5        structure to move the authority and responsibility for

          6        schools closer to the site where teaching and learning

          7        occur.

          8             Meanwhile, we have clung to an organizational

          9        structure that is the very antithesis of local

         10        control.  And if you are refuting how other states are

         11        organized for the delivery of educational services,

         12        for your information, the number of school districts

         13        in the United States is today about 15,000 down from

         14        about 150,000 a few years ago.  Today, Alabama has 127

         15        districts; California about 1,000; Colorado, 176;

         16        Georgia, 181; Michigan, 555; New Jersey, 582; New

         17        York, 711; Ohio, 611; Texas, 1,044; Wisconsin, 427,

         18        and so on.  A few states have districts -- a few

         19        states have fewer districts than Florida, but they are

         20        mostly the less populous states; Nevada, Rhode Island,

         21        Utah, Delaware, and Wyoming.

         22             Commissioner Freidin, in our debate on

         23        January 28th, asked whether school boards now have the

         24        authority to undertake organizational changes that

         25        would bring decision-making closer to individual


          1        schools and the parents that they now serve.  And the

          2        answer is that school boards do have a good bit of

          3        authority to do that sort of thing.  But the question

          4        in return is, then, why haven't they?  I know the

          5        answer to that, and I suspect that most of you do too.

          6        The superintendents and the school boards preside as

          7        an organization that provides their basic power, their

          8        standing in the community, and their resources.  I

          9        would not expect them to be enthusiastic about

         10        reducing in size the organization over which they

         11        preside, and in some cases, which they helped to

         12        create.

         13             School administrators seem to be looking for ways

         14        to accomplish in a limited way what Proposal 40 will

         15        provide.  The superintendent in Orange County has

         16        recently proposed a decentralization plan, about which

         17        the Orlando Sentinnel on January the 28th wrote to

         18        describe the present school beuracracy.  And I quote,

         19        "The principal reports to a senior director who

         20        reports to an associate superintendent, who reports to

         21        a deputy superintendent, who reports to the

         22        superintendent."  Yes, the school board has the

         23        authority to change that, and I believe they would be

         24        more inclined to do so in smaller districts.

         25             Let me close with a plea of desperation.  No, I'm


          1        not making a desperate plea for your support; you will

          2        exercise your own good judgment and your conscience as

          3        you vote on this issue.  The desperate part comes as I

          4        express my feelings about the need to do something to

          5        rescue the children in some of our schools.  I remind

          6        you that it's been 44 years since the United States

          7        Supreme Court handed down their opinion in Brown vs.

          8        Board of Education.  The minority children who were to

          9        benefit are still the major victims in an inadequate

         10        system of education.  It's been 15 years since we were

         11        told in a nation at risk that the state of American

         12        public education was the moral equivalent of war

         13        against our people.  And I ask you, is there anyone

         14        here who believes we are winning that war?

         15             Finally, let me remind you that Proposal 40 does

         16        not impose anything upon the people of Florida; it

         17        simply gives the people the freedom to vote on a

         18        structural change in the way their schools are

         19        operated.  And if they fail to exercise that option

         20        now or if we fail to give them the opportunity to

         21        exercise that option now, it's very unlikely that they

         22        will have it again for at least another 20 years.  I

         23        respectfully ask for your support of Proposal 40.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anybody else want

         25        to be heard?  Commissioner Sundberg.


          1             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  For a question of

          2        Commissioner Marshall.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

          4             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Commissioner Marshall, I

          5        would like to understand how the mechanics, or you

          6        perceive the mechanics for work to divide a county up

          7        into more than one district and how financing will

          8        take place after that.  At Line 8 of the amendment, it

          9        says that this commission made up of residents shall,

         10        among other things, allocate assets and provide for

         11        contractual obligations, debts, bonded indebtedness to

         12        the school district.  How will they provide for bonded

         13        indebtedness; do you perceive that it would be divided

         14        amongst the new districts?  And also, at Line 12, we

         15        are starting at Line 11, it says, Funding for

         16        operation and capital outlay in school districts,

         17        divided pursuant to this section, shall be determined

         18        on a county-wide basis.

         19             And then it goes on to say, Local taxes in

         20        counties shall be divided pursuant to the section,

         21        include voted millage for bonded indebtedness shall be

         22        levied on a county-wide basis.  How is the debt to be

         23        divided amongst more than one district and then at the

         24        same time, thereafter, there be county-wide

         25        participation?  How do you perceive that working, sir?


          1             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Commissioner Sundberg, I

          2        don't perceive.  There are many questions and many

          3        answers in this proposal that I simply cannot answer,

          4        because I don't know how it'll work.  I express in

          5        supporting the proposal, express my confidence in the

          6        Legislature to appoint a commission that would address

          7        those questions in some detail.  I acknowledge that

          8        it's complex, it's not a simple matter.  I do not know

          9        the answer to either of those questions.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner West.

         11             COMMISSIONER WEST:  I have a question for the

         12        Commissioner.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

         14             COMMISSIONER WEST:  And I apologize, Commissioner

         15        Marshall, for not being here when it was discussed

         16        last time.  And the question that I am going to ask

         17        you, you know, may have been fully explained.  But

         18        have you gotten any feedback?  You mentioned how seven

         19        counties are affected by that 75,000 threshold,

         20        possibly an eighth with Polk County; was that right?

         21        Have you gotten any feedback or a response from these

         22        eight counties?

         23             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  We haven't gotten a

         24        response from the eight counties that could be

         25        affected.  And I would expect that the school


          1        establishment would begin by asking some very probing

          2        questions, that their support might very well depend

          3        upon the answers to those questions.

          4             I suspect that many of those very delicate

          5        questions will be answered, I know they will be, by

          6        the commissions, the commission established by the

          7        Legislature.  And that, if adequate answers cannot be

          8        provided to such complex questions, the people will

          9        simply not vote for approval of the redistricting.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anybody else want

         11        to be heard?  Commissioner Morsani.

         12             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Commissioner Marshall, you

         13        and I discussed briefly the size of 15,000.  I get a

         14        little worried about the 22 districts in Dade County,

         15        as an example, and the eight or nine in Hillsborough

         16        County and these counties that are continuing to grow.

         17        I think all of us are in sympathy with the idea.  How

         18        to get there is what we are struggling with.

         19             And the idea of 15,000 students in today's

         20        environment, we go back to the size.  I mean, today

         21        executives can handle a lot more numbers of employees

         22        than they could in a former time because of our

         23        education that we have been privileged to enjoy in

         24        this nation.  I question that size because a school

         25        board members are paid, addressing Mr. Sundberg's


          1        question a little bit in that how we can, in today's

          2        environment, can -- what is going to be the cost of

          3        these additional -- to these additional districts,

          4        from just management of the school board.

          5             I get very concerned about that, even though I'm

          6        very in sympathy with change, but where did the 15,000

          7        component come from?  I think in major counties that

          8        is too small of a component, personally, in today's

          9        environment.  So, that's where I have a concern.  I

         10        need some comfort in those arenas, sir.

         11             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Well two or three things,

         12        Commissioner.  Thank you.  It's a pretty

         13        well-established fact in school administration that

         14        when school districts increase in size they become

         15        less efficient.  They need more support personnel at

         16        various levels as we demonstrated a moment ago in

         17        Orange County, when you have large complex school

         18        systems.  In other words, the per-pupil cost of

         19        administration is higher in large districts' per-pupil

         20        cost, that's demonstrated by the research, than it is

         21        in larger districts.

         22             So when you look at the administration of a large

         23        district that's divided into subdistricts, I don't

         24        mean subzones, one school district.  Dade County, for

         25        example, has multiple subdistricts, each headed by an


          1        associate superintendent.  As the Orlando Sentinel

          2        pointed out, when you get from the superintendent down

          3        to the principal, you go through a lot of layers.

          4        That system is less efficient, then by any way you

          5        measure it, than small districts that have more direct

          6        lines of responsibility and accountability and

          7        therefore less cost.

          8             Where the 15,000 figure came from, commissioner,

          9        I don't know.  I think from the research of Professor

         10        Kenny, I think he showed to Senator Klein and

         11        Representative Warner that that's a good place to draw

         12        the minimum size for the -- applying for the minimum

         13        size in terms of efficiency.

         14             Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet, let me

         15        respond, if I may, a little bit to the question

         16        Commissioner West asked a few minutes ago.  At least I

         17        think it's to the point.  There is a certain tenancy

         18        of all -- on the part of all of us, me included, to

         19        resist anything that we don't understand fully in

         20        terms of how it's going to work, its operation.  We

         21        don't like to think that we support the status quo

         22        always but we do a good bit of that always.

         23             History shows that most great changes in public

         24        policy don't happen in quantum leaps but by small

         25        incremental steps.  That's almost always the case.


          1        The present broad-scale movement in the reform of

          2        education however may be an exception to this rule,

          3        for the changes now overtaking the country are not

          4        incremental steps in the way we teach our children.

          5        There is change in the delivery of education services,

          6        the building wall of educational reform.

          7             Let me illustrate.  The City of Pembroke in

          8        Broward County presents one of the most interesting

          9        innovations I have seen.  The people of Pembroke Pines

         10        have expressed their displeasure for some time over

         11        what they have regarded as neglect for the Broward

         12        County School Board and they found a creative way to

         13        solve their problem.  The City will build and operate

         14        a school for the children of Pembroke Pines to be

         15        established as a charter school but with the use of

         16        city tax revenues to augment funds, funds from the

         17        state which is about $3500 per student per year for

         18        charter schools.  The mayor of the city commission of

         19        Pembroke Pines, along with several other citizens,

         20        constitute the school board.

         21             The City, through a bond issue, will provide

         22        $10 million of capital construction money to be

         23        retired by city taxes.  The city fathers anticipated a

         24        court challenge of the bond issue and they've headed

         25        that one off by building not a school, but a community


          1        facility that will house the school and also serve

          2        other community functions.

          3             The resistance to most education reform movements

          4        like this one naturally comes from those who want to

          5        preserve the status quo.  In this case, the people in

          6        the establishment have something to lose if change

          7        occurs.  But the news for those of us, for those who

          8        would preserve the status quo, is you are too late.

          9        The change is now in education, occurring in

         10        education, in the past half dozen years in the United

         11        States and in Florida, have set in motion profound

         12        movements in education policy and practice which for

         13        some children and their parents are changing the

         14        political landscape.

         15             And I could go on, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

         16        I mentioned Pembroke Pines, that is one of four

         17        municipalities in Florida that is now attempting to

         18        start their own schools, they will very likely succeed

         19        as Pembroke Pines has.  And if you look around, you'll

         20        see Writer System (phonetic) operating a preschool in

         21        their facility in Miami that they are now trying to

         22        expand to elementary school through, I think, grade

         23        five or six.  This is the kind of change that is

         24        overtaking the system of ours.

         25             The educational establishment, I regret to say,


          1        is the major impediment to that change for reasons we

          2        can all understand.  As a matter of fact, if this were

          3        a confessional rather than a session of this group, I

          4        would say that as a school administrator, as a public

          5        education administrator, I've seen all those arguments

          6        against changing the status quo and I've used most of

          7        them, I've been there.  But I now have an independent

          8        view and I think the opportunity to express it as a

          9        member of this commission that says it's time to

         10        reexamine some very basic things in education

         11        including the structure of our 67 county school

         12        districts.  Thank you very much.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         14        Butterworth?

         15             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Question for

         16        Commissioner Marshall.  Commissioner Marshall, I

         17        really applaud you on this proposal.  And the way it

         18        sits right now, I think, it is really very good.  I'm

         19        concerned also like Commissioner Morsani on the

         20        15,000.  Would you be amenable if we can pass this out

         21        with a majority vote and we're going to be going to

         22        two of the areas in the state that would be the most

         23        affected by this, the Broward area, Dade, Broward,

         24        Palm Beach, and also the Pinellas, Hillsborough.  And

         25        if, in fact, during those committee meetings or public


          1        meetings if, in fact, 15,000 should be raised, would

          2        you be willing to do that?

          3             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Yes, I would, sir.

          4             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Thank you.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anything further?

          6        Commissioner Riley.

          7             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

          8        speak in favor if that's the appropriate time to do

          9        that.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.

         11             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Which might surprise

         12        Commissioner Marshall.  I have bounced back and forth

         13        on this issue.  I wanted desperately to support it but

         14        it made me very uncomfortable.  And the change in the

         15        amendment from the 45,000 to the 75,000, I think, made

         16        it better and I was still uncomfortable.  And I am

         17        very pleased with the amendment that Commissioner

         18        Mills did providing some balance on the commission

         19        that would divide this county.  That makes me a lot

         20        more comfortable.

         21             I think also, Commissioner Marshall, that

         22        changing the 15,000 to a higher number would also

         23        strengthen it.  I respect Commissioner Marshall's

         24        experience in education.  He certainly has more than

         25        anyone else in this room, I think.  And he is right,


          1        something needs to be done.  I respect his opinion

          2        when he says, Let's look at some other options, let's

          3        look at other ways to do it.  And I'm certainly

          4        willing to do this.  The uncomfortableness on the

          5        indebtedness, I can tell you this, Commissioner

          6        Sundberg, as a borrower, it does not go away.  And I'm

          7        surprised that with 23 lawyers on this commission

          8        somebody doesn't stand up as a lawyer and say, This is

          9        exactly how you do it.

         10             But the debt to that county is going to remain a

         11        debt to that existing school board.  And the logistics

         12        of it, I'm sure can be worked out.  I don't have any

         13        doubts, I don't know what the specifics are, but the

         14        debt is not going to go away.  The bondholders are

         15        still going to get paid and the county, if it's

         16        decided by the local voters, could still be divided.

         17        So I support this amendment and I encourage you to do

         18        the same.

         19             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Will she yield for a

         20        question?

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         22             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Commissioner Riley, I was

         23        really more concerned about, but let's assume that

         24        it's, hypothetically that it's divided, that a

         25        particular county is divided into three fairly equal


          1        subdistricts or now new districts.  And how do you

          2        accommodate the fact that in one of those districts,

          3        let's just say geographically is in the northern part

          4        of the county, and that all the growth for some reason

          5        or another that goes -- that comes after this is

          6        accomplished tends to move into that area so that it

          7        is greatly in need of additional, you know, buildings,

          8        facilities, busses, what have you, resources?

          9             What is going to be the ability of the county,

         10        once you say it's done on a FTE or per capita basis,

         11        how do you accommodate where the needs are greater in

         12        those areas?  I mean, would you have that flexibility

         13        to bond --

         14             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  So you're not talking

         15        existing bond or existing indebtedness at the time of

         16        splitting it out?

         17             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I'm talking about both to

         18        be frank with you.  I still don't know how you

         19        accommodate -- I'm not saying there's any legal

         20        impediment to its being a continuing obligation.

         21        You're right, they can make all the deals they want to

         22        but the obligation is going to remain.  But how you

         23        allocate it amongst those new districts and how you

         24        accommodate growth in the future without --

         25             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  But I don't see how it being


          1        a smaller district is going to make the question any

          2        different than it is if you have a county that is in

          3        itself growing and how do they prepare for the growth

          4        within that county.  I mean the question is the same

          5        the population is just smaller.

          6             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Well, the point is

          7        though, that if you're talking about the entire county

          8        of Broward, their bonding capacity is much greater

          9        than some subunit of the county of Broward.  I mean,

         10        Broward County now, if the growth is in the northwest,

         11        I guess there is no east because you're in the ocean,

         12        there is east -- but in any event, if the growth

         13        occurs there, you have the bonding capacity of that

         14        entire county to address that growth in a particular

         15        geographic area.  If it is, you know, if the bonding

         16        capacity and the debt capacity is -- follows the

         17        lines, which it would have to as I see it, the ability

         18        to accommodate that would be less.

         19             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Was that a question,

         20        Commissioner Sundberg?

         21             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I'm not sure.

         22             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  The answer is no.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You got the

         24        answer there, Commissioner Sundberg.  Okay.  Anybody

         25        know what the question was, let us know.  All right.


          1        Do we have any further debate, Commissioner Marshall?

          2             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Mr. Chairman, not further

          3        debate, but I think I heard the question and I think

          4        the answer to it, Commissioner Sundberg, lies in --

          5        well, it was finally -- the amendment of the Attorney

          6        General, Commissioner Butterworth, Funding for

          7        operation in capital outlay in school districts

          8        divided pursuant to this section shall be determined

          9        on a countywide basis.  Does that not mean,

         10        Commissioner Sundberg, that bonds will be retired by

         11        revenues derived on a countywide basis and therefore

         12        every district, will it not, have the same ability to

         13        retire bonds and meet indebtedness as every other

         14        district?

         15             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I'm not just sure how you

         16        do that, but assuming your legal ability to do it,

         17        isn't there a political reality?  I really don't know.

         18        It seems to me it is complex and it seems to me your

         19        ability to -- your flexibility for bond financing is

         20        diminished once you start breaking these into smaller

         21        units.

         22             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Well, once again,

         23        Commissioner Sundberg, my reaction is that, those are

         24        the facts that will be exposed by the work of the

         25        commission appointed by the Legislature.  And if it's


          1        not a workable plan, if it has serious holes in it,

          2        the voters will not approve it.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  There is nothing

          4        further, are we ready to vote?  There are some people

          5        aren't in the chamber that might want to vote.  All

          6        right.  We'll open the machine and we'll vote.

          7             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Record the vote.

          9             READING CLERK:  Twenty-two yeas, and 10 nays,

         10        Mr. Chairman.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  By your vote you

         12        have passed the proposal and we'll proceed to the next

         13        order of business which is Proposal No. 2 by

         14        Commissioner Sundberg.  And would you read it, please?

         15             READING CLERK:  Proposal 2, a proposal to revise

         16        Article I, Section 2, Florida Constitution; providing

         17        for citizens to enjoy equal opportunity to employment,

         18        housing, public accommodations, public education, and

         19        other benefits and authorizing governmental agencies

         20        to take actions to remedy the effects of past

         21        discrimination in certain areas.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg, didn't

         23        we have extensive discussion on this previously?

         24             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Yes, we have, Mr.

         25        Chairman, and we were in an amendatory process.  An


          1        amendment -- and I'm not sure what the status of those

          2        amendments is.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Right now there are no

          4        amendments on the table.  One has been adopted.  The

          5        No. 1 was adopted and now there are more on the desk.

          6        Two more on the desk.

          7             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Probably what's on the

          8        desk is one by Commissioner Connor.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Should we proceed -- I guess,

         10        the proper way to proceed would be to recognize you to

         11        explain the proposal again just briefly and then move

         12        to the amendments and go to the first one on the desk

         13        and then to the second one on desk.  Would that be

         14        agreeable to you, Commissioner Sundberg?

         15             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Frankly, Mr. Chairman,

         16        I'll be glad to proceed in whatever fashion.  I think

         17        it will shorten the process.  If I'm not mistaken, I

         18        think Commissioner Connor is going to withdraw his

         19        amendment which is one of the two on the desk which

         20        will mean we can recur to the amendment by

         21        Commissioner Smith which now represents really the

         22        language that we want to be addressing with some minor

         23        exception that we'll deal with in debate.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         25        Connor, you're recognized.


          1             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir, I do,

          2        Mr Chairman, withdraw the amendment that is on the

          3        desk.  I do have a proposal to make a slight amendment

          4        which I understand is viewed as a friendly amendment

          5        and acceptable to the Smith Amendment.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  At the moment

          7        then, without objection, Commissioner Connor's

          8        amendment which is No. 1, is that correct -- No. 2, is

          9        withdrawn and we'll now proceed with Amendment No. 1.

         10        This will be No. 2.  All right.  This is Commissioner

         11        Smith's amendment which is offered by Commissioner

         12        Sundberg as Amendment No. 2.  Would you read it,

         13        please?

         14             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Smith on Page 1,

         15        Line 25 through Page 2, Line 4, delete those lines and

         16        insert, Because of race, religion, or physical

         17        handicap.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg on the

         19        amendment.

         20             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman, what the

         21        amendment proposes to accomplish is to strike the

         22        sentence in its entirety that currently reads, All

         23        citizens shall enjoy equal opportunity to employment,

         24        housing, public accommodations, public education, or

         25        the benefits of citizenship.


          1             It then goes on, the language following that

          2        sentence, is revised in this amendment because the

          3        language following that sentence that's stricken deals

          4        with the ability of state agencies and institutions

          5        and local agencies and institutions, their ability to

          6        take actions to remedy the past or the present affects

          7        of past discrimination on any group of people.

          8             I think we have narrowed it down.  It is clear

          9        that we're only talking about currently protected

         10        classes.  This does not intend to expand any protected

         11        classes.  It has been amended to address, I think, a

         12        concern that Commissioner Langley had and others, and

         13        I think perhaps Commissioner Barkdull, having to do

         14        with financial reparations and you will see at Line 19

         15        it specifically excludes financial reparations as

         16        actions which these agencies may take to remedy the

         17        present effects of past discrimination.

         18             The term "public" has been inserted in each of

         19        the actions or functions to make it clear that this

         20        only addresses the actions of public entities and

         21        agencies.  For example, it talks about -- it has added

         22        the word "public" before procurement of goods and

         23        services.  And Mr. Connor -- or Commissioner Connor,

         24        and I think also on behalf of Commissioner Langley

         25        would like to have added at Line 21 of this amendment


          1        where it reads -- yes.

          2             It has now been offered by Commissioner Connor

          3        and it is acceptable to me and through me acceptable

          4        to Mr. Smith -- Commissioner Smith.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  This is an amendment to the

          6        amendment; is that correct, Commissioner Connor?

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Let's get the

          9        amendment to the amendment.  It's on the table and

         10        moved by Commissioner Connor.  So we'll go to the

         11        amendment to the amendment.  Read it.  You don't have

         12        it?  Okay.  Go ahead and tell us what it does while

         13        we're waiting on it.

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, it just

         15        changes the term "public housing" to "publicly-owned

         16        housing."

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So Line 21?

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir, on Line 21.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And so instead of reading in

         20        the areas of public housing, it should read in the

         21        areas of --

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Publicly-owned housing.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Publicly-owned housing.

         24             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now the amendment to the


          1        amendment is on the table.  I'd have it read, please.

          2             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Connor on Page 1,

          3        Line 21, delete the words "public housing" and insert

          4        "publicly-owned housing".

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  As I understand

          6        it, Commissioner Sundberg, you agree to the amendment?

          7             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I do.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  All in favor of

          9        the amendment to the amendment, say aye.  Opposed.

         10             (Verbal vote taken.)

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries.  Now we're on the

         12        amendment as amended.

         13             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Ladies and gentlemen,

         14        Commissioners all, we've debate this at some great

         15        length.  Commissioner Smith has outlined all the very

         16        good reasons why his amendment should be adopted.  I

         17        suggest to you that for all of the reasons which have

         18        heretofore been expressed in debate, this is the

         19        right, correct, and meat thing to do.  I urge all of

         20        you to, please, favorably vote for this and that's my

         21        close.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now anybody else

         23        need to -- want to discuss this?  Commissioner

         24        Morsani?

         25             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Well, I hope we all


          1        remember the debate two weeks ago or discussion,

          2        whatever we are having at these commission meetings.

          3        I objected then and I must say, as I said, our hearts

          4        are all in the right place in this commission.  But I

          5        think we've already discussed in past where we say

          6        race, religion, and physical handicap.  I think we put

          7        that and we're going to propose that in Article I,

          8        Section 1, for the public.

          9             We can't fix past discrimination.  All we can

         10        hope is we have an intellectual community that -- an

         11        intelligent community, that we are no longer going to

         12        have that.  I urge -- I don't think this -- we've gone

         13        far enough.  We just can't keep rehashing these

         14        issues.  I don't think we need this at this time in

         15        our Constitution and I think that we have addressed

         16        the principal elements and with great deal of respect

         17        for the former Supreme Court Justice.

         18             I think that we just addressed this.  I said

         19        race, religion, or physical handicap.  We've taken

         20        this out of our minds.  I just urge you to remember my

         21        dissertation of two weeks ago.  We don't need this

         22        today and I urge you to vote against this proposal.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes?

         24             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, I'd like to rise in

         25        opposition to this.  I think that affirmative action


          1        is a good thing and is something most of us are in

          2        favor of.  My concern is this proposal doesn't do

          3        anything to change the law.  The affirmative action

          4        programs exist today in most of the cities and most of

          5        the counties and they are working and they are helping

          6        the people that they are designed to help.

          7             If you put this on the ballot and take it to the

          8        people, on the one hand, it doesn't change the

          9        existing law if they vote in favor of it.  If they

         10        vote against it, I think it threatens what's happening

         11        today in the affirmative action area.

         12             I think these programs which exist today and

         13        which are working today and which are bringing the

         14        minorities into the economic mainstream of the

         15        country, which in my view is really the only real

         16        solution to the so-called racial problem, I think it

         17        threatens those programs.  I think it would be much

         18        more difficult to carry out if the people of the state

         19        voted against them.

         20             I think this is the kind of thing also that kind

         21        of pits people against people and there's nothing

         22        wrong with doing that if there is some real end to

         23        being served.  But my sense is is what has been

         24        characterized in here as an aspirational proposition

         25        that doesn't do anything except kind of say, Gee,


          1        whiz, the folks up here think that what's going on is

          2        a good thing and should go on.  I just don't think

          3        it's going to help and I would urge you all to vote

          4        against it.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley?

          6             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, if I may.  I

          7        think we really need to step back and take a look at

          8        what we're doing.  I'm going to quote someone who

          9        wasn't one of my favorites in history but probably was

         10        a favorite to many of you and that's Franklin Delano

         11        Roosevelt.  And if I ever get caught quoting him, I'm

         12        in trouble.  But let me tell you what he said once in

         13        the midst of some similar problems:

         14             "We are a nation of many nationalities, many

         15        races, many religions.  We are bound by a single

         16        unity, that unity of freedom and equality.  Whoever

         17        seeks to set one nationality against another seeks to

         18        degrade all nationalities.  Whoever seeks to set one

         19        race against another seeks to enslave all races.

         20        Whoever seeks to set one religion against another

         21        seeks to destroy all religion."

         22             This proposal absolutely sets one race against

         23        another or one gender against another.  If you want to

         24        truly help people get into the mainstream of the

         25        American economy, you know the real class out there


          1        that's discriminated against, the poor.  They don't

          2        have a color and they don't have a sex.  They are the

          3        financially poor.

          4             They can't qualify for bonds to deal with Leon

          5        County or the state of Florida.  They don't have the

          6        educational background to compete for other jobs.  If

          7        you want to help somebody, do it on the financial

          8        basis that ignores these racial and gender and

          9        nationality lines.

         10             You know that 80 percent of the small businesses

         11        that start in this state fail within a year.  And, you

         12        know, almost without exception the reason for failure

         13        is not lack of talent and not lack of ideas, lack of

         14        money because it takes money to make that business

         15        run.  Who is in more need of help, the million dollar

         16        minority-owned company that's already getting a lot of

         17        the contracts or the poor white or male-owned company

         18        that is fledgling and trying to get started in

         19        business?

         20             What we've done and what we have in place is make

         21        a bunch of fat cats very rich.  When we discussed this

         22        before, I gave you a couple of examples.  A friend of

         23        mine, his grandmother was a full-fledged Indian.  He

         24        has two companies, one's a minority, one's regular.

         25        And when he gets -- when somebody else gets the big


          1        bid, he gets the 2 percent because his grandmother was

          2        an Indian.  Didn't have to bid, just fill the slot.

          3             Another part of this that bothers me is housing.

          4        I have asked several lawyers around my seat here, What

          5        is public housing?  Nobody really seems to know.

          6        Certainly we know some big complexes that are public

          7        housing.  But when my aunt decides to rent out a room,

          8        is that then public housing?

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley, that

         10        was amended.

         11             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  It was publicly owned.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Correct.

         13             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I don't know but that one

         14        either.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's what we're addressing

         16        at the moment.

         17             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I understand, sir.  But

         18        let me tell you about a situation that happened.

         19        California has this same or similar language in their

         20        Constitution now.  There is a lady out there now who

         21        lost in the Agency hearing, who lost in the lower

         22        courts and has appealed to the California Supreme

         23        Court because she was an elderly widow.  She didn't

         24        have much money, she had a big old house and she

         25        wanted some work done so she ran an ad in the paper,


          1        Wanted:  Single, white Christian male, ablebodied to

          2        help with carpentry work in exchange for a room.

          3             She so far has been assessed over $11,000 in

          4        fines and possibly faces the loss of her house for a

          5        judgment for those fines.  That's not America.  Good

          6        gracious.  Look at the language that's in the

          7        Constitution right now that precedes the underlying

          8        language, No person shall be deprived of any right

          9        because of race, religion or physical handicap.  Why

         10        must you go any further, it's there now.  Thank you.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you, Commissioner

         12        Langley.  Commissioner Mathis?

         13             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I sometimes wonder if I

         14        should even bother about standing up to some of the

         15        proposals that I've proposed but I took a licking and

         16        I'm keeping on ticking.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We're delighted to hear from

         18        you, proceed.

         19             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Why should we have this

         20        proposal in the Constitution is because the laws that

         21        discriminated against African-Americans were in the

         22        Constitution.  The floor had black codes.  Black codes

         23        were passed in the response to the 1862 Emancipation

         24        Proclamation and they sought to institutionalize a

         25        segregated racial class system within the rubric of


          1        democracy.

          2             We are not calling for broad scale, open the

          3        doors and let any black person come in.  I mean,

          4        that's a misconception, I think.  Affirmative action

          5        has a lot to do with letting everyone in and being

          6        inclusive.  Why this proposal?  Why now if the people

          7        of Florida vote against it?  Why this proposal is

          8        because we are clear about the wording of the

          9        proposal, that this proposal will be discussed and

         10        debated freely among the voters of Florida rather than

         11        like with Proposition 209 in California, a kind of

         12        sleight of hand game being played with wording and

         13        language and passage.

         14             It would be better to have this proposal on the

         15        ballot, it is clear, we can discuss it openly and

         16        have, I think, an intellectually honest debate about

         17        this issue of affirmative action.  Nat Ford

         18        (phonetic), who is a city commissioner in Orlando was

         19        responding to the issue of affirmative action and he

         20        says when he was growing up in Orlando, and reached

         21        working age, he perused the want ads for job

         22        possibilities.  Kind of like what Commissioner Langley

         23        was talking about some advertisement here.

         24             And ad for jobs with half-decent salaries and

         25        working conditions ended with four words, "colored


          1        need not apply."  Was this negative action for blacks?

          2        Was this affirmative action for whites or a plain old

          3        case of racism pure and simple?  He goes on to say

          4        later in the article that after 245 years of blacks

          5        being held in bondage and another century or so being

          6        denied opportunities based solely on race, he doesn't

          7        think that 30-odd years of trying to give

          8        African-Americans and others, other denied groups,

          9        equal access to the workplace or any other place, for

         10        participation in our society is enough.

         11             I disagree that this language is aspirational.  I

         12        think this language is clear.  Recent Supreme Court

         13        decisions have held that in order to have a basis for

         14        remedial programs that remedy past discrimination

         15        local governments must show past history of

         16        discrimination.  I think this language gives a

         17        constitutional basis upon which to base these programs

         18        on.

         19             Mr. Langley talks about all the contracts going

         20        do minorities.  That is not true.  Take the Greater

         21        Orlando Aviation Authority, still 85 percent of their

         22        contracts go to nonwhite, non-women contractors, 85

         23        percent.  We have had programs instituted that only

         24        give 33 percent, 10 percent to non-female minorities

         25        and the rest going to white female.


          1             Having this basis in our Constitution provides, I

          2        think, a strong foundation for those remedial programs

          3        and I would urge you to pass this amendment.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          5        Barkdull was next, Commissioner Connor.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of inquiry,

          7        Mr. Chairman.  We're on the amendment as amended as I

          8        understand it and not on the original proposal; is

          9        that correct?

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'm going to vote for the

         12        amendment because I think it makes a better bad

         13        proposal.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You remind me

         15        we're on the amendment and I've allowed debate to

         16        wander.  Would all of those in favor of the

         17        amendment -- are you on the amendment, Commissioner

         18        Connor, or are you going to speak to the proposal?

         19             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'm on the amendment which

         20        has been amended as I understand it.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.  You

         22        certainly are welcome to speak on that.

         23             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  What I'd like to do, if the

         24        Chair pleases, is to ask some questions and I'd like

         25        to reserve my right to address it if I may.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Certainly, who do you want to

          2        address the question to?

          3             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Commissioner Sundberg.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg yields

          5        to you for questions.

          6             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Commissioner Sundberg, so

          7        the record is abundantly clear, am I correct in

          8        understanding that the classes that you deem to be

          9        affected by this proposed amendment are those which

         10        include race, religion, gender, and physical handicap?

         11             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  National origin, yes,

         12        that's correct.

         13             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  And that would represent

         14        the universe of protected classes that you envision

         15        under this proposal.

         16             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  It's my understanding

         17        those are the classes which have been identified in

         18        the decisions of -- the federal decisions.

         19             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Right.  Is it your

         20        understanding or intention that this amendment would

         21        be broader in its effect than what you understand to

         22        be the current federal decisions which address this

         23        particular area?

         24             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  No, it is not my intent,

         25        sir.


          1             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  And would this proposal,

          2        for instance, as it relates to the physically

          3        handicapped, in your estimation require any greater

          4        burdens on a public body than those already imposed by

          5        the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example?

          6             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  No.

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  When the term is used to

          8        remedy the present effects of past discrimination,

          9        does that mean, as you understand the current federal

         10        decisions, that in order to qualify for an affirmative

         11        action program you would have to identify a group that

         12        presently was suffering from the past effects of

         13        discrimination?  In other words, by virtue of some of

         14        these practices or laws or other actions by government

         15        in the past such that that past discrimination

         16        actually has a present adverse effect on one of these

         17        protected classes that you make reference to?

         18             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Yes, sir, it is my

         19        understanding of the current state of the law that in

         20        order for, you know, an action program, an affirmative

         21        action program, to pass constitutional muster based on

         22        the premise that it is remedying the present effects

         23        of past discrimination the record must be clear that

         24        in fact some present group or some group is presently

         25        being disadvantaged because of a clear record of past


          1        discrimination against that group.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you.  Those are all

          3        the questions I have at this time, Mr. Chairman.

          4        Thank you.  Thank you, Commissioner Sundberg.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We're on the

          6        amendment.  Is everybody prepared to vote on the

          7        amendment then we'll get to the proposal.  All those

          8        in favor of the amendment say aye.  Opposed.

          9             (Verbal vote taken.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment carries.  Now

         11        we're on the proposal as amended and we will entertain

         12        debate on the proposal as amended.  Commissioner

         13        Sundberg, do you have additional opening remarks on

         14        the proposal as amended?

         15             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  No, but I'm prepared to

         16        close if there are any other comments on the other

         17        side.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There may be some people that

         19        want to speak in opposition to it as amended because

         20        it was indicated by at least one member that he was

         21        voting for the amendment --

         22             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  That's precisely my

         23        point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bat cleanup if I may.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does anybody want to speak

         25        for or against the proposal as amended?  All right.


          1        Commissioner Anthony.

          2             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

          3        I stand asking the members of the commission to

          4        support and vote yes on this proposal.  A civil rights

          5        advocate named Fanny Lou Hamer used to say, I'm sick

          6        and tired of being sick and tired.  And the reason she

          7        was saying that was because of present government

          8        policy that she was fighting for years and years and

          9        accepting public policy that was not inclusive.  I too

         10        feel sick and tired of being sick and tired of

         11        discussing this concept and this issue and also

         12        aggravated, I must say, that the lack of understanding

         13        and sensitivity and tolerance to what is occurring in

         14        our nation.

         15             If this wasn't an issue and if this language was

         16        not needed, our president of the United States would

         17        not right now be promoting America as one approach in

         18        communities.  We would not need this type of proposal,

         19        in fact, if it was not still in our state.  People

         20        that are not getting selected for jobs and homes

         21        because of their skin color, their gender or their

         22        religious orientation.  That still exists in our

         23        state.

         24             Many of you would ask the question perhaps,

         25        Clarence, how can you say that?  You're standing


          1        amongst us in this collegial body.  This is clearly a

          2        protected environment where all of us have an

          3        opportunity here to share our viewpoints without being

          4        judged and I do judge anyone and their comments,

          5        that's your principle, those are your values, that's

          6        what you believe in, Commissioner Langley.  And I

          7        respect you for that.

          8             But outside this protected environment, I can

          9        tell you it still exists where because of who you are

         10        you still get treated differently.  Because of who you

         11        are when you travel, I travel, I still get treated

         12        differently.  Until I walk into a room -- and I've

         13        done this with a city manager of mine for eight

         14        years -- he and I used to schedule a meeting, and he'd

         15        schedule a meeting as Mayor Anthony.

         16             And we would say to each other, I wonder who the

         17        person is going to walk to when they walk out of their

         18        office and he happens to be Caucasian, and he would

         19        say, I bet, I wager you that they will walk to me

         20        instead of you and I would say, I bet they will as

         21        well.  For eight years we used to have a fun game.  It

         22        was fun for him because he always won the wager.  They

         23        would always walk out to him to get -- to take in the

         24        mayor to meet with whoever that is.

         25             The assumptions that we still carry in the state


          1        of Florida is what we are trying to develop public

          2        policy around and to be able to, as affirmative action

          3        is defined, if there is a level playing field, the

          4        assumption to me, in affirmative action is if you and

          5        I, Commissioner Zack, are applying for a job, applying

          6        for housing and we're both qualified to get that

          7        housing, no, that job, if you do not have diversity

          8        within your workforce, affirmative action saying,

          9        Being we're both qualified, select a person who may be

         10        underrepresented.  That happens in every setting.  It

         11        happens to us based upon political parties,

         12        geographical areas, gender, our age.  It happens.

         13             What we're saying in this statement, in this

         14        proposal, is that Florida is inclusive, Florida is

         15        looking toward the future, Florida is making an

         16        investment in the future for not only us that are

         17        sitting in this room but also for our kids so when

         18        they look at the state of Florida and they travel

         19        around this nation they will say the state of Florida

         20        is a state that really feels that people should have

         21        an opportunity.

         22             Now why is this issue a big issue, and it's

         23        becoming more and more, because economics is beginning

         24        to play a role in this issue.

         25             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  As long as we were giving


          1        people the right to vote, long as we were saying, you

          2        have the right to public housing, that's okay.  But

          3        when we started saying that minority and women should

          4        also have the right to participate in the State of

          5        Florida's economic growth, that is when the challenges

          6        and the threats of our state really started occurring.

          7             It was all right to sit at the dinner table and

          8        to go in the same restaurants, but when I was able to,

          9        and others were able to start participating as

         10        minority business persons, that's when the challenge

         11        began.

         12             Seven years ago I had my own consulting firm, and

         13        through minority business programs I would get

         14        business opportunities.  And let me tell you what

         15        would happen, I would get on a team and they would

         16        give me 10 percent of that business, 10 percent when I

         17        was qualified to get the entire 100 percent.  The

         18        assumption when there were problems with that contract

         19        and the contract was higher was because we had

         20        minority business programs as a part of that local

         21        community.  I beg to differ.

         22             There are problems by major contractors, whatever

         23        color they are, whatever gender they are, and we

         24        should not judge based upon that.  I say to you,

         25        Commissioners, if we really want to show America that


          1        Florida is an inclusive state, one that sets a playing

          2        field for everybody to be able to participate in the

          3        economic growth of this state, and that's what I'm

          4        basically supporting as well, housing, economics, then

          5        this is the proposal to do so.  And I encourage you to

          6        do that.

          7             And truly, I'm sick and tired of being sick and

          8        tired of this proposal.  We need to do the right thing

          9        and vote yes on this proposal.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Further debate.  Commissioner

         11        Langley.

         12             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  For a friendly question.

         13        It is amazing that you can even refer to the level

         14        playing field.  The current Constitution levels the

         15        playing field.  What you are talking about is

         16        reparation.  What you are talking about, and

         17        Commissioner Morsani said, you know, you can't remedy

         18        the losses of the past.  Well, Commissioner Morsani,

         19        you can, but it's going to be at a cost to an innocent

         20        person today, a person who didn't participate in the

         21        discrimination of the past.

         22             But you know there's only that one pie, that one

         23        pie, Commissioner Anthony.  If you want a larger part,

         24        with no bidding, you are going to have to take it from

         25        somebody else who is equally qualified or perhaps even


          1        more qualified, you are going to take from them.

          2        There's no endless pot of money from which the

          3        government can satisfy the reparations of the past.

          4             So, you are going to cost the taxpayers of this

          5        state, and you already have.  And you can get figures

          6        from the Department of Transportation to satisfy these

          7        minority set-asides.  You are going to cost them and

          8        cost them and cost them here.  You know, the

          9        vernacular, there ain't no free lunch.  So, you are

         10        going to make the taxpayers continue to buy these

         11        lunches or you are going to take away from innocent

         12        third parties who didn't have anything to do with

         13        this.

         14             I never owned a slave.  I think I am one to the

         15        government, but I've never owned one.  So, you know,

         16        it's not right, you are not treating those other

         17        people who are just as qualified the truly level

         18        playing field, you are not treating them equal.  Do

         19        you have a way that you can do this without hurting

         20        someone else?

         21             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes, I think, Commissioner

         22        Langley, your assumptions are not really based fairly,

         23        and I truly feel that.  The assumption is that

         24        minority businesses are not as qualified and can't

         25        provide the same quality and level of service.  And


          1        when we base our discussion on that type of

          2        assumption, it's really difficult for me to share with

          3        you how we can move forward when we are basing it on

          4        not an accurate assumption.

          5             The real assumption, the real challenge for us in

          6        our state and in our nation is that if two attorneys,

          7        Langley I and Langley II come in for an opportunity

          8        and Langley I has, or you know, you are in a race and

          9        Langley I has been running that same race and gotten

         10        100 years of a start over Langley II, clearly it may

         11        not be your fault that you were given that privilege

         12        to run 100 years prior to Langley II, but in fact that

         13        gives you an upper hand on opportunities in every

         14        setting.

         15             I will tell you that there are government

         16        contractors throughout this state that are five to six

         17        to seven months behind on government projects that

         18        have not one percentage of minority participation.  I

         19        will tell you, in Orange County, the courthouse, they

         20        were months late, and it was not the cause of minority

         21        contractors.  So the assumption is for us,

         22        Commissioners, that wherever there are minority --

         23        wherever there are government contracts and private

         24        contracts, if minority contractors are there, does not

         25        mean that it's going to be higher, and it does not


          1        mean that it's going to be on time or late.  But let's

          2        try to have this discussion based upon the assumption

          3        that this will provide an opportunity for all in the

          4        State of Florida.  And I thank you for that question,

          5        again, Commissioner Langley, it was friendly.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Marshall.

          7             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          8        I rise with some reluctance to, I think, oppose this

          9        measure.  At the moment I'm not sure how I'm going to

         10        vote, but I'll tell you how I'm leaning and I would

         11        like to tell you why.  Commissioner Anthony, who said

         12        a moment ago, he appealed to us to vote, to do the

         13        right thing and vote for this measure.  It may be the

         14        right thing, but I think it is the wrong reason.

         15             I think it's a potentially devisive issue.  It is

         16        a question that doesn't need to be asked.  I think

         17        Florida -- I think this is the wrong time and Florida

         18        is the wrong place to ask this question.  In the

         19        debate on this last, two weeks ago, Commissioner

         20        Sundberg, if I remember correctly, was asked, wouldn't

         21        this run the risk of calling unfavorable attention to

         22        other amendments that we are going to take to the

         23        people, maybe even to the whole package.  And

         24        Commissioner Sundberg, if I heard him correctly, said

         25        I'm willing to take that risk.


          1             I'm not willing to take that risk.  In a personal

          2        sense, any one of us has a right to take whatever risk

          3        we want to.  But I think we are risking something on

          4        behalf of this commission that I happen to believe is

          5        wrong.  I'm not satisfied with the progress that's

          6        being made.  I think Commissioner Mathis and

          7        Commissioner Anthony have made very compelling

          8        statements, moving.

          9             And it's not that I'm saying that the people of

         10        Florida are prejudiced, that they are, you know, they

         11        are bigots.  That's not why I'm suggesting that people

         12        will be turned against it; it's because it is the

         13        wrong question at the wrong time.  We are making

         14        progress.  Not as fast as I would like, not as fast as

         15        we ought to be.  But I can talk about some very

         16        significant progress that was made at Florida under my

         17        direction at State University over a period of 15 or

         18        20 years, very substantial progress.  I want to keep

         19        fighting that battle, and I think there are many other

         20        people who want to continue fighting that battle and

         21        winning victories.  Not as many as we would like, not

         22        as fast as we would like, but winning some victories.

         23        And I think that putting this issue in the

         24        Constitution will crystallize our position and serve

         25        as a devisive function in our society.  And for that


          1        reason, I think I'm going to vote against it.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          3        Mathis and Connor, and Sundberg, you want to close

          4        when it comes time; is that correct, Commissioner

          5        Sundberg?

          6             All right.  Commissioner Mathis, you are next

          7        again.

          8             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  When I got an offer to sit

          9        on this commission, I called by grand-daddy.  My

         10        grand-daddy lives in New Orleans, Louisiana.  He was a

         11        chef in New York and moved back home.  And I said,

         12        Grand-daddy, they are going to have me sit on a

         13        commission and we are going to discuss the

         14        Constitution of the State of Florida.  He was really

         15        quiet for a while and he said, Well, Jacinta, you know

         16        what I want you to do, I want you to get me my

         17        40 acres and a mule.  And then he said, No, I don't

         18        want no mule, I want a Mercedes.  But the issue there

         19        was that my grandfather knew that he had been

         20        disenfranchised by a number of laws.  And I consider

         21        my grandfather rather successful.  He owns his own

         22        home, he had his own business, but I also know that he

         23        was denied opportunities to succeed that were freely

         24        given and open to others.

         25             When I was in law school, I worked with the Clerk


          1        of the House of Representatives because I had to work

          2        in order to help me get through law school.  And I was

          3        walking up from FSU Law School to the Capitol, and a

          4        fellow student, we'll just call him Carlton, was

          5        walking by me.  And Carlton said, Jacinta, you know,

          6        we have really come far.  He said, Not too long ago,

          7        my father, my great-grandfather owned slaves.  And he

          8        said, Now here we are, both walking up to the Capitol,

          9        we are both interns, we are both in law school.  We

         10        have reached some sort of plateau.  And I looked at

         11        Carlton and I said, If my father had been able to own

         12        property like your father had, if my father had been

         13        able to go into motels and hotels, own businesses, get

         14        loans from banks, I would be in the damn Governor's

         15        Mansion by now instead of walking up to the capitol

         16        with you.

         17             There is that issue that, Where would I be had

         18        there been opportunities?  I don't know.  We don't

         19        know.  But we can, as a state, take steps to remedy

         20        the denial of opportunities to a number of different

         21        groups.

         22             And I disagree that that means that we are going

         23        to have to take from another to give to one, because I

         24        think and I believe there's a principle of alchemy

         25        working here, that the broader our participation, the


          1        bigger the economic pie and the more there is for

          2        everyone.  We are a better state when we are

          3        inclusive.  And I think this makes a statement about

          4        our desire to be inclusive.  And I would urge you to

          5        support this amendment.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, President

          8        Woodrow Wilson once made this statement.  He said, A

          9        nation that does not remember what it was yesterday

         10        does not know what it is today nor what it is trying

         11        to do.  We are trying to do a futile thing if we do

         12        not know where we came from or what we have been

         13        about.

         14             As we reflect upon American history, I think we

         15        have many, many things to be proud of.  The founding

         16        fathers of our country were, without a doubt, some of

         17        the most far-sided people that ever came upon the

         18        scene of history.  And because of their vision and

         19        because of their concern for freedom and democracy, we

         20        have enjoyed the greatest measure of freedom of any

         21        people on the face of the earth.

         22             But if you look at the whole of American history,

         23        you know that there are some dark spots that have

         24        appeared in our past, not the least of which has been

         25        profound and significant discrimination against racial


          1        minorities.  From the owning of slaves to the

          2        segregation of the races, in the areas of education,

          3        and in just about every other kind of arena that you

          4        can think of, and certainly even within my memory,

          5        during the time that I have grown up.  Now, I can

          6        certainly understand and appreciate Senator Langley's

          7        concern that affirmative action programs may in some

          8        way inure to the detriment and create new victims

          9        among those who did not engage in past discrimination.

         10             But I think all of you will acknowledge as we

         11        stand here today, that there are many of us here today

         12        who are the beneficiaries, as we stand here today, of

         13        past discrimination.  We didn't engage in that,

         14        necessarily, ourselves.  We weren't -- we didn't have

         15        the same copability of others who may have gone before

         16        us, but without a shadow of a doubt, because of what

         17        has happened in the past, and because of much of the

         18        economic prosperity in this country was built upon the

         19        backs of people who were being oppressed, many of

         20        those simply by an accident of birth are beneficiaries

         21        of past discrimination that has gone on.

         22             I have really struggled and wrestled, as

         23        Commissioner Marshall has, with this issue.  And

         24        basically what it comes down to for me is this.  I

         25        don't want, under any circumstances, Commissioner


          1        Sundberg, to perpetuate in an adverse manner the

          2        present effects of past discrimination.  I want to be

          3        judged on the basis of my conduct, of my acts or

          4        omissions, not on the basis of someone else's.

          5             And while I may not be able to remedy the

          6        injustices of the past, Lord willing, Lord willing, I

          7        will have the boldness and the courage to try to

          8        remedy in the present the injustices that have

          9        resulted as a consequence of past discrimination.

         10             And this has not been an easy issue for me to

         11        come to grips with, and I would appreciate,

         12        Commissioner Sundberg and Commissioner Smith, working

         13        with me in an effort to draw this language in such a

         14        way so that it didn't suffer from overbreath.  And as

         15        I understand it, the goal, the purpose as stated here,

         16        very simply is to enable these, basically, public

         17        bodies in the public arena to remedy the present

         18        effects, the present adverse effects of past

         19        discrimination.  In other words, to overcome the

         20        adverse affects that people now suffer in the present

         21        because of what has gone on in the past.

         22             I share Commissioner Lowndes' concern that this

         23        may very well have an adverse affect in the future,

         24        and I'm interested and eager in hearing from the

         25        public as we go in our public meetings about the


          1        effect of that in the future, but I'll tell you, I was

          2        mortified and chagrined and had been fearful and was

          3        concerned when we had a presenter in Orlando who,

          4        under the Florida Civil Rights Initiative, I believe

          5        it was called, was proposing to advance a proposal

          6        that would put us in the very same imbroglio that the

          7        people in California got into, which I think was very

          8        productive of a lot of racial disharmony.

          9             And so, in terms of how the issue was framed, as

         10        I perceive it, this may be one of the most positive

         11        ways in which the issue can be framed.  And so I

         12        intend at this juncture to support this proposal.

         13        Martin Luther King made a statement that I think we

         14        might all ponder as we reflect the direction in which

         15        we are going to go as we address this issue.

         16             He made this observation, he said, cowardess asks

         17        the question, is it safe; expediency asks the

         18        question, is it politic; vanity asks the question, is

         19        it popular; but conscience asks the question, is it

         20        right.  And there comes a time when one must take a

         21        position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular,

         22        but he must take it because conscience tells him it is

         23        right.

         24             Ladies and gentlemen, my conscience tells me that

         25        this is the right position to take, and that to the


          1        extent we preserve the opportunity for government, to

          2        engage in affirmative action programs in the future in

          3        the Sunshine, I have every confidence that when a

          4        public body steps over the line, when a public body

          5        goes to excess, when a public body simply pays back

          6        for political support, those are the kind of things

          7        that the public can address, register concern about

          8        and tweak in order to make sure that the programs that

          9        we have and the way in which we order ourselves comes

         10        back into equilibrium.

         11             Unquestionably, unquestionably, the Constitution

         12        of the United States and of the State of Florida

         13        accords equal protection to all people, most all

         14        people.  You know the exception that I'm concerned

         15        about and that I've not been able to persuade you

         16        about.  But that's for another day, and I'm going to

         17        continue to try to persuade you in that vein for the

         18        same reasons that I'm advancing here, and it is

         19        because every human being, rich or poor, black or

         20        white, old or handicapped, male or female, pre-born or

         21        post-born is a creature created in God's image, and

         22        because of that, if for no other reason, entitled to

         23        be accorded basic human dignity, and to be treated

         24        fairly and equitably with their fellow man.  I

         25        encourage your support of this proposal.  Thank you.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Before

          2        Commissioner Sundberg closes, any further debate?

          3        Commissioner Sundberg, you are recognized to close.

          4             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          5        I'm almost reluctant to rise after the eloquence of

          6        Commissioner Anthony and Mathis and Commissioner

          7        Connor.  Commissioner Lowndes, you pose a very serious

          8        question, and I know it's of conscience, as to whether

          9        or not this doesn't represent simply a restatement of

         10        the law, and by serving it up we run the risk of

         11        someone rejecting it.

         12             Well, I tell you that I believe as sincerely as I

         13        can believe anything, that we must do this, because I

         14        am satisfied to a moral certainty there are those

         15        groups out there, Commissioner Connor mentioned one,

         16        and they all have the most democratic egalitarian

         17        names of any that you have ever heard, who are going

         18        to make presentations, they are going to urge on the

         19        people of this state, by petition initiative or

         20        otherwise, the same sort of rules that they

         21        accomplished by Proposition 209 in California.

         22             As has been mentioned here, then it becomes

         23        necessary how the issue is presented, how it is

         24        framed.  This goes one step farther, this says, We

         25        don't care in how high-minded language you may frame


          1        an issue to address this particular issue, that you

          2        are going to have to repeal some language that's

          3        there, and you can't do it by sneak attack; you are

          4        going to have to do it up front and say, we are

          5        proposing a repeal of action in the State of Florida

          6        that is intended to remedy the present effects of past

          7        discrimination.  And I think that serves an extremely

          8        important function.  It is not just aspirational, it

          9        is necessary and needed.

         10             Commissioner Morsani, again, I know that you are

         11        as genuine as you can be in your feelings that, you

         12        know, we now do have the level playing field, and

         13        everybody likes to use this sports or athletics

         14        analogy, level playing field.  The problem with the

         15        level playing field is that for hundreds of years, it

         16        was tilted in a direction where these minorities who

         17        are addressed by this proposal were going to go up a

         18        45 degree angle.

         19             And so, they say, all right, that's okay, we have

         20        leveled the playing field, it's no longer tilted.  The

         21        problem is, the score is now 100 to nothing and what

         22        we are trying to do is say, maybe we are going to have

         23        to, in some instances where we can demonstrate that

         24        that playing field was in fact tilted at a 90 degree

         25        angle against you and you can show there are present


          1        effects of that, not just that it occurred, but you

          2        can demonstrate the present effects of that, then we

          3        are going to tilt it back in the other direction for a

          4        while until you catch up.

          5             And you say, Well -- and Commissioner Langley

          6        says that this is, you know, how can you justify doing

          7        that to innocent people?  Well, and I don't propose

          8        for a moment that anyone in this room or anybody that

          9        I know currently has deliberately discriminated

         10        against women, blacks, but it has happened, and as

         11        Commissioner Connor points out, those of us who were

         12        not discriminated against have enjoyed a heritage of

         13        advantage that those who were discriminated against

         14        did not enjoy, so that we have, in fact, benefited

         15        from that discrimination just like the team that is

         16        100 to nothing ahead have enjoyed all of the state

         17        championships, their players got to go to the best

         18        colleges on scholarships because of those advantages

         19        they enjoyed.  And so, simply saying the playing field

         20        is level today doesn't, doesn't erase those present

         21        effects of that past discrimination.

         22             Lastly, I'm willing to render the unequivocal

         23        opinion, as one lawyer in this room, that this

         24        amendment will not cause the least bit of distress to

         25        any widow lady in the State of Florida who wants to


          1        rent a room to anybody she chooses to rent a room to.

          2        Thank you.  I urge you folks to support the

          3        proposition.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll unlock the

          5        machine.  Proceed to vote.

          6             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine.

          8             READING CLERK:  Twenty-three yeas, eight nays.

          9        Mr. Chairman.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll move to the

         11        next proposal on special order.  By your votes, you

         12        have adopted the amended proposal.  Would you read

         13        Committee Substitute for Proposals 172 and 162 by the

         14        Committee on Legislative Matters by Commissioners

         15        Thompson and Evans-Jones.

         16             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for

         17        Proposals 172 and 162, a proposal to repeal Article

         18        III, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution, relating

         19        to legislative apportionment and create Article II,

         20        Section 10, Florida Constitution; providing for a

         21        commission to establish legislative and congressional

         22        districts; providing for the appointment of members to

         23        the commission; requiring that the Chief Justice of

         24        the Supreme Court fill certain vacancies on the

         25        commission; requiring meetings and records of the


          1        commission to be open to the public; providing certain

          2        exceptions; requiring that the commission file its

          3        final report with the Secretary of State within a

          4        specified period.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Ms.

          6        Evans-Jones.

          7             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you, Mr.

          8        Chairman.  What I would like to do first is just walk

          9        you through the bill and then I would like to tell you

         10        why it is such an excellent bill.

         11             (Gavel.)

         12             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Wait just a second and we'll

         15        get order.

         16             (Pause.)

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         18             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  You have to listen to

         19        little old ladies in tennis shoes, everybody, so

         20        listen up here.  There are nine commissioners who

         21        would be on this independent reapportionment

         22        commission.  And let me tell you how they are

         23        selected; they are appointed members.

         24             The President of the Senate and the Speaker of

         25        the House each appoint two commissioners.  A member of


          1        a non-majority party would also appoint two members,

          2        in the Senate and in the House.  And those eight

          3        commissioners would elect their chair.  And if the

          4        commissioners can't agree on a chairman, the Chief

          5        Justice would make the appointment.

          6             Are there any restrictions on who could be on the

          7        commission?  Yes, there are.  Commissioners could not

          8        be an elected public official, a party officer, a

          9        lobbyist, a legislative employee, a congressional

         10        employee, or a relative of a Florida Legislature

         11        member or of the United States House of

         12        Representatives.  Additionally, commissioners would

         13        take an oath that they would not run for legislative

         14        office or they would not lobby for two years.

         15             Does the commission have standards that they

         16        would have to go by?  This is extremely important, and

         17        yes, they would.  The commission would be required to

         18        use sensible and fair redistricting standards in

         19        drawing the maps.  Those standards are that districts

         20        should have equal population, that they shall be

         21        composed of contiguous territory and the district

         22        shall be drawn so as not to dilute minority voting

         23        strengths.  And commissioners will have to consider

         24        drawing districts that are compact.

         25             Would the Legislature get to vote on the


          1        redistricting maps?  No, they would not.  And this is

          2        extremely important because we are trying to take some

          3        of the power away from the Legislature.

          4             Could the commission's redistricting plans be

          5        challenged?  Yes, they could.  Parties could present

          6        adversary interests before the state Supreme Court.

          7        What if the Court declares the plan invalid?  The

          8        commission would draw a new plan to conform to the

          9        Court's judgment.  Are there single-member districts

         10        required?  Yes, there are.  Forty single-member Senate

         11        districts, and a 120-member House, and as many

         12        congressional districts as are apportioned to the

         13        state.

         14             Are the meetings noticed and open to the public?

         15        And this again is extremely important, because they

         16        are not now; and, yes, they would be.  And they would

         17        also have public hearings when it was deemed

         18        necessary.

         19             How will the committee be funded?  And the

         20        committee would be funded by the Legislature.  How

         21        many commissioners must vote to approve the plan?  It

         22        would have to be a majority of the commission.  What

         23        are the time requirements?  The plan filed with the

         24        Secretary of State, 150 days after the chairman has

         25        been appointed, so it would be very timely.


          1             Who supports an independent commission besides

          2        myself?  Common Cause has been a long time advocate of

          3        an independent commission.  The League of Women Voters

          4        is a long time advocate of this proposal.  The AARP

          5        legislative committee is an advocate of this proposal.

          6             And I think that you have to understand -- well,

          7        I presented this bill in 1982.  At that time, we

          8        allowed, in my proposal, to have the Governor appoint

          9        some members, but we have determined after going

         10        through the committee process, that indeed it should

         11        be legislative appositeness, but the difference being

         12        that there will be Democrats and Republicans.  There

         13        will be a fairness that has not been done before.

         14             And you stop and think, How can the Legislature

         15        really be impartial in redistricting their own seats?

         16        I'm here to tell you that indeed they cannot.  And I

         17        would like to just tell you a little story about when

         18        my seat was being redistricted.  We lived in

         19        multi-member districts at that time and were going to

         20        single-member districts.

         21             One of the staff members gave me a call and said,

         22        Mrs. Evans, I would like to ask you which Republican

         23        you would like to run against?  We have looked at the

         24        voting records and we have recognized that you can

         25        defeat any of them, so, who do you want in your


          1        district, we are drawing your district today?  And I

          2        said, Well, I don't really want any of them, thank

          3        you, and if you really do that to me, my children are

          4        grown, I can move anywhere in the county, and I will

          5        run.  And if you really look at your records, I could

          6        beat the Democrat who is also a member of the

          7        delegation, and that's what I would do.

          8             Well, they gave me my seat; however, they knew

          9        how to apportion, and since I left, the district that

         10        was drawn, even though I won it one more time and

         11        decided not to run again, it's been a Democrat seat

         12        ever since.

         13             You have to realize that who knows who is going

         14        to be in power later.  Right now the Republicans are

         15        in power in the House and the Senate, and I'm sure

         16        there's feelings of some of the members, well the

         17        Democrats have been able to do this for many, many

         18        years and now it's our turn.  But I'm telling you that

         19        that's not the way that we should operate and we are

         20        not here as partisan politicians; we are here trying

         21        to respond to the citizens of the State of Florida.

         22             You all remember, in every single public hearing

         23        that we attended, people wanted to take this

         24        responsibility away from the Legislature and to put it

         25        into an independent commission.  And I'm here to tell


          1        you that that is indeed the way to go.  I think that

          2        the proposal before you is very fair; it's something

          3        that should be given deep thought and consideration.

          4             And I think that what you have to remember is

          5        that we are all appointed, not as Republicans and not

          6        as democrats, but as members of this state.  And we

          7        need to look at what's best for the state.  Nobody

          8        really should be allowed to tell us how to vote; we

          9        have to look at our own conscience and determine what

         10        is best for the citizens of Florida.

         11             I can tell you that this is something that many,

         12        many people want, and I believe that if you allow it

         13        to get on the ballot, that the people of Florida will

         14        have an opportunity to express themselves.  I can

         15        assure you that the Legislature itself would never

         16        allow this to happen, so we have a unique

         17        responsibility here to be able to put it on the

         18        ballot.  It would be 20 years before we would have

         19        that opportunity again.  And I ask you to please,

         20        please let's consider this and let's do what the

         21        citizens of Florida will have an opportunity to

         22        express themselves as they have in the public

         23        hearings, saying this is the right thing to do, it is

         24        the fair thing to do.  And who knows who is going to

         25        be in charge down the road, just make it equitable,


          1        and may the best woman or man win.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you, ma'am.  There is

          3        an amendment on the table by Commissioner Zack.  If

          4        you would read the amendment, please.  It's been moved

          5        by Commissioner Zack.

          6             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Zack on Page 2,

          7        Line 22, after the period, insert, except to meet the

          8        foregoing requirements, division of counties should be

          9        avoided whenever possible.  When counties are divided,

         10        the number of municipalities, town, and territories

         11        contained in more than one district of the same house

         12        shall be as small as possible.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack.

         14             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Actually, the proposal you

         15        have in front of you is a combination of three

         16        different proposals that we worked through on the

         17        committee to combine the best of each of them.  And

         18        when it came to this issue, frankly, I think what

         19        happened was we just ran out of time more than

         20        anything else.  And this is to deal with the concerns

         21        that were raised by various people at the public

         22        hearings, they wanted the political subdivisions to

         23        remain together as much as possible.  And that's just

         24        to make sure that you don't, when you can avoid it,

         25        have five different districts for one county.  So it's


          1        intending to put into effect what we heard the wishes

          2        of the people in those subdivisions are.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones.

          4             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  That is a friendly

          5        amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge people to vote for

          6        it.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  On the amendment.

          8        Commissioner Scott.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,

         10        what we have here is two competing ideas.  In Florida,

         11        as you well know, at least in Broward, and I think in

         12        Tampa, Pinellas, maybe Orange, what city boundaries

         13        and political jurisdictions are is not really

         14        determined by anything other than maybe if they got a

         15        local law passed in the Legislature, somebody wanted

         16        their land annexed by petition to some city.

         17             To say what this amendment says would, in effect,

         18        tell the people in Tampa Bay that they can't have a

         19        district like Senator Jim Hargrades (phonetic), which

         20        has now been approved by the United States Supreme

         21        Court.  And I'm concerned, I have expressed this all

         22        the way along, if we are going to have an outline and

         23        direction to somebody other than the Legislature to do

         24        reapportionment, that we don't put in there political

         25        subdivisions, counties and so forth because the most


          1        important criteria that I think should be in there is

          2        to maintain minority voting rights to the extent

          3        possible, which in Florida is now possible, at least

          4        under the Supreme Court decision.

          5             So, I'm not sure -- and I'm kind of -- I thought

          6        we were told, the staff was told that this wouldn't be

          7        coming up today, so I thought we would have a chance

          8        to look and see exactly what his amendment is and get

          9        better prepared on it.  But I think his amendment is

         10        going in the direction of more political subdivisions

         11        which, at least in many instances, would have the

         12        effect of depriving or may have the effect of

         13        depriving minority voting rights.  So, if that's true,

         14        I would oppose this amendment.

         15             And I think in the bill there was a mention that

         16        they should consider geographic and political

         17        subdivisions, and I really didn't think that should be

         18        in the basic bill to begin with.  I haven't had a

         19        chance to get an amendment ready on that.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I don't know who told you it

         21        wasn't coming up today.  It's been scheduled for some

         22        time.

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Your staff director of the

         24        committee.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack.


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  This amendment does not

          2        change any of the fundamental law of the United States

          3        as it deals with reapportionment, would not allow

          4        cracking of -- it's called cracking of minority

          5        districts, or packing of minority districts; so

          6        nothing contained herein would change the rights of

          7        minorities to have their protection under the voting

          8        rights amendment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commissioner Zack, yield for

         11        question.

         12             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yield.

         13             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  As I read this, this is

         14        inserted on Line 22.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes.

         16             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  After the period, it seems

         17        to me the language, Except to meet the foregoing

         18        requirements -- well, part of the foregoing

         19        requirements are the consideration of racial matters,

         20        right?

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.  That's why I

         22        said there's absolutely no way this could be

         23        interpreted to violate that.

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  This explicitly references

         25        that?


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Right, that is the first four

          2        words.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          4        Zack, do you have anything further?

          5             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I have nothing further to

          6        say, except that I believe this is consistent with

          7        everything that we have heard, and frankly how the

          8        courts are ruling these days.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are voting on

         10        the amendment, Commissioner Zack's amendment number

         11        one.  All of those in favor of the amendment, say aye.

         12        Opposed?

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries; it is amended.

         15        We are now on the proposal as amended.

         16             Who wants to be heard?  Commissioner Evans-Jones,

         17        do you care to make any further remarks now that it's

         18        been amended?

         19             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Well, I would like to

         20        ask my co-sponsor, Commissioner Thompson, to speak on

         21        the bill at this point.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson.

         23             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, she's done a great

         24        job so I don't know that I can add to this.  I think

         25        my role here as Chairman of the Committee on


          1        Legislative Matters was to try to bring you a proposal

          2        that would make a -- give you the opportunity to

          3        address the issue of whether or not you thought that

          4        legislative apportionment ought to be done by somebody

          5        other than the Legislature.

          6             And we considered quite a few alternatives in

          7        doing that.  And I think the summary of this bill

          8        that's been placed on your desk, or for these two

          9        Proposals, 172 and 162, explain that very well.  The

         10        selection of the members will be done by seated

         11        members of the Legislature.  That was something I

         12        think that was very important to our committee.

         13             One of those members will be chosen as chair, and

         14        that person will be selected by the other eight.  That

         15        also was important to our committee so that they would

         16        at least have to get a majority vote to figure out who

         17        chairs the committee, and from there, hopefully, they

         18        would build a consensus.

         19             Another important aspect of this, and one of the

         20        things that one of the Senate staff members, John

         21        Guthrey, did a very good job for us on was to lay out

         22        in sequence the things that would have to be done and

         23        under the time periods that are applicable, and you

         24        will see that as an issue throughout.  And that's to

         25        try to work with the framework of the real world out


          1        there and have a practical proposal so that it would

          2        work and you would have elections in a timely manner.

          3             The qualifications that are involved for these

          4        Commissioners, I think, are safeguards for the public,

          5        in that you wouldn't have a lot of special interests

          6        and people who were interested in running themselves,

          7        establishing themselves a district.

          8             We had a lot of pressure to do all kinds of

          9        things about the diversity of the members, not only

         10        the members, but then standards to apply.  We tried to

         11        do our best to comply with what we understood the law

         12        to be today and not get ourselves into a posture where

         13        we had, in our state Constitution, things that would

         14        be in conflict with future court decisions; and

         15        particularly, future court decisions that were based

         16        on the Federal Constitution.

         17             The other things that we tried to do were provide

         18        in a timely way, as I said, for things such as

         19        judicial review.  And also, to take care of problems

         20        that might occur, as far as whether Senators who were

         21        presently elected for four-year terms are in or out of

         22        office when the election occurs.

         23             So, what we have tried to do is give you, if this

         24        is the way you want to go, we tried to give you a plan

         25        that will work.  We have had a lot of meetings on


          1        this, and a lot of input from, not only from the

          2        public, but from members of the committee.  So, I

          3        think if you want to go the route of not having the

          4        Legislature apportion the Legislature anymore, then I

          5        think this is a good, solid plan.  The other

          6        alternative, I guess, will be explained by other

          7        members of the committee who were in disagreement with

          8        that position.  Thank you.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         10             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioners, first of all,

         11        I need to apologize to Commissioner Zack.  I did not

         12        have a chance to see that his amendment does, in fact,

         13        modify, and we need to make sure in style and

         14        drafting, that it does modify the minority district.

         15        So, it does modify that.

         16             Let me talk to you a minute about redistricting.

         17        This to me is, although it's been, at times, a blood

         18        bath; although we have had instances of self-interest,

         19        not just in reapportionment, I might add in the

         20        Florida Legislature in the last 20 years, but in

         21        probably some other areas, anything from lawyers or

         22        trial lawyers or whatever, business people, and

         23        others.

         24             So, there's been House members that have tried to

         25        draw a seat for Congress and there have been


          1        discussions about people's districts and so on.  In

          2        the first reapportionment in 1982, Senator Barron and

          3        I, I was the Republican minority leader of the Senate,

          4        and we insisted on single-member districts for the

          5        first time in this state.  And we fought that battle,

          6        and the House ultimately, the Speaker agreed with us,

          7        as I recall, but we did go forward and get

          8        single-member districts.

          9             There were no minority members of the Senate when

         10        I came here.  And we had our first one, thanks to the

         11        single-member district proposal, when Senator Carrie

         12        Meek came here.  And today we have five members of

         13        African-American descent in the Senate and others.

         14             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Hispanic and other

         15        minorities.  So that reapportionment we needed to make

         16        some changes in the process.  Now, the last

         17        reapportionment, the political landscape in this state

         18        was changing.  It had become a very balanced two-party

         19        state for probably the first time in modern history

         20        and we had a lot of battle about that.  We had battles

         21        of how we were going to draw the seats.

         22             As it turned out, basically in the Senate, you

         23        know, it worked out.  We had, as I recall, 20

         24        Republicans, 20 Democrats.  But in that process you

         25        learn something that's hard for me to put into words


          1        to you that haven't been through it.

          2             What you learn is, is this is really the heart of

          3        what the democratic process is about and there is no

          4        way that and -- this commission, let's just say right

          5        now we were going to reapportion the state.  There is

          6        no way that someone who hasn't lived and breathed

          7        Homestead, Florida, the Florida Keys, South Florida,

          8        Downtown Miami, that's going to know how to deal with

          9        the most important right that people have.

         10             And so the first thing -- and I have been -- let

         11        me back up a minute.  As Marilyn Evans-Jones knows,

         12        what's proposed here, I would agree with Commissioner

         13        Thompson, if you're going to go this route, it's about

         14        as good as you can make it.  But what I would submit

         15        to you is that to not -- to tell the legislators they

         16        can do everything else including change laws involving

         17        your freedom and your business and your contracts and

         18        tell the people and I'd at least have them to be in a

         19        position to address this subject.

         20             Florida is not like these other states.  I'm

         21        usually better prepared for a speech than this.  But

         22        if you'll look at the states in the summary, I mean

         23        it's Arkansas and some others and some others.

         24        Florida is a very diverse state, more so than any

         25        other state, even California.  I mean, when you go


          1        from Pensacola and come into north Florida and central

          2        Florida and then go to south Florida.

          3             Now, to tell us that we're going to have

          4        everybody's rights to elect their members of the

          5        House, minority or otherwise, members of the Senate

          6        and their Congressmen by an eight-person commission,

          7        none of whom is elected, none of whom is elected, no

          8        matter how benevolent, no matter how great they may

          9        be, is a pretty big departure for a state like

         10        Florida.  I think this proposal, if there was a time

         11        for it, and again we worked on it in fairness of the

         12        committee, I've been back and forth.  Let me stop

         13        right now and tell you something.  It won't affect the

         14        partisan balance.

         15             A fair reapportionment today in the Florida

         16        Senate, two months from now, perhaps, is maybe 25, 15,

         17        24, 18, two-thirds of the members of the congressional

         18        delegation are Republicans.  It's not going to affect

         19        that, I mean, when you go with a fair reapportionment.

         20             So let's put that aside for the moment and think

         21        about whether the case of former Speaker Mills that

         22        some commission, maybe none of whom are from around

         23        Gainesville, Florida is going to know what the

         24        communities of interest are.  And in Tampa Bay, what

         25        are the communities of interest between Pinellas and


          1        Hillsborough?  In Jacksonville?  I mean, I just think

          2        that it's hard to argue about an idea, it sounds good.

          3        But to me, it's not part of our system in this country

          4        to not have the Legislature do this.  If they fail to

          5        do it, it goes to the courts.

          6             I have another concern, having served in

          7        positions where you have appointments to the

          8        commission.  There is no way to get ethnic or racial

          9        minority balance on this commission when you think

         10        about it because two are by the Speaker, two by the

         11        minority leader of the Senate, and two by the House

         12        and two by the president and two by the minority

         13        leader, there's no way.  They each have two, who is

         14        going to decide whose appointment would represent

         15        minorities?

         16             I guess the other concern I have is, and I'm not

         17        prepared on the technical legalities of this, but

         18        every case, I sat down in Tampa with a three-judge

         19        panel and Judge Chovat (phonetic) said, We're going to

         20        give deference to the Legislature.  The Legislature

         21        are the elected -- elected by the people of the state.

         22        We're going to give deference to them in

         23        reapportionment.  They may need to fix this seat and

         24        we're going to give them the chance to do that, that

         25        was basically the idea.


          1             Now I'm not sure what the federal courts will do,

          2        but to me, I think on balance at this moment as we

          3        stand here today that while you can say, Sure, it's

          4        self-interested for legislators to reapportion

          5        themselves, that there just isn't a great enough sin

          6        out there for this type of remedy to take it totally

          7        away from them.  In the case of Congress, even more

          8        so.  Right now for Congress, you might have had, as I

          9        said, an occasional House member, never a Senator, try

         10        to draw a congressional seat.  But in general, what's

         11        wrong with having the Legislature of this state, who

         12        are elected by all the people, draw the seats for

         13        Congress?

         14             I mean, we certainly get their attention every

         15        ten years when you have got concerns and you want help

         16        from your local state Senator or Representative about

         17        something they are doing, we get a chance to talk to

         18        them fairly regularly.  In fact, they move down here

         19        and get hotel rooms.  I don't think there's been a

         20        showing.

         21             It's true, as Commissioner Zack was involved, and

         22        represented the Senate that the congressional plan

         23        didn't get drawn, it was drawn by the federal courts.

         24        And it might not be the best plan in the world.  But

         25        twice since Senator Jennings and I -- Commissioner


          1        Jennings and I have been in leadership in the Senate

          2        here we've had problems coming up on reapportionment,

          3        and in both instances, in the Tampa case we went back

          4        and fixed it and we submitted a plan.

          5             In the case of Corey Brownseed (phonetic) in

          6        Jacksonville, within ten days or thereabouts we

          7        presented this, we had hearings, we had committee

          8        meetings and we addressed and redefined her seat to

          9        satisfy the federal court requirements and she since

         10        has been reelected in it.  So I just don't think that

         11        there is a big enough evil.  I have great respect for

         12        Marilyn Evans-Jones.  I've tried my best to carry

         13        through in liking this proposal but I just feel like

         14        it's such a basic right for people to have elected

         15        people do this that we should not go the direction of

         16        an independent commission so I just wanted to share my

         17        feelings with you on this and I would hope that you

         18        would think long and hard about putting something like

         19        this on the ballot because it's hard for me, having

         20        been through two of these now, to explain to you how

         21        it works.

         22             And you can go back and pick some bad things to

         23        talk about.  But if it's hard for me to explain to

         24        you, the people of the state, I'm afraid, may not ever

         25        quite understand until perhaps it's too late, that


          1        maybe they are jeopardizing their rights if they voted

          2        to approve this.  And it's like sounds good, but it is

          3        really a basic concern.  And I wanted to emphasize

          4        again the question of the minority issue.

          5             The Legislature is diverse.  The Senate and the

          6        House both have minority members.  There is no way

          7        that an independent commission accountable to no one

          8        of 8 people or 11 or whatever number you pick can ever

          9        share and address the concerns or at least empathize

         10        with them.  They may address them, I'm not saying they

         11        couldn't do it.  But to me, I just don't think there

         12        is enough evil shown here especially for the future

         13        and especially in view of Florida's diversity to put

         14        it in this category with some of the states, and there

         15        are 8 or 10 of them that do have this system.

         16             On the balance, I agree again with Chairman

         17        Thompson that we've tried to make this, if that's the

         18        direction we're going to go, as viable as possible.

         19        One other idea was discussed to let the Legislature

         20        try to do it, it had this as a backup, but that would

         21        be all right too.  At least they would get a chance.

         22        And if they failed, as has happened on occasion, then

         23        they would fail.  So I would ask you not to go forward

         24        with this.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.


          1        You're next, Commissioner Morsani.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, members of

          3        the commission, a lot of what Commissioner Scott said

          4        was what I said on this floor of this commission 20

          5        years ago.  I think the present chairman of this

          6        commission and myself and possibly one other, were the

          7        only three that voted against having a commission at

          8        that time.

          9             Since that time, I've come to the conclusion that

         10        we need to try something else.  We've gone through two

         11        reapportionment battles in '82 and '92, run up

         12        considerable bills and also considerable acrimony.  I

         13        think it's time for us to try something different.

         14             The members of the Legislature will pick who

         15        serves on this commission.  And I think it will be an

         16        opportunity for Florida to have reapportionment in 'O2

         17        and not suffer through the trauma that we went through

         18        and I know the legislators went through up here.  But

         19        those of us that watch government in action cannot

         20        have thought it was a very pretty thing.  I think we

         21        ought to try an independent commission appointed by

         22        the members of the Legislature and see if they can't

         23        do a better job.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you.  Commissioner

         25        Morsani?


          1             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Well, Commissioner

          2        Barkdull took the words out of my mouth.

          3        Unfortunately, you know, with all due respect,

          4        Mr. Scott -- Commissioner Scott, I agree with you.  I

          5        think it should be like with the Legislature, however,

          6        that said in some of the -- in many of the -- our

          7        hearings, our public hearings, we go back to

          8        credibility.  I think that, honestly, I think the

          9        leadership of the House, the Senate, the last couple

         10        of sessions have demonstrated great leadership in this

         11        state and I think if the Legislature is acquiring a

         12        great deal of credibility, has required a great deal

         13        of credibility in recent years.

         14             However, the public has very, very short

         15        memories.  And throughout the 13 public hearings there

         16        was a strong sentiment to have such a commission.  I

         17        don't disagree that I think they were being measured

         18        against the wrong states.  However, I do think that

         19        it's time that we, as Commissioner Barkdull said, that

         20        we have a change, we attempt a different road.

         21             Yes, there are serious problems that you've

         22        adequately outlined, Commissioner Scott.  However, I

         23        would open that those that are appointed by the

         24        Speaker and the President of the Senate would be of

         25        stature, that they would have the -- they would get


          1        the input necessary to make good judgments on these

          2        matters.  For all those reasons, I encourage the

          3        members of the commission to support this proposal.

          4        If I had my druthers, I would rather be on your side

          5        of the aisle on this issue, Mr. Scott, but I think

          6        it's probably wrong today.

          7             I think that we probably need to put this to the

          8        people because they do want a different voice than

          9        have experienced in the past.  Therefore, I would

         10        encourage your support.

         11             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?  Further

         12        debate, Commissioner Connor?

         13             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I rise to

         14        speak in opposition to the proposal and I've worked

         15        hard, as have others of the Legislative Committee, to

         16        try to make the best proposal that we could get and I

         17        told Commissioner Evans-Jones that during the course

         18        of those discussions that I was leaning in favor of

         19        the proposal.  But on reflection, and after a good

         20        deal of consideration and deliberation, I'm going to

         21        vote against it and I'm going to tell you why.

         22             Pretty soon, we're not going to need a

         23        Legislature -- pretty soon, we're not going to need a

         24        Legislature.  The Supreme Court regularly, in my

         25        estimation, usurps legislative authority.  This body


          1        regularly puts forth issues that are more appropriate

          2        for legislative consideration in my estimation, rather

          3        than for inclusion in the Constitution.  And now we're

          4        in a position of considering taking away what has been

          5        one of the most time-honored and traditional roles and

          6        responsibilities that the Legislature has had.

          7             The Constitution, as it's presently structured,

          8        states the Legislature, at its regular session, and it

          9        goes on to talk about its responsibility for

         10        reapportionment.  Why is it that I do support the

         11        legislative role?  Let me mention several reasons,

         12        some of which have been mentioned by Commissioner

         13        Scott, but let me amplify on them if I may.

         14             First, diversity.  There is no more diverse body,

         15        there is no more diverse branch of government than the

         16        Legislature of the state of Florida among the three

         17        branches of government.  It doesn't take long to

         18        reflect upon who occupies what positions to see that

         19        that is exactly true.  The Legislature reflects the

         20        greatest geographic diversity.  The Legislature

         21        reflects the greatest racial diversity.  The

         22        Legislature reflects the greatest religious diversity.

         23        The Legislature reflects the greatest ethnic

         24        diversity, and the Legislature reflects the greatest

         25        gender diversity of any of the three branches of


          1        government.

          2             And that, I would submit to you, in large part,

          3        accounts for why this is not always a very pretty

          4        process because these diverse interests, geographic,

          5        racial, you are name it, come into attention once

          6        every ten years as the Legislature goes about

          7        performing this work and it is all performed in the

          8        public view, it is not a pretty sight.

          9             But as has been pointed out in large measure, it

         10        works and it fosters, I would submit to you, the

         11        democratic process in a very positive way and the

         12        public in the final analysis, I would submit to you,

         13        can have great confidence in its end product knowing

         14        that every segment of our society in this great and

         15        very diverse state has been represented in the

         16        process.  And had the opportunity to put in their two

         17        cents and make their case.

         18             Now, if you think about it, you're talking about

         19        four different people who will appoint two different

         20        representatives.  There is no way you're going to

         21        achieve any kind of racial balance, any kind of gender

         22        balance, any kind of religious balance, any kind of

         23        ethnic balance.  No, way.  Why?  Because each of the

         24        four authorities only get to appoint two people.  You

         25        can count on the fact that they will not, that the


          1        minority and majority will not consult with one

          2        another in terms of who they are going to appoint, so

          3        that so-and-so can appoint the south Florida seat and

          4        somebody else can appoint the north Florida seat.

          5        Each are going to act in the blind to do what they

          6        think they need to do.

          7             Look at the Florida Supreme Court.  We have one

          8        appointing authority who appoints the court, we have

          9        seven members, seven members.  Do you think that

         10        reflects the kind of diversity that the Legislature

         11        represents in this process, heavens no.

         12             I would submit to you, as ugly as the process can

         13        sometimes be, that the end result is a result that the

         14        public can affirm knowing that very different and very

         15        diverse groups had the opportunity to participate in

         16        the process.

         17             Secondly, on the issue of deference.  Let me, if

         18        I may, read to you from the 11th Circuit opinion in

         19        the case of the Tallahassee branch of the NAACP versus

         20        Leon County, decided in 1987, commenting on the

         21        important role of the Legislature in this process in

         22        comparison to the court to give you an idea of the

         23        kind of deference the federal courts have accorded the

         24        Legislature in this process.

         25             Federal court -- and this is a quote from the


          1        case -- federal courts must defer to the judgment of a

          2        state legislative body in the area of reapportionment.

          3        Principles of federalism and common sense mandate

          4        deference to a plan which has been legislatively

          5        enacted.  First, the elected representatives of the

          6        people must understand the existing political system

          7        and the changes which would result from

          8        reapportionment.  Rarely, if ever, will the federal

          9        district court have the benefit of such insight.

         10             Second, political compromise can produce a voting

         11        system tailored to the city, county, or state to be

         12        reapportioned.  The district court however is required

         13        to lay voting lines with mathematical exactness.

         14             Third, federalism is preserved when

         15        reapportionment is performed by the legislative body

         16        of the state.  Reapportionment produces a fundamental

         17        change in state government and affects who will

         18        represent the people.  Consequently that determination

         19        is best left to the people rather than the federal

         20        judiciary.

         21             Now my point simply is this, all of those

         22        principles that were enunciated by the federal courts,

         23        I would submit to you, speak to the important role

         24        that the Legislature has historically played in this

         25        process.  Is this issue political, you bet it's


          1        political, you bet it's political.  You've been pulled

          2        and tugged by Republicans and Democrats along the way.

          3        Republicans who have said, in effect, we need a period

          4        of time to overcome the present effects of past

          5        discrimination so let us reapportion in the future.

          6             Democrats who have come to you and said, Oh, what

          7        a nightmare.  This is just a terrible kind of process.

          8        And everybody is well aware that the Democrats are out

          9        of favor in the legislative arena and that both houses

         10        are currently run by Republicans.  So I think you can

         11        look at both those arguments with no small amount of

         12        skepticism as you address what interests ought to be

         13        served here.  And I would submit to you that it is the

         14        historic role of the elected Legislative body which is

         15        at issue here.

         16             Are we going to so emasculate the Legislature in

         17        the state of Florida through usurpation of legislative

         18        authority by other branches of government, through the

         19        delegation of its authority to appointed bodies within

         20        government so that it really represents nothing more

         21        than a figurehead or are we going to have responsible

         22        people in these positions whom we will hold

         23        accountable for the carrying out of their

         24        responsibilities that have been accorded to them under

         25        the Constitution?


          1             Yes, there have been folks who have tried to draw

          2        their own congressional districts.  We all know who

          3        they are.  The public is not stupid.  The public knows

          4        who they have been as well and typically they have met

          5        with little to no success when they tried to

          6        manipulate that process to their personal political

          7        advantage and you can go back and you count the races

          8        and you can name the names and you'll know that that's

          9        true in large measure.

         10             In the final analysis, ladies and gentlemen, it

         11        is the Legislature who is accountable to the public,

         12        who had been elected by the public.  It is an open

         13        process and it is one that I would submit to you,

         14        after careful study, that we should not jettison, that

         15        we should carry forward however cumbersome and however

         16        unattractive it may be.  You get eight folks in there

         17        who in turn pick a ninth, you're going to have eight

         18        folks who, no doubt, are on a short leash by the

         19        appointing authority.  I would submit to you it won't

         20        be any less political than it has been in the past but

         21        the politics will be below, in large measure, the

         22        radar screen.

         23             I believe that the most important of our branches

         24        of government, frankly, in terms of crafting public

         25        policy, and shaping how we're going to order ourselves


          1        politically within our state is the Legislature and I

          2        encourage you and implore you to preserve this

          3        important legislative function.  Thank you.

          4             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?  Further

          5        debate?  Commission Ford-Coates, you're recognized.

          6             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I rise to speak in

          7        favor of the measure.  I believe this commission is,

          8        perhaps, one of the best examples of an appointed body

          9        in which there are only four of us in elected office

         10        who meet to do their work with a great commitment to

         11        providing a fine work product.  As such in our process

         12        we have traveled the state and we have heard from

         13        people all over the state of Florida.  And I don't

         14        think there is any one of us who has not been

         15        impressed by the diversity of the state and the

         16        difference of needs ranging from the Panhandle to

         17        south Florida.

         18             Because of that, I think that this commission, as

         19        proposed, is one which can meet the needs of providing

         20        for the diversity in the neighborhoods around the

         21        state of Florida.  In addition, I believe the

         22        Legislature's job is to legislate.  And every time

         23        reapportionment comes around, a great deal of their

         24        time is spent working on reapportionment.  I think

         25        it's time to take reapportionment out of the hands of


          1        the Legislature not only because it's the right thing

          2        to do but because I believe the public perceives it as

          3        the right thing to do.

          4             Those of us who do run for elected office know

          5        very well the perception is reality.  The public

          6        perceives it as an inefficient political process.  I

          7        think that we make a large step forward by putting it

          8        the hands of an independent reapportionment commission

          9        allowing the Legislature to do its job as the

         10        Legislature, allowing the people to have confidence

         11        that reapportionment will be done in a fair and

         12        equitable manner and I urge your support for this good

         13        proposal.

         14             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?

         15        Commissioner Zack, you're recognized.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I've lived with this issue

         17        for, I guess, the last ten years and I have been truly

         18        privileged to have represented the democratic Senate

         19        and the Republican Senate.  And there is no one who

         20        sits in this chamber who managed to receive an

         21        appointment to sit in this chamber that doesn't

         22        understand partisan politics.  The best quote that I

         23        think we should focus on when thinking about

         24        reapportionment comes from Will Rogers as he had a way

         25        of getting to the heart of the matter very quickly


          1        when he said, Where you stand depends on where you

          2        sit.

          3             And today we all sit here in this chamber.  We

          4        don't leave all our partisan beliefs or ideological

          5        beliefs on the other side of the door when we walk

          6        into this chamber.  However, we do try to do what's

          7        right and I've seen it time and time again as we have

          8        all witnessed that we've tried very desperately at

          9        times to listen to what we have heard around the state

         10        and fix the problems that exist and not deal with

         11        imaginary problems.

         12             And I agree with Senator Scott when he said that

         13        reapportionment is, and I quote, The heart of the

         14        democratic process, it really is.  And when we look at

         15        what occurred during the last reapportionment, that

         16        heart flat-lined.  It was an absolute dead on arrival.

         17        The fact is that there was no ability to reapportion

         18        congressional seats and we had a quote, unquote,

         19        expert come in from out of state and we were there.  I

         20        tried a case for six months right down the street and

         21        I know Senator Scott came and watched and a number of

         22        other people came and watched that case and that

         23        expert came in with a pair of scissors and a roll of

         24        Scotch tape and took three maps and cut them up and

         25        Scotch taped them back together and it looked like a


          1        camel when he was trying to produce a horse.  The fact

          2        is, he had no idea of communities of interest.

          3             And when -- I suggest to you, that when the

          4        meetings occur around a computer at midnight in this

          5        building, which is when those districts are drawn and

          6        redrawn and now it's done like that by those

          7        computers, communities of interest is not -- is being

          8        discussed at that moment.

          9             The fact of the matter is that when we talk about

         10        ethnicity and diversity, we are not talking about the

         11        ethnicity and diversity of this commission.  Or

         12        frankly of the Senate or the House.  We're talking

         13        about reproducing a reapportionment plan that has the

         14        ethnicity and diversity constitutional considerations

         15        as part of that plan.  And we don't do it by going and

         16        walking the neighborhood.

         17             The way it's done today, by the sophisticated

         18        data that's available, is we can tell this commission,

         19        whoever this commission is going to be if there is a

         20        commission, can tell block by block, house by house

         21        who lives there, how they voted, what their color is,

         22        what their ethnicity is, what cereal they eat in the

         23        morning.  The fact is that this commission will have

         24        that information before it and will produce a plan, I

         25        suggest, that will consider all those matters and will


          1        be a plan that we will be proud of.

          2             I guess if there is anyone who has a conflict of

          3        interest here it's myself because I guess I'm going to

          4        legislate myself out of a job.  But I generally

          5        believe that the citizens of the state of Florida who

          6        we've heard from, know that it's time for this

          7        proposal.  And I am very happy, frankly, for different

          8        reasons than some people may be here that we don't

          9        have a 20/20 Senate anymore.

         10             I agree this will not affect a single partisan

         11        vote probably.  I would suggest that it will not

         12        affect one seat in the Republican/Democratic scheme of

         13        things and it shouldn't.  What it should do is produce

         14        a better plan.  And the last issue that was discussed

         15        about federalism, federalism is about the Tenth

         16        Amendment of the United States Constitution, talking

         17        about state action.  And the same exact principles of

         18        federalism that apply to a legislative plan, which are

         19        correctly stated by Commissioner Connor, will apply to

         20        this commission because this commission will be a

         21        state commission, state authorized commission.  And

         22        federal courts, in exercising the principles of

         23        federalism, must defer, must defer to those state

         24        considerations.

         25             I believe that we took -- well, I know because I


          1        sat on it with Commissioner Scott and Commissioner

          2        Langley, Commissioner Evans-Jones, and who else,

          3        Commissioner Thompson, and we struggled mightily,

          4        mightily over the three different proposals.  And we

          5        agreed because I believe people of common sense and

          6        good judgment can agree that this is the best possible

          7        proposal for a reapportionment commission.

          8             Now not everybody agreed to vote on it and I

          9        respect those people who do not want to vote on it for

         10        their own reasons that are valid reasons.  But I

         11        suggest to you that if we are going to have a

         12        reapportionment and redistricting that is concerned

         13        with the issues of diversity, ethnicity and what is

         14        right for the people of the state of Florida, vote for

         15        this commission.

         16             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?

         17        Commissioner Crenshaw?

         18             COMMISSIONER CRENSHAW:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         19        Just one brief point because I went through

         20        reapportionment like some of the other people that

         21        were here and it was a fairly messy process and I

         22        think in part it was because there are actually,

         23        Senator Scott, there were 21 Democrats and 19

         24        Republicans but one of the Democrats felt

         25        disenfranchised so he voted with the Republicans all


          1        along and so nothing ever happened.  And I would fear

          2        that.  And I would like to figure out a way to kind of

          3        take the politics out, take the partisanship out of

          4        it.

          5             And I would say to you, that if you believe this

          6        proposal is going to take the politics out of

          7        reapportionment or take the partisanship out of

          8        reapportionment, I think you're living in Alice in

          9        Wonderland.  But I've got to confess, I took a trip to

         10        Alice in Wonderland, I didn't go all the way to

         11        Wonderland, but I proposed a solution similar to this.

         12        But -- in one sense it was similar but I think it was

         13        a much, much more far-reaching proposal to try to get

         14        rid of the politics, to try to get rid of the

         15        partisanship.  And what it did was create this

         16        independent commission.  But it didn't let the Speaker

         17        and the President and the minority leader in each

         18        house appoint the membership.  Because I think when

         19        you do that, you just lock in the partnership.

         20             Instead of having 160 members in the House and

         21        the Senate, you've got eight partisans, four

         22        Democrats, four Republicans and somehow they are going

         23        to go off and elect the magical ninth person.  I don't

         24        know how they do that, but I'm sure they are able to

         25        do that.


          1             But I don't know when you-all went through this

          2        process to try to figure out how to really remove it

          3        from politics I don't know if any consideration was

          4        given to the proposal that I made about five years ago

          5        to actually allow the chief justice of the Supreme

          6        Court, given a lot of power in appointing that

          7        authority.

          8             Actually having a six-member authority and the

          9        chief judge would appoint five people that would be

         10        recommended to him by the chief judge in each one of

         11        those districts, and each one of them would give the

         12        chief justice three and he would pick one and they had

         13        to have all those kinds of backgrounds and diversity

         14        and I didn't know either who the chief justice of the

         15        Supreme Court was.  And now that I've met one, not a

         16        bad guy, probably a pretty fair-minded person.

         17             And I'm not concerned about whether they put

         18        Democrats on there or Republicans on there, but it

         19        seems to me that's the way you really remove this from

         20        politics.  And so without something like that, I think

         21        you just narrowed the political field from 160 down to

         22        8.  It's not going to change anything, it's still

         23        going to be foggy, it's still going to be messy.  But

         24        in my view, this really doesn't accomplish the goal

         25        that's set out to be accomplished and so I would urge


          1        people to vote against it.

          2             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Mills, you're

          3        recognized.

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, ever since I

          5        believe it was Governor Eldridge Jerry invented the

          6        gerrymander, or at least was given credit for

          7        inventing it a long time ago, most of the judicial

          8        intervention has been a result of legislative action

          9        and Florida really is no different.  During the series

         10        of reapportionment sessions which I guess occurred,

         11        Judge Barkdull, during the '60s and I think there were

         12        five or six legislative sessions simply to try to get

         13        the Legislature to adhere to one man, one vote.  We

         14        had districts in Miami that were 50,000 and districts

         15        in the Panhandle that were 5,000, which I suppose has

         16        some merit, Commissioner Thompson.

         17             But, somehow the one person, one vote concept

         18        didn't seem to be adhered to.  So the legislative

         19        history, and I certainly admire the Legislature, has

         20        not been one of complying with the Constitution and

         21        the law over the last 100 years and in Florida over

         22        the last 30.  And I think virtually every time we have

         23        had reapportionment there has been litigation and that

         24        is a result which I think people would choose to

         25        avoid.


          1             And whenever the League of Women of Voters and

          2        common sense ends up on the same side, it's time to

          3        pay attention, not that the League of Women Voters is

          4        not always on the side of common sense.  But there is

          5        a gas station close to where I occasionally live and

          6        work and I go there for common sense advice.  And when

          7        you describe that the Legislature draws their own

          8        district, they have a tough time thinking that is done

          9        objectively.

         10             Now I served on the Legislature during

         11        reapportionment.  I'll say there was not only a good

         12        bit of nobility involved, I think actually a number of

         13        people tried to do the right thing.  But it was

         14        difficult to convey that to the public that spoke to

         15        us over and over again when they hear stories of maps

         16        with pins in them where legislators lived, there must

         17        be some consideration given to who lives where.

         18             And the other matter in terms of priorities, yes,

         19        I think voting is about the most important thing we do

         20        as a democracy, but the Legislature has a lot of other

         21        duties.  And one thing that I think you can get

         22        unanimous consent from any legislative person that's

         23        been in the reapportionment process is, during the

         24        reapportionment process everything else takes a

         25        backseat.  And I'm sure Commissioner Evans-Jones will


          1        be able to tell you that, that irrespective of the

          2        interest of the state, in terms of the appropriations

          3        process, in terms of the important issues in education

          4        and environment growth and economic development,

          5        somehow there is a distinction.

          6             Therefore, it seems to me that the bottom line on

          7        this proposal, which I believe is a good one and

          8        intend to support, is it intends to do one of the

          9        things that we can do most effectively and that is

         10        restore public faith in the process.  I think this is

         11        one of the issues which the public most repeatedly

         12        identified as one which they thought would improve the

         13        overall elections process and their faith in it.

         14             This, I think, could be one of the most

         15        outstanding proposals we have.  I think, Commission

         16        Thompson, the committee worked hard on this to develop

         17        the technical aspects of it.  And I think, as

         18        everybody has said, if you want to do a commission,

         19        this is the best commission you can do.  And I think

         20        that we should do a commission.

         21             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?

         22        Commissioner Douglass, you are recognized.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm not sure that anybody

         24        could add a great deal to the eloquence and the

         25        persuasive arguments that have been made for both


          1        sides of this issue but there are a few observations

          2        that I'd like to make on this.  My first real contact

          3        with the state capitol was when I was a youngster

          4        about 14, 15 years old, Governor Millard Caldwell was

          5        governor.  My father sent me over here on the bus from

          6        Crestview with $1300 sewed into my pocket to pay for a

          7        piece of land that he was buying from Governor

          8        Caldwell.  My father had great confidence in me, I

          9        guess he figured nobody would think I was rich enough

         10        to be robbed.

         11             But I came in and I went in and I waited in the

         12        outer office as people do to see the Governor.  And it

         13        was, for me, it was like going to someplace on high,

         14        Millard Caldwell was the greatest person on earth to

         15        me.  He was the Governor, he had been the Congressman,

         16        you looked up to him and you still did.

         17             So when I went in, and it was a hot summer day,

         18        and the Legislature had gone and come back, they were

         19        here.  And I walked in and the Governor said, Come in,

         20        young man.  If any of you ever heard him talk, he had

         21        sort of a Virginia accent.  He sent, I want you, when

         22        you leave here, to walk over to the Senate to the

         23        gallery and watch the most ridiculous exercise in

         24        self-interest you will ever see.  I thought, Okay.  He

         25        said, It's called reapportionment.  He said, It's the


          1        absolute wrong way to do this.  He took my $1300 that

          2        my daddy gave me and he suggested that John

          3        Wiggington, his secretary, would take me to lunch at

          4        the Dutch Kitchen which is now near where the Baptist

          5        Church was.  I still remember this sort of like it was

          6        yesterday.

          7             But I also remember that I did go down there

          8        after lunch and I watched the great Senator Louis from

          9        Marianna and some of the other greats of the time

         10        debate this and I wasn't sure what they were doing.

         11        But when I left, I was sure Governor Caldwell was the

         12        brightest man and the most intelligent man I had ever

         13        met because he was absolutely right.  And I watched it

         14        again and again and again.  And I've heard these

         15        arguments about -- and as Commissioner Barkdull told

         16        you, in '78 I voted against this because the

         17        appointment was not made by the legislative branch of

         18        government.

         19             This proposal has the legislative branch doing

         20        the legislative job without engaging the entire

         21        process in the greatest exercise of self-interest that

         22        can be imagined.  Now I commend to you that this

         23        proposal by Commissioner Evans-Jones and others meets

         24        any objections that anybody has to the separation of

         25        powers which my friend -- the commissioner from


          1        Jacksonville overlooks in saying that -- your name is

          2        Crenshaw, correct, I was thinking of your

          3        father-in-law -- at the moment it slipped me, but age

          4        does catch you.

          5             And I will say this, however, that what was wrong

          6        with that proposal is the judicial branch was being

          7        asked to make the decision.  This proposal does not

          8        suffer from the infirmities of that proposal.  This

          9        one meets the objections.  The other things that have

         10        been said, many of them can be said, but in '67 the

         11        Legislature could not -- did not reapportion itself,

         12        the federal court did.  It completely turned the

         13        entire election around that had just been held in '66

         14        and new elections were held, and they were held under

         15        entirely different districts with multimember

         16        districts and it was done by the federal court order,

         17        nothing else.

         18             Every other reapportionment that's occurred has

         19        wound up being done by the federal court, not by

         20        anybody else.  When it got through, it was pointed out

         21        by Commissioner Zack, the federal court is the one

         22        that finally does it with some expert from out of town

         23        with a large briefcase, now computer.  I submit to you

         24        that that's wrong.

         25             One of the other things that was said is that


          1        this commission, if it's appointed, will operate in

          2        the sunshine, will operate where you can see what they

          3        are doing, what you can hear what they are doing.

          4        That's not done when it's done in the wee hours of the

          5        morning, as he will tell you.  It's done by a few

          6        people who are running things to see how they come out

          7        on some sort of partisan line.  One thing that I'm

          8        very proud of with this commission, we have been

          9        nonpartisan.  We have voted right for what we thought

         10        was right.

         11             And I know it takes courage for some people to

         12        step forward and vote for this because things have

         13        changed.  And things will continue to change.  But

         14        looking back over the years the millions of dollars in

         15        wasted time by the Legislature that we've observed as

         16        we live here in Tallahassee and looking back over at

         17        what might happen again in 2000 if we don't do this, I

         18        think that the only thing that we can do is submit

         19        this to the people and see if they too agree as they

         20        seem to in the public hearings to support this concept

         21        of better government that's supported by common cause

         22        among others and common sense among others, and also

         23        the League of Women Voters and also such great people

         24        as commissioners that are in this chamber.

         25             I would leave you with this thought, there may be


          1        some legacy for this commission, this is one of those

          2        items that's important because this will truly improve

          3        the government of Florida but retain the separation of

          4        powers which is the basic argument that I had against

          5        it in '78, it did not.  I think this does it, this is

          6        fair, it's just and it's equitable.  It will be in the

          7        sunshine so the people will see.  And we will observe

          8        and have a better government for it.  I urge you to

          9        vote for this proposal by Commissioner Evans-Jones.

         10             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?

         11        Commissioner Evans-Jones to close.

         12             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you,

         13        Mr. Chairman.  We have heard a lot of arguments as to

         14        why we should not have a commission and we have heard

         15        a lot of arguments about why we should have a

         16        commission.  And I want to answer some of the

         17        questions.  You are saying that we would have more

         18        diversity with the Legislature, you would have 160

         19        members participating.  Well, I can tell you right now

         20        that 160 members don't get in there and work with

         21        those maps, just a very few people, probably less than

         22        nine get in there and make the determinations as to

         23        how these districts are going to be apportioned.

         24             We have never, ever had public hearings when we

         25        did reapportionments.  This committee, this group will


          1        have public hearings.  They will also have it open to

          2        the public, which we have never had before.  They will

          3        also have guidelines that they really must follow.

          4        And that's going to be very helpful and very -- excuse

          5        me.  I'm hearing everything that she's saying and

          6        losing my train of thought.

          7             There will be all of the things that we have

          8        mentioned are going to be important to this

          9        commission.  They have to look at the racial, all of

         10        the ethnicity that Commissioner Zack was telling you

         11        about.  They must do it in these guidelines.  And,

         12        yes, it is certainly going to be a partisan group of

         13        people who are in there, they are going to be

         14        affected, but they are going to have to answer to what

         15        they have done.

         16             And Commissioner Scott mentioned that the people

         17        who were in Congress came up here during the

         18        reapportionment session, and that's quite true, and

         19        they do lobby very excessively for their seats and you

         20        can understand that.  The legislators themselves, how

         21        can you possibly expect them not to be concerned about

         22        their own seat and their own district, of course they

         23        are, they are human beings just like you and I are.

         24             But if we have this one step removed, we are

         25        going to have a better process, we are going to have a


          1        fairer process, and I can assure you that the public

          2        is going to feel a whole lot more comfortable with

          3        this.  We are giving the legislators an opportunity to

          4        appoint these people, and I think that's good, I think

          5        that's important.

          6             But the most important thing is to be able to

          7        have people all over the State of Florida to be able

          8        to say, Yes, this is the very best possible way that

          9        we could do reapportionment; this is indeed the

         10        fairest way that we could do reapportionment.  They

         11        will definitely abide by the guidelines because they

         12        have to.

         13             And let me tell you that it has been done in the

         14        shade, as I like to call it, for many, many years.  So

         15        let's bring it out in the Sunshine where people will

         16        have to answer to the general public.  I urge you, I

         17        implore you to vote for this because it is the right

         18        thing to do, and it was the fair thing to do, and

         19        it'll be fair for Republicans and for Democrats.  But

         20        it'll be fair for all of the citizens of Florida; and

         21        that indeed, my friends, is what it's all about.  And

         22        that's your responsibility, and it's my

         23        responsibility.  Thank you.

         24             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Chairman.  The Lady

         25        having closed, the question recurs on final passage of


          1        Committee Substitute for Proposal No. 172 and Proposal

          2        162.  The Secretary will unlock the machine and the

          3        members will proceed to vote.  All members voting.

          4        All members voting.

          5             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          6             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  The Secretary will lock

          7        the machine and announce the vote.

          8             READING CLERK:  Eighteen yeas and 13 nays,

          9        Mr. Chairman.

         10             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  The proposal passes.

         11        Let's take up the next proposal, Proposal 148.

         12        Proposal 148, a proposal to revise Article III,

         13        Section 16 of the Florida Constitution --

         14             Mr. Barkdull, you are recognized.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Chairman, I would like to

         16        withdraw the proposal.

         17             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Show that proposal

         18        withdrawn without objection.  Pick up No. 155,

         19        Proposal 155 by --

         20             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I object to the withdrawal

         21        of it.  I think it ought to be kept alive.  That is

         22        the one that delays --

         23             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Use your microphone.

         24             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, that is the

         25        one that has the year for the Legislature to do it and


          1        then the committees take charge at that time if the

          2        Legislature doesn't.  I would ask Mr. Barkdull just to

          3        keep it alive.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think, frankly,

          5        Commissioner Langley, I concur with what the action of

          6        the Commission was on the last vote, and that's why I

          7        voted to withdraw it.  I thought you would offer an

          8        amendment to that one to do what you are talking

          9        about.  Without that amendment, I'm done with it and I

         10        want to withdraw it.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley.

         12             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Commissioner, that

         13        amendment could be offered at any other time also.

         14        That's not the final product, I would just like for

         15        you to keep it alive.  I mean, it is your baby.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It's down.

         17             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, he can withdraw it

         18        any time he wants to, though, can't he?

         19             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  No, he can't without --

         20             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, he can make a

         21        motion and by simple majority withdraw it, can't he?

         22        What is the rule on that?  We better check it out.  We

         23        are studying on that right now.

         24             Now, the rest of you that haven't served in the

         25        Legislature, you see what we go through.  But I'll


          1        tell you what you could do, if anybody knows, they can

          2        advise the Chair.  I'm ready to listen.  Is there a

          3        provision in the rules for a motion to withdraw?

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I don't think there is.

          5        But if anything, it would constitute the waiver of the

          6        rules and it would take a two-third's vote.

          7             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:   We are waiting for

          8        somebody to advise us.

          9             (Pause.)

         10             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Okay, the rule doesn't

         11        speak to it.  I'll tell you what we are going to do.

         12        We are going to just temporarily pass that motion to

         13        withdraw, or the consideration of whether to allow the

         14        withdrawal at this point and go forward.

         15             Commissioner Scott, we'll take up your Proposal

         16        155.  He wants to temporarily pass that one.  Show it

         17        temporarily passed without objection.

         18             Read the next one, Committee Substitute for

         19        Proposal 6, Commissioner Nabors.

         20             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         21        No. 6, a proposal to create Article VII, Section 19 of

         22        the Florida Constitution; providing lenience on the

         23        adoption of exemptions and exclusions from the general

         24        state sales tax, reducing the rate of a general sales

         25        tax to 5 percent.


          1             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Nabors is

          2        recognized to explain his proposal.

          3             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman, there is an

          4        amendment on the floor, on the table.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By whom?

          6             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  By myself.  It is a

          7        substitute to Langley's.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Read Commissioner

          9        Nabors.

         10             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Nabors, on Page

         11        1, Line 15 to Page 3, Line 6, delete those lines and

         12        insert lengthy amendment.

         13             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Members of the Commission,

         14        I think the amendment is being handed out.  The

         15        amendment is the exact language -- the amendment to

         16        the amendment is the exact language that was included

         17        in the memo I sent to everyone and faxed out on

         18        February the 3rd.  It makes two changes, really; a

         19        clarification in the proposal.  And let me tell you

         20        briefly what they are.  Does everybody have the

         21        amendment to the amendment?

         22             Essentially the amendment to the amendment does

         23        not change the substance of the proposal, it makes it

         24        clear that in the, as you recall, and we have

         25        discussed this with many of you, that one of the


          1        proposals, one of the concepts in the proposal is to

          2        require that any future amendment or exclusion to the

          3        general sales tax has to be in a single bill dealing

          4        with that single subject matter alone.  The bill also

          5        includes a tax fairness initiative in the year 2000

          6        and 2001.

          7             One thing the substitute does, it clarifies on

          8        Page 2, Line 10, that when the Legislature goes

          9        through that process of the tax fairness initiatives,

         10        it's not bound by the single subject matter, you could

         11        do it in a series of general bills, which is always

         12        the intent if there's confusion about that.  So that

         13        clarifies that.

         14             The other clarification, if you listen up, the

         15        other clarification is, is in the revenue neutrality

         16        guarantee, if you look on Page 2, Line 23, as you

         17        recall, and I'll explain in detail, the major

         18        amendment, bill, basically advised that when the

         19        Legislature goes through the tax fairness initiative,

         20        it does so on a revenue neutrality concept in the

         21        sense that it generates the same amount of sales tax

         22        dollars as the previous year.

         23             It allows that concept to include any moneys lost

         24        as a result of a restrictional use of Lottery proceeds

         25        as adopted other simultaneously.  It is the issue we


          1        talked about in the Lottery.  Those are the two

          2        changes, the others are stylistic in terms of titles.

          3        And I would move the substitute to the amendment.

          4             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner, if you

          5        will, I think these copies have just been passed out.

          6        And before we go forward, this is going to take us a

          7        little while.  It's been suggested to me that some of

          8        the members would like to take about a five-minute

          9        break.  Do you have an objection to that, Commissioner

         10        Nabors?

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  No, sir.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Let's just stand in

         13        informal recess for about five or ten minutes.

         14             (Brief recess.)

         15             (Chairman Douglass resumes Chair.)

         16             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate

         17        your presence.  All Commissioners indicate your

         18        presence.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We need to go, we only have

         20        40 minutes.  Call it again.

         21             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum call.  All

         22        Commissioners indicate your presence.

         23             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         24             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner


          1        Barkdull, you are recognized.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I make a motion.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, a motion.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That the time of

          5        adjournment be extended until we conclude the debate

          6        on Committee Substitute for No. 6 and announcements,

          7        motions to withdraw, and motions for reconsiderations.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You have heard

          9        the motion that the time for adjournment be extended

         10        until we complete this item that we are on.  All in

         11        favor, say aye.  Opposed?

         12             (Verbal vote taken.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's so done.  Now, let's

         14        pick up where we left off.  I think you had the floor,

         15        Commissioner Nabors, it's your proposal.  You offered

         16        an amendment, which is essentially a new proposal.

         17        And has it been read?  Okay, then you may proceed.

         18             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Members of the Commission,

         19        let me explain to you what this amendment does.  It

         20        really doesn't change the substance of the proposal

         21        that's being considered.  This is the exact language

         22        included in the packet that was sent out to each of

         23        you this week by Federal Express from myself.  It

         24        basically does two things in clarification.

         25             Does everybody have the amendment to the


          1        proposal?  It has some stylistic changes which style

          2        and drafting will have to look at in terms of titles

          3        to the subsections, but the primary change is on Page

          4        2, Line 10.

          5             As you recall, this proposal basically requires

          6        that each exemption or exclusion to the sales tax has

          7        to be in a single bill, has to be a bill dealing with

          8        that subject matter only, has to declare the State

          9        public purpose is advanced.  It also requires that

         10        during fiscal year 2000-2001, that the Legislature is

         11        mandated by the people to go through a tax fairness

         12        initiative.

         13             The language that is added is on page -- a new

         14        sentence on 10 through 13 to make it clear that the

         15        single subject requirement doesn't apply to that tax

         16        initiative process.  There's a lot of confusion over

         17        that.  The Legislature during that year of adoption of

         18        the budget for the 2000-2001 could do that in a series

         19        of general laws.

         20             The second major change -- the second

         21        clarification is on Page 2, Line 23, one of the

         22        concepts, which I'll explain in great detail, is a

         23        concept of revenue neutrality.  When this tax base

         24        initiative occurs, it occurs within the context of

         25        revenue neutrality.  And what this language says is


          1        the concept of revenue equality means the sales tax

          2        generated the previous year, plus historical growth,

          3        plus any amounts necessary to restore the Lottery from

          4        general revenues, if there's a simultaneous amendment

          5        adopted, it goes to that Lottery issue.  So, those are

          6        the only two changes in the language in the amendment.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is another amendment on

          8        the table to the amendment by Commissioner Hawkes.

          9        Would you read the amendment, please?

         10             READING CLERK:  Amendment to the amendment by

         11        Commissioner Hawkes, on Page 1, Line 26, after the

         12        words, 2000 through 2001, and insert "may".

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes.

         14             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         15        This might be called the revenue neutrality

         16        enhancement amendment.  What this allows, and

         17        actually, there's another amendment that follows this

         18        one, is it allows the Legislature, if they wish, to

         19        not raise as much revenue as what they may have raised

         20        under the formula that's set forth in this proposal.

         21             For instance, if the Legislature, if they came up

         22        and it was $14 billion, let's say, and the Legislature

         23        felt they could get by with 13.8, they would be

         24        allowed to only do 13.8, if they thought that that was

         25        in the best public policy.  So, this creates the


          1        permissive language by saying "may".  And the next

          2        amendment basically puts the language, Unless the

          3        Legislature determines that the needs of the state can

          4        be met --

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Wait a minute.  Is that one

          6        on the table too?

          7             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  That one is also on the

          8        table, Mr. Chairman.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So, we have to

         10        take the first one first.  The amendment to the

         11        amendment.  Does everybody understand the first one?

         12        Yes, sir, Commissioner Nabors.

         13             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  The only difference is that

         14        in order to -- what we might want to do is go ahead

         15        and take the amendment, my amendment to have that in

         16        order so I can explain the total proposal because I

         17        have to explain the whole proposal to indicate why I

         18        think this is unwise.  Whatever the Chair wants me to

         19        do.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The Chair doesn't have a

         21        choice here because there's an amendment to the

         22        amendment on the floor.

         23             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  All right.  I would like to

         24        speak against it again.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  If we read the


          1        amendment.  You mean, he's got another amendment?

          2        There are two separate amendments.

          3             (Pause.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The first amendment is to the

          5        amendment offered by Commissioner Nabors, which is

          6        what is before us at the moment.  The amendment to his

          7        amendment which we were taking up just before we

          8        recessed.  And just very shortly, what does your

          9        amendment to the amendment say?

         10             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  It inserts the word "may"

         11        in the first reference to revenue neutrality, and it

         12        caps the Legislature at revenue neutrality, but it

         13        creates the possibility that the Legislature could

         14        raise less revenue if they wanted to provide a tax cut

         15        or something, they could do that.  It is permissive

         16        language for the Legislature.  Still caps it at what

         17        they would have raised but allows less if the

         18        Legislature determines.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, on that amendment,

         20        Commissioner Nabors, you wanted to speak in

         21        opposition; is that correct?

         22             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You have the

         24        floor.

         25             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Members of the Commission,


          1        listen up, because this amendment appears to be a

          2        simple amendment, but it goes to the heart, it goes to

          3        the heart of the concept of revenue neutrality.  Okay.

          4        What the proposal does, let me tell you exactly what

          5        the proposal does, in the main proposal and in my

          6        amendment to the proposal, it basically -- the first

          7        thing it does, it goes to the Constitution, and it

          8        says, and I'm talking about by amendment to the

          9        amendment, which his amendment is to that.  It goes to

         10        the Constitution and says that any new exemption or

         11        exclusion to the general sales tax, any exemption or

         12        exclusion in general sales tax has to advance a state

         13        public purpose.

         14             It defines what a state public purpose is.  To

         15        advance the state public purpose or encourage economic

         16        development and competitiveness, supporting education,

         17        governmental, religious, or charitable initiatives or

         18        institutions or securing tax fairness.  So that's the

         19        fundamental concept and exemptions or exclusions have

         20        to advance that stated public purpose.  It then says

         21        that from that -- once the amendment is adopted, from

         22        that day on, from that day on, the Legislature is

         23        limited in how it considers exemptions or exclusions

         24        to the sales tax by requiring that each one appear,

         25        each one appear, in a bill dealing with that subject


          1        matter only and that bill has to declare a state

          2        public purpose advance.  The reason for that is that

          3        then you would eliminate the tax trains, people would

          4        know what the exemptions were, the Governor could --

          5        all of the good public policy reasons why there should

          6        be an open disclosure process where we do exemptions

          7        to the sales tax and we don't service special

          8        interests, and there's a public debate on those

          9        exemptions.

         10             The other main part of the bill is that it

         11        requires a tax fairness initiative in the year

         12        2000-2001.  The reason that is, is that having changed

         13        the Constitution to limit the power in which the

         14        Legislature handles exemptions or exclusions, we have

         15        given so many away and there's so many currently that

         16        the people mandate the Legislature to go in, has two

         17        sessions to look at and to make a determination as to

         18        which exemptions do not advance the state public

         19        purpose and which do.  But it does that within the

         20        concept of the rollback of the rate from the current

         21        6 percent to the 5 percent, so there's a ceiling,

         22        there's a ceiling on the rate for that one moment in

         23        time only, for that year, 2000-2001.  And at the same

         24        time it has the concept of the revenue neutrality.

         25             And what's meant by that is, is that the amount


          1        of money they would estimate in the appropriations

          2        bill, at that moment in time, even at the reduced rate

          3        of 5 percent, would be not less than the amount of

          4        sales tax money they receive in the previous year,

          5        adjusted for historical growth, adjusted to the

          6        consequence of the Lottery amendment, okay.  So it

          7        gives assurances from sales tax revenue to people that

          8        are concerned about the state budget, people in the

          9        education community, all of those types of

         10        constituencies, that this process is revenue

         11        neutrality, that there has to be a floor from sales

         12        tax revenue not less than the amount generated the

         13        previous year, during that moment in time, that

         14        2000-2001 budget, adjusted by growth plus Lottery

         15        money.

         16             What this amendment does, it makes that floor

         17        discretionary.  And the argument that's been made to

         18        me about the amendment is, what if the state wants to

         19        reduce the budget?  There's two arguments.  What if we

         20        get a lot of money in, somehow more than we anticipate

         21        in year 2000-2001, so we get a lot of money in, sales

         22        tax money that's unanticipated.

         23             What would happen under the amendment is that the

         24        Legislature could reduce the rate in that

         25        circumstance, so they could reduce the rate from five


          1        to four.  To the extent that they did reduce the rate

          2        and they generated more money than the revenue

          3        neutrality concept, the provision implies that the

          4        money is used to reduce school property taxes, it

          5        eliminates any windfall.  So, it has a self-balancing

          6        process.

          7             So, the argument is made that we need to make

          8        these discretionary on these two amendments because

          9        the Legislature may want to cut the state budget.

         10        Well, the Legislature can still cut the state budget,

         11        they can cut intangible taxes, they can cut all sorts

         12        of taxes to cut the budget.  This is not -- it doesn't

         13        limit their ability to cut the budget, but it gives

         14        assurances that this process that people mandate will

         15        be done in terms of revenue neutrality.

         16             What is going to happen, if you put this

         17        amendment in here, in my judgment, it's going to

         18        completely destroy the fundamental concept of revenue

         19        neutrality as to sales tax revenue and it's going to

         20        put all of the educational community and other people

         21        who are concerned about the process, that they may

         22        have a situation of rate reduction and a devastation

         23        of the budget.

         24             There's no need to do that.  We are not tying the

         25        strings of the Legislature.  If they want to reduce


          1        the budget, they can reduce tangible tax revenue, they

          2        can reduce corporate tax revenues, and a myriad of

          3        fees and other revenues that they have that they can

          4        reduce the budget.  This requires revenue neutrality

          5        as to the sales tax and the sales tax only.  I ask you

          6        to vote against these amendments because they destroy

          7        the basic concept of revenue neutrality.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  On the amendment.  Do you

          9        want to close, Commissioner Hawkes?  You have the

         10        floor.

         11             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I

         12        don't think it destroys revenue neutrality, I think it

         13        gives the Legislature flexibility.  If you look at

         14        what kind of fees and revenues the Legislature raises,

         15        probably close to 80 percent comes from sales tax that

         16        goes into general revenue.

         17             Now, when you go buy a gallon of gas, obviously

         18        the Legislature taxes that, but that goes into a trust

         19        fund and that builds roads, and when you buy a Lottery

         20        ticket, that money is spent and goes into trust funds.

         21        I mean, it is not discretionary money.

         22             So, if the Legislature feels that they are having

         23        a lot of revenue coming in and they want to give some

         24        of that back to Florida's families because maybe,

         25        maybe they believe that the government ought not grow


          1        at a rate two or three times the rate of household

          2        income and they want to give some of that back, the

          3        easiest way to give that back is, perhaps, in sales,

          4        or maybe they want to do economic development.  It

          5        just gives the Legislature flexibility.

          6             It caps it at revenue neutrality, and it says, We

          7        are not going to raise money by doing this, we are

          8        going to roll back the rate, but it caps at the

          9        revenue neutrality.  And if the Legislature has a

         10        small amount that they want to give flexibility, it

         11        just allows that.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll vote on the

         13        amendment.  Lock the machine.

         14             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Has everybody voted?  Lock

         16        the machine and announce the vote.

         17             READING CLERK:  Fourteen yeas, ten nays,

         18        Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote, you have

         20        adopted the amendment.  Now, there's another amendment

         21        on the table by Commissioner Hawkes.  Would you read

         22        the amendment, please?

         23             READING CLERK:  Amendment to the amendment by

         24        Commissioner Hawkes, on Page 2, Line 28 after the word

         25        proceeds, insert, unless the Legislature determines


          1        that the needs of the state may be met with less than

          2        the amount of revenue debt would ensure revenue

          3        neutrality.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes on the

          5        amendment.

          6             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          7        The first amendment that we just voted on, basically

          8        was the enabling language to this.  This is really

          9        conforming language, it just clarifies that the

         10        Legislature has the authority.  It is just conforming

         11        with the first amendment, and I would ask for your

         12        favorable consideration.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors to oppose

         14        it.

         15             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, I would just like to

         16        say, for those of you who voted yes to the prior

         17        amendment who liked this proposal, you be careful what

         18        you are voting on in this, because basically this is

         19        another example of the concept that revenue neutrality

         20        will be severely weakened by this.

         21             There's no windfall to the Legislature in this

         22        process.  If money is received greater than the amount

         23        received the previous year, plus the amount, if the

         24        Lottery amendment is approved, is basically, is all

         25        that can be raised, plus historical growth.  Anything


          1        above that has to be used for school property taxes.

          2        There is plenty of flexibility.  If the Legislature

          3        wants to cut the budget by cutting other revenue, so I

          4        would urge you to vote against this.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  These two amendments are the

          7        exact question that, ever since we started discussing

          8        this proposal that some of us have been asking,

          9        because -- I mean, you look at what's happened in

         10        Washington, I mean because of the committee, I mean

         11        existing sources of revenue, we now even have a

         12        balanced budget.  And the question is, are they going

         13        to have tax relief, are they going to spend the money

         14        on something, or whatever.  But you really need to

         15        have an amendment in there that doesn't mandate that

         16        the Legislature has to raise taxes $2 billion on

         17        services in this state just to maintain revenue

         18        neutrality because we are rolling back the sales tax.

         19        If the money is not needed or they determine their

         20        needs are less than that, they shouldn't have to do

         21        that.  And if you put -- I just think it is a bad idea

         22        and I would be for the amendment.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Do you need to

         24        close on the amendment?  That was good close?  Okay.

         25        All right.  Unlock the machine and let's vote.


          1             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Unlock the machine and

          3        announce the vote.

          4             READING CLERK:  Seventeen yea, nine nay,

          5        Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are gaining, Commissioner

          7        Hawkes.  By your vote you have adopted the amendment.

          8        Now we are now on the amendment as amended.

          9        Commissioner Nabors.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Unless someone has a

         11        question, I think we can explain the differences in

         12        this amendment and the main proposal, and I would like

         13        to move the amendment to the proposal so that we can

         14        debate the merits of the bill.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley.

         16             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I would like to ask

         17        Commissioner Nabors a question.  Will you give me, in

         18        twenty words or less, what the title of this is going

         19        to be on the ballot?

         20             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, I can give it to you

         21        in 75 words or less, but I don't know about 20.

         22             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  How about 20 pages or

         23        less?  Tell me how I explain this at the coffee shop.

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I think the title is fairly

         25        easy, it would be a -- we have looked at title


          1        language.  A lot of us who have worked on this have

          2        looked at title language.  And I think it can be

          3        drafted.  It basically would say, Do you approve a tax

          4        payer's initiative that lowers that rate of the sales

          5        tax from six to five by eliminating those exemptions

          6        that service special interests.

          7             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That sounds more like a

          8        political speech than a title.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me suggest that maybe,

         10        you know, that will have to come when we have the

         11        styling and draft committee.  But if you want to ask

         12        that as a question, I think that's perfectly in order.

         13        And you asked it, and he answered it.  I think.

         14        Commissioner Barnett.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I have a number of

         16        questions, but I can wait until after you adopt the

         17        amendment or whichever, whatever is appropriate.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does it relate to the

         19        amendment or the proposal?

         20             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  No, it relates

         21        generally --

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Let's move on the

         23        amendment, where we are at the moment.  All of those

         24        in favor of the adoption of the amendment as amended,

         25        say yea.  Opposed?


          1             (Verbal vote taken.)


          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, we are on the proposal

          4        as amended by three amendments, two amendments to the

          5        amendment and one amendment.  Commissioner Barnett,

          6        you wanted to speak now.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I would like to ask a

          8        series of questions, and at an appropriate time I

          9        would also want to be recognized.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are recognized and he

         11        yields for questions.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Commissioner Nabors, would

         13        you explain to me the time frame that's actually going

         14        to work, that's contemplated?  If adopted, this

         15        amendment would go into effect, the effective date

         16        would be July, year 2000, or --

         17             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  No, the proposal, the

         18        effective date would be immediate.  And that is any,

         19        the beginning of the next legislative session after

         20        the people approve this, then the single subject

         21        requirement for any new exemptions or exclusions would

         22        apply.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  That's for granting any

         24        new?

         25             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Right.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  And that would be in

          2        November of '98, presuming it was adopted?

          3             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Right.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  But I would like, the

          5        question that I want to talk about is, how will it

          6        apply to those exclusions or exemptions currently on

          7        the books?  Will the Legislature have two years,

          8        essentially, to come in and address those outstanding

          9        exemptions?

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, then the issue would

         11        be, they mandated for one moment in time, for the

         12        budget year 2000-2001, the sales tax rate would be

         13        reduced to 5 percent, with any raise in the future.

         14        For that moment in time, revenue neutrality hopefully

         15        would be retained by the broadening of the base.  Let

         16        me finish.

         17             Then the Legislature then has two sessions before

         18        that budget has to be adopted.  So, they will have two

         19        sessions in order to go through the process of a

         20        series of general laws determining which exemptions

         21        currently and which excluded services do not advance a

         22        state public purpose and serve a special interest to

         23        get to the revenue neutrality concept.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  So, for fiscal year

         25        '98-'99, and fiscal year, '99-2000, will the


          1        Legislature be required during either of those two

          2        years to address the question of whether the current

          3        exemptions meet the stated state policies?

          4             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Not required to do that.

          5        Strictly within the legislative arena is how we

          6        address that.  By the time they adopt the state

          7        appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000-2001, that

          8        labor has to be concluded.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  But as a practical matter,

         10        what I am trying to get to is, as a practical matter,

         11        during the two ensuing legislative sessions, will the

         12        Legislature have to address the outstanding current

         13        exemptions that are not preserved in this proposal?

         14             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  They'll have to.  How they

         15        do that is left up to them.  For example, they might

         16        want to during the first session after the voters

         17        speak, they could address it and have the effective

         18        date delayed.  They could do a myriad of things.  What

         19        this does though it has the people basically mandating

         20        that this process be concluded prior to the budget

         21        year, fiscal year 2000, 2001.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  What I'm really trying to

         23        get to is the practical realities of the process that

         24        the Legislature is going to be facing during that

         25        two-year period.  And what I think I hear you saying


          1        is that through general law, somehow the Legislature

          2        is going to have to address each of the exemptions and

          3        exclusions that is contained on this handout that you

          4        gave to us prior to the fiscal year 2000 budget being

          5        approved with a goal -- just practically is that

          6        what's going to happen?

          7             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me respond directly to

          8        your question is that what the Legislature has to do,

          9        it has to go through a process in a general bill or a

         10        series of general bills to eliminate those exemptions

         11        that don't satisfy a state public purpose and serve a

         12        special interest.  It doesn't mean it has to vote up

         13        and down on every exemption.  That's why we did the

         14        clarification.  It's not a sunset, it doesn't require

         15        a vote, not every exemption is at risk in a single

         16        bill.

         17             But the Legislature has to go through its normal

         18        process of saying, we feel, in a general law or a

         19        series of general laws, that these exemptions would be

         20        repealed and we would extend the base to these

         21        services.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  But every exemption that's

         23        listed on this handout in some fashion in the two-year

         24        period would have to be addressed by the Legislature,

         25        either in a single bill making a decision to keep it


          1        or in a bill that combines one or more of the

          2        exemptions to keep more --

          3             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  It could be one omnibus

          4        bill.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Or one omnibus bill.  But

          6        in some way the Legislature has to address every one

          7        of these exemptions.

          8             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  The only reason they are at

          9        risk, any more than they are today or tomorrow, is

         10        because the people have told them they want it to be

         11        done.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Incidentally, for your

         13        information, we're going off TV at 4:45 and then you

         14        can still proceed.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I didn't know we were on

         16        TV, Mr. Chairman.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You're our star.  Go ahead,

         18        Commissioner Barnett.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I'm just trying frankly to

         20        understand how this in a practical way is going to

         21        work.

         22             The Lines 29 through 31 on Page 1 and Lines 1 to

         23        3 on Page 2 talk about certain items that are not

         24        going to be subject to this implementation phase of

         25        this provision.  Are those items, and what it refers


          1        to are some things that are traditionally exempt from

          2        the sales tax like food, medicine, drugs, energy for

          3        households, is it possible that after the year 2000

          4        the Legislature could, in its wisdom, they could

          5        subject those to taxation?

          6             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Absolutely, just as they

          7        could raise the rate.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  So there is no

          9        constitutional protection beyond this implementation

         10        period for household services or food or medicine -- I

         11        mean, household utilities or food or medicine?

         12             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  That's right.  Beyond the

         13        taxpayer initiative which is mandated for that one

         14        moment in time fiscal year, the rate is reduced and

         15        the revenue neutrality kicks in, but off the table in

         16        that process they determine the revenue neutrality of

         17        those exemptions that are enumerated.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Those exemptions are

         19        eliminated from that two-year implementation period.

         20        That's what that language means?

         21             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Right.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  But thereafter they would

         23        be subject to the Legislature to deal with as they

         24        thought appropriate.

         25             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Just as they are now.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Okay.  Please explain --

          2        one last question, on the revenue neutrality

          3        guarantee, I've tried to walk through the formula for

          4        the adjusted growth in the sales tax.  Can you give me

          5        a layman's discussion of actually how that adjusted,

          6        that formula will work to adjust the revenue because I

          7        frankly haven't been able to really come up with

          8        something that I could explain in two or three

          9        sentences.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well it works essentially

         11        exactly the way the current revenue limitation works

         12        in Article VII, Section 1, except rather than dealing

         13        with state revenues in general it deals solely with

         14        sales tax.

         15             What it says is if you look at the average growth

         16        in sales tax over the last five years, last 20

         17        quarters, what the average percentage growth is, and

         18        then you take the prior year's revenue in sales tax,

         19        adjusted by that growth, you add to it any loss in

         20        state revenues, if any, resulting from restriction of

         21        the Lottery to come up with an adjusted sales tax

         22        amount.

         23             And the amount received from state revenue

         24        cannot -- has to be that amount of money during that,

         25        that's estimated during that budget process.  Anything


          1        beyond that has to be used to reduce school property

          2        taxes in the school formula.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you.

          4             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  It's exactly the same

          5        language with the -- that's in the current revenue

          6        limitation except it's more restrictive in saying it

          7        applies to state sales tax and not to all state

          8        revenues.

          9             Mr. Chairman.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Who's next?

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Did we vote on the

         12        amendment?

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We adopted the amendment, the

         14        proposal.  Any more debate or questions on the --

         15        Commissioner Barnett -- Commissioner Morsani, did you

         16        want to address the issue?

         17             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I have a question.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You're

         19        recognized.

         20             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I apologize for missing a

         21        little bit of the debate but the office is calling.

         22        Are you tied into that debate we had the other day,

         23        are you tying this in to the Lottery debate,

         24        specifically in the areas of early education?  Is this

         25        going down that same path?


          1             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  This would be ultimately --

          2        there is nothing in this proposal which binds this

          3        commission to any use of Lottery money, but there is

          4        language in here which recognizes that if we do

          5        something like that, that this is a mechanism to fill

          6        up the hole in the budget we talked about.

          7        Ultimately, you go through the public hearings, we get

          8        down to the final list of proposals, we'll have to

          9        decide whether that language stays in or out depending

         10        on what's done on the Lottery.

         11             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  My question though --

         12        another question.  Are you delineating with the --

         13        what money the Legislature can spend their money for

         14        in those specific areas -- in any specific area?

         15             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Not in this proposal.  I'm

         16        not trying to be cute by that answer.

         17             The question is we have a separate proposal on

         18        restriction of use of the Lottery money, which we had

         19        debate upon and which is actually on reconsideration.

         20        And we had debate -- we talked about that that created

         21        a hole in the state budget and you were concerned with

         22        the designated uses.

         23             All this says is that we have to recognize that

         24        if that proposal went through the process and survives

         25        and was put on the ballot, then this is drafted to


          1        work with that to allow that hole in the revenue to be

          2        made up to give the Legislature that flexibility

          3        before they have to do property tax relief.

          4             But ultimately Style and Drafting is going to

          5        have to deal with that when we come back after the

          6        public hearing process.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further questions?  If

          8        not -- Commissioner Scott.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner Nabors, this

         10        proposal, it's changed a couple of times but

         11        everything that you're talking about here could be

         12        done under the current Constitution by the

         13        Legislature; is that correct?

         14             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, it could.  And that

         15        goes to the fundamental point is that most of us who

         16        have worked on this, this isn't something I've been

         17        sitting in a closet working on by myself.  As you

         18        know, we've talked about this among each other and

         19        I've talked with a lot of you individually, tried to

         20        talk to all of you.

         21             Those of us who support this feel like the

         22        Legislature as an institution cannot deal with this

         23        issue, that it's just too far-reaching reform that

         24        it's just incapable of dealing with it.  And so that's

         25        the reason for the proposal.


          1             Its underpinning is the fact it goes to the

          2        question that Commissioner Barnett asked, is that the

          3        Legislature, unless mandated by the people to do that

          4        would be institutionally incapable of dealing with it.

          5             All of you received and you have on your desks a

          6        list of exemptions and exclusions which we've given to

          7        you before.  And one of the things we debated is how

          8        far do we roll back -- do we go to the people and say

          9        the rate has to be mandatorily rolled back?  We looked

         10        at frankly 4 percent, 4 and other types of rollback.

         11             In terms of trying to not strain the Legislature

         12        in this process, to give them the flexibility, they

         13        could roll it back further if they wanted to under

         14        revenue neutrality concepts, we felt that the

         15        5 percent was the most reasonable reduction in order

         16        to establish the incentive to broaden the base.

         17             If you look at the charts which I explained in my

         18        memorandum, if you assume that the Legislature did

         19        exactly what it did in '87, which we don't know, they

         20        could do better or they could do worse, they had to

         21        pick and chose in '87 in an unusual political

         22        environment to broaden the sales tax base.

         23             The problem in '87 is they didn't roll back the

         24        rate so there was a windfall of money which this is

         25        intended to address, which I have talked to many of


          1        you about.  If you assume they did the same thing they

          2        did in '87, if they made the same choice they made in

          3        '87 at a 5 percent rate, you would come up with the

          4        same dollars that you do now at 6 percent, plus

          5        approximately $400 million in additional revenue which

          6        would be used either to, if we go with the Lottery to

          7        fill the hole in the Lottery, or it could go for

          8        property tax relief.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         11             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  -- I have a further

         12        question.  I note on Lines 27, 28 in there that you're

         13        saying that you -- that the Legislature would be

         14        mandated to tax all exempt goods and excluded services

         15        if it -- the exemption or exclusion serves a special

         16        interest by failing to satisfy or advance a state

         17        public policy.

         18             I mean, if you went down the list of those

         19        exemptions, let's just take feed, seed and fertilizer,

         20        I mean, agriculture is a state policy somebody could

         21        argue.  How would this work?  How would the

         22        Legislature be able to go through and decide what is a

         23        special interest using that word in the Constitution?

         24             I don't think it's anywhere else in the

         25        Constitution, but if you were going to use that word


          1        in the Constitution, how would they decide what that

          2        means and what is a state public policy?

          3             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  They would decide like they

          4        would any other issue, Commissioner Scott.  I think

          5        what the courts would do, I think the courts would

          6        defer to legislative determinations and whether or not

          7        a public purpose was advanced or not.  So the

          8        Legislature would go through and make those

          9        fundamental decisions, just like currently the Senate

         10        is looking at a list of exemptions that possibly are

         11        subject to repeal.  This would be no different than

         12        that.

         13             The courts will defer to the Legislature, but the

         14        Legislature would have to make that decision based

         15        upon the framework of a rollback in the rate from six

         16        to five.

         17             So I would say that it would be no different than

         18        any other decision the Legislature makes except there

         19        would some message from the people as to what are the

         20        types of public purposes that are advanced,

         21        competitiveness, economic development, advancing

         22        charitable, education, governmental initiatives and

         23        tax fairness.  Beyond those, then the public would be

         24        saying, eliminate those that don't do that.

         25             Every person's exception is his good tax policy.


          1        And everybody else's exception is their special

          2        interest, I recognize that.  But that is fundamentally

          3        a legislative process that you go through every time

          4        the Legislature grants an exemption or removes one.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  If the Legislature doesn't

          7        do, doesn't do this or if they just say, We've looked

          8        at all of them and we think agriculture is important,

          9        we think devices or whatever that exempt, we think

         10        printing shouldn't be taxed twice by whatever and on

         11        and on down the list.  And people that have to have

         12        lawyers and have to -- then what happens then?

         13             Then it still, it just -- somebody sues us I

         14        guess, that's one thing, they go to court.  But other

         15        than that there would then be a mandated something.

         16        What's going to happen?

         17             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I would have to assume if

         18        the people pass this, what would happen is the rate

         19        would be rolled back for that one year.  And then

         20        under the revenue neutrality concept, which has been

         21        somewhat weakened by the one amendment, the revenue

         22        neutrality concepts, they would have to in good faith

         23        generate the same dollars as the previous year and it

         24        would force them to go through that process.

         25             If they refuse to do that, if they say, Despite


          1        what the people said in this amendment, we think that

          2        all of them advance a state public purpose and all the

          3        services should be excluded, then I think you could

          4        have litigation.  You could have a mandamus action or

          5        some other action to force them to go through the

          6        process.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  So the way I am seeing this

         10        then, you're going to ask the people to amend the

         11        Constitution to force the Legislature to tax items

         12        that are not now taxed such as services or whatever.

         13        Isn't that what this proposal --

         14             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  And lower the rate on many

         15        of those that are so you have revenue neutrality.

         16        This proposal would not generate any additional

         17        dollars that were generated in the prior state budget.

         18        If there are additional dollars generated, it has to

         19        be used for a reduced -- for a period of three years

         20        to reduce school property taxes.

         21             After that three-year period, you'd have your

         22        general revenue limitations provision, Article VII,

         23        Section 1(a) or Section 1, which requires refunds to

         24        be made.  This is a revenue neutral concept.  The only

         25        change this amendment does is allow them to reduce it


          1        below the prior years, providing that the ceiling is

          2        right there.  There could not be additional dollars

          3        raised.  Obviously some people are going to pay

          4        perhaps more, some people less.  But generally if

          5        everybody pays their fair share, everybody will pay

          6        less.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          8        Smith?

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And welcome.

         11             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I'm glad I could finally

         12        make it, Mr. Chairman.  Question for Commissioner

         13        Nabors.

         14             I'm sympathetic to the issue of reducing the

         15        rate.  I'm a little concerned now about the question

         16        that Commissioner Scott raised.  Since this proposal

         17        will, in fact, mandate a reduction in the rate, if the

         18        Legislature basically holds a tax meeting or some

         19        meeting and says, We find that all of these exemptions

         20        that are presently in effect do advance a special

         21        interest, what happens revenuewise?

         22             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, under the revenue

         23        neutrality concept, they couldn't do that.  They would

         24        have to expand the base in order to generate the same

         25        dollars.  But what's so different, and let's say we


          1        just pass the amendment on reapportionment, what if

          2        they refuse to appoint the members to the

          3        reapportionment commission?  Some court would have to

          4        tell them to do that.  The Legislature would not have

          5        the discretion -- you have to assume that the

          6        Legislature would respond fairly to what the people

          7        told them to do.  And what the concept is is, you have

          8        a ceiling and a floor.

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  But with regard to

         10        the amendment that we passed, the Hawkes' amendments,

         11        which allowed the Legislature to appropriate less than

         12        the amount of money that had been appropriated in the

         13        trial budget and if the tax rate is mandated to be

         14        reduced and none of these exemptions are, you know,

         15        excluded or whatever, won't we have a shortfall --

         16             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  That's why I spoke against

         17        the Hawkes' Amendment --

         18             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I understand that.  But I'm

         19        saying now the reality is it's in the there.

         20             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  We'll, what I would say is,

         21        we'll get another bite at that apple, whether that

         22        "may" stays in or not.  And one of the things that I

         23        think is very important in this proposal is that it

         24        gets into Style and Drafting so we can go through the

         25        public hearing process to hear about this.  And if we


          1        have 22 votes ultimately to pass the amendment, people

          2        are concerned about that as I am.  And once they

          3        understand it, I think would have the same notes to

          4        take that "may" out.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Who's next in the

          6        debate?  Commissioner Brochin?

          7             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I'd like to speak in

          8        support of this proposal.  In the Finance and Tax

          9        Committee meetings we heard quite a bit of testimony

         10        on our tax structure and it didn't matter who came

         11        before us to speak, didn't matter from what political

         12        or economic source they were.  The testimony was

         13        unrefutable in this regard, and that is, the narrower

         14        your tax base, the more chaotic it is.  And the higher

         15        the rate is on that narrow tax base, the more

         16        distorted it becomes.

         17             The proposal may seem somewhat complex because of

         18        Commissioner Nabors' intellectually honest mind.  But

         19        it is a rather simple proposal and it is this.  It

         20        says that we have to, in the state of Florida, spread

         21        the tax base.  Those of you that are being lulled into

         22        the idea this is a tax increase are simply wrong.

         23        This has nothing to do with raising taxes, this has

         24        nothing to do with lowering taxes, and now that the

         25        amendment has been done, it may not have anything to


          1        do with revenue neutrality.

          2             But what this does have a lot to do with is

          3        getting Florida into a base where its taxes are spread

          4        out to a more fair and equitable way.

          5             Now, some of you may say, Well, the Constitution

          6        is not the place to put tax policy.  I agree.  The

          7        Constitution is not the place.  But our Constitution

          8        has it.  When we came forward and said, Allow the

          9        Legislature to spread the base by imposing a personal

         10        income tax, no.  In fact, some argued that it would

         11        hold this commission in ill repute.  So the

         12        Constitution fortunately or unfortunately is the state

         13        of Florida's place where tax policy is apparently

         14        going to be made.

         15             And what this proposal begins to do is simply

         16        reduce the rate to 5 percent to require a flattening

         17        of that base so it is more fairly and equitably

         18        imposed.  The state of Florida generates, I think, up

         19        to 80 percent of its general revenue from

         20        transactional sales.  That is an extraordinary amount

         21        of reliance on a transactional-based revenue system.

         22        And the problem, and many people talk about waste in

         23        government, I would suggest that if they want to do

         24        something about waste in government, they'd look at

         25        the tax system that we have in place.


          1             When you have a narrow tax base and the economy

          2        expands and the economy contracts, the only way the

          3        Legislature can deal with that is by raising revenues

          4        to put into programs and when the base contracts they

          5        have to draw it back.  And that spins off quite a bit

          6        of waste.  So that's why most Constitutions don't get

          7        in the way of trying to dictate to the Legislature how

          8        to raise the money, how to tax the money.  They hold

          9        them accountable for what they do with the money.

         10        They hold them accountable for how they impose those

         11        programs on the people, but they have to and should

         12        give them the flexibility to impose the proper

         13        revenue-generating streams so they can be accountable

         14        for the people.

         15             The other simple, but I think essentially

         16        compelling part of this amendment says, and it hasn't

         17        even been mentioned, deals with future exemptions that

         18        will be passed by the Legislature, and this is

         19        Constitutional in nature, and what it says is, is that

         20        if the Legislature is going to impose a policy that

         21        continues to narrow the base, that is puts another

         22        exemption in place, then it has to be done only on

         23        that subject and that subject alone.  So no longer

         24        will this Legislature be able to pass bills that may

         25        contain 100 good ideas and one tax exemption.


          1             If they are going to pass a tax exemption and

          2        they're going to narrow the base one more time, they

          3        got to take that bill, hold it up to the sunshine, let

          4        everybody see what they are doing, analyze it to see

          5        if it's good public policy and then pass it.  And I

          6        think that part of Subsection B is an outstanding idea

          7        and deserves our support.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates?

          9             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I rise to speak in

         10        favor of this proposal.  And the one thing that seems

         11        to ring truest, in my review of the proposal, is the

         12        question of why is it that we have exemptions if sales

         13        tax is our primary source of revenue to run this state

         14        and we all agree that a broad base is reasonable, I

         15        think those are not unreasonable conclusions, then the

         16        exemptions that we have, should they not be based,

         17        quite simply, on what's in this proposal, the

         18        encouraging of economic development and

         19        competitiveness; the support of educational,

         20        governmental, religious or charitable initiatives and

         21        securing tax fairness.

         22             The list that we have here, of all the different

         23        exemptions, the question is, do they meet those basic

         24        requirements.  And I would submit to you that, no,

         25        some of them do not.  And, yes, it's a tough thing for


          1        the Legislature to deal with those because there are

          2        interests that are going to come up here and say, I

          3        should be exempt.  But I submit to you that the

          4        question is, Are these three reasons for exemptions

          5        not appropriate?  And if you agree that they are

          6        appropriate because they affect everyone else's taxes,

          7        then I think it's time for us to require the

          8        Legislature to take those into consideration and,

          9        again, we have limits on taxation in other areas of

         10        our Constitution.  This one simply assures the public

         11        that when exemptions are enacted that affect the basic

         12        tax structure of our state, that they are based on

         13        sound principles and that they are done in an open

         14        forum in a single bill setting.

         15             I don't know what's more honest in government

         16        than to give the people the option of saying, Yes,

         17        when taxes are voted on, I want to be able to see and

         18        understand why it's happening.  I urge your support

         19        for this good proposal.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         21        Morsani was next.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Amendment on the desk.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Oh, we have an amendment?

         24        All right.  There's an amendment on the desk.

         25        Commissioner Morsani, we'll take up the amendment then


          1        you'll have the floor following the amendment.  Would

          2        you read the amendment please, it's the amendment to

          3        the proposal as amendment; is that correct, by

          4        Commissioner Barkdull.  Read the amendment, please.

          5             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Barkdull moved

          6        the following amendment on Page 1, Line 26, delete

          7        2000 through 2001 and insert 2001 through 2002.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of

          9        the Commission, this is a simple amendment.  It pushes

         10        the effective date back a year.  And the reason for

         11        that is to enable the electorate to elect a

         12        Legislature in the intervening time between the time

         13        the proposal would be adopted and the time that they

         14        would -- the last time that they would have an

         15        opportunity to put back in exemptions.  And I think

         16        that's something that they ought to have that

         17        opportunity and that's the reason and purpose of the

         18        amendment.  Instead of making it applicable for the

         19        year 2000, 2001, it makes it applicable for the year

         20        2001, 2002 so that there can be an intervening

         21        election in the year 2000.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any discussion on

         23        the amendment?  Commissioner Nabors?

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  With reluctance, I'd like

         25        to speak against this amendment, Commissioner


          1        Barkdull.  Let me tell you why.

          2             I think there has to be -- I think two years is

          3        plenty of time to deal with this process.  The people

          4        will speak in the aggregate about this fundamental tax

          5        reform, this tax initiative.  I don't see where a

          6        campaign, you know, the next year is going to add any

          7        more to the directions of the people as to what should

          8        occur.

          9             In many ways it seems to me that this decision

         10        would be best made after hearing from the people by

         11        the Legislature, let's do it for the budget year 2000,

         12        2001.  It would be the more senior people who have

         13        dealt with these issues and struggled with them over a

         14        number of years and they will be in a cusp for their

         15        last term, I think that's the appropriate time to deal

         16        with it.

         17             This is not -- this is issues that would be, I

         18        think, chaotic to try to deal with that.  Here you

         19        have two years with one group of legislators to deal

         20        with it, and then an election where another group

         21        comes in.  I think it's being prudent to extend this

         22        out any further than it is now.  I ask you to vote

         23        against the proposed amendment.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Anything further on the

         25        amendment?  Commissioner Barkdull to close.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Only for the purpose of

          2        saying that the public ought to have a right to know

          3        what the position of their legislators are in a

          4        campaign as to how they would stand with the

          5        exemptions.  If you leave it the way it is they will

          6        not know.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Ready to vote on

          8        the amendment?  Everybody understand the amendment?

          9        Unlock the machine, vote on the amendment.  Lock the

         10        machine.

         11             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         12             READING CLERK:  Thirteen yeas, 15 nays,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             MR. CHAIRMAN:  Amendment fails.  Back on the

         15        proposal.  Now, Commissioner Morsani, you've been

         16        patient, it's your turn.

         17             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         18        If I might, I know that Commissioner Jennings may be

         19        hesitant to discuss this and we haven't talked to her

         20        about it.  I'm sorry, Commissioner.  We're not on TV

         21        now.  The rogers have all gone home.

         22             Commissioner Jennings, would you please address

         23        the issue in two parts?  The number one issue that I

         24        would ask is, do you think this is good public policy?

         25        And do we need to really change our revenue stream,


          1        that's all one question because the other one is do we

          2        have the cart in front of the horse on the issue,

          3        i.e., and we talked about this a little bit here, and

          4        that is management of government.  I guess, and I'd

          5        like to -- I'd like to ask if you would address those

          6        two questions and then I would like to discuss it

          7        further after your reply.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Jennings.

          9             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Mr. Chairman, before I

         10        answer, what is the rule about removing appointees?

         11             (Laughter.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, you know, you don't

         13        need one when you've got the power.

         14             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Gee, Commissioner

         15        Morsani, you've asked a mouthful here.  Let me talk

         16        for a moment and see if I can share some thoughts with

         17        you and perhaps answer your question.  The first

         18        being, do we have the cart before the horse.  I think

         19        earlier in the discussion we heard very candidly that

         20        this is something that the Legislature can do.  I

         21        think Senator Scott asked the question, or somebody

         22        asked the question, of Commissioner Nabors.

         23             Yes, in fact, it is not only something that the

         24        Legislature can do, it is something that they did do

         25        at one point.  Was it '86?  '87?  It was the '87


          1        session.  And some of us that are still here to live

          2        to tell about it will share with you.  In fact, there

          3        was a repeal of all the sales tax exemptions and we

          4        came back the deal with it the next year to talk about

          5        replacing those that we thought were essential to

          6        have.  It became -- and in fact that did happen.  Some

          7        were replaced, the majority were repealed, there was

          8        no movement downward on the tax at that point.  In

          9        hindsight that may have been a strategic error

         10        because, in fact, it didn't become revenue neutral.

         11             But there was a reason.  And some of you may

         12        remember the Zwik Commission (phonetic) of the

         13        mid-'80s that brought to us a huge number of required

         14        infrastructure needs the state of Florida was going to

         15        have.  I mean, you have to remember where the repeal

         16        of the tax exemptions and the so-called services tax

         17        came from.  It was to meet these huge unfunded needs

         18        or the potential needs that the Zwik Commission saw no

         19        way in which for us to address.

         20             So there was a reason that we were moving towards

         21        a different tax base.  At the time, a number of us

         22        supported it.  I supported it, Senator -- Commissioner

         23        Scott supported it.  Senator Langley is gone so I

         24        can't remember.  I do know somebody who didn't support

         25        it.  Commissioner Crenshaw said it was a bad idea and


          1        he turned out to be right as we got a little further

          2        down the line.

          3             But part of it was our support was also because

          4        it was important to broaden the base, it was important

          5        to do those things, it was important to answer these

          6        unfunded needs.  What happened was a huge hue and cry

          7        afterwards from a lot of people, and I look around

          8        this room and it would be mostly us.  There are a few

          9        of us who are here today who are in the retail

         10        business.  We are in the service business.  I'm in

         11        construction, Commissioner Scott is in law.  You're

         12        probably about one of those few people here that

         13        already pays that sales tax because you're in the

         14        retail auto business as is Commissioner Planas.  So,

         15        you know, you pay that sales tax on a regular basis.

         16             The hue and cry sort of went out.  And if you-all

         17        will remember, with such pressure we came back in a

         18        special session -- or in about five special sessions I

         19        think it took when we got to that point -- and we

         20        replaced the revenue with an extra penny on the sales

         21        tax because again we were concerned about those unmet

         22        needs that were ahead of us and removed or reenacted

         23        the exemptions that were on most of those service

         24        industries which most of us here today participated.

         25             Now, you would say, Well, that's a good reason


          1        for voting for this because, in fact, it shows that

          2        the Legislature will bow to pressure.  And what we

          3        need to do is put it on the ballot, get it in the

          4        Constitution.  Well, as I read this, that allows it

          5        to -- for all the exemptions to go away again but only

          6        after the Legislature does something.

          7             We're back to saying, with a few exceptions, food

          8        and medicine and medical services and residential rent

          9        and utilities and water, things of that nature, that

         10        it's all back on the table again.  And the Legislature

         11        has to determine if it is appropriate public policy,

         12        there is a term that you used, Commissioner Nabors --

         13        special interest Commissioner Smith said.  But it will

         14        be back to us one more time.  So I'm making a very

         15        long answer to something that I have a concern about

         16        doing as far as we've put it in the Constitution.

         17             If we're looking for an opinion poll, if we're

         18        putting it in the Constitution because we're just

         19        testing the waters to see if the people are for this,

         20        I think that's the wrong use of this.  Commissioner

         21        Nabors has done a good job of trying to make this

         22        revenue neutral which I think is an important aspect

         23        of anything we do because if it appears to be a

         24        revenue windfall, it's going to have its own set of

         25        circumstances.


          1             But I will share with you today, as many of you

          2        undoubtedly know, that if you go out and ask the

          3        majority of people on the street today if they are

          4        willing to pay more for their governmental system, the

          5        answer will be no.  And we can argue all the great

          6        things we've done.  We tried to tell you about all the

          7        great things we've done with the Lottery.  But the

          8        public still has a huge, what's the word, suspicion

          9        may be as good as any, for what we do and what we do

         10        with our money.

         11             And so for that reason, I'll just go ahead and

         12        disclose at this point, though Commissioner Nabors has

         13        been very persuasive in his arguments, I'm not going

         14        to vote for this proposal because I think when the

         15        level of public support moves to where the Legislature

         16        will act on it, that's when we'll have the backing of

         17        the public out there.

         18             And I think, in truth, I'm not a prognosticator,

         19        but I'm betting we put this on the ballot and it will

         20        be one of those things that does not pass and

         21        potentially could cause a greater problem for every

         22        other issue.  That was a very long answer to your

         23        question.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Planas, did you

         25        have another question?  Commissioner Planas, I think


          1        had a question on that subject.

          2             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  It was a two-part

          3        question but I talked so long I couldn't remember the

          4        second part.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I thought you had answered

          6        them both.

          7             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I thought you answered

          8        them well.  Thank you.  When I first read the proposal

          9        and went over it, I wanted to support it, Commissioner

         10        Nabors.  I don't know, I just think of the pressures

         11        that they would be under, the Legislature.  As an

         12        example, in our industry, your paper says, it is

         13        $500 million on trade-in values of automobiles.  That

         14        is -- there is a -- everyone in the Legislature is

         15        familiar with an organization we call the Florida

         16        Automobile Dealers Association.  We have been very

         17        strong, I think, in a lot of things.

         18             And I see some others there that I happen to know

         19        the executive directors rather well and some

         20        organizations, and we all know them just by looking at

         21        them.  And I worry about the pressures that would be

         22        mounted in our own.  You know, in my little dogs and

         23        cats company, I did a little calculation and it would

         24        cost my customers about $20 million additional a year,

         25        so my percentage of that is 4 percent at 500 million


          1        that I would have to collect.  And that, that's just

          2        on used car trade-in value, a little deal that we

          3        calculated out.

          4             So, it -- I think we need some change.  I am just

          5        very concerned that we -- I want to support it, but

          6        I'm afraid I will have to vote against it, not in a

          7        selfish mood or mode either, but I just think that the

          8        public, I look -- I'm concerned about the economic

          9        fallout on it, how soon these things would transpire.

         10        And I've been down that road in our business when we

         11        have had these various tax proposals, i.e., like on

         12        luxury cars.  And we are in other business other than

         13        luxury cars, but the luxury car 10 percent tax by the

         14        federal government, the impact that that had on that

         15        segment of the business.  And to attempt to have the

         16        exemptions for used car trade-ins, as an example,

         17        to -- I'm not lobbying here for the used car trade-in

         18        exemption.  I'm trying to say that the magnitude of it

         19        would probably be overwhelming by the consumers in

         20        this state.

         21             There's only one other state that I know of where

         22        that is exempt, and that is the state of California.

         23        And I'm sure that's been used in the lobbying efforts

         24        over the years in Florida and many other states.  So I

         25        just look at that as -- and I'm only using one arena,


          1        and I apologize for being biased in that, but I know

          2        more about that than I do outpatient care facilities,

          3        so I think that I will have to vote against it,

          4        because I really think that the public would not

          5        support this change, as much as I think there needs to

          6        be some fairness in our tax system.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Planas.  Next is

          8        Commissioner Barnett and then Commissioner Barkdull.

          9             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I

         10        rise for the opposition here.  It says, if it looks

         11        like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a

         12        duck.  Gentleman, this is a tax increase, no question

         13        about it.  It is a big duck.  Commissioner Morsani

         14        refers this to, you know, about the auto business, and

         15        it's very true.  Not too long ago this commission and

         16        this committee went ahead and decided not to extend

         17        the term limits as far as the Legislators in here.

         18             I do not want to put my faith in the new tax

         19        increase to the new people that are coming down here.

         20        I will urge everybody, everybody, I don't want to send

         21        a note out there that this committee is trying to

         22        increase taxes because we are going to lose the

         23        perspective.  I think the Legislative body has done a

         24        fairly good job on it, and I think they should keep

         25        improving and we should leave it up to them.  I urge


          1        you not to vote in favor of this.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett and then

          3        Commissioner Barkdull.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          5        I too want to rise in opposition to this proposal.

          6        And I do so with some reluctance.  I wanted to share

          7        those reasons with the members of the commission.  I

          8        served -- first, I am a strong vocal advocate of

          9        expanding the sales tax base to include services,

         10        strong vocal advocate.  I was a member of a commission

         11        or committee that was created in 1986 that looked at

         12        the question of taxing services and extending the

         13        sales taxes to services.  I was part of the group that

         14        drafted the law that ultimately the Legislature

         15        enacted, and I worked on that for several years.

         16             And I remain to this day committed to the

         17        principle that Commissioner Nabors is trying to raise

         18        before the constitutional -- raise in the

         19        Constitution.  I am opposed to this proposal plain and

         20        simple because it does not belong in the Constitution

         21        of the state of Florida.  It is an example of -- it is

         22        a continuation of what I think is bad policy for the

         23        state, and that is reflected by having a prohibition

         24        on the personal income tax as Commissioner Brochin

         25        mentioned, I think that hamstrings our government on


          1        times, changing times when they might need to go to a

          2        personal income tax, and I think adding these types of

          3        restrictions and mandates to the Constitution will

          4        further, will make our system goofier than Charlie

          5        Reed already says it is.  It's just not the place to

          6        have this in the Constitution, and because we have

          7        made one mistake and chosen to perpetuate that mistake

          8        doesn't persuade me that we should make another.

          9             That's just a philosophical reason for me; I

         10        mean, that we don't need to have it in the

         11        Constitution as you heard Commissioner Nabors say.

         12        But for the lack of legislative will.  There is the

         13        legislative power, but historically there has not been

         14        the legislative will.  I've seen, this year, the

         15        Senate at least begin to look at the question of sales

         16        tax exemptions, a review of sales tax exemptions.  I

         17        don't know what they will do with that, but there's

         18        currently a study ongoing.

         19             Since 1987, when the services tax was repealed,

         20        there have been a number of services actually taxed,

         21        and I see more and more of those incrementally being

         22        added to the tax base.  Not as fast as I would like,

         23        but they are being added.

         24             There are a couple of technical problems that I

         25        have with the proposal, if you get just beyond my


          1        philosophical problems about junking up the

          2        Constitution with something this complex.  And one is

          3        the complexity of the whole question of the sales tax

          4        on services and doing away with exemptions.

          5             The services tax failed for a number of reasons.

          6        One was it taxed advertising, and the advertising

          7        industry just, you know, wholesale put on a campaign

          8        that really, in many ways, distorted the impact of the

          9        tax and I think had a big impact on the then-Governor

         10        and the Legislature.  So, that was probably one very

         11        visible aspect of it.  But there was something much

         12        more important that I think ultimately had a big

         13        impact on why the sales tax on services was repealed,

         14        and that was, as implemented by the Department of

         15        Revenue, companies who were required to collect the

         16        sales tax simply could not administer it; it was too

         17        complicated to administer it.

         18             You need to think about this.  We are not talking

         19        about a tangible commodity, so that you know where the

         20        sale occurs and you know where to collect the tax, you

         21        are talking about a service.  Some of them -- those

         22        are femoral things.  I mean, a lawyer's service, if

         23        you are involved in a multi-national transaction, you

         24        don't know where that service is rendered.  And the

         25        way it was set up was that you taxed it based on where


          1        the benefit of the service was enjoyed.  No one could

          2        figure that out; it was very, very difficult.

          3             And they tried to apply income tax principles to

          4        determine things like where is a service actually

          5        rendered; so does Florida tax it, does New York tax

          6        it?  Who do we protect existing Florida businesses?

          7        It is a very, very complex subject to figure out how

          8        to tax services.  And I think the only way it's going

          9        to be effective is for those issues to be worked out

         10        in a legislative arena.

         11             To the degree that, you know, this is the list

         12        that we are going to have, the Legislature is going to

         13        have to look at, there are over 220 exemptions on this

         14        list that the Legislature is going to have to consider

         15        in a two-year time frame.  And it's easy to pick out

         16        some that really long since have passed their

         17        usefulness of having a public purpose, but there are

         18        many, many of these exemptions, whether it's for

         19        inventory, or resale, or different things that do

         20        serve a public purpose, do affect the economic health

         21        of this state.

         22             I fear greatly that the Legislature will not have

         23        the time in a two-year period, which is why I was

         24        asking Commissioner Nabors about the process, a

         25        two-year period to adequately give consideration to


          1        the variation exemptions that are on this list.  There

          2        will be -- maybe there will only be 50 that are really

          3        important, maybe there will be 100 out of the couple

          4        of hundred, but each of those in and of themselves can

          5        take days to really figure out what does it mean to

          6        the business or entity involved.

          7             I have been involved in getting a number of these

          8        exemptions.  I know how hard it is to talk about the

          9        pros and cons and the economic development aspects and

         10        the public policy aspects to exemptions, and to ask

         11        the Legislature to mandate that they do that in two

         12        years puts an enormous, and I think probably

         13        unworkable, burden on the Legislature.  So we'll end

         14        up with a wholesale repeal and/or nothing; and

         15        therefore, we come into some type, probably a deadlock

         16        with the Legislature if they are unable to actually

         17        come up and resolve this.

         18             So, for a lot of reasons, technical as well as

         19        just philosophical, I would with great reluctance

         20        oppose this because I do not believe that it should be

         21        in our Constitution.  I do believe and I do hope

         22        Commissioner Scott and Jennings and others listen to

         23        this.  There are many people in the business community

         24        who believe it's time for reform in these areas and

         25        would be willing to support, willing to support an


          1        overhaul of the exemptions and a look at services.

          2             We didn't -- we have got thousands of clients in

          3        our law firm.  We never had one client who opposed the

          4        sales tax on lawyer's services, ever.  It just wasn't

          5        an issue, although you would have thought it was.  And

          6        I think that you will find there's a lot of support in

          7        the business community.  But to do this in our

          8        Constitution I think would send a message to the

          9        business community of this state and the people who

         10        are looking at locating in this state that will be

         11        very negative.  So, I would ask you to join me and

         12        others in opposing this.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barton, you were

         14        going to rise in opposition?

         15             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  No, in support.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do you want to rise in

         17        support?

         18             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  I just really, quickly

         19        wanted to add my own historical perspective to this

         20        discussion.  At the time that this was debated so

         21        thoroughly in the State of Florida, I'm married to an

         22        engineer I might add, who was among those to be taxed

         23        on services, and initially, of course, the hew and cry

         24        was so negative from all of those who were involved,

         25        they got used to it, they got okay about it.  In fact,


          1        they even began to feel like a lot of it was fair.

          2             What really happened, and you alluded to it,

          3        Commissioner Barnett, was the advertisers stepped in

          4        and we fell victim to Florida's god of tourism and the

          5        sales tax was repealed.  I was involved with that

          6        effort; I'm not exactly proud of it to this day

          7        because we still in Florida do not take care of the

          8        problems that we have here adequately.

          9             We take care of our old people; we don't take

         10        care of our young people.  We need a broader tax base.

         11        And if it's not done this way, then we are going to

         12        have to look at other ways to do that.  I certainly

         13        prefer this to an income tax.  Thank you.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes.

         15             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, I would like to rise

         16        in support of this also.  It seems to me this does

         17        three things, which are fairly simple and fairly good

         18        for the state.  One of them is, it broadens the tax

         19        base.  And I think that a lot of people would agree we

         20        need a broader tax base, particularly in the times

         21        when the recessions hit.  We are pretty flush now, and

         22        we probably don't need it this year, but we may need

         23        it in a couple of years when the Democrats get through

         24        with the economy.

         25             (Laughter.)


          1             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  The second thing that it

          2        does, it weeds out a lot of exemptions which really

          3        probably don't belong, probably don't really serve a

          4        public purpose.  And also the third thing, of course,

          5        is on a going-forward basis.  It puts the one law, one

          6        exemption as a requirement, which I think would keep

          7        from adding a lot of other exemptions which are also

          8        bad exemptions.  You know, this may well be a return

          9        to the services tax.

         10             But I don't think the services tax was all that

         11        bad.  As a member of the business community, and in

         12        our law firm, the services tax didn't really affect

         13        us.  Once we got along three or four months into the

         14        services tax, it was really a non-issue.  It broadened

         15        the base, it made more money available to the state.

         16        And I think the big mistake, of course, the

         17        advertisers in not reducing the rate, but it really

         18        was a tax that we could have lived with and were

         19        living with at the time that it was repealed.

         20             Actually, what this really gives the state the

         21        opportunity to do in broadening the base is to move

         22        the tax or portions of the tax to portions of the

         23        economy which are not now taxed, and perhaps reduce

         24        the rate on people who are taxed.  It really is kind

         25        of an anti-aggressive movement and an aggressive tax.


          1             And I think that, true, the Legislature can do

          2        this.  Perhaps it would be helpful to the Legislature

          3        if we gave them a reason to do it.  I think that

          4        perhaps they are much more apt to do it if they had a

          5        constitutional reason to do it than not.  I don't

          6        think that the legislators as such think that it's

          7        such a bad idea, but they worry about the lobbyists

          8        and the special interests and the constituencies

          9        that -- places where they have to raise money to run

         10        for office, so it's very difficult for them to deal

         11        with it.  But if they had a reason to deal with it and

         12        had to deal with it, they are much more apt to do it.

         13        So I would urge you all to vote in favor of this.

         14        Thank you.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further debate?  Do you

         16        need to close?  I wish you would try to take not more

         17        than five minutes as the rules provide so we can

         18        conclude.

         19             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I would do the best I can.

         20        I mean, I know it's late in the day and we have

         21        committee meetings, but in my view this is the most

         22        fundamental, important thing that we can do as a

         23        Constitution Revision Commission.  And we have gone

         24        through probably 30 drafts of this, working on

         25        language, being thoughtful about it.


          1             Let me respond to some of the questions.

          2        Commissioner Barnett, let me respond to your question.

          3        I don't think this does junk up the Constitution; I

          4        think the Constitution is already junked up with state

          5        public policy.  We heard in committee, and we heard

          6        your eloquent argument on the public service tax and

          7        the three-legged stool, three-legged stool.  We are

          8        limited to where we can go, we are constitutionally

          9        prohibited on income tax, it's junked up to that

         10        extent.

         11             On wealth, the Constitution says the property tax

         12        is purely the source of local government, and we have

         13        restrictions on other taxes as well.  So, where do we

         14        go with the state?  We have to go to transactions or

         15        consumptions, that's where we have to go.  And we are

         16        taxing the least growth tax portion of those

         17        transactions.  I think there's four states that don't

         18        have a personal income tax.  All of those have another

         19        source of revenue that prepares them for the 21st

         20        Century.

         21             Alaska and Texas have severance taxes and other

         22        states have a modified type of service tax.  What are

         23        we going to do in this state if we don't do this, when

         24        will it ever occur?  Commissioner Barnett talks about

         25        she is not convinced the Legislature can do this.  If


          1        the Legislature can't do this because people tell them

          2        to do it with two sessions, when are they going to do

          3        it?  When are they going to do it?

          4             If the Legislature, because the people said, We

          5        think you should do this, we think that this is a

          6        revenue neutral proposal, that the base all be spread

          7        to all of the problems we have got in the state,

          8        whether it's children's issues, criminal justice, no

          9        matter what the issue is, people say broaden the base,

         10        prepare us for the 21st Century.  And if the

         11        Legislature can't do it, they will never do it.

         12             There's no current proposal in front of the

         13        Legislature to deal with services.  All of the current

         14        proposals deal with exemptions, sales tax exemptions.

         15        There is a myth in this town.  I live in this town,

         16        but I travel this state.  I traveled this state in

         17        '87, I travel it now.  You get outside of this town,

         18        business people, other people realize that we have got

         19        a problem with our base, we have got a problem with

         20        where Florida is going in the future.

         21             We are at 6 percent now, we will go 7 percent, we

         22        will go 8 percent.  Are we ever going to be able to

         23        sit down and reconcile and resolve what needs to be

         24        done in this state to deal with our needs, whether it

         25        is education needs or whatever the need is?


          1             In '87, in my view, the people in this town were

          2        way ahead.  You travel the state and you talk to

          3        people like John Lowndes who is a builder and lawyer,

          4        or other people who are involved in services taxes,

          5        the people were accepting that.  And what happens is

          6        that there was a panic in this town because there was

          7        basically windfall of money that happened because the

          8        rate wasn't rolled back.  What happened was that the

          9        base was broadened and there was a windfall of money,

         10        people didn't like that, there was a frenzy out here.

         11        The average person never heard of a (inaudible)

         12        commission.  They didn't know why there was an

         13        infra-structure trust fund and all of that, they just

         14        knew that the Legislature had broadened the base on a

         15        bunch of money they were spending.  This proposal

         16        doesn't do that, this proposal doesn't do that.  We

         17        have got to trust the people on this issue.  I think

         18        that the people will be smart on this issue.  I think

         19        there are a lot of groups out there in the educational

         20        committee and the other committees that recognize that

         21        this is the right thing to do for Florida.  Either we

         22        are going to do it by the Legislature's vote, which I

         23        think the institution will have a very difficult time

         24        doing this on voter's reform.

         25             We are either going to have a voter's initiative


          1        which you cannot do because it is a single-subject

          2        matter.  So, we are the only people that can do that.

          3        If we don't do it, who is going to do it in the next

          4        20 years?  How are we going to deal with criminal

          5        justice?  How are we going to deal with environmental

          6        land?  How are we going to deal with education?  We

          7        have got the responsibility as average citizens to

          8        talk to our fellow citizens and say, Look, we think

          9        this is the right thing to do, we think this is the

         10        right thing to do, we think the Legislature needs to

         11        go through and go through and cull out those

         12        exemptions that don't advance the state public purpose

         13        in a way that saves you money.  We are not raising

         14        additional taxes, we are broadening the base.  And if

         15        we don't do it, I don't know who is going to do it.

         16             And I think that, we talk about the business

         17        community, let's get into the public hearing.  We have

         18        had a couple of associations write us letters, a

         19        couple of associations say, Well, maybe it is a good

         20        idea, but remember the services tax.  A lot of the

         21        associations were behind the services tax.  They

         22        should not be afraid of putting their exemptions at

         23        risk.  If they are good exemptions, they will pass;

         24        the Legislature will respond to that.  If they are bad

         25        exemptions, they shouldn't have them, they shouldn't


          1        have them.  Let's go to the people.  We at least ought

          2        to go to the public hearing process.  Let's hear from

          3        the various communities.  Why would we under any

          4        possible reason, why would we try to kill this

          5        proposal today?  I know we are going to public

          6        hearings.  I know there's a lot of business people who

          7        will say to us, This is the right thing to do.

          8             I spent a lot of my lifetime in Broward County in

          9        economic development until the bottom fell out in the

         10        mid '70s and we had real, major unemployment.

         11        Melbourne is the -- Melbourne has probably the highest

         12        electronic per capita industry development in the

         13        state, per capita manufacturing.  And I was involved

         14        in those locations, Harris Corporation, GE, or

         15        whatever they were.  And what the business people ask

         16        you when they want to come to Florida, they ask you

         17        two questions, Do you have a stable tax base, and how

         18        is your education system.  Neither of those can be

         19        solved with a tax system that has one pong to the

         20        stool, one leg to the stool.  That's what we have got,

         21        that's what we have got.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors.

         23             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Just one moment,

         24        Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You have been over the time


          1        limit on the rules and I've been very generous on

          2        this.  But it is late in the day and I am having

          3        trouble maintaining order.  I would appreciate your

          4        winding up.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors, you've

          6        been over the time limit in the rules.  And I've been

          7        very generous on this but it is late in the day and

          8        I'm having trouble maintaining order.  I'd appreciate

          9        your winding up.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I will wind up.  What I

         11        will say is, is that the instability we have in our

         12        tax base from a business standpoint is the quest every

         13        year to come up with a ragtag tax to fill the

         14        appropriation budget.  This will give us stability.

         15        If we had done this in '87, lowered the rate to 5,

         16        we'd have a 5 percent rate rather than 6 percent and

         17        400 million more dollars.  I urge you to vote for

         18        this.  Let's get it into Style and Drafting and let's

         19        hear what the public has to say about it during the

         20        committee process.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We're going to

         22        vote on this as amended, on the proposal as amended.

         23        Open the machine.

         24             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody voted?  Lock the


          1        machine.

          2             READING CLERK:  Twenty yeas, 12 nays, Mr.

          3        Chairman.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We have other

          5        business, right now, Commissioner Barkdull?  First of

          6        all -- go ahead, Commissioner Barkdull.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Announcements.  We have

          8        the Select Committee on Initiatives meeting

          9        immediately upon adjournment in Room 214.  Keep your

         10        gold books, we will need them tomorrow.  Anybody that

         11        has anything they want to withdraw that's on the

         12        calendar, please let us know.  We're scheduled to

         13        start 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Incidentally, if there are

         15        any motions to reconsider, they should be made now

         16        from last meeting.  Also, I would like to point out

         17        that there was a motion to reconsider that was made at

         18        the last session and the item didn't appear on special

         19        order today.  That was -- what proposal was it,

         20        Commissioner Barkdull?

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, after reexamination

         22        of the calendar, it appears it is on there.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Oh, it is.  Which item was

         24        it?

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That was the one from


          1        Commissioner Alfonso on the Lottery money.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So it's on

          3        reconsideration.  Commissioner Mills, do you have

          4        something on reconsideration?

          5             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  We had

          6        discussed and we discussed with the sponsor

          7        reconsideration on 144, which is Commissioner

          8        Barnett's proposal on punishment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Then that will go

         10        on reconsideration.  All right.  Now, Commissioner

         11        Morsani?

         12             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Could I ask a question?

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         14             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Now, the whatever color

         15        this is, our yellow book that we're using today.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Morsani,

         17        maybe I could answer your question.  What was your

         18        question?

         19             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Well, the special order

         20        packet, if we complete these, do we have to go back --

         21        I mean, we're carrying briefcases of --

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  You don't have to carry

         23        anything.  There will be an addition to that prepared

         24        for you.  You can leave that one here and when we run

         25        out of that one there will be another put one on your


          1        desk.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Incidentally, I'm going to

          3        clarify one thing.  Now, when somebody wants to

          4        withdraw a proposal and the question comes up, if

          5        somebody objects and wants to vote, if the person

          6        moves to withdraw it, it's a majority vote that

          7        determines whether or not the motion carries and that

          8        is the ruling of the Chair based on examination of the

          9        rules by the Secretary.  So if you want to move your

         10        withdraw at this time, Commissioner Barkdull, you may

         11        do so.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  All right.  Mr. Chairman,

         13        I move you, sir, that we withdraw Proposal No. 148,

         14        this relates to letting the Legislature have a crack

         15        at reapportionment before the commission becomes

         16        effective.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All those in favor say aye.

         18        Opposed.

         19             (Verbal vote taken.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries, it is withdrawn.

         21        All right.  Is there anything else?  Commissioner

         22        Scott, did you have -- did you want to bring up

         23        something or not?  Who is it, somebody told me --

         24        Mills -- Commissioner Mills, did you want the floor?

         25        Hurry up, the floor is disappearing.


          1             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I don't really need the

          2        floor, just you.  We'd like to do a meeting on Article

          3        V tomorrow from noon to 1:00.  This is our drop-dead

          4        meeting for those that are listening.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Article V Cost Select

          6        Committee will meet at 1:00 tomorrow, where?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  12:00 to 1:00.  We'll

          8        announce the --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Room in the morning.

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  -- room in the morning.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         12        Barkdull -- just a minute, we may need to have your

         13        attention just a second.

         14             Now, thank you.  Now, Commissioner Barkdull, you

         15        have the floor.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I have nothing else until

         17        adjournment -- recess until 9:00 in the morning unless

         18        there are some other announcements.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Then we shall recess until

         20        tomorrow morning at 9:00.

         21             (Session adjourned at 6:00 p.m., to be continued

         22        on February 10th, at 9:00 a.m.)





          1                           CERTIFICATE


          3   STATE OF FLORIDA:

          4   COUNTY OF LEON:

                        WE, JULIE L. DOHERTY, KRISTEN L. BENTLEY and
          6   MONA L. WHIDDON, court Reporters, certify that we were
              authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing
          7   proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete
              record of our stenographic notes.

          9             DATED this ______ day of ____________, 1998.


         12                      JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR


         14                      _________________________________
                                 KRISTEN L. BENTLEY

         17                      MONA L. WHIDDON
                                 COURT REPORTERS
         18                      DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
                                 1230 APALACHEE PARKWAY
         19                      TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA  32399-3060
                                 (850) 488-9675