State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for February 11, 1998 (File size=459K)


          1                          STATE OF FLORIDA
                             CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION



                                    COMMISSION MEETING



              DATE:                   February 11, 1998
              TIME:                   Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
         11                           Concluded at 5:00 p.m.

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

         14   REPORTED BY:            KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
                                      JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
         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 (EXCUSED AT 4:30 P.M.)
              CLARENCE E. ANTHONY
          4   ANTONIO L. ARGIZ
              PAT BARTON
          6   ROBERT M. BROCHIN
          7   KEN CONNOR
              CHRIS CORR (EXCUSED)
              VALERIE EVANS
              PAUL HAWKES
              DICK LANGLEY
         13   JOHN F. LOWNDES
         14   JACINTA MATHIS
              JON LESTER MILLS
         15   FRANK MORSANI
              JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
              SENATOR JIM SCOTT
         18   H. T. SMITH
              ALAN C. SUNDBERG
              PAUL WEST (EXCUSED)
              STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
              IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)





          1                             PROCEEDINGS

          2             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

          3             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

          4        presence; all commissioners, indicate your presence.

          5        Quorum call, quorum call.

          6             (Pause.)

          7             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

          8        presence; all commissioners indicate your presence.

          9        Quorum call, quorum call.

         10             (Pause.)

         11             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

         12        presence; all commissioners indicate your presence.

         13             Quorum present.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If you would come to order,

         15        please.  Everybody go to their desk, please.  If everybody

         16        would please rise for the morning prayer this morning

         17        given by Commissioner Barbara Ford-Coates.

         18             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Let us pray.  Gracious

         19        God, we thank you for this day.  We thank you for the

         20        blessing of family and friends.  We thank you for those

         21        special friendships that we have formed in the time we

         22        have spent on this commission.

         23             Inspire us, we pray, this day with your gracious love

         24        that we may agree and disagree with respect and

         25        consideration.  All this we pray in your holy name.  Amen.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes, would you

          2        lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

          3             (Pledge of allegiance.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          5        Barkdull.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman --

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let's have some order, please.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the

          9        Commission, you have on your desk a pink packet which will

         10        follow the yellow one we were using yesterday.  I believe

         11        we completed the gold one.  If we didn't, it can't be more

         12        than one or two items there.

         13             The proposed special order calendar is on your desk.

         14        I would like to move two changes.  One, on Page 5 you will

         15        see a proposal placed on the calendar and it is No. 109.

         16        I would move you that it be moved over to appear below

         17        Proposal No. 41 on Page 4.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  In front of it or behind it?

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Behind it.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott?

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I have no idea

         22        what this is or isn't and where it is going, but changes

         23        of this nature where members have had on their desk the

         24        order that we were going to take up or have been

         25        available, I think we need to find out what it is and see


          1        what's being changed.  So I would like to inquire of the

          2        Rules Chairman what the proposal is.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Scott, it is on

          5        Page 5.  The only difference is instead of being listed on

          6        the special order, it says, proposals placed on the

          7        calendar.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Which he just moved it up one is

          9        what he did.

         10             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  I'm confused, Mr. Chairman.

         11        Mr. Chairman?

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson.

         13             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Inquiry of Commissioner

         14        Barkdull and/or Commissioner Mills.  I thought this was

         15        withdrawn yesterday.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If it was, that would certainly

         17        solve anybody's problem.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  If it was that would solve

         19        the problem.  I just looked at the calendar and picked it

         20        up.

         21             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman?

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Oh, I know what this was.  This

         23        is the one you tried to withdraw, it was a committee

         24        substitute and I said it was withdrawn and now the

         25        calendar shows it wasn't.  It was withdrawn, as far as I'm


          1        concerned, and it is withdrawn.  That solves that problem.

          2        That's one out of the way anyway.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, I have another

          4        one which Senator Scott, Commissioner Scott will probably

          5        need a copy of.  This is Proposal No. 58 by Commissioner

          6        Zack.  What it relates to is an amendment to Section 2 of

          7        Article I, the Declaration of Rights, and it provides, no

          8        person shall be deprived of any right because of race,

          9        religion and it adds age or physical handicap.  That's

         10        been dropped between the cracks between the Declaration of

         11        Rights Committee and getting back to the office.

         12             In order that we will have everything available to be

         13        considered by the commission today and tomorrow, I'd like

         14        to move it be placed at the bottom of the calendar.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I understand that you are moving

         16        to just place it on the calendar; it won't come up today.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I don't think it will.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay, probably won't.  Everybody

         19        has heard the motion is to place the Proposal No. 58,

         20        which adds the word "age" in the Declaration of Rights

         21        section dealing with individual rights.  All in favor say

         22        aye; opposed.

         23             (Verbal vote taken.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is placed on the calendar.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.  That's all the


          1        comments I have, Mr. Chairman.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull, would you

          3        move that Proposal 109 be withdrawn from the committee --

          4        58.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'll make a motion to

          6        withdraw it from the committee and place it on the

          7        calendar, if that will suit Madam Secretary.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  That is done.  Without

          9        objection, that is done; it passes.  Are you satisfied

         10        Commissioner Mills has withdrawn 109, or do I need some

         11        more on that?

         12             (Off-the-record discussion.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  That's taken care of.  All

         14        right.  We will proceed.

         15             The first item on the calendar as recommended by the

         16        committee is Proposal No. 2 on reconsideration by

         17        Commissioner Sundberg.  Would you read it, please?

         18             READING CLERK:  Proposal 2, a proposal to revise

         19        Article I, Section 2, Florida Constitution; authorizing

         20        governmental agencies to take actions to remedy the

         21        effects of past discrimination in the areas of public

         22        employment, public housing, public accommodations, public

         23        education and the public procurement of goods and

         24        services.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner


          1        Barkdull.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the

          3        Commission, I move to reconsider this because I think

          4        there is an impact -- this impacts No. 44 that's already

          5        on reconsideration that was, or 144, that's already on

          6        reconsideration.  This was a proposal by Commissioner

          7        Barnett related to arbitrary and discriminatory

          8        sentencing.  And I'm not sure how these two intertwine and

          9        that was my purpose of the motion to reconsider.  I'd like

         10        to move the motion and leave it pending.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is a motion we leave it

         12        pending.  Without objection it will be left pending.  I

         13        think also I believe Commissioner Connor wanted to be

         14        heard on this and he hasn't arrived.

         15             The next proposal on reconsideration is Proposal

         16        No. 6 by the Committee on Finance and Taxation and

         17        Commissioner Nabors.  Commission Nabors, you are

         18        recognized, I think, on this.  Did you want to be

         19        recognized on this?  It is on reconsideration.  It was

         20        moved --

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It is my motion.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is your motion, all right.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  And my purpose for making

         24        this motion to reconsider, this is the Nabors proposal on

         25        sunsetting the sales tax exemptions.  If it passes, this


          1        will have some excess revenue.  I thought that this should

          2        be considered along with the Lottery enhancement proposal

          3        because that proposal, if it passes, as I understand it,

          4        creates a shortfall for the Legislature in finding

          5        funding.  And I thought that possibly the two of them

          6        should travel together.  We already have the sunset

          7        provision reconsidered and that's the purpose of my motion

          8        to reconsider.  I move it and leave it pending.

          9             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Could I speak to that?

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Nabors.

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, I would hope we wouldn't

         12        do that, with all due respect, Commissioner Barkdull, for

         13        this reason -- could you listen up?  This passed by 20

         14        votes, we debated it.  Everybody has got another at least

         15        one or two bites at the apple on this.  The language in

         16        the Proposal 6 that passed, under revenue neutrality, has

         17        language in it which makes it basically no additional

         18        dollars unless the Lottery proposal happens to be adopted

         19        simultaneously.

         20             So they are consistent.  So I don't see any reason to

         21        leave this thing in doubt as to its status until our next

         22        vote.  I would urge you not to reconsider it.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The only reply to that I've

         25        got is that I don't know whether we might not want to use


          1        some of the revenue that's going to be saved to make up

          2        the shortfall.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now we were going to

          4        leave this motion to reconsider pending.  Do you have any

          5        objection to that, Commissioner Nabors?

          6             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well I guess I'm a youngster to

          7        this process.  I'm not sure exactly what that means.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It means it will come up later in

          9        the day.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  We have got a lot of work to

         11        do, we have done a lot of debate.  I see no reason to do

         12        that.  There is no -- any extra money -- there will be

         13        extra money --

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Wait a minute now.  We are on

         15        reconsideration.  You don't argue the merits.

         16             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I'm arguing in the sense I

         17        don't see any reason to reconsider it because the stated

         18        reason is incorporated within the bill itself.  So there

         19        is no reason to reconsider it.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith, you have been

         21        wanting to be recognized, so you are recognized.

         22             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm

         23        just rising for a point of clarification with regard to

         24        Proposal 2 on affirmative action.  I have no objection to

         25        the request that has been made by Commissioner Barkdull; I


          1        just want to know procedurally, you know, is there a date

          2        certain that it is coming up?  Is it going to be tied to

          3        Proposal 44?  I'm just not clear.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  My understanding is it is

          5        temporarily passed, it could come up later in this

          6        meeting, it could come up any time today.  If it is not

          7        taken up today, it would have to be carried over until

          8        tomorrow.  And so what he has done in effect is ask that

          9        we not take this up at this time on the calendar.  It is

         10        not removed from the order, it is temporarily passed from

         11        the order.

         12             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's my understanding.  Is that

         14        what you intended?

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  (Nods affirmatively.)

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Well is it any -- for instance,

         17        with regard to setting the calendar today, Commissioner

         18        Barkdull --

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Beg your pardon?

         20             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  -- in terms of setting the

         21        calendar today, Commissioner Barkdull asked that Proposal

         22        58, which is the age provision, be placed at the end so we

         23        know where it is.  He asked that 41 be moved over.  Where

         24        is 2 now in the universe?  It is somewhere in the stars,

         25        help me find it.  Tell me which star to look toward.


          1             You know, is it at the end, the middle or the

          2        beginning?

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me say what I think is

          4        correct and has been confirmed by the Secretary.  Matters

          5        on reconsideration are continuing order.  They can be

          6        brought up at any time during the meeting today.

          7             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I can even bring it up?

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes, sir.

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, sir.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That was all you really needed to

         11        know, wasn't it, Commissioner Smith?

         12             (Laughter.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You might want to pick your spot.

         14        We are on the motion to reconsider, though, Proposal

         15        No. 6, which is the one relating to the taxation article.

         16        Would you read that, please?

         17             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         18        No. 6, a proposal to create Article VII, Section 19,

         19        Florida Constitution; providing limits on the adoption of

         20        exemptions and exclusions from the general state sales

         21        tax, reducing the rate of the general sales tax to

         22        5 percent.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now there has been a motion by

         24        Commissioner Barkdull to temporarily pass this and put it

         25        on the calendar in the same mode as the one Commissioner


          1        Smith talked about.  I think we have to vote on that

          2        motion since there has been an objection.  We didn't do it

          3        without objection.  You did enter an objection, didn't

          4        you, Mr. Nabors?

          5             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What the motion is, Commissioner

          7        Scott, is that we not take this up at this time, it is

          8        left pending and on the calendar.  It could be brought up

          9        any time as a continuing order of business.  That's

         10        Commissioner Barkdull's motion that we are fixing to

         11        consider.  Do you want to speak to the motion?

         12             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Inquiry of the chair.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         14             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  What is the vote required to do

         15        this?

         16             (Off-the-record comment.)

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She says all we have to do is TP

         18        it.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  It has not been officially

         20        reconsidered though.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.  All he is saying

         22        is don't take it up right now.

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well the rule is that if it is

         24        not -- either something done with it by the end of the

         25        day, then it would be lost.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Right, unless it is carried

          2        forward, that's correct.  It can be brought up at any

          3        time, however.  She said we don't have to vote on it, it

          4        is just TP'd.

          5             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw my

          6        objection.  We will deal with it during the day.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is TP'd and it's under the

          8        conditions that has been again explained by Commissioner

          9        Scott; that is, that it has to be brought up today, it can

         10        be brought up as a continuing order of business.  If it is

         11        not brought up today at the end of the day, you need to

         12        carry it forward to the next meeting.

         13             Now we are on Proposal No. 144 by Commissioner

         14        Barnett.  Commissioner Barnett -- I mean, yeah.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Is this -- I'm not sure the

         16        current status of this, Mr. Chairman.  I know a motion was

         17        made to reconsider yesterday.  We decided not to take up

         18        the motion to reconsider because the General was not here.

         19        I'm happy to take it up now and move on, but he is not

         20        here again.  If he has issues I certainly want to hear

         21        from him about these issues, but it is at the will of the

         22        commission.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It is the same as the other

         25        two.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It will be temporarily passed

          2        under the same conditions as the other two.  It is still

          3        pending on the calendar under the same conditions as the

          4        previous two on reconsideration.  Now is there anything

          5        further before we continue with the order?

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I move we temporarily pass the

          7        next one.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The next is Committee Substitute

          9        for Proposal 172 and 162 by the Committee on Legislative

         10        and Commissioners Thompson and Evans-Jones, with a pending

         11        motion to reconsider by Commissioner Evans-Jones.  Would

         12        you read it, please?

         13             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposals

         14        172 and 162; a proposal to repeal Article III, Section 16,

         15        Florida Constitution, relating to legislative

         16        apportionment and create Article II, Section 10, Florida

         17        Constitution; providing for a commission to establish

         18        legislative and congressional districts; providing for the

         19        appointment of members to the commission; requiring that

         20        the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court fill certain

         21        vacancies on the commission; requiring meetings and

         22        records of the commission to be open to the public;

         23        providing certain exceptions; requiring that the

         24        commission files its final report with the Secretary of

         25        State within a specified period.


          1             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman --

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

          3        table.

          4             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well I was told that there is an

          5        amendment, but it hasn't been distributed so I would move

          6        that this be temporarily passed in the same manner as the

          7        other two until we get a chance to see the amendment that

          8        they are asking to be reconsidered.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment will be

         10        distributed, it will be temporarily passed, it is subject

         11        to being brought up any time during the meeting today, as

         12        are the others.

         13             All right.  We now go to the special order calendar

         14        for today.  Proposal 91 by Commissioner Hawkes was

         15        disapproved by the Committee on Bonding and Investments,

         16        it failed, motion to reconsider by Commissioner Barnett

         17        was adopted, it was reconsidered and adopted in committee,

         18        there was a motion to reconsider by Commissioner Mills,

         19        adopted and consideration deferred until today.

         20             All right.  We are on rehearing on Commissioner

         21        Hawkes' Proposal 91.  Commissioner Hawkes, I haven't read

         22        it yet, but --

         23             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to

         24        do is just TP this.  We have an understanding and it may

         25        never come that it needs a vote or it may come that we


          1        want a vote.  So as long as possible we would like to TP

          2        it and if at the end some things happen, then we can bring

          3        it up.  But our understanding is that we are going to wait

          4        and see what other things happen.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is TP'd.  We are really on a

          6        roll this morning.  Then we have Committee Substitute for

          7        Proposals 138 and 89 by the Committee on Education and

          8        Commissioners Nabors and Riley.  And it was recommended as

          9        a committee substitute, adopted as amended, with a pending

         10        Amendment No. 1 as amended by Commissioners Riley,

         11        Sundberg and Nabors.  So it is on the calendar for

         12        consideration with a pending Amendment No. 1.  Am I right,

         13        Commissioner Nabors?

         14             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  You are absolutely right,

         15        Mr. Chairman.  Unfortunately the amendment is not quite

         16        being typed now, I hate to do this.  But the good news is

         17        that all of the debate we had yesterday between Mr. Mills,

         18        I and others, we have worked out the language and we will

         19        come with a product, hopefully, that can be voted up and

         20        down based on the merits, not any detail of language.  I

         21        move to TP it until we get that amendment on the table.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will TP the

         23        Constitution, the Secretary says.  How long is it going to

         24        take you to do that?

         25             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  They are doing it right now.  I


          1        don't think it will take long.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well I'd like to take that up

          3        since it is pending.

          4             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well we are having to do a

          5        substitute so it is going to take a while; I don't think

          6        we can do that.  I mean, it is not just a question of a

          7        word here or there, it is being retyped.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Then what we are

          9        fixing to go into now will be the initiative process which

         10        embraces several proposals.  And I think it would be

         11        appropriate, would it not, to take up the Select

         12        Committee's report and then move to these proposals?

         13             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I was going to yield to

         14        Commissioner Freidin to submit the Select Committee report

         15        in lieu of Proposal 132 or whichever one is on the

         16        calendar.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, you have

         18        the floor, it has been yielded by Commissioner Barkdull,

         19        the sponsor of 130.  I didn't read 130, so let him read

         20        it.

         21             READING CLERK:  Proposal 130, a proposal to revise

         22        Article XI, Section 3, Florida Constitution; requiring an

         23        initiative petition to be signed by a specified percentage

         24        of the electors from each congressional district.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, you are


          1        recognized.  Could we have some order, please?  We are now

          2        finally not TPing something.

          3             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Good morning, Commissioners.

          4        Everybody is supposed to say, Good morning, Commissioner

          5        Freidin.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We're glad you are here.

          7             (Laughter.)

          8             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  This is a report of the Select

          9        Committee on Initiatives and I want to give you a little

         10        background, and then I'm going to describe for you the

         11        proposal that we have come up with.

         12             The Select Committee on Initiatives was formed at --

         13        I guess, two sessions ago, two meetings ago.  And referred

         14        to this committee included, one, two, three, four, about

         15        six different proposals that dealt with statutory

         16        initiatives, and reforms to our present constitutional

         17        initiative system in the Constitution at the present time.

         18             The committee met several times and we considered all

         19        of the proposals that were submitted to us; however, we

         20        immediately made a decision not to consider, not to give

         21        further consideration to the proposals that dealt with

         22        statutory initiatives.  So those will be coming up after,

         23        for your consideration on their own and will not be the

         24        subject of anything that the Select Committee is going to

         25        report out on.


          1             I will say that from the beginning it was, and I

          2        would invite any of the members of the Select Committee to

          3        please stand and correct me if I am not properly stating

          4        our position, but I think there was a very clear consensus

          5        on this committee that we wanted to make the

          6        constitutional initiative process more meaningful, more

          7        easily understood by the citizens of our state.

          8             We wanted to enhance participation by the citizens of

          9        our state in the, in initiative reform and we wanted to

         10        enhance, we wanted to come up with ways of enhancing the

         11        understanding of the citizens of initiative reform

         12        proposals that were put before them.  There was a very

         13        strong consensus among the members of this commission that

         14        we did not want to make the process more difficult.

         15             Now, I want to remind you-all that during the time of

         16        our public hearings and certainly after the time of our

         17        public hearings, we had received a lot of communication

         18        from the public, from the media, and there was a lot of

         19        comment on our initiative process.

         20             I need not say any more than the two words "net ban"

         21        To conjure up for all of you the comments that we heard,

         22        most of which were very favorable towards the initiative

         23        process, but some of which were from a group of people who

         24        felt that their livelihoods had been taken away because it

         25        was, in their opinion, too easy to get something on the


          1        ballot.

          2             We also have heard, of course, from many people who

          3        talked to us about how the Constitution in our state is

          4        for sale because by spending a lot of money it seems that

          5        it is not that hard to get an initiative passed and you

          6        can make a change in the Constitution.

          7             I think that the members of the Select Committee were

          8        pretty unanimous in our feeling that that works both ways.

          9        And that we want to preserve to the people of our state

         10        the right to change our Constitution.

         11             Now --

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson.

         13             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Yield for a question?

         14             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I will.

         15             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  This whole section over

         16        here, I don't know, we are totally confused as to what you

         17        are talking about.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me see if I can bring it

         19        to -- I was confused, too, but I think I got it straight

         20        with the help of the Secretary and the Executive Director.

         21             Yesterday this came up on the calendar and an

         22        amendment was offered which was distributed by

         23        Commissioner Freidin which was in effect the report and

         24        recommendation of the Select Committee.  It is on your

         25        desk as an amendment to Proposal 130.  I will ask that


          1        that be read again so that you will then be informed as

          2        where we are because there is on the desk also an

          3        amendment to that amendment which changes one word.

          4             And I think it would be appropriate if we proceeded

          5        on where we were when we quit, which was on Commissioner

          6        Freidin's moved amendment to 130.  And I would like to ask

          7        the clerk to read the amendment.

          8             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Chairman?

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  They are going to distribute them

         10        again.

         11             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  None of us around here have

         12        it and the question, if I can just ask this, is this a

         13        complete substitute amendment for all of these proposals?

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well they proposed that, but

         15        obviously we have to take up each proposal when we come to

         16        it.

         17             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I guess I was getting ahead of

         18        myself.  Let me see if I can back up a minute.  There are

         19        six proposals.  The committee reviewed the six proposals,

         20        the committee is not making any recommendations with

         21        regard to statutory initiatives, but with regard to

         22        constitutional initiatives, the committee came up with a

         23        substitute proposal, which we are offering as an amendment

         24        to Proposal No. 130.

         25             That was distributed yesterday, it will be


          1        redistributed today, but I'm giving you a little

          2        background so that you can understand where the committee

          3        was coming from in terms of why we came up with this

          4        proposal, with this recommendation, so that you can

          5        understand what the thinking behind it was.

          6             Some of the issues that came up that the committee

          7        did feel could be improved in our initiative process

          8        included the following, and I want to discuss each one of

          9        them with you.

         10             The first one, requiring statewide support for

         11        initiative petitions.  At the present time in order to get

         12        an initiative petition on the ballot, the requirement is

         13        that you have 8 percent of all the voters, and I hope I

         14        say this right, all the voters who voted in the last

         15        presidential election throughout the state, but the number

         16        has to be percent of the number of electors who voted in

         17        that election in the state and in half the congressional

         18        districts.

         19             In other words, you have to get your signatures from

         20        at least half the congressional districts, you have to

         21        have 8 percent of the people who voted in each of those

         22        congressional districts, and you also have to have

         23        8 percent of the voters in the state as a whole.

         24             So you could get all of your signatures from half the

         25        congressional districts, which means that you could draw a


          1        line from Tampa over to the east coast and go north or

          2        south and you could have a North Florida constitutional

          3        amendment, or you could have a South Florida

          4        constitutional amendment.  And you could actually get that

          5        on the ballot without a single signature from the other

          6        half of the state.

          7             So the first thing that we dealt with was the

          8        concept, which actually was the basis of Proposal 130 to

          9        begin with, which was to require signatures not increasing

         10        in any way the number, the total number of signatures that

         11        are necessary, but to require signatures from all of the

         12        23 congressional districts, rather than the current

         13        requirement of half the congressional districts.

         14             The second thing -- well the reason, before I go on

         15        to that thing, let me see if I can explain to you the

         16        reason that we thought that that was a good idea.

         17        Obviously what we are trying to avoid is regionalism here.

         18        What we are trying to avoid was what we heard when we went

         19        to the panhandle that certain groups of people in the

         20        panhandle had had their livelihoods devastated and they

         21        felt like they really had been disenfranchised on this

         22        issue.

         23             If there had been signatures collected in that area,

         24        if they had had more of an opportunity to participate, we

         25        hope that perhaps they would have felt less


          1        disenfranchised.  Now the main concern of the Select

          2        Committee was increasing public understanding on debate on

          3        initiatives by creating, and we came up with the idea of

          4        creating a system of public hearings.

          5             The notion is that at a very early stage of the

          6        proceeding when a proponent of a constitutional amendment

          7        has collected a small fraction of the total signatures

          8        that they are going to need, and in this proposal it says

          9        that at the point where they have collected 8 percent of

         10        the 8 percent, which means, for your information,

         11        currently anybody trying to get an initiative petition on

         12        the ballot has to have something like 435,000 signatures.

         13             We are talking about less than 40,000 signatures, a

         14        small percentage of what their total number is, when they

         15        collect that, they file with the Secretary of State, they

         16        say, We now qualify for a public hearing.  And the

         17        Secretary of State's office will arrange for public

         18        hearings around the state for the purpose of giving a full

         19        airing and full discussion to the issue that's being

         20        proposed.

         21             Now the thinking is twofold here; one, it gives the

         22        proponent of the initiative, of the constitutional

         23        amendment, the opportunity to have their issue heard in

         24        the public, hopefully covered by the press, and if not

         25        covered by the press, published.  The results of the


          1        hearing would be published in a way I'm going to describe

          2        for you in a minute.

          3             The other thing that it does is it gives the

          4        proponents of an initiative a first airing, like a first

          5        reading.  And as you-all know, when we had first readings

          6        of proposals here, we have often gone back to the drawing

          7        board and said, Well, gee, after public discussion, after

          8        we have discussed something, we realized that it really

          9        isn't going to work the way we thought it would and we

         10        want to go back and we want to get it fixed.

         11             Well this gives the proponent an opportunity to go

         12        back, get it fixed and start over without a tremendous

         13        investment -- well, I guess tremendous investment is

         14        probably a term of art here, but without a total

         15        investment.  In other words, they don't have to get all

         16        their signatures and then figure out that their ballot

         17        language really isn't good or that their proposal needs to

         18        be tweaked a little bit.  So the idea is to propose public

         19        hearings, to allow public hearings after the collection of

         20        a minimal number of signatures.

         21             The other goal of the Select Committee was to expand

         22        the amount of time to submit petitions to the Secretary of

         23        State.  In other words, to draw out the process, to

         24        increase the length of time that the public has to become

         25        informed and to increase the length of time that the


          1        proponents have to get their message out to the public.

          2             The purpose of this extension of time is simply to

          3        provide the public with an opportunity to review and

          4        understand the proposals before the election.  And so at

          5        present, under the present, under the present plan, a

          6        proponent of an amendment can get it to the Secretary of

          7        State up to 90 days before the election.  And that is

          8        generally, you know, right in the summer where people

          9        aren't paying a lot of attention.  And what this does is

         10        it requires that proposals with all signatures be filed

         11        six months before the election.

         12             The committee addressed but declined to include in

         13        this proposal increasing the voting requirement to

         14        requiring the electorate to ratify.  Right now the

         15        electorate is required to ratify constitutional amendments

         16        by a simple majority.  It was proposed to the committee

         17        that, and there is a proposal that you will consider later

         18        to increase that to three-fifths.  The committee declined

         19        to deal with that and also declined to raise the signature

         20        requirement.  There was no interest on the part of the

         21        Select Committee in raising the signature requirements.

         22             I will be happy to answer any questions.  I would

         23        hope that you will read the amendment that I think is now

         24        on everybody's desk.  Is there anybody that doesn't have a

         25        copy of the amendment?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment to the

          2        amendment on the desk, very short.  Commissioner Rundle

          3        has on the desk amendment number, an amendment to the

          4        amendment which has been filed and distributed I think.

          5        Would you read that, amendment to the Amendment No. 2.

          6             READING CLERK:  Amendment to the Amendment by

          7        Commissioner Rundle, on Page 2, Lines 16 through 18,

          8        delete those lines and insert, signed by a number of

          9        electors in each of one-half of the congressional

         10        districts of the state and of the state as a whole equal

         11        to 8 percent of the votes cast.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What you did, as I understand it,

         13        Commissioner Rundle, is just strike the word "or

         14        amendment".

         15             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  If I might, and then I will

         16        yield to Commissioner Rundle, we did have, I guess -- and

         17        I apologize, Commissioner Rundle, because I think I should

         18        have said that when I was talking about the committee, the

         19        committee did vote to require that signatures --

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, wait just a

         21        minute, we are going to have to get the caucuses to

         22        adjourn and nobody seems to be listening to you.  And I

         23        would like for them to listen to you.  This committee was

         24        one of our best performing committees and I would, I think

         25        all of us would be better served if we would hold off the


          1        caucusing until this is at least presented.  Now,

          2        Commissioner Freidin.

          3             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          4             The committee, the only split vote that the committee

          5        had was on the question of whether to require the

          6        signatures from all the congressional districts or

          7        require, or maintain the present requirement where the

          8        signatures only need to be collected from half the

          9        congressional districts.

         10             And Commissioner Rundle has moved an amendment to our

         11        amendment which brings it back to half, which is really

         12        the present constitutional requirement.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Rundle, what you are

         14        doing is bringing it back to the status quo where half of

         15        the congressional districts could initiate it?

         16             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Yes, sir.  And my thought on

         17        this is that I'm of the firm belief that it is difficult

         18        enough for true citizens, grass roots citizen drives.  And

         19        we met with a number of people who have been through this

         20        process, who were not a financed campaign, and I guess my

         21        concern is that I believe well-financed campaigns will be

         22        able to do that, whatever restrictions we put.

         23             But I'm concerned that the true grass roots citizens

         24        drive will not be able to overcome a lot of these hurdles.

         25        So my thought was to leave it as the law is now with


          1        respect to half of the congressional districts.  I would

          2        have entertained, and we did discuss, and it was a very

          3        healthy discussion we had, to increase it to say, you

          4        know, two-thirds.  So going from half to 100 percent was a

          5        middle ground.  But as we tried to work through that, you

          6        couldn't really do it numerically in a sound way.

          7             So I would ask you just to really think about what

          8        these citizens go through as it is now to get these

          9        initiatives through.  And I think that if we leave it at

         10        half the congressional districts, we will help those

         11        citizens that don't have the money, that aren't a

         12        well-financed, well-campaigned organization, but who truly

         13        want to have some access to their body of law which

         14        represents them.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  As I understand your amendment,

         16        the committee recommended that it be statewide to meet the

         17        objections that we heard in the public hearings and you

         18        are offering an amendment which would in effect say, We

         19        don't want to do that, we want to keep the status quo

         20        insofar as the obtaining of the signatures.

         21             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Correct.  It just pertains to

         22        that one section.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  It doesn't pertain to

         24        the rest --

         25             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Public hearings I think are a


          1        wonderful idea.  It educates the people and I think it

          2        helps the true grass roots citizens get their message out.

          3        So out of the three different areas, the one area that I

          4        would suggest to this commission is that we leave it at

          5        half the congressional seats, which is the law now, which

          6        is what my amendment does.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The first person up

          8        was Commissioner Ford-Coates on the amendment to the

          9        amendment and then Commissioner Smith is next.

         10             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Would Commissioner Rundle

         11        yield for a question?

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She yields.

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  And it actually may be

         14        addressed to both Commissioner Rundle and Commissioner

         15        Freidin.

         16             If I recall correctly, one of the discussions or one

         17        of the points brought up in the public hearings was the

         18        difference between paid collectors of signatures versus

         19        people that just sat out there because they believed

         20        deeply in a subject.  And I think this kind of goes to

         21        that question.  Was that discussed?  Because I will vote

         22        differently on this depending on whether or not that could

         23        be a possibility of eliminating paid collectors.

         24             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  I'm glad that you asked that

         25        question because we actually asked the citizens, we are


          1        talking about the Stop Turning Out the Prisoners

          2        Initiative that I had some relationship with because I saw

          3        these people in different community groups.

          4             And when we asked them, what would this do to you?

          5        They said, You know, we are not paid, we didn't pay

          6        anybody to get signatures, we didn't put paid collectors

          7        out there to hand out these petitions and get them signed.

          8        We just did it, we go to our Publix, we go to our local

          9        supermarket, and to ask us to travel far to another

         10        district on weekends and evenings was really an

         11        inconvenience for them.

         12             But it won't be for those that pay people to do that

         13        because you would simply hire them to cover those other

         14        congressional districts.  So they really convinced me that

         15        it was going to hurt the true citizens' access.

         16             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Was there any discussion

         17        and is there any legal reason why you can't prohibit

         18        paying people to collect signatures?

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is a constitutional reason,

         20        I think.

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  That's what I'm looking

         22        for because that was a proposal and that was a concern and

         23        I didn't know --

         24             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  The First Amendment prohibits

         25        that.


          1             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  So you can't -- we can't

          2        stop people from just paying anybody to collect

          3        signatures.  Okay.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates, I think

          5        maybe your question included whether the committee

          6        considered it or not and Commissioner Freidin I think

          7        would be the one to answer that.

          8             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  We did not have much

          9        discussion of that because I think we were aware that the

         10        Constitution prohibits it.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith, you wanted to

         12        be recognized, and then Commissioner Sundberg.

         13             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My

         14        question has been answered.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg, you were

         16        on the committee, were you not, sir?

         17             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I was, Mr. Chairman.  I want

         18        to speak against the amendment, as reluctant as I am when

         19        it is offered by Commissioner Rundle and also -- and I

         20        understand the problem.

         21             I was convinced, however, if you will recall when we

         22        met for public hearing in Fort Myers, one of the

         23        representatives, Franklin, from that district, made a

         24        presentation to us about this process.

         25             And if you will recall, he brought a map of the state


          1        of Florida that had the congressional districts outlined

          2        on it.  And he demonstrated that you could draw a line

          3        from Tampa Bay due east to the Atlantic Ocean and more

          4        than one-half of the congressional districts lie below

          5        that line.  He is the one that urged upon us that we make

          6        the change that is incorporated in this proposal.

          7             And that is to say, so that we prevent what are

          8        regional special interest sort of initiative petitions,

          9        that you should expand it so you have at least

         10        demonstrated there is minimal support throughout the state

         11        in each of the congressional districts for a proposal

         12        before it is permitted to move forward.

         13             I think that probably became manifest to us in the

         14        continued presentations to us on the net ban issue, where

         15        I think there were people from particular regions of the

         16        state that felt there was no support whatsoever and that

         17        they had foisted upon them something that had no support

         18        whatsoever in their region.  I'm not sure that's accurate.

         19        But nonetheless, that was a perceived problem.

         20             It is for that reason that I must vote against the

         21        amendment because I think it does -- what we've heard is

         22        this process has been abused, there has been too many of

         23        these petitions.  This doesn't make it harder and I think

         24        as Commissioner Freidin has said, this Select Committee

         25        did not set out to make it more difficult for the citizens


          1        of this state to promote an initiative petition proposal.

          2        We simply wanted to make it a more ventilated process.

          3             And I think in addition, this at least indicates that

          4        special regional interests cannot manipulate this process

          5        if you require, and it's not a terribly onerous

          6        requirement to require that they come from each of the

          7        congressional districts.  So I urge you to defeat the

          8        amendment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani.

         10             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  With all due respect to the

         11        committee and their work, I rise in serving in favor of

         12        the amendment for the following:  I'm very concerned, as

         13        an example, the net ban.  For those of you, and I don't

         14        fish very much, but that change has been a dramatic change

         15        on the industry, on a major industry in this state.

         16        Granted, some were put out of jobs.  But as all of us

         17        know, some of us in the automobile business, we put the

         18        buggy business out of jobs.  And the buggy whip business

         19        no longer exists in any great manner.

         20             I think that if we, even though I am for change in

         21        this initiative process, I don't think that this is the

         22        right change.  I support Commissioner Rundle's amendment

         23        to leave it where it is.  I understand about Mr. Franklin

         24        and his presentation in Fort Myers.  Yes, we can all make

         25        that -- come to that conclusion; however, that does not


          1        necessarily make it good public policy.

          2             Yes, the net ban did affect some people and we all

          3        regret that.  We regret when people have to change their

          4        jobs.  But, in support of that, and I look at other

          5        industries today.  Fishing is an industry.  Other

          6        industries, we're talking people have two and three

          7        careers today.  That's going to be true in the fishing

          8        industry or it could be true in the next generation of the

          9        computer industry.  Look what's happened in the telephonic

         10        industry.

         11             So the state is going to continue to grow.  We know

         12        by the year 2015 that there will be 20 million people.

         13        This kind of policy is going to have a greater effect in

         14        the future than it has had in the past.  I actually must

         15        tell you I'm going to vote against the whole thing the way

         16        it is because I think stretching it out to 18 months, if

         17        there is any process for initiative process also, what are

         18        we doing for the tombstones?  A seven year process, how

         19        many tombstones are going to be on that initiative rather

         20        than people that are alive today.

         21             So I'm concerned about the whole thing, but I vote in

         22        favor of the amendment.  I think it's right to get it

         23        there and I certainly would hope that we would accept the

         24        amendment.  I urge you to vote in favor of it.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Anthony


          1        is next and then Commissioner Riley.

          2             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I, too,

          3        rise in support of the amendment.  I don't think that the

          4        Select Committee's intent is to make it more difficult for

          5        the citizenry to have a say in their Constitution, our

          6        Constitution.  But in fact, the amendment will make it

          7        more difficult.

          8             Will it make it more difficult for big money

          9        industry, corporate groups to have access to the

         10        Constitution?  I say to you, no.  It will not make it more

         11        difficult for those organized corporate associations to

         12        have input on and access of the Constitution.  But it will

         13        make it more difficult for the real citizen group that

         14        wants to have a change and propose a change to the

         15        Constitution, as Commissioner Morsani has already noted.

         16        So I just urge you to support this amendment by

         17        Commissioner Rundle.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.

         19             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I have to rise against the

         20        amendment.  And I speak as a member of this commission

         21        from the panhandle.  And I can tell you that the idea that

         22        the committee has come up with to require signatures from

         23        all of the districts, it's much more equitable than the

         24        way it is now.

         25             And as we went around the state and as much as we got


          1        tired of hearing about the net ban, I ask that you listen

          2        to what they were saying, separate from the fact that the

          3        fourth generation of persons who had been in the fishing

          4        industry had lost their livelihood.  And I would ask

          5        Commissioner Morsani to come up to Bay County and Okaloosa

          6        County and Walton County and start one of his many

          7        businesses because there are still people up there who are

          8        looking for work.

          9             So I would ask you, remember what they said.  And

         10        what they said was, whether you agree with the initiative

         11        or not, whether you agree with the amendment, what they

         12        said was, We were taken for a ride.  They didn't -- we

         13        didn't have the opportunity to get our message out because

         14        our numbers are not as great.  We didn't have the input

         15        that the other part of the state did.  And I think what

         16        the committee has come up with is they have said, Let

         17        everybody in the state, everybody in the state has to have

         18        the opportunity and must have some input into what's going

         19        to be on the ballot.

         20             So I strongly recommend that we do not vote for this

         21        and defeat this amendment.

         22             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Podium, Members of the

         23        Commission --

         24             (Laughter.)

         25             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  -- Ms. Riley, I'm not a


          1        fourth generation fisherman from North Florida, I'm a

          2        sixth generation fisherman from North Florida who was one

          3        of the 72 percent of Floridians that supported the net

          4        ban.  And as somebody that's been involved in this

          5        process, I've got to tell you that the committee's work

          6        here will just -- I hear the intent, but it just slams the

          7        door.  You can throw it out.

          8             I see Commissioner Kogan smiling over here because he

          9        knows he won't be reviewing any of these for preballot

         10        clearance anymore because they will never make it that

         11        far.  The Rundle amendment at least keeps a crack in the

         12        door with the current way of 50 percent of the state.

         13             You have got to remember, the Constitution is a

         14        document that's approved by the majority of the people of

         15        the state.  Now it just so happens to be the majority of

         16        people in the state live somewhere south of I-4.  That is

         17        a fact of life, that is how elections are run in this

         18        state.  So if you want to totally kill initiatives, defeat

         19        the amendment.  If you want to leave a crack in the door

         20        for them, support it.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin.  Look, I

         22        haven't been absent from my chair nearly as much as you

         23        have, Commissioner Henderson.

         24             (Laughter.)

         25             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Commissioners, with regard to


          1        this amendment, you have a very simple choice.  There are

          2        two competing considerations here.  One is, and they are

          3        both really valid, worthwhile considerations.

          4             One, the first consideration is do we want to make it

          5        as easy as possible for a grass roots effort to get a

          6        constitutional amendment on the ballot.  The other one is,

          7        when -- the other competing consideration is this is the

          8        Constitution for all the people of Florida.  And do we

          9        want to encourage all the people of Florida to feel that

         10        they have input into their Constitution and to feel that

         11        they have been consulted with regard to their

         12        Constitution.

         13             This is a, in my opinion, a relatively minor

         14        incursion into the ability of a grass roots effort to get

         15        something on the ballot.  We are not asking them by -- the

         16        committee's proposal does not ask for additional

         17        signatures.  It's not one extra signature.  What it is is

         18        spreading it out throughout the state.  All we're asking

         19        for, all we're proposing is that it be spread out.  That

         20        means that you need to have some grass roots effort in

         21        every congressional district.

         22             And it doesn't mean -- in terms of paying for things

         23        or anything like that, it really shouldn't cost much more.

         24        It only means that you've got to engage people in

         25        different geographical areas.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Anybody else want to be heard on

          2        the amendment to the amendment by Commissioner Rundle?  If

          3        not, all those in favor of the amendment say aye; opposed.

          4             (Verbal vote taken.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Unlock the machine.  Lock the

          6        machine.

          7             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          8             READING CLERK:  Twelve yeas, 13 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I didn't vote, did I?  I vote

         10        yea.  Does it fail?  So my vote didn't count anyway,

         11        assuming that would have been my vote.  The reason I

         12        didn't vote is because I couldn't make up my mind.

         13             All right.  Commissioner Freidin, you're now on the

         14        amendment as amended which eliminates the requirement that

         15        signatures come from all congressional districts and

         16        restores it to eight; is that right?

         17             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  The reverse.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The reverse.  I said it

         19        eliminated that from your amendment.  Your amendment

         20        provided it went to all districts; didn't it?

         21             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  No.  The committee's proposal

         22        is that signatures must be collected in all congressional

         23        districts.  The amendment would have restored that to

         24        half.  So right now what we have, the amendment failed so

         25        right now we're back to the committee proposal.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So we're on the committee

          2        proposal.  The amendment failed.  I thought it passed.

          3        Commissioner Freidin, you have the floor.  It's right

          4        where you started.  I didn't mean to foul you up.

          5             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Well other than reminding the

          6        commissioners that, and I know you all have gotten the

          7        same mail that I have received, we have gotten mail from

          8        Tax Watch, the League of Women Voters, the Tallahassee 

          9        Democrat, the Florida Chamber of Commerce.  We have

         10        received an interesting proposal from F. Allen Boyd,

         11        Congressman, State Representative Ralph Livingston, and

         12        the Florida Council of 100 and all of them addressed some

         13        of the issues that we have addressed in this proposal.

         14             The proposal at -- I would be happy to entertain

         15        questions with regard to the proposal or open it for

         16        debate.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  A question.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She yields.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I know the proposal deals

         21        with -- tries to deal with the implementation of the time

         22        frame for implementation and makes some reference to --

         23        upon being passed by the electorate or at such other time

         24        that might be specified in the Constitution.

         25             My issue about implementation is that if it went into


          1        effect at the end of the '98 general election, the way the

          2        public hearing schedule is set -- the requirement to get

          3        the signatures 18 months before it would actually go on

          4        the ballot would create a situation where very few people

          5        now would even be able to get anything on the ballot in

          6        2000 because they only would have -- the question is would

          7        they have only from November of '98 until May of '99 to

          8        get the required signatures in order to get in line to do

          9        the public hearings and then to meet the rest of the time

         10        frame?

         11             And is that a concern -- is that accurate and is that

         12        a concern?

         13             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Gee, I wish you had been on

         14        our committee.  That is not something that we thought

         15        about.  That was not something we dealt with, and I think

         16        that it is probably a valid concern.  The only thing that

         17        I would point out, and I think this is important,

         18        particularly, Commissioner Morsani, because when you

         19        mentioned it before, I think it's important for all of you

         20        to understand that signatures currently have a life of

         21        four years.  And that's statutory.

         22             And that they do continue to be valid for four years.

         23        And there are ongoing efforts to collect signatures, but I

         24        think that that's probably something that we could deal

         25        with in Style and Drafting in terms of the implementation,


          1        the effective date of it; is it not, Commissioner Mills?

          2        Or should we amend it at the present time?  I don't know.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Kogan.

          4             COMMISSIONER KOGAN:  If I could comment on it.  We

          5        deal with this all the time.  There are constantly

          6        petitions out there, all the time, where signatures are

          7        being gathered.  At this very moment there are petitions

          8        out there with signatures being gathered for the year

          9        2000.  So it's not necessary just to say it's limited to

         10        that 18-month period.  It could be something that's

         11        underway now that they would just have to conform to the

         12        new amendment.  But these things are ongoing all the time.

         13             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  It may impact some initiative

         14        petitions in the first cycle.  We also, by the way, had

         15        discussion about slowing it down even more and putting it

         16        into a four-year cycle which the committee rejected.  But

         17        the object -- and with regard to the timing of it, the

         18        object of stretching it out was simply to give more time

         19        and this really, according to the people that we heard,

         20        the grass roots people that we heard from, they like this

         21        because they felt that in a lower budget campaign, the

         22        more time they had, the more time they had to get their

         23        message out.

         24             Whereas in a short-term campaign if a well-financed

         25        campaign is mounted, they can just blitz the TV waves for


          1        a few weeks and get their message across and all it takes

          2        is money.  So the object here was to slow things down,

          3        give the media, give the free media and give the people

          4        more time to understand and discuss the issue.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Anthony was up and

          6        you're next, Commissioner Barkdull.

          7             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Do you think -- is it a fact

          8        that it will not make a difference for those who have

          9        money when it comes to getting the petition in a shorter

         10        period of time?  Or did you hear from any consultants or

         11        people who basically said that it is most often better to

         12        get the signatures in the last two or three months because

         13        it has that momentum that takes them right into the

         14        election?  Did you all hear of any comments that way?

         15             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  No.  In fact, I tell you, the

         16        work of this committee was very interesting because we

         17        heard from consultants that represent, I would say,

         18        moneyed interests and we also heard from people who are

         19        mounting grass roots campaigns.  And they all liked the

         20        slowing down of the process.  I think that they all felt

         21        that it was a good idea to slow it down, to string it out.

         22             And we did not hear what you're suggesting.

         23             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  When the whole entire proposal

         24        comes up, I think many members did hear from the

         25        consultants that that was a strategy that was used and


          1        that was appropriately successful for them and like to

          2        talk about that.

          3             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  You mean in terms of the

          4        moneyed interests being able to do it all at the last

          5        minute?

          6             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Correct.  And in fact this,

          7        again, makes it more difficult for the grass roots people

          8        when it comes to making the Constitution available to

          9        them, in my mind.

         10             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I'm not understanding.  Is

         11        it -- am I in order to ask Commissioner Anthony a

         12        question?  Because I know that we heard from some of the

         13        same people that you heard from.  But I'm not sure that

         14        I'm understanding.  You're saying -- is what you're

         15        suggesting is that by stringing it out to six months

         16        instead of 90 days that that makes it easier for moneyed

         17        interests to get on the ballot?  I mean, to get their

         18        message across to the voters?

         19             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  You're looking at item D?  Is

         20        that what we're discussing?

         21             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I'm responding to your

         22        question but, yeah.

         23             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  No, my question to you was,

         24        you think that this makes it better for the normal citizen

         25        to string this out; is that correct?


          1             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Actually we heard from both

          2        grass roots amendment proposers and also from some

          3        consultants that had represented moneyed interests who had

          4        experience, I should say, with constitutional amendment

          5        proposals.  And both sides liked the idea of lengthening

          6        the period of time.

          7             They all thought that a better educated public would

          8        be a better thing for us to have, and that the additional

          9        time would give, they all thought that the additional time

         10        would give them more time to educate the public on their

         11        issues.

         12             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  We heard conflicting, in

         13        regards to stretching that out, we did.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull is next,

         15        then Commissioner Smith.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Would the Commissioner yield

         17        for a question?

         18             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Yes.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Freidin, it's

         20        your intent, if this should pass, that it not impact any

         21        ongoing initiative proceedings at the moment; isn't it?

         22             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Well, I don't know how you

         23        define "ongoing initiative proceedings" because as we

         24        discussed earlier, it's my understanding that people can

         25        be collecting signatures now and not planning on putting


          1        their measure on the ballot until 2002 because there is a

          2        four year life to these signatures.  So I would think that

          3        it probably would impact those.

          4             If you're talking about petitions that have already

          5        qualified for the ballot or ones that will qualify before

          6        the effective date of this, of course not.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I'm concerned that -- I

          8        generally support the committee's report, but I think that

          9        possibly, and we ought to consider whether there ought to

         10        be a schedule that indicated that this should not impact

         11        any ongoing initiative drives because I think it should be

         12        prospectively only.  And I was trying to find out if that

         13        was the sentiment of the committee.  If it is not, we need

         14        to know it.

         15             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  The answer to that is that the

         16        committee really didn't discuss this issue and we would

         17        welcome a friendly amendment.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think for the benefit of

         19        Style and Drafting we could just indicate -- normally

         20        Constitutional amendments only operate prospectively,

         21        unless there is something to the contrary.  And you state

         22        I think --

         23             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  We would intend that this only

         24        operate prospectively.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Is that sufficient, Commissioner

          2        Barkdull, for Style and Drafting to include that in the

          3        schedule?

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think it is.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I mean, it would be that way

          6        without it; would it not?

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It would be that way without

          8        it.  But with some of the colloquy that went on, I was

          9        afraid that there was some indication that it would impact

         10        those that were ongoing at the moment.  And that was my

         11        purpose of standing up and asking the question, to try to

         12        clarify it.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith has the floor.

         14             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         15        Commissioner Barkdull asked one of the two questions that

         16        I was concerned about.  And while I don't intend to go

         17        back to the Rundle proposal because I'd be ruled out of

         18        order, in the spirit of Commissioner Morsani's question,

         19        because I do think, I do agree with the spirit of what's

         20        trying to be done now, I just want to pose a question to

         21        you.

         22             We are moving forward in the spirit that we don't

         23        want to make the process more difficult.  If we're in the

         24        public hearing process and a person who is engaged or

         25        people who are engaged in this grass roots effort gets up


          1        and asks the question, Commissioner Freidin -- let's say

          2        it's on WFSU television -- Commissioner Freidin, if my

          3        grass roots effort for this petition initiative,

          4        Constitution petition initiative, gets signatures out of

          5        22 out of 23 congressional districts and there is just one

          6        little pocket we can't get it out of, does that mean, and

          7        although we have 8 percent statewide, does that mean that

          8        we don't have access to the ballot?

          9             And the question then is, don't you think the people

         10        are going to say we made it more difficult?  I mean, I

         11        just see that one little issue killing it; 22 out of 23,

         12        60 percent, 75 percent.  I really think we're going to

         13        doom it if we require all 23 congressional districts.  And

         14        I just pose that to you because you're the floor manager

         15        of this and I just want to make sure we think this thing

         16        through before we take it forward.

         17             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  My response to that is that

         18        was amply discussed in the committee.  And what we're

         19        talking -- you have to remember, Commissioners, that what

         20        we're talking about here is 8 percent of 8 percent.  We're

         21        talking about a relatively small number for each

         22        congressional district.  We're not talking about a huge

         23        number of signatures.  And the concept is that if there

         24        isn't support in that small number in an area for -- I

         25        mean, even in the panhandle the net ban surely would have


          1        been able to collect that number of signatures.

          2             And I'm getting a nod back.  I want the record to

          3        reflect that Commissioner Riley is nodding in the back of

          4        the room there.  Those signatures would have been

          5        available.

          6             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  My follow-up question then is on

          7        Page 2 of your amendment, is it correct starting at Line

          8        17, the congressional district of the state, equal to

          9        8 percent of the votes cast in each of such district.  I

         10        don't read that as 8 percent of 8 percent, which would be

         11        like 164, I read that as 8 percent.  And my question is,

         12        is that accurate?

         13             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Well the 8 percent of

         14        8 percent is the amount to get it to a public hearing, but

         15        it is 8 percent total.

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Commissioner Freidin.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anybody else have

         18        anything on this amendment as amended?  Commissioner

         19        Connor.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak

         21        in opposition to the proposal.  I think Commissioner Smith

         22        has put his finger on the pulse.  In fact, we do

         23        substantially raise the bar for the citizens of the state

         24        of Florida to address matters on their own initiative in

         25        the Constitution when we require that a minimal amount


          1        be -- of signatures be obtained in 100 percent of all the

          2        areas.  That represents a significant change.

          3             Now as far as the grass roots folks are involved,

          4        that doesn't help them one wit, I assure you.  In fact

          5        that has a substantially chilling effect on a grass roots

          6        group that's operating on a shoestring budget and getting

          7        their matters before all the people of Florida.

          8             And as far as its affect on real grass roots

          9        initiatives that are launched by real people that have

         10        genuine concerns about their state and who desire to be

         11        real participants in the Democratic process, then I would

         12        submit to you that this will substantially impair their

         13        ability to have their voices heard in the constitutional

         14        amendatory process.

         15             Now the reality of it is that institutional

         16        interests, special interests, associations with keen

         17        political interests take a lot of comfort in that because

         18        the thing that scares them to death more than anything

         19        else is to give life to the notion that the political

         20        power reposes in the people, plainly and simply.  That's

         21        why you've seen everybody from the Academy of Florida

         22        Trial Lawyers to the Chamber of Commerce to medical

         23        association groups unite behind making it more difficult

         24        to cross the bar in this particular instance.  I think

         25        it's a grave mistake.


          1             And I think frankly it is -- it will be viewed as

          2        rather patrician for those of us who are privileged to

          3        serve in this capacity, simply by virtue of our

          4        appointment by someone else, not by virtue of any

          5        election, not by virtue of any selection by the people in

          6        this case to come in and say, We're going to make it more

          7        difficult for all you folks out there in the real world to

          8        do what we're going to be able to do with the snap of a

          9        finger in a very real sense.  They'll resent that and

         10        frankly I think it's wrong.  I think it's bad public

         11        policy to do so.

         12             Now however one may feel about the net ban amendment

         13        and it's effect, I guarantee you in a very real sense it

         14        will be harolded sort of with the battle cry, Remember the

         15        Alamo.

         16             So when you have a recalcitrant Legislature that

         17        blocks up the process and creates a logjam and doesn't

         18        give the people a real ability to express themselves or to

         19        be heard, they can say, Remember what happened with the

         20        net ban.  If you don't give us this opportunity, we're

         21        going to take things into our own hands and then it's

         22        going to be a lot more difficult to make all the

         23        adjustments and the fine-tuning and all of that that we

         24        think may well be appropriate for something that's more

         25        properly the subject of the legislative process.


          1             I think we should leave this process alone.  Yes,

          2        it's been a rather scary process and people have felt

          3        threatened.  I as a trial lawyer have felt threatened by

          4        some of the things that have come forward on the ballot.

          5        Other folks who are involved in other professions and

          6        groups have felt threatened by things that come to the

          7        ballot.

          8             But I say, Let's continue to repose our confidence in

          9        the people.  Let's let the Constitution mean what it says

         10        when it says that all political power is inherent in the

         11        people and let's trust the people to do the right thing.

         12        Thank you.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Rundle.

         14             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  I think it was yesterday or the

         15        day before yesterday I told Commissioner Connor that I

         16        really enjoyed listening to him, that I found him to be

         17        very, very articulate and a very captivating speaker.  And

         18        he looked at me and he said, If that's true, then why

         19        don't you ever vote with me?  Well I'm going to vote with

         20        you today, Commissioner Connor.

         21             And I'm sorry to rise against this proposal because I

         22        know how hard my good friends and colleagues,

         23        Commissioners Sundberg and Freidin, worked on this.  I

         24        couldn't agree with Commissioner Connor more.  I do

         25        believe it's going to be denying access to the people who


          1        really should have access.  And those that have all the

          2        money and the organizational skills, you could double

          3        this, you could make it 20 percent and they are going to

          4        be able to reach this bar.  The grass roots citizens will

          5        not.

          6             And I want you also to think about what this ballot

          7        is going to look like.  We're taking away a lot of rights.

          8        You know, they're not going to be able to elect their

          9        judges anymore.  We have Cabinet members we're saying

         10        they're not going to be able to elect anymore,

         11        Commissioner of Education, and now we're going to make it

         12        even harder for you to access your document which

         13        represents you.  I really urge you to vote against this.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson was next.

         15        You're next, Commissioner Riley.

         16             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I

         17        tried to stay in my seat through the course of this

         18        debate.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you.

         20             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  And Commissioner Connor, I'm

         21        glad Commissioner Rundle said all the things she did

         22        because I'm going to be brief because I can't add any more

         23        to what you said, you were quite eloquent.  And I'm

         24        enjoying agreeing with you this time.  We're going to work

         25        together on this one.


          1             And you know, this is also with trepidation that I

          2        oppose the committee report here because I know that they

          3        have worked hard on this and I know they have tried to

          4        address some of the things that brought up concerns in

          5        this proposal.

          6             Nevertheless, I wanted the rest of the commission to

          7        note something that the commission may not be aware of.

          8        And that is that there was a General Provisions Committee

          9        that heard all of the individual initiative proposals

         10        concerning constitutional initiatives and statutory

         11        initiatives.  We heard from I think the entire lobbying

         12        core on all of these issues and we voted that we didn't

         13        want to change the system at all.

         14             And it was after many hours of listening to all that

         15        because we concluded a number of things that Commissioner

         16        Connor pointed out.  That the people who control the power

         17        in this room, or this building, who think they control the

         18        power in this building, maybe that's a good perception,

         19        don't want these battles fought out in the street.  So

         20        that's why they don't want statutory initiatives.  But

         21        they also don't want to make any changes, they don't want

         22        to get rid of the constitutional initiative because of the

         23        same reason.

         24             This is the way that we help protect the people's

         25        voice in the Constitution.  The proposal virtually slams


          1        the door in it.  I would say, if you're going to go with

          2        this proposal, Style and Drafting should just eliminate

          3        initiatives from the Constitution because it will never

          4        happen, except for those groups or those industries,

          5        perhaps, that are so well organized that they could

          6        finance their way all the way to the very end.

          7             I'm making a list here of the problems.  Now

          8        everybody has talked about the problem with initiatives,

          9        they don't like the way we have junked up the

         10        Constitution.  But it occurs to me that in the course of

         11        all of our deliberations we've had the opportunity here to

         12        rethink or question what our citizens have done in the

         13        Constitution out there in the initiative.  And we've only

         14        amended the Constitution ten times by the initiative

         15        process, not 100, not 50, only ten times in this period of

         16        time.

         17             And I think -- and we have debated most of these

         18        during the course of the time we were here.  Yesterday we

         19        dealt with the Save Our Homes proposal and we chose to

         20        stick with what the public said.  When we were here a few

         21        weeks ago we debated the Eight Is Enough proposal and we

         22        decided that the wisdom of the public worked pretty good

         23        there and we didn't want to change that.

         24             Early in the process after hearing from hundreds of

         25        people we decided we didn't even want to consider changing


          1        the net ban and made a vote on that that was a motion by

          2        Commissioner Sundberg that we do nothing on that, to send

          3        the message that we didn't want to do anything about that.

          4             We had a lot of discussion about the Ethics

          5        Commission and ethics in government, and sunshine in

          6        government.  Where did that come from?  That came from the

          7        people.  It came from the initiative process.  It

          8        certainly did not come from these chambers or the chambers

          9        down the hall.

         10             We've had some discussion about the Lottery.  We've

         11        had lots of discussion about the Lottery.  Not that the

         12        Lottery was wrong, but that others have used it for their

         13        own purposes, and that fraud word has creeped up a time or

         14        two.  Not that we wanted to change what the voters did,

         15        but what the folks in this hall and down the hall have

         16        done to the proposal.

         17             I would suggest to you that even though we like to

         18        grumble about how the system is broken, that the people of

         19        this state have shown a pretty good collective sense of

         20        wisdom through this process.

         21             I can tell you that it is a process that is getting,

         22        that the courts have made it more difficult to get

         23        something through.  I think they have shown wisdom in

         24        trying to keep Florida from becoming another California.

         25        So it is harder to get something through the court and


          1        onto the ballot.  This is a system that is not broken.

          2             And in light of all the things that we're doing,

          3        taking away, proposing to take away rights of the people

          4        to participate in government, if you change this, this is

          5        going to drive a stake through the heart of this process.

          6        And I suggest to you if we make this change, this could be

          7        one of the worst things we could do while we're here.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin to close --

          9        wait a minute.  Commissioner Riley, do you want to be

         10        heard again?

         11             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I would like to speak quickly in

         12        favor of it, if I may.

         13             We find ourselves with very strange company and odd

         14        bedfellows.  If anybody says this is a partisan group, as

         15        politically savvy as we all are, our votes are all over

         16        the board.  So I find that it's very odd that I'm

         17        disagreeing with Commissioner Rundle and Commissioner

         18        Henderson.

         19             However, I would certainly like to do that.  We chose

         20        not to touch the net ban issue.  And in fact, one of the

         21        speakers said to us, I know you're not going to do

         22        anything about that.  And God knows they were right, we

         23        didn't want to touch that.  But I think what we did here

         24        certainly on that issue was, please look at the process

         25        and I think it can be more equitable.


          1             I don't think this drives a stake through the heart

          2        of the petition process.  I think this allows the entire

          3        state to participate in the process and does not allow

          4        certain areas to dictate what goes on the ballot but says,

          5        let's have everybody's input.  So with that in mind, I

          6        would urge you to vote for it.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, Commissioner Freidin to

          8        close.

          9             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  This proposal doesn't take

         10        away anybody's rights.  It doesn't even interfere with

         11        anybody's rights.  What it does is it enhances the rights

         12        of all the citizens in the state of Florida to understand

         13        and participate in their Constitution.  The whole idea

         14        here is to get people involved, have public hearings,

         15        invite the public to come out, invite input into proposals

         16        before they are written in stone, invite people to learn

         17        about their government and to give comment about their

         18        government.

         19             You know, there is part of this -- maybe I didn't

         20        describe it fully.  But what this requires is that there

         21        be public hearings and that they would be organized and

         22        put on by the Secretary of State and that after the public

         23        hearings, the Secretary of State would publish for the

         24        voters a summary of the arguments that were made for and

         25        against the proposals.  Now where else are you going to


          1        get that?  And what in the world, how in the world does

          2        that interfere with somebody's right to amend, have the

          3        Constitution amended?

          4             This is an enhancement.  It is an educational tool.

          5        The whole concept behind it is to enhance the ability of

          6        the public to be involved.  Now it is being discussed

          7        here, it is being characterized here in a way that it is

          8        totally not intended and in fact in a way that I don't

          9        think it will have an impact.

         10             In fact, the people that we presented it to, the

         11        grass roots people we presented it to, liked it.  They

         12        said, Gee, this gives us a free publicity.  This gives us

         13        free access to the media and this gives us the opportunity

         14        to have our voices heard without it costing us anything.

         15        And something is mixed up here, we are confused.

         16             And I urge you to read this carefully and maybe even

         17        to, I would ask for a minute to allow the body to sit here

         18        and read this proposal so we all are clear on what it is

         19        that we are doing because this is getting very turned

         20        around.  Thank you.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Freidin,

         22        thank you very much.  I don't take that as a motion for a

         23        moment of silent prayer or anything here, but if we're

         24        going to start reading it, we may have some problems with

         25        the Commissioners.  We will now vote on the amendment.


          1        Unlock the machine.

          2             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce the

          4        vote.

          5             READING CLERK:  Ten yeas, 20 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote, it fails.

          7             Although I do want to thank the committee.  You

          8        worked very hard on this and if I had known you were going

          9        to be roughed up like this, I probably wouldn't have done

         10        it to you.  Commissioner Sundberg told me that he couldn't

         11        stand any more favors like this.  I'll try not to do that

         12        again.

         13             We're still now on Proposal 130 by Commissioner

         14        Barkdull.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I move the proposal.  We have

         16        heard the debate on the issue and I just ask for a vote.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Would you read Proposal 130,

         18        please.  Pay attention.  We're fixing to vote on Proposal

         19        130.

         20             READING CLERK:  Proposal to revise Article XI,

         21        Section 3, Florida Constitution; requiring an initiative

         22        petition to be signed by a specified percentage of the

         23        electors from each congressional district.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This proposal is similar to


          1        the amendment that was proposed to take out of the Select

          2        Committee's report.  The effect of this is to require that

          3        the 8 percent be gathered from each of the congressional

          4        districts rather than one-half.  We had the debate on the

          5        earlier amendment and I suggest the same vote this time.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Unlock the machine

          7        and vote.

          8             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine.

         10             READING CLERK:  Eight yeas, 20 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now we go to Proposal 65.  Would

         12        you read the proposal, please?

         13             READING CLERK:  Proposal 65, a proposal to create

         14        Article III, Section 26, Florida Constitution; providing

         15        for the revision or amendment of statutory law through the

         16        initiative process.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By Commissioner Langley,

         18        disapproved by the Committee on General Provisions.

         19        Commissioner Langley.

         20             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I move to withdraw it from

         21        further consideration.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it's

         23        withdrawn.  Commissioner Barkdull, wouldn't it be more

         24        appropriate to go ahead with Proposal 72 which deals with

         25        this subject than to go to --


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, I move we temporarily

          2        pass --

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  69?

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  -- 69 and we take up 72.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll take up 72 by Commissioner

          6        Mills.

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, based on the fact

          8        that the commission has decided to leave access the same

          9        for the constitutional process, I would move to withdraw

         10        this.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, 72 is

         12        withdrawn.

         13             Proposal 132 -- wait a minute, was there an

         14        objection?

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'm withdrawing 132.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  No. 132, without

         17        objection, is withdrawn.

         18             Proposal 150 by Commissioner Scott.  Is that a

         19        different subject?

         20             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I would move to

         21        temporarily pass this and let me explain.  This was filed

         22        just in case we needed it, like we needed that one the

         23        other day for the Lieutenant Governor.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection it's

         25        temporarily passed.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Revert to 69.  It's going to

          2        be withdrawn.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Correct?  Sixty-nine has been

          4        withdrawn?  Okay.  Without objection it's withdrawn.  That

          5        moves us to 160 by Commissioner Smith.

          6             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, I move to withdraw

          7        160.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  160 is withdrawn without

          9        objection.

         10             Number 164 by Commissioner Freidin.

         11             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Based on the sentiments that

         12        have been so clearly expressed here, I will withdraw that

         13        proposal.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now we go to Proposal 59 by

         15        Commissioner Zack.  Read the proposal.

         16             READING CLERK:  Proposal 59, a proposal to revise

         17        Article X, Section 13, Florida Constitution; providing

         18        limitations upon the amount of damages payable by the

         19        state when a court finds the state liable; providing for a

         20        bad-faith surcharge; placing a limit on attorney's fees.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack, you are

         22        recognized.

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We have a committee substitute

         24        before the body.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It hasn't been put before the


          1        body, no.

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Let me present it to --

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is an amendment to your --

          4             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It is an amendment that is a

          5        committee substitute which I accept as a friendly

          6        amendment.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Offered as an amendment to

          8        Proposal No. 164 -- excuse me, 59.  We haven't read it.

          9        Did we read it?  Let's read it and then we will offer the

         10        amendment.  Read it, please.

         11             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Lowndes, Zack --

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, no, read the proposal first

         13        and then the amendment.  All right.  Read the amendment by

         14        Commissioner Zack.

         15             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Lowndes, Zack,

         16        Morsani and Hawkes, on Page 1, Lines 11 through 28, strike

         17        all of said lines and insert lengthy amendment.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are now on the amendment which

         19        in effect rewrites your proposal, does it not,

         20        Commissioner Zack?

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It fine-tunes the proposal.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Would you like to take the floor

         23        on the proposal or would you like one of the other

         24        co-sponsors?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I'm happy to go forward with the


          1        amended proposal, though I'd like it read.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We did read it.

          3             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Did you?  Was that the amended

          4        proposal?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We read the title to it, that's

          6        all we read.  Commissioner Morsani.

          7             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I need to ask a question.

          8        Commissioner Zack, on our committee, the other piece of

          9        that --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let's all take our seats, please.

         11        I think you are blocking the line of fire there.

         12             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I wonder if we shouldn't TP

         13        this for about 15 minutes because they are working on the

         14        other thing that we discussed yesterday evening.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I have no problem with TPing it.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection it will be TP'd

         17        for 15 minutes or so.  I guess there are three of them.

         18        Do you want to TP all of them?

         19             Proposal 46 by Commissioner Anthony is TP'd without

         20        objection.  Committee substitute for Proposal 177 is TP'd.

         21        And now we are on Committee Substitute for Proposals 49,

         22        103 and 185 by the Committee on Finance and Taxation and

         23        Commissioners Anthony, Henderson and Mills, and as

         24        recommended as a committee substitute by the Committee on

         25        Finance and Taxation.  Would you read it, please?


          1             READING CLERK:  Committee substitute for Proposals

          2        49, 103 and 185; a proposal to revise Article VII, Section

          3        3, Florida Constitution; revising the requirements for

          4        exempting municipally-owned property; allowing the

          5        Legislature to exempt from taxation property owned by a

          6        governmental entity and used for airport, seaport, or

          7        public purposes, as defined by law, and uses that are

          8        incidental thereto.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are going to take a five to

         10        ten minute recess for everybody to get their itches taken

         11        care of so we can be seated.  We can't, we have no order

         12        with everybody walking around the chamber and going from

         13        desk to desk and the speakers are being not treated very

         14        fairly.

         15             We are going to take a recess and, please, everybody

         16        do whatever it is you need to do in the way of walking

         17        around so when we come back, we can do like Commissioner

         18        Henderson, we can sit in our chair.  We are in recess for

         19        ten minutes, we will come back at 11:00 o'clock.  We will

         20        keep the chamber closed.

         21             (Brief recess.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody come to order.  I

         23        really hope, Commissioners, that we can keep order.  And

         24        that's why I had this recess because I think we owe it to

         25        the people to do what we have been doing the whole time,


          1        which is being very attentive to what's going on and

          2        listening to the speakers.  So I'm going to give you

          3        another few minutes until they finish what it is that

          4        they're working on.

          5             (Pause.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody come to order.

          7             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

          8        presence, all commissioners indicate your presence.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have a quorum call.  There are

         10        a lot of people here that haven't come into the chamber.

         11        I see one in the bubble.  We are still missing some

         12        members, but we'll start.

         13             Commissioner Zack, you had offered an amendment and

         14        were beginning to speak on it and now I understand that

         15        you want to offer a substitute amendment.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We withdrew that amendment and

         17        offered a substitute.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So you now have a substitute

         19        amendment which has not been read; is that right?

         20             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That is correct.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Point of order, Mr. Chairman?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The proposal that we

         24        are on is the Proposal No. 59 by Commissioner Zack and it

         25        has been read and we now have an amendment, substitute


          1        amendment being offered by Commissioner Zack which needs

          2        to be read before we move to the next amendment.

          3             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, may I just

          4        suggest --

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I suggest first of all that we

          6        try to sit down, please.  All right, go ahead.

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I would just

          8        suggest, and I believe it would be with Commissioner

          9        Zack's consent, that you might allow me to set the stage,

         10        as the chairman of the Select Committee, so that the body

         11        would appreciate the recommendation that was made on this

         12        proposal and fit it in the context of the various

         13        proposals that came before our committee, if you deem that

         14        to be appropriate.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  No objection whatsoever if it is

         16        appropriate.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  First of all we have to read this

         18        amendment to technically make it before the body.  Could

         19        you do that, please?

         20             (Off-the-record comment.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on 59, that's what

         22        everybody was caucusing on, I understood, 59 and we are

         23        going to read the substitute amendment, after which

         24        Commissioner Zack has yielded to Commissioner Connor to

         25        present further items.  Proceed.  Read the amendment.


          1             READING CLERK:  Substitute amendment by Commissioners

          2        Lowndes, Zack, Morsani and Hawkes, on Page 1, Lines 11

          3        through 28, strike all of said lines and insert, Section

          4        1, Section 13 of Article X of the Florida Constitution is

          5        revised by amending that Section to read, Article X,

          6        miscellaneous; Section 13, suits against the state,

          7        provision may be made by general law for bringing suit

          8        against the state, its political subdivisions, agencies,

          9        districts and municipalities as to all liabilities now

         10        existing or hereafter originating provided in such a suit

         11        a person may recover damages up to a maximum amount of

         12        $200,000 plus costs, other than attorney's fees incurred

         13        in the suit, unless such an amount is increased by general

         14        law.

         15             In any event, the maximum amount of damages shall be

         16        increased each year by the same percentage as the

         17        percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index or a

         18        successor index published by the federal government.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Zack

         20        yields to Commissioner Connor.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Your

         22        Select Committee on Sovereign Immunity met on three

         23        occasions and considered the Zack proposal, which was

         24        Proposal 59; the Freidin proposal, Proposal No. 77; and

         25        the Anthony proposal, Proposal No. 46.  The only proposal


          1        that emerged from that committee with a favorable

          2        recommendation was the committee substitute which is now,

          3        which Mr. Zack now will seek to amend.  But it did receive

          4        a favorable report from the committee for this body.

          5             Mr. Chairman, we also did have -- consider

          6        recommendations that a court of claims be established by

          7        the Legislature.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's on the desk now as an

          9        amendment by Commissioners Lowndes and Morsani.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.  And did not have the

         11        opportunity, we considered that conceptually, did not have

         12        the opportunity to consider a full-blown amendment, but I

         13        understood that it was going to be submitted for our

         14        consideration this morning.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There has been no recommendation

         16        then on that because it hasn't been considered.

         17             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir, that's correct.  Only

         18        the Zack Proposal 59, which emerged as a committee

         19        substitute, had a favorable recommendation.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If I'm right, I'll ask the

         21        Secretary, Commissioners Lowndes and Morsani have offered

         22        an amendment which would be a substitute amendment?

         23             (Off-the-record comment.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So what we will do is we will

         25        take Commissioners Lowndes' and Morsani's amendment to the


          1        amendment, which has not been read, and we will have that

          2        read.  Now this is the amendment to the amendment.  If you

          3        pass this, does the other one remain intact?

          4             (Off-the-record comment.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's my understanding.  It is

          6        not a substitute, it is an amendment to the substitute

          7        amendment.  Very well.  Now we will read the amendment to

          8        the substitute amendment.

          9             READING CLERK:  Amendment to the amendment, by

         10        Commissioners Lowndes and Morsani, on Page 1, Line 14,

         11        after the period insert lengthy amendment.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Pay attention now.  Is that all

         13        it says?  I'll let Commissioners Lowndes and Morsani

         14        explain the amendment to the amendment.  Commissioner

         15        Lowndes, you are recognized on the amendment to the

         16        amendment.

         17             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As

         18        Commissioner Connor indicated, we had a presentation last

         19        night at a quarter to seven which dealt with the

         20        possibility of replacing the claims bill procedure that's

         21        now in the Legislature with a judicial procedure which was

         22        similar to, if not identical to, the federal tort claims

         23        act.  And that's what this amendment proposes to do.

         24             From the testimony we have heard from almost

         25        everybody, the claims bill procedure is a very difficult


          1        and awkward procedure.  As everybody knows, the reason for

          2        the claims bill procedure is for those matters which

          3        generally exceed the caps that the Legislature has put on

          4        sovereign immunity.

          5             The provision in the amendment here would establish a

          6        judicial procedure for dealing with those matters which

          7        are in excess of the caps and it would eliminate

          8        presumably or give the Legislature the opportunity to

          9        eliminate the claims bill procedure.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If I understand -- let me see if

         11        I understand it, maybe it will help us in this.  What you

         12        have done is allow the amendments cap proposal to remain

         13        intact insofar as sovereign immunity as proposed by

         14        Commissioner Zack's amendment.  That was the committee

         15        substitute.  That would limit damages to $200,000 with the

         16        CPI applying.

         17             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Then you have added to that, when

         19        you go over that, rather than have the claims bill

         20        procedure which has received universal attention, that you

         21        would establish for the claims that go above that amount

         22        this court of limited jurisdiction called a court of

         23        claims which would replace the claims bill procedure.

         24             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.  And presumably

         25        it is similar to if not identical to the way the federal


          1        government deals with the tort claim.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani is also a

          3        sponsor of that.  Did you have anything further,

          4        Commissioner Lowndes?

          5             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  No, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani.

          7             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Our intent here as we have

          8        heard through all of our 13 public hearings is the real

          9        concern is the catastrophic arena.  And generally it is

         10        those folks that don't have the financial resources to go

         11        through the process and the delays and so on and so forth

         12        that have been prevalent in the other side of that

         13        equation.

         14             So this is an effort to address that through the

         15        judicial process and with minimal impact, we think, on the

         16        court.  And that's the reason why it is culled out the way

         17        it is.  It was very difficult and we are concerned about,

         18        I understand there is some shortcomings of course with

         19        anything you propose, but we really felt that the

         20        catastrophic arena needed to be addressed and this was a

         21        better way of addressing it than in the claims bill

         22        process which has been a long, drawn out process.

         23             We know there can be some abuses, but we felt like to

         24        do something for the citizenry, that this was the best

         25        alternative that we could think of.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, Commissioner Brochin.

          2             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I have a question.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

          4             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  As I understand the proposal,

          5        this switches the claims process from the legislative

          6        branch to the judicial branch essentially.  I'd like to --

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think it would still leave

          8        intact claims that didn't involve torts.

          9             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  But claims exceeding the caps

         10        would be --

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.

         12             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Instead of going through a

         13        claims process in the legislative branch it goes through

         14        essentially a claims process in the judicial branch; is

         15        that what this proposal does?

         16             Okay.  If that's what it does, I'd like to know what

         17        standards, first of all, the legislative branch used in

         18        deciding whether the immunity cap should be lifted and the

         19        claims paid and then, under this proposal, what standards

         20        are the judicial branch going to use to decide whether or

         21        not the cap should be removed and the payments paid.

         22             I think it is a good idea, but I just think it is

         23        important to understand the standards that we are going to

         24        ask another branch of government to make a decision on

         25        vis-a-vis why to remove caps on particular claims bills.


          1             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I suppose the legal minds will

          2        have to answer that, sir.  I can't answer that,

          3        Mr. Brochin.  However, it was our intent and the genesis

          4        is that the Legislature would set those standards and then

          5        tell the court.  That's where Frank Morsani is coming

          6        from.  I don't understand quite your terms that you

          7        explained so I'll let the legal minds address that

          8        further.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors, do you want

         10        to answer that?

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  No, no, I have a question,

         12        maybe to Mr. Lowndes or to someone else who -- I want to

         13        make sure I understand this proposal.  As I understand

         14        currently the process for claims bills, and I'm not a tort

         15        lawyer, but I think I understand it.

         16             Generally the claims bill process currently is

         17        triggered after judgment.  And then the Legislature in its

         18        committees has another hearing in which they make a

         19        determination to make a recommendation to the Legislature

         20        of their own, which they have the knowledge of what the

         21        jury trial awarded.  But it is -- it doesn't really,

         22        claims bills aren't triggered, as I understand it, until

         23        the jury has had its say.

         24             Assuming that's true, the way I read this, I'm not

         25        sure whether it is good or bad, but the way I read this is


          1        this court would, there would be a right to access to this

          2        court upon petition of the petitioner and petitioner's

          3        counsel if the claim exceeds the limits and the jury trial

          4        would not have occurred; is that correct?

          5             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.  I'm not sure

          6        that you are right about what the claims bills are about

          7        because a lot of them are not about judgments at all, I

          8        think.  A lot of them are for different reasons where like

          9        people who have been wrongfully imprisoned and that sort

         10        of thing.

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, I mean in terms of tort

         12        liability.  This is not an unfriendly question, I am just

         13        trying to understand.  I think on tort liability, I think

         14        the rules are is there is no -- the claims bill process

         15        isn't resolved until the jury comes back with an award in

         16        excess of limits.

         17             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.  And apparently

         18        the Legislature then decides how much the government who

         19        is being sued should pay.

         20             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  What bothers me about this is

         21        that we don't really preserve constitutionally any power

         22        of the Legislature to establish some limits on the claims

         23        that can be -- I mean, the problem is we have a pretrial

         24        process, one.  And secondly is that I have never seen a

         25        plaintiff's lawyer who didn't think he had a big claim,


          1        two.

          2             And so I'm worried about, we have no oversight of the

          3        jury having verified that plaintiff's lawyer's grandeur

          4        view of what his claim is and maybe we ought to have at

          5        least, if we do have some limits with the Legislature to

          6        set some limits if we are talking about catastrophic

          7        claim, that this would only be claims over a certain

          8        amount or something.

          9             That's what bothers me about this.  I'm afraid you

         10        are creating a process where almost everybody who has a

         11        claim will always say it is over the limits and will go to

         12        this process.

         13             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Well if you read the schedule

         14        there is some, I think, provision for penalties if that's

         15        the case.  But that was the intent, the way it was

         16        explained to us.  But if you read the letters that you get

         17        from cities and other people who are benefiting from

         18        sovereign immunity, what they all say is they should be

         19        saved from runaway juries.

         20             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  If I might, Mr. Nabors, one of

         21        the things that we did discover in the hearings, even at

         22        the cap of $100,000, because that's all they had to work

         23        with was $100,000, but 75 to 85 percent of all claims

         24        today are being negotiated and settled within that cap,

         25        obviously.


          1             So even raising it -- to answer your question, well,

          2        no, that's a poor choice of words.  To address your

          3        concern, we recognize and my concern as an employer, as a

          4        citizen is exactly what you said, with the trial lawyers

          5        all saying that every claim is going to be over $200,000.

          6        That's a question in my mind, I have got to be very honest

          7        with you.  And I wasn't very happy about making this

          8        recommendation.

          9             Because it scares me what some trial lawyers might

         10        do, and they are sitting in this room.  And I understand

         11        that, they are all friends of mine.  But by the same

         12        token, I don't think we are treating our people right and

         13        therein lies my, why I think that this makes sense and

         14        that we have, and hopefully that the judge that is

         15        appointed by the various circuits will have the fortitude

         16        to tell them that they are unreasonable.

         17             Now I can't control that, but we have got to have a

         18        different system I think than what we currently have.

         19             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman --

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Still a question?

         21             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yeah, I guess.  Would you

         22        believe, Mr. Morsani, that a lot of local governments are

         23        nervous when the claims bill is filed too because you have

         24        a situation where political people can enter judgments in

         25        someone else's budget and pocketbook.  So it is not -- the


          1        claims bill isn't always something that's a comfort level

          2        for government.

          3             The problem is though is, is that -- what disturbs me

          4        about this is the fact that, and to me this is a proposal

          5        that I think has some merit, regardless if we do anything

          6        on the caps.

          7             But would you also believe my concern is still is

          8        that this would create a very huge process because we

          9        don't reserve the Legislature any authority to place some

         10        claim limits on what this court may have.  Basically the

         11        only limits under the Constitution, as I read this, would

         12        be what the lawyer and the client thinks it would be.  So

         13        I don't think it will be -- my concern is it would not

         14        create a catastrophic forum but a forum for every claim.

         15             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Well I'll let the attorneys

         16        answer that, my attorney friend.  Mr. Connor, do you have

         17        a comment, please?

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'd like to respond if I may.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think that's in that; isn't it?

         20        It says something about liability under general law.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If I may, I'll try to respond.

         22        Commissioner Nabors, conceptually let me tell you how this

         23        came into being.

         24             There were a variety of proposals that came before

         25        our committee, some of which met with greater degrees of


          1        success than others.  Mr. Cunningham, Tony Cunningham from

          2        Tampa, suggested an altogether different concept for

          3        approaching this issue.  Commissioner Morsani had

          4        expressed concern about the catastrophic injuries.  It was

          5        perceived that there was increased resistance in the

          6        Legislature to claims bills and the political wrangling

          7        that went along with that.

          8             And Mr. Cunningham had suggested that Florida might

          9        want to adopt something that was more akin to the federal

         10        tort claims provisions.  And so the suggestion was made

         11        that in cases that exceeded the cap, and they are few in

         12        number on a comparative basis, that a provision would be

         13        established where those claims would be tried not by a

         14        trial by jury, because of the people's concern about the

         15        potential for runaway juries on claims, but rather by a

         16        court.

         17             And there were provisions for an arbitration that

         18        could be done as an alternative form of dispute resolution

         19        in lieu of the court.  But ultimately these folks would

         20        have a right to a trial by the court.

         21             Now the effect of that then was to try to mitigate

         22        the impact of caps on people whose damages substantially

         23        exceeded the caps, but to do so within a context where the

         24        result was likely to be less influenced by emotion,

         25        sympathy, et cetera, much as in the federal tort claims


          1        process.

          2             The issue you raise is certainly a legitimate concern

          3        from a philosophical matter because in effect, arguably, a

          4        court, a judge, a member of the judicial branch of

          5        government by virtue of its ruling would effectively be

          6        able to dictate to the county commission or the

          7        legislative component, of whatever group is being dictated

          8        to by virtue of the verdict, how to spend its money.  In

          9        other words it would have to pay an award that was awarded

         10        by the court.

         11             So therein lies the tension, represented from

         12        Mr. Cunningham's part.  And I think Commissioner Lowndes

         13        and Commissioner Morsani at least felt it represented a

         14        good balance between the tension of people who suffer

         15        unjustly from catastrophic injuries which go in large

         16        measure uncompensated by the current process, and balance

         17        that, and holding the sovereign accountable for its

         18        wrongdoing in that regard.

         19             And I rise only by way of a point of information

         20        because I have feelings about these proposals that I'll

         21        express later.  But I think that's the tension that was

         22        attempting to be resolved there.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Would Commissioner Connor

         25        take the floor, please, and try to respond?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He does.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner, as I read this,

          4        it says, Such court shall be established by the chief

          5        judge of each judicial circuit.  This would permit 20

          6        different chief judges to decide whether they were going

          7        to have a court; wouldn't it?

          8             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Since it says "shall be

          9        established", I don't think it is discretionary, I think

         10        it is required that it would be established under the

         11        language.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I realize it is not your

         13        proposal --

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  It is not.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  -- why would they allot this

         16        to the chief judges to establish rather than it being

         17        established by -- now specialized divisions can only be

         18        established by general law.

         19             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir, I can respond to

         20        that.  And it was that Mr. Cunningham was made aware of

         21        the fact that every attempt to enlarge the court system by

         22        a family division or by criminal, new criminal division,

         23        et cetera, had met with less than resounding success.  And

         24        that this would be a simplified process which would

         25        enable, within the existing structure, which through the


          1        appointed process by the chief judge would enable the

          2        counties in the various circuits to deal with these

          3        issues.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  But obviously it would

          5        increase the judicial workload of the circuits.

          6             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Without a doubt it would.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  But the power to increase

          8        judicial personnel is left with the Supreme Court

          9        certificate and the legislative action.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  That's right, yes, sir.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  So the chief judge can go

         12        create one, but he may not have anybody to sit there.

         13             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'm all for the separation of

         14        powers, by which the Legislature determines whether or not

         15        it is going to fund the judiciary's activities and

         16        whatnot.  So you are absolutely right.  That's the kind of

         17        tension that comes into play here and there is that

         18        tension that is to be addressed as to whether or not a

         19        judicial officer can then in effect bind the executive

         20        branch in the local county, or whatever the case may be,

         21        by its ruling.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thanks for the response.  I

         23        have some problem with it.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani.

         25             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  May I comment, Commissioner


          1        Barkdull?  I believe -- as you-all know I'm an automobile

          2        mechanic and I don't know anything about this law stuff,

          3        but I believe that the courts right now, individual

          4        courts, are being permitted to experiment with different

          5        ways they are conducting their business today; i.e., they

          6        are right now, at least one that I know of, has taken one

          7        judge or two judges and said, okay, any trial that's going

          8        to be over two weeks, we are going to have this over in

          9        this division.

         10             I don't necessarily think it is the impact on the

         11        judicial branch that we may be thinking it is because of

         12        the very limited number of claims.  As an example, in the

         13        claims process right now, in the last three years, since

         14        1995, there have only been 35 -- what do you call those

         15        claims, claims bills -- there have only been 35 claims

         16        bills submitted to the Legislature in this city.  So I

         17        have a hard time thinking that this is a monumental

         18        problem, but I don't understand your system, sir.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Would you believe me,

         20        Commissioner Morsani, that this would permit any tort

         21        lawsuit where the lawyer wants to sign the certificate to

         22        be permitted to bring his lawsuit and it wouldn't be

         23        limited to after judgment to start talking about claims

         24        bills.  This says from the word go.

         25             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I'm conscious, I kind of


          1        thought I said that early on.  I understand that.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now Commissioner Barnett has been

          3        trying and trying and I'll get the rest of you.

          4        Commissioner Hawkes is next.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I have a series of questions

          6        and I don't know who to direct them to, but let me just

          7        ask the first one and then I have a couple more on a

          8        different subject.

          9             I have only been involved in one claims bill in my

         10        life in the Legislature and I agree it is a complex and

         11        difficult process.  But the claims bill that I was

         12        involved in did not relate to tort.  It had nothing to do

         13        with tort or actual damages that came from a judgment in a

         14        lawsuit.  It was really more of an equitable, moral issue

         15        that we raised with the Legislature through the claims

         16        bill process.

         17             And I want to make sure that by constitutionalizing

         18        in some way a court of claims and a claims bill process,

         19        that the right of citizens to approach the Legislature for

         20        redress on a claims bill concept for moral or ethical or

         21        other claims or relief has not been impacted in any way by

         22        this particular proposal.  Now I think I heard someone say

         23        that, but when you start constitutionalizing something

         24        that's really there by legislative grace now in some way,

         25        I just want to make sure that that process remains


          1        available for people.

          2             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Mr. Chairman, I can't answer

          3        that question but I can, I would like to suggest or I

          4        would like to move that we would TP this and give it a

          5        little further thought.  This really came up very quickly

          6        and I think parts of it are not well thought out.  And I

          7        think there are people interested in this proposal but

          8        probably not in the language that it is now.  And I would

          9        like to request that we TP it.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think that's fair.  I think the

         11        questions -- Commissioner Hawkes --

         12             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Mr. Chairman, I think before

         13        you do there are a number of questions that we ought to

         14        get on the floor --

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's fine.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  -- so that the people that are

         17        going to relook at it can at least know some of the

         18        concerns.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Very good.  That's a good

         20        thought.  And do you have other questions because

         21        Commissioner Hawkes has got --

         22             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I had a couple.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Couple them on.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  A couple.  The first was who

         25        pays for this?  When you are creating this claims process,


          1        are you creating kind of, it is not an Article V, but are

          2        you creating some kind of judge?  And I know Commissioner

          3        Connor referred a little bit to some of the separation of

          4        powers, but there is a real question about what you are

          5        creating here and who pays for it.  Does that somehow

          6        impact the Article V costs?

          7             Another question I would have is when you grant the

          8        de novo trial, again in circuit court, whether you could

          9        anticipate the number, the increased burden on the circuit

         10        courts from a de novo trial really on a question of claims

         11        after the judgment.  And I guess the third part of that

         12        is, is there contemplated that there will be a right of

         13        appeal from the trial court proceedings to the appellate

         14        courts?

         15             So it is just the process and the payment that I have

         16        a series of questions about.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Hawkes,

         18        you were next and then Commissioner Butterworth is next

         19        and then Commissioner Brochin is next and then

         20        Commissioner Jennings is next.

         21             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I

         22        wanted to ask Commissioner Barkdull a question as to I

         23        understand that there may be some reluctance to create

         24        additional courts and I was wondering if the language was

         25        changed that it would basically instruct a procedure to be


          1        put in place where the chief judge of each circuit would

          2        appoint an arbitrator to hear these claims.  We are not

          3        creating an additional court, we are just creating a, an

          4        additional right for Florida's citizens.

          5             If they wish to take advantage of this, then they

          6        would do the good faith certification that it's over and

          7        the Supreme Court would pass the sanction rules and the

          8        Legislature would set up the procedure for the chief judge

          9        to appoint the arbitrators, and if that would address some

         10        of your concerns about an additional court and some of

         11        your funding questions.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  You are reading my mind,

         13        Commissioner Hawkes.  I thought it was an additional court

         14        and I wasn't going to like it.

         15             But I think that possibly, and maybe when they recess

         16        they can think about this, in the opening part of the

         17        Article V where it establishes the courts and says no

         18        other court shall be established, there may be a grant of

         19        power to the Legislature to create some type of a vehicle

         20        to address these problems.  I don't know that I would

         21        support it, but I think that's where it belongs.

         22             And more than just a grant of power to the

         23        Legislature, I think -- I don't think it should go any

         24        further than that in trying to define it.  I think it

         25        ought to be left up to the Legislature.  It could be done.


          1             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  I think the goal -- just to

          2        follow-up, Mr. Chairman -- was that it would be an

          3        arbitration process that the parties could participate in.

          4        And I think that there was some desire that the courts

          5        obviously oversee that arbitration process and that we're

          6        not tampering with anybody's right to jury trial because

          7        we're dealing with sovereign immunity so we have a right

          8        to do it however we want.

          9             And then a mode of redress was going back to circuit

         10        court if you felt you could beat it by 25 percent.  And I

         11        was wondering if we made it so that the chief judge --

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think it ought to be the

         13        chief justice.  Frankly, that's a small item but I think

         14        it establishes through the Supreme Court any such animal

         15        if we're going to have it.

         16             But, number two, I think that you could, in the

         17        sovereign immunity section, if you want to waive it to an

         18        arbitration procedure as established by general law, you

         19        could do that.  One of the problems that I think, and it's

         20        been recognized here, is that when you have a claims bill

         21        you've gone through the judgment process and generally

         22        been sustained on appeal.

         23             And the Legislature when it addresses the claims

         24        bill, particularly as Commissioner Barnett pointed out,

         25        the one she was involved with did not follow that process,


          1        although I notice this provision only relates to tort

          2        claims.  But in Commissioner Barnett's situation, the

          3        Legislature had the discretion in recognizing the claim

          4        and realizing how much money they were going to have to

          5        appropriate.

          6             Whereas, when you go to this other system you're

          7        going to have arbitrators, a judge or whoever, somebody in

          8        another branch of government saying how much money the

          9        Legislature is going to have to spend.  And all these

         10        factors have to be taken into account into this.

         11             I in general have thought possibly the Federal Claims

         12        Act might be a guide to this problem.  I don't know

         13        whether with a little bit of conversation -- I didn't hear

         14        about this until about 15, 20 minutes ago, that I'm ready

         15        to endorse the proposal as it is.  I think there should be

         16        possibly some relief.  But I would, rather than locking it

         17        into the Constitution, leave it within the prerogative of

         18        the Legislature.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now there are several

         20        people that wanted questions.  We're going to run until

         21        12:00 and then we're going to break for lunch.

         22             Commissioner Jennings asked to be recognized.

         23             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Mr. Chairman and

         24        Commissioners, I'm back in the mode of information as

         25        opposed to questions.


          1             And actually while I'm up, I'll share with you-all

          2        that the issue of saying "would you believe" is one that

          3        happens only in the House of Representatives.  In the

          4        Senate we ask of each other as Senators and of course we

          5        would believe because a Senator would never say anything

          6        that was not truthful, true and factual.  So we're here in

          7        the Senate so why don't we --

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  How do you respond when you don't

          9        agree, say, I think you're uninformed?

         10             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  You just -- yeah.  Say, you

         11        bloodsucker, you are wrong.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Gotcha.

         13             (Laughter.)

         14             COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  It comes with this desk.  It

         15        just seeps right out of this microphone.  The spirit of

         16        him is still in here somewhere.

         17             I'd like to share with you just a couple of thoughts.

         18        And the other evening, actually, Commissioner Morsani and

         19        Commissioner Lowndes and I were talking about this very

         20        issue.  I would love for this proposal not to go away

         21        because on behalf of the Legislators who have had to deal

         22        with the claims process, it's not very pretty.  It

         23        actually is not very just to the person who has been

         24        injured in many instances.

         25             And I share that with you because you have a couple


          1        of things that happen.  You have an injured party injured

          2        by or in connection with a local government or the state

          3        or a political subdivision like a hospital taxing district

          4        where something has happened.  They bring a suit -- there

          5        are a couple of ways -- obviously they bring a suit.  They

          6        go through the entire process.  I have got my special

          7        master over here so nod if I'm right or wrong.  Actually I

          8        taught him.

          9             They go through this entire process and they get an

         10        award by a jury, sometimes by settlement of the local

         11        government.  Senator Langley will keep me straight.  The

         12        nonlawyer is explaining this.  Now there is something

         13        wrong with this process right here.  They do all that and

         14        then the local government or political subdivision says,

         15        Well, that's fine, we can pay you $100,000; now you have

         16        to go to the Legislature to get the rest.

         17             So they come up here and a claims bill is filed and

         18        maybe as a result of a settlement, an excess judgment,

         19        maybe a jury award, maybe -- and I'm talking about those

         20        that have been through a process as opposed to the kind

         21        that Commissioner Barnett was talking about which you

         22        didn't mention it, but it was Rosewood and it's a

         23        different situation.

         24             So they come up here and we assign a special master.

         25        And they have to have a sponsor, just like any bill.  And


          1        they assign a special master to essentially rehear the

          2        evidence.  Now they don't retry the case, but we rehear

          3        the evidence.  From time to time different recommendations

          4        are made.  And then the rest of the process starts that is

          5        not very pretty when you're talking about an injured

          6        party.

          7             And that's the process where potentially the local

          8        government hires a lobbyist to come up here and fight the

          9        bill.  Usually the person involved, and this is sort of a

         10        new industry that has happened here in Tallahassee, the

         11        lawyer who is representing the injured party contracts

         12        with someone up here that knows the Legislature and they

         13        come and they lobby the bill.

         14             So all of a sudden what is just, right and true and

         15        what has happened as a result of judicial action suddenly

         16        comes right back into the political process and it's kind

         17        of like who you talk to and who votes for what and all

         18        those kind of things.  And, you know, that's okay, when

         19        it's issues of merit that each one of us have to go back

         20        and talk to our constituents about.

         21             The claims bill process is pretty much ignored.  And

         22        I was so concerned about it that I actually put a hold on

         23        claims bills last year to try to change the process.  What

         24        would happen is they would go through all of this, they

         25        would be done the last night of the session, we'd have a


          1        whole stack of them, we would give away a whole lot of

          2        money.

          3             And Commissioner Sundberg asked me about it.  If it

          4        was a judgment against the local government, they do have

          5        to pay.  We take it out of revenue sharing or take it out

          6        of something that we've got of theirs.  If it's against

          7        the state, obviously it comes out of our general revenue.

          8        If it's against a department that has a trust fund, we

          9        take it out of that.  So all the people of Florida aren't

         10        necessarily paying for the wrong done in St. Petersburg or

         11        whatever when you come back to it.

         12             But the political process stirs around.  We did these

         13        the last night of the session in many instances.  In

         14        previous years, those nights were sometimes early morning.

         15        We wouldn't discuss them very much.  They are -- it's not

         16        a good way to handle legislation and it's certainly not a

         17        good way to handle injured party judgments.

         18             If we can figure out a way to do it any differently

         19        I, for one, on behalf of the Florida Senate will say,

         20        We're with you.  It just -- Commissioner Scott can share

         21        some thoughts.  It's just not a very good way to do it.

         22        And the reason we have to do it is because of the way

         23        sovereign immunity is set up in our Constitution at the

         24        moment.  I tried every way possible to say, Can I push it

         25        back to the local government?  Can I do anything to make


          1        them have to deal with this?  They said, No, you can't do

          2        it.  Because of the way it's set up, the Legislature will

          3        always have to deal with it in this manner.

          4             So I hope we don't temporarily pass it too long and

          5        too far.  I would like us to work through.  I don't know

          6        much about the tort system at the federal level, but it

          7        sounds like a better way to do it.  It is certainly

          8        probably a way that is more fair to an injured party than

          9        the way we have it currently set up.  And I just wanted to

         10        share that with you as we go forward because it's not a

         11        very nice process; it's not the best way to handle things

         12        and we're trying to do it in a little bit at least more

         13        organized manner.

         14             As a matter of fact, we have been through the whole

         15        claims process in the Senate.  Ways and Means has heard

         16        every claims bill.  As a matter of fact, the committee had

         17        accused me of saying that this was my way of getting them

         18        ready for tort reform because I made them listen to all of

         19        these, almost all of them.  They are out, most of them are

         20        out.  We have 40 -- 36.  We have 36 this year.  Some may

         21        be as a result of not doing any last year.

         22             But they continue to grow in number and in judgment

         23        size as we go on.  And the Legislature is probably not the

         24        best place to handle these kinds of issues.  We handle

         25        other things very well.  This one we don't necessarily


          1        handle as well as they could be.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson, would you

          3        take the chair?  I'd like to be indulged just to be heard

          4        on this a moment.  You can go ahead, Commissioner Smith.

          5             (Commissioner Thompson assumes the Chair.)

          6             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  In the

          7        spirit of just trying to get issues on the floor so we can

          8        talk this out and at least put forth the best possible

          9        proposal -- whether it is approved or not, we want to at

         10        least have the best we can do -- my concern is what

         11        happens in a situation where there is a catastrophic

         12        injury and the defendants are both a sovereign and a

         13        nonsovereign.

         14             So you have a catastrophic injury.  You can certify

         15        that it's in excess of whatever the statutory caps are;

         16        one happens to be a governmental entity, one happens to be

         17        a major corporation.  So does that go -- do you have one

         18        suit with the nonsovereign in a jury trial as it presently

         19        stands now, and litigation against the sovereign in this

         20        claims type court process?  And I don't know the answer to

         21        the question.  I just want to throw it out as something to

         22        consider in terms of trying to refine the proposal.

         23             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Douglass.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'd like to just address this

         25        because we've dealt with this and I've dealt with this for


          1        43 years and have seen it evolve and change.

          2             For many years up until about 1981, there was no,

          3        quote, sovereign immunity for municipal corporations.

          4        They were exempted by court decision from governmental

          5        activities, but anything that was considered proprietary

          6        by a municipality was not subject to limits or anything

          7        else.  They were just like every other corporation in that

          8        regard.  The municipalities carried insurance.  They

          9        didn't handle claims.  They were handled by the insurance

         10        just like they would for any other corporation.  The suits

         11        went to trial.  They were tried by a jury or they were

         12        settled or whatever and it was done like every other

         13        lawsuit.

         14             The state, on the other hand, had limited immunity

         15        from lawsuits.  And I say "limited" because the law

         16        allowed you to sue the driver of the truck.  If the driver

         17        of the state road department truck, as it was then, was

         18        neglect, drunk, whatever he was, and ran over you and hurt

         19        you, you could collect just like anybody else.  And guess

         20        what?  They carried insurance and they were covered and

         21        they were treated like every other lawsuit.

         22             When you got to the insurance coverage, as any lawyer

         23        will tell you, then you start looking around to settle.

         24        When you get to the limit of what somebody can pay, no

         25        matter what the damages to your client is, you have to


          1        start figuring out what is best, to stay in court three

          2        years or to take what is there.

          3             And that's what's happened in the progression of

          4        this.  We came along so that in 1978 the commission here

          5        voted almost unanimously to abolish the theory and allow

          6        the state to be sued the same as any other private company

          7        or individual and be treated the same.  And what's

          8        happened in the 20 years since is the progression of

          9        government.  It has become the most powerful tool, the

         10        most powerful thing in the world.  It's become sacrosanct.

         11             We didn't have a huge building built by the League of

         12        Cities.  We didn't have those lobbyists.  We didn't have

         13        those people that were organized to keep the public from

         14        recovering the damages in cases such as this and in other

         15        areas.  We didn't have all of these public things going on

         16        that we're opposing that were considered individual rights

         17        of people.

         18             And these governments with their associations have

         19        got this government -- and I'm not condemning anybody,

         20        it's just the evolution of government, big government if

         21        you want to call it that -- and it keeps going to where

         22        when the government injures you, no matter whether it's a

         23        city government, the state government or the county or

         24        whoever else, one of their drivers, a legislative driver,

         25        whatever, it wouldn't make any difference.  You are in a


          1        different ball game.

          2             And no matter how badly you're injured, you are

          3        limited under the law set by these people who have got the

          4        Legislature to go along with this program to $100,000.

          5        Now, I want to tell you, if you think $100,000 will cover

          6        a normal bad injury in an automobile accident, you haven't

          7        looked at any Medicaid bills, you haven't look at any

          8        hospital bills.  And I guarantee you, you can stay in a

          9        hospital a week with one of these multiple fracture deals

         10        and you're looking at a hospital bill that's in the $50-

         11        to $75,000 range.

         12             Now this is what's happening in the real world.  And

         13        we play games with this because there won't be any

         14        governmental bankruptcy if you'd wipe out the whole thing

         15        and go back to what it was for many, many, many years.

         16        You won't have a bit of change in these governments.  They

         17        will buy the insurance.  And what they will do is the same

         18        thing you do with your car.  You get 100/300 coverage and

         19        then what do you do?  That's where all the money is, there

         20        and in the collision coverage.  It's in the first basic

         21        coverage.

         22             Then you will buy yourself an umbrella, which we all

         23        do, and you'll get, like most of us do, you can get

         24        $3 million over 100/300 for about $250 a year.  It wasn't

         25        Tallahassee, but it's only four or 500 though anywhere in


          1        the state.  The point is the upper limits are not what

          2        costs in insurance.  It's the basic 100/300 or whatever

          3        you have.

          4             Now what other states have done in some instances is

          5        they have the insurance, then the city or whatever it is

          6        has a deductible.  And they're self-insured up to the

          7        first say 100,000 or 500,000 or whatever it is.  And they

          8        have -- the insurance policy then has the insurance

          9        company adjust the claims, just like they do in your case.

         10             So you wipe out this entire bureaucracy that runs

         11        around the claims people or the division of whatever it is

         12        that deal with these things on the state level or on the

         13        city level.  You get rid of that and they go to work for

         14        the insurance company, assuming they are qualified to do

         15        so, and then they adjust the claims.  The city doesn't

         16        fool with them, the county doesn't fool with them, the

         17        insurance company fools with them.  And they are paid by

         18        insurance.

         19             Well everybody got together, except the trial lawyers

         20        are bad people.  They represent injured people.  So

         21        therefore anybody that sues somebody is a bad person.

         22        I've been a trial lawyer, I've been a criminal trial

         23        lawyer, I've been a governmental trial lawyer, I've been

         24        every kind of bad trial lawyer you can have, including

         25        representing big corporations for big fees.  And I'll


          1        guarantee you that I've enjoyed every minute of it,

          2        whichever side I was on.

          3             But I have never ever enjoyed representing a person

          4        or a child who was run over by a city truck and left as an

          5        invalid for the rest of their lives and being told with a

          6        straight face, we can only pay you $100,000 and then you

          7        can go down and see the Legislature and see if you can get

          8        more.

          9             Now let me tell you what happens when that occurs,

         10        from experience, many, many experiences including, as

         11        Commissioner Brochin will tell you, after the claims bills

         12        are done you get lobbied in the Governor's Office to try

         13        to get the Governor to veto them.  It takes three-fifths

         14        vote in each house to pass a claims bill.  It's a tough

         15        deal.  But you go in there and then when they get it

         16        there, they come work on you over there, too.

         17             But what happened in one case, only one case that I

         18        know about that I'll tell you.  There was a little boy

         19        that was injured in a county hospital in a small county

         20        west of here.  The jury in that county, in a medical

         21        malpractice case, found the hospital liable for this

         22        paraplegic who was almost a quad.  His name was Little

         23        Roy, I remember that part of it anyway.

         24             And Little Roy was left like that.  And his parents

         25        of course were not well off.  They were just average


          1        people that lived in this county.  But the jury returned a

          2        verdict of I think it was 1.6 million, which by South

          3        Florida standards might not have been much for this case

          4        at all.  It's been a number of years ago, but it was a

          5        sizable verdict.

          6             And so the city or county who owned that hospital

          7        said, You know, we're not going to pay you but the hundred

          8        thousand, it might have even been 50 then, I can't

          9        remember for sure.  You have got to go to the claims bill.

         10             So the lawyer who got the judgment, who didn't know

         11        anything about claims bill, he comes over here and he

         12        hires, and he's told by the people in the House of

         13        Representatives that he better hire that -- a lobbyist.

         14        So he does.  And the lobbyist then gets the bill finally

         15        passed in a lesser amount and the lobbyist wanted half of

         16        the fee which was reduced by the claims procedure in the

         17        Legislature for the lawyer that got it.

         18             Now all of this is done.  And guess what happened?

         19        It turned out that the county had insurance that was never

         20        revealed to the claims committee or anybody else.  And so

         21        Little Roy was left, as I recall, with a net over his

         22        100,000 of about 200,000 after the lobbyist was paid and

         23        after the lawyer got what he got.

         24             Now that's what's unfair about this and that's what

         25        Commissioner Jennings is talking about.  You can't expect


          1        the Legislature to deal with this.  You can't expect

          2        anybody other than the court in some form to deal with it.

          3        And I think the process that's being proposed as an

          4        alternative to this very -- you can't call it corrupt, but

          5        it certainly is wrong.  It certainly is a wrong procedure

          6        that we have now.

          7             And I'm not going to benefit from this.  I'm through

          8        walking down the aisle on these big cases and I'm through

          9        with that.  But I think if we want to do something that

         10        will benefit the entire population of the state, we should

         11        address this issue much like the people who are nonlawyers

         12        who see the wrong here.  But there are many ways to do it,

         13        including the federal tort claims model and others.

         14             But there has to be a way that we can do it without

         15        the infectious influence of the governmental lobbyists

         16        telling us it will make them bankrupt because they can buy

         17        the insurance and they can keep going.  There is always

         18        caps, there is always these things.  And that's all I'm

         19        going to say.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

         21             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Barkdull, you

         22        raise a point of order?

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir, we've reached the

         24        time of adjournment.

         25             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Recess?


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.

          2             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Anthony was

          3        trying to get his attention to ask him a question, is that

          4        what you wanted to do while he was on the floor?

          5             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  I can wait until after lunch,

          6        but I tell you it's a difficult time because such passion

          7        based upon the proposal, and that was not on the

          8        amendment.  First of all, the discussion and the

          9        presentation made by Commissioner Douglass really did

         10        extend to the general proposal.

         11             So I can wait until after lunch on that, but there is

         12        some real points I think we need to discuss in these

         13        chambers that I think were a lot more leading than I think

         14        accurate on some of the assessments.

         15             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Barkdull moves

         16        that we recess until what hour?

         17             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Two announcements.  Style and

         18        Drafting meets 12:00 to 1:00 in Room 317 in the Capitol.

         19             Those of you that may be thinking about attending the

         20        public hearing in St. Petersburg, the deadline for making

         21        reservations is today.

         22             I move you, sir, that we recess until 1:15.

         23             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Connor, for what

         24        purpose?

         25             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Announcement.


          1             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  You're recognized.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  In view of the exhortation that

          3        we've had about considering these matters during, while

          4        it's TP'd, when it is TP'd, there has been a request that

          5        the Select Committee on Sovereign Immunity meet to discuss

          6        the matters that had been raised.  So we will do so

          7        immediately upon recessing in Room 214 of the Capitol for

          8        all and whosoever may come.

          9             COMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further announcements?

         10        Hearing none we're in recess until 1:00 p.m.

         11             (Session recessed at 12:00 p.m. to be continued at

         12        1:00 p.m.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are going to get

         14        off of the board here because a couple of people were

         15        locked out.  And we are all going to have to push the

         16        button again, right?  Is that what is going to happen?

         17             (Pause.)

         18             All right.  Commissioner Marshall, they had it where

         19        you couldn't vote, it wasn't working too good.  I think

         20        maybe Commissioner Thompson was locked out too, he just

         21        didn't know it maybe.  Let me know when you are ready.

         22             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

         23        presence.  All commissioners indicate your presence.

         24             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Has everybody signed in?  Madam


          1        Secretary.  Commissioner Marshall, have you pushed your

          2        button lately?  Try it again.  He is on the board.

          3        Commissioner Barkdull, you need to push yours and see if

          4        you are here.  Yeah, he is here.  All right, is everybody

          5        in now?  Okay.  We have a quorum.

          6             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll come to order,

          8        please.  I think Commissioner Thompson, when we adjourned

          9        nobody had the floor, right?  Is that correct?

         10        Commissioner Lowndes, you are recognized.

         11             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  I would

         12        like to withdraw the amendment to the amendment that we

         13        were discussing.  And there's a substitute amendment which

         14        I think is going to be on the desk in a minute being made

         15        by Mr. Langley, I think, Commissioner Langley, excuse me.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So you are

         17        withdrawing the amendment that was before us?

         18             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  The amendment to the

         19        amendment.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment to the amendment.

         21        And the one then that's left is the original amendment

         22        offered by Commissioner Zack; is that correct?

         23             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, as amended.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct, but the new

         25        amendment may change that as well.  So, if that one is


          1        TP'd, we may better move on.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley is prepared,

          3        we are just trying to get it I think in form to pass it

          4        out; is that correct?  It's coming, it'll be here shortly,

          5        Commissioner Langley.

          6             (Pause.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  They are passing out the

          8        amendment to the amendment.  Do you want to TP this?  All

          9        right, Commissioner Langley wants to TP this, as does

         10        Commissioner Zack.  And without objection, we will TP it

         11        and take it up as soon as we finish this particular item,

         12        the next item coming up.  Is that agreeable, Commissioner

         13        Langley and Commissioner Zack, we'll take it up after the

         14        next item after the one we are going to take up?

         15             Okay, we are now on -- Commissioner Anthony, do you

         16        want to carry yours over with that too, your sovereign

         17        immunity one?

         18             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes, sir.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And Commissioner Freiden is

         20        carrying hers over.  And then we'll go to Committee

         21        Substitute for Proposals 49, 103 and 185 by the Committee

         22        on Finance and Taxation, Commissioners Anthony, Henderson

         23        and Mills, revising the requirements for exempting

         24        municipally-owned property, allowing the Legislature to

         25        exempt from taxation, et cetera.  This is the one that's


          1        caused a lot of contact to us all.  At this point, I would

          2        like to ask that it be read.

          3             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

          4        Nos. 49, 103 and 185, a proposal to revise Article VII,

          5        Section 3 of the Florida Constitution; revising the

          6        requirements for exempting municipally-owned property;

          7        allowing the Legislature to exempt from taxation property

          8        owned by a governmental entity and used for airport,

          9        seaport or public purposes, and as defined by law, and

         10        uses that are incidental thereto.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Who is going to

         12        present this committee substitute?

         13             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Anthony, you are

         15        recognized.

         16             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you very much,

         17        Mr. Chairman.  As has already been noted, this is the

         18        Committee Substitute for Proposals 49, 103 and 185.  This

         19        committee substitute is a result of about 12 hours of

         20        deliberation of the Finance and Taxation Committee.  It

         21        seeks to solve the problem of taxation of public property

         22        which has been leased to private proprietary concerns,

         23        which because of the use of the property, performs

         24        identifiable public purpose.

         25             This is a very difficult subject, and hence, that's


          1        why it took so many hours of deliberation and somewhat

          2        confusing, based on the legal status in regards to the

          3        types of government -- governmental entities involved.

          4        Property owned by state counties or school boards are

          5        immune from taxation presently.  This is a result of the

          6        Florida Supreme Court based upon 100 years of common law

          7        that the unique nature of these types of governmental

          8        entities immunizes their property from taxation as a state

          9        political subdivision.  And that's very important to note,

         10        they are state political subdivisions.

         11             This committee substitute does not change, in any

         12        way, does not change in any way, the tax status of

         13        property owned by state, counties or school districts.  At

         14        present, municipal and special district property is

         15        exempt, not immune from taxation if the property is used

         16        by a municipality or a special district for municipal or

         17        public purposes.

         18             The committee substitute makes two substantive

         19        changes that I think I would like to share with you at

         20        this time.  First, municipal property would be exempt from

         21        taxation if the property were used for governmental or

         22        municipal purposes regardless of the type of entity which

         23        uses the property for these purposes.  This will permit

         24        cities greater flexibility in the use of their property

         25        for governmental purposes, including the concept that we


          1        all talk about, outsourcing and privatization.

          2             Second, a new sentence will be added to Article VII,

          3        Section 3(a), to permit the Legislature to exempt from

          4        taxation municipal property and special district property

          5        used for airport, seaport, or public purposes as defined

          6        by general law.

          7             With the addition of these sentences the Legislature

          8        would be authorized to evaluate when certain types of

          9        municipal or special district property is used for public

         10        purposes.  And if the Legislature determines it necessary

         11        to exempt such property from taxation, the exemption is

         12        not mandatory, it is not mandatory, it is a permissive

         13        grant of authority to the Legislature.

         14             In Florida, what we are trying to achieve is a level

         15        playing field.  And this amendment, this proposal,

         16        committee substitute of 12 hours of deliberation before

         17        the committee, and about 40 to 50 hours of deliberation

         18        and consideration during this term of our commission, has

         19        brought together people who are truly concerned about

         20        creating that level playing field in Florida, for local

         21        governments and other entities.

         22             Commissioner Henderson is also available and a part

         23        of this.  And Commissioner Henderson, would you like to

         24        add anything to these opening comments, since I'm chairing

         25        the meeting at this time?


          1             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  I yield.  Thank you.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There are three amendments on the

          3        table.

          4             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Chairman, if we could

          5        finish the introduction of it.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Absolutely.

          7             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  And I would like to then

          8        yield to Commissioner Scott to make --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, Commissioner Scott has an

         10        amendment and then there are two other amendments.

         11             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  We would like to set the

         12        floor first if we could, Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  How many of you are going

         14        to set the floor?

         15             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Well, we finished

         16        introducing the issue --

         17             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Just the sponsors, Mr. Chair,

         18        if you could provide us this opportunity, we would

         19        appreciate it.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We will absolutely do that.

         21             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you, sir.

         22             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

         23        thank you, Commissioner Anthony.  I would like to thank

         24        Commissioner Anthony for all of the hard work that he's

         25        put together on this with regard to the multiplicity of


          1        interests that are involved in this issue and to thank

          2        Commissioner Scott for his time in chairing the Committee

          3        on Finance and Taxation, and also working with the

          4        multiplicity of interests that are involved in this.

          5             I never knew that it would be so hard to create a

          6        level playing field.  Some of these issues were -- I was

          7        familiar with and some of these issues came as a complete

          8        surprise to me.  I have always known that county property

          9        was immune from taxation, but when you get into the way

         10        that it works in the cities, in the individual cities and

         11        in our ports and seaports, it is extremely complex.

         12             So, it is amazing to me to learn that, as Florida

         13        strives to move forward to be a player in a global economy

         14        and compete in import and export with other countries,

         15        with the significant economy that we are here in Florida,

         16        that our gateways, that our gateways to the economy, the

         17        Orlando airport, Tampa seaport, the Tampa airport, Port

         18        Canaveral, our ports, and seaports and airports are all

         19        treated very differently, all treated very differently.

         20             You would think that as important as those entities

         21        are to our status in our economy, in our global economy,

         22        that they would be treated the same.

         23             But, no, we found out that, you know, that over time,

         24        that these entities had been treated differently,

         25        depending upon whether or not it was a county-owned port,


          1        county-owned airport, city-owned airport, city-owned port,

          2        or a special district that may have been created as a

          3        creature of the Legislature at a time to accommodate a

          4        particular public/private partnership to accomplish the

          5        importance of import and export and moving the commerce

          6        through this state.

          7             So, what we have attempted to do here is to create a

          8        level playing field.  And not only do we have to deal with

          9        those issues, the ports and seaports and cities, but there

         10        are a multiplicity of other special districts which are

         11        out there.  Now, I won't, you know, the health care

         12        industry, how would you try to explain, you know, whether

         13        the hospital, profit, nonprofit, city, county, nonprofit.

         14        We have a lot of hospitals that are out there.

         15             So, what we did with this proposed amendment is to

         16        answer two questions.  One, should government tax

         17        government?  And so we have answered that question by

         18        saying that we do not want to treat cities so

         19        fundamentally different than the way that we treat

         20        counties.  And the second thing is, can we create a level

         21        playing field among the various entities that exist within

         22        our economy to make us work together as one so that we are

         23        not competing Orlando versus Miami, Orlando versus Tampa,

         24        Orlando versus Jacksonville, and on and on, and this

         25        language does this.


          1             Instead of going through the process of fine-tuning

          2        and deciding what will be in and out, we created the

          3        language, and Senator Scott offered the amendment which

          4        will create this opportunity of a level playing field, so

          5        that the Legislature can decide what is the appropriate

          6        public purpose, what is the appropriate municipal purpose

          7        and decide how this will be done.  So, that is the purpose

          8        of the amendment.  Mr. Chairman, I would yield then to

          9        Commissioner Scott for the purpose of his amendment.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There's an amendment on the table

         11        by Commissioner Scott.  Amendment number one.  Would you

         12        read the amendment, please?

         13             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Scott, on Page 1,

         14        Line 19, delete the phrase "municipal or public" and

         15        insert "or municipal".  And on Page 1, Line 21, delete the

         16        phrase "governmental entity" and insert "municipality

         17        otherwise exempt from taxation or by special district".

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  All right.  Mr. Chairman,

         20        Commissioners, as Commissioner Anthony said, we have

         21        worked long and hard on this issue.  We had several

         22        competing ideas of how to address this from various

         23        interests around the state.  We have basically two

         24        proposals that come to the commission under the rules.

         25             This proposal was voted, I'm not sure -- it wasn't


          1        unanimous, but by an overwhelming majority of the Finance

          2        and Taxation Committee.  This amendment, what this

          3        amendment does is basically get this in the form that we

          4        feel it should be in.  And what it does is, she didn't

          5        read the whole thing, but it strikes the word, or public,

          6        in the first sentence, which would mandate what happens

          7        with municipal tax exemptions.

          8             And then in the second part of the amendment, it

          9        deletes the phrase, governmental entity.  Because the

         10        counties were concerned that that was ambiguous and it

         11        could affect their immunity which they now have.  So,

         12        instead, we put -- we inserted "municipal not otherwise

         13        exempt from taxation or by a special district".

         14             I did something a little unusual here.  We attached

         15        to it a handwritten, so that you could see, if you get the

         16        right amendment, you can see how it now reads with the --

         17        if you adopt this amendment how it would read.

         18             So, that's the reason there's two pages to the

         19        amendment, because we didn't want there to be a drafting

         20        problem if there were any other amendments.

         21             So simply, I would ask you to adopt this amendment

         22        that would then put this proposal in the form that the

         23        people who are supporting it, the commissioners who are

         24        supporting it and the majority of the committee feel it

         25        should be in.  And at that point, then we will, you know,


          1        be prepared.

          2             If anybody has any questions, I'll try to answer

          3        them.  But it does just what, it allows -- right now, the

          4        reason why do this at all, the Constitution says that we,

          5        because of some court decisions, this cannot be dealt with

          6        by statute.  And what this proposal does, essentially, is

          7        go forward and say, We are going to deal with this by

          8        statute.  It names airport and seaport, it includes

          9        municipalities, and it allows for a definition by general

         10        law of what a public purpose is.  And that's basically

         11        what the proposal is.

         12             So, I would ask that we adopt this amendment which

         13        would put the proposal in the form that the proponents

         14        feel that it should be in and then see what happens after

         15        that.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are on the

         17        amendment.  And would this require amending the title?

         18             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  No.  If it does, we can fix

         19        that.  I think it has "title amendment" written right on

         20        it.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It may have it right on it.

         22             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  It's on the bottom of it,

         23        Mr. Chairman, title amendment.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         25             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I move the amendment,


          1        Mr. Chairman.

          2             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Question.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith.

          4             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you.  Commissioner Scott,

          5        if we were in public hearing and a question was asked by

          6        common cause or some other citizen, what would be the

          7        fiscal impact of this, what would the appropriate response

          8        be?

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  The appropriate response would

         10        be that it would depend on the actions of the Legislature,

         11        which one of the reasons that the members felt we should

         12        do this is so they would be able to define public purpose

         13        by statute.

         14             We do not know, in a couple of counties, it was

         15        calculated, but we are actually not sure, but we don't

         16        think that it's anything huge like some of the other

         17        matters we have discussed here.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any other questions?  Ready to

         19        vote on the amendment?  This is the amendment now, number

         20        one.  And do you need that restated so that everybody is

         21        sure what they are voting on?  You are changing the words.

         22             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I just move the amendment

         23        because what it does is clarify that the county wouldn't

         24        be in the words governmental entity, and the other takes

         25        the words, for public purpose, and just leaves


          1        "governmental" and "municipal".

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Everybody in favor of the

          3        amendment, say yea.  Opposed?

          4             (Verbal vote taken.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's adopted.  The amendment is

          6        adopted.  There's another amendment on the table.  Number

          7        two.

          8             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Brochin, on Page 1,

          9        Line 21, delete, airport, seaport.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Read that again.

         11             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Brochin on Page 1,

         12        Line 21, delete, airport, seaport or.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin, you are

         14        recognized on your amendment.

         15             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  This amendment strikes the

         16        words from this proposal airport and seaport.  Let me make

         17        two observations first.  One is that when we are talking

         18        about a level playing field, there's two concepts of a

         19        level playing field, one would be this one which is

         20        dealing with the municipalities and special districts

         21        being put on a level playing field with the county and

         22        then we'll also be speaking about level playing fields of

         23        public entities competing with proprietary interests.  And

         24        I think it's important to know on whose court you are

         25        playing before you make an analysis of this.


          1             This proposal that has been offered through the

          2        committee, its purpose as I understand it is to allow the

          3        municipalities and the special districts a level playing

          4        field with the already-exempt counties.  And that's okay,

          5        but if you are going to permit the Legislature to do that,

          6        that's exactly what we ought to do, and the words, airport

          7        and seaport, should come out of the language and we should

          8        let the Legislature, which is probably the appropriate

          9        place to decide what exemptions, if any, may be granted.

         10             So I largely put this in here for constitutional

         11        purposes and submit to you that using words like airport

         12        and seaport as being, per se, constitutionally somehow

         13        defined as a public purpose is not correct, and not good

         14        constitutional revision.

         15             I would also suggest to you, one of the reasons we

         16        took 12 hours to go through this and 45 hours outside to

         17        go through it is that it's not an inherently

         18        constitutional issue that we can absorb, decide, and

         19        conclude, for example, that an airport or a seaport should

         20        be somehow exempt, either mandatory or permissive, which,

         21        in my opinion, the language that they have here makes it

         22        very vague.

         23             Indeed, if you read it carefully, one could very much

         24        argue that under this language a public purpose would not

         25        be necessary to exempt an airport or seaport because the


          1        word "or" is used.

          2             Nevertheless, that's not the main reason I think it's

          3        appropriate.  The reason I think it's appropriate is that

          4        airport and seaport should come out.  If airport and

          5        seaport is a public purpose, which indeed I think it is,

          6        then the Legislature is granted the permission by this

          7        constitutional amendment to define it as a public purpose

          8        and tell us exactly what airport, what type of seaports

          9        are public purposes and therefore should be exempt from

         10        the tax roll.

         11             So, I'm not suggesting that an airport or a seaport

         12        is not a public purpose, indeed I've got a stack of

         13        information that everybody gives me that says it is, and I

         14        believe them that it is.  But I would urge you to let the

         15        Legislature work that out.  I would urge you to take words

         16        that are unnecessary, and I would argue, very vague and

         17        very ambiguous out and let the thing stand for what it is,

         18        and that is to allow municipalities or special districts

         19        not otherwise immune to be exempted by the Legislature as

         20        defined by general law.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

         22             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, to oppose

         23        Commissioner Brochin's amendment.  When we make tax

         24        policy, whether it is in the Constitution or whether it is

         25        in the statutes, the first question has got to be, what is


          1        the public purpose being served.  And the other day on the

          2        floor Commissioner Thompson quoted former Governor Wayne

          3        Mixon about the three-legged stool, the economy of

          4        Florida, which he referred to as agriculture, construction

          5        and tourism.

          6             Well, I would submit to you that the folks that read

          7        this transcript in 20 years are going to say, well, if it

          8        was three-legged, and it's still three-legged, there is at

          9        least a fourth leg, and that fourth leg may be number one,

         10        that being trade.  It's already an $85 billion industry,

         11        it's going to be a $205 billion industry.

         12             Florida is at the crossroads of the Americas.  And we

         13        are competing not with just Georgia but with the rest of

         14        the world.  And I would suggest to you, recognizing the

         15        importance of airports and seaports in the international

         16        economy in the Constitution is exactly the right thing to

         17        do.  It leaves to the Legislature the specifics of it, as

         18        Commissioner Brochin acknowledges is a public purpose, the

         19        Legislature will do a fine job of that.

         20             But I sincerely believe when people look back on what

         21        this commission does, the development of the new industry

         22        for Florida is really trade.  What is our advantage, 14

         23        ports, the international airports that we have.  We need

         24        to make the most out of that.

         25             And a final component of that, which is in the large


          1        public interest, all of those other legs of the stool, one

          2        of the other things that we hope they do is generate jobs.

          3             And when those other legs of the stool generate jobs

          4        at the lowest level, most of those other legs of the stool

          5        generate minimum wage jobs, trade generates a higher

          6        level, trade to the extent that we promote it, generates

          7        more higher paying jobs than any of these other areas.  It

          8        is a fine public policy statement to say that we want to

          9        single out airports and seaports for encouragement in our

         10        public policy.

         11             And one of the ways that we encourage things in

         12        public policies is exemptions, and we exempt lots of

         13        things.  We exempt and have reductions for agricultural

         14        use, we have exemptions and reductions for historic use.

         15        We have a lot of public policy statements.  I think this

         16        public policy statement is, trade through our emblems and

         17        through our primary arteries of airports and seaports is a

         18        good public policy statement.  And I would suggest to you,

         19        we need to defeat this amendment.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,

         22        first of all, I want to second what Commissioner Mills

         23        said about the importance of the ports and airports to

         24        this state.  I mean, the ports, for example, are a huge

         25        economic engine for this state for now and in the future.


          1             But I want to also make a point to say that what this

          2        does is just say, all property owned by municipalities or

          3        special taxing districts used for airport purposes,

          4        seaport purposes or other public purposes, because those

          5        two words really modify the words' purposes, so we really

          6        don't have a -- we are not sure what else, hospital

          7        districts, as Commissioner Henderson mentioned, and maybe

          8        others, but that's going to be for the Legislature to

          9        define.

         10             And so we felt strongly that this was important to

         11        mention this, it does equalize for certain ports that,

         12        regardless of who owns them, whether they happen to be

         13        county-owned, as in the case of Fort Everglades, or Tampa

         14        as a special district, it equalizes that.  So, I would

         15        urge you to defeat this amendment and let's go ahead with

         16        the proposal.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, I have a

         18        question that I'm not sure I understand.  And I think I

         19        do, but I would appreciate your telling me because there

         20        may be somebody else that's as confused like me with all

         21        of the different things that we have been told.  Does this

         22        allow any airport authority or port authority, no matter

         23        how they are structured, either as part of the city or the

         24        county or a special district or authority to all have the

         25        same treatment?


          1             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That is correct.  The same as

          2        whether, basically, as the county airports.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, it would put all of the

          4        seaports and airports on the same footing?

          5             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Yes, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No matter how they were owned?

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That's correct.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I mean, they are public bodies.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right.  And what he wants to do

         10        is take out airport and seaport.  And the committee felt

         11        that, the majority felt like it should be left in because

         12        it does state the airport purposes and seaport purposes.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, this means there's no

         14        distinction then between those independent governmental

         15        bodies and municipally-owned.

         16             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  And county-owned.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And county-owned, very good.

         18        Commissioner Nabors is next.  And you are next,

         19        Commissioner Hawkes.

         20             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, briefly, and reluctantly,

         21        I would like to, because this is Commissioner Brochin,

         22        speak against the amendment.  And the reason is a lot of

         23        us have worked on this a long time, in the committee and

         24        afterwards.  And the reason, in addition to the public

         25        policy reasons to include airport and seaports is the


          1        practical reason, is they are the one governmental use

          2        that's so intertwined with private activities by their

          3        nature.

          4             In order to be competitive they inevitably are

          5        involved in these private activities.  And it's in the

          6        area where the greatest concern is, that this

          7        constitutional amendment is attempting to occur.  So, I

          8        think it's very appropriate they be included in the

          9        language.  And also, you have got to recall, it's still up

         10        to the Legislature to define the scope of that definition

         11        in the legislation that implements the exemption.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Hawkes.

         13             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  I just rise to speak in favor

         14        of this amendment.  I'll tell you that this proposal,

         15        obviously, is not a proposal that I think promotes public

         16        policy.  First of all, I would state that this doesn't

         17        level the playing field automatically between county

         18        seaports and municipal or special district seaports or

         19        airports, because all this does is allow the Legislature

         20        to create an exemption for these municipal or special

         21        district airports where the county airports are

         22        automatically immune no matter what they do, no matter

         23        what they own, no matter what they buy, it's immune and

         24        therefore it would never be subject to taxation under any

         25        circumstance.  This allows the Legislature to go in.


          1             And I would -- I would also ask you to ask yourself,

          2        why are we putting this in the Constitution, this

          3        language, airports and seaports?  We have told the

          4        Legislature, if this proposal is adopted by the people of

          5        the State of Florida, that you can go in and for any

          6        government-owned property that's not used by a

          7        governmental entity at all, you can create an exemption if

          8        you think it promotes public policy because you define

          9        public policy, okay?

         10             So, obviously the airports and seaports can come in

         11        and make their arguments to the Legislature and I imagine

         12        they can be very successful and very persuasive because

         13        they have certainly shown their ability to get their

         14        message out to at least this body and I'm sure they can do

         15        the same with the Legislature.

         16             But I would also ask you to question, where's the

         17        abuse.  Do we have a seaport in Florida that's on the

         18        verge of -- that's having a hard time, that's had a court

         19        case come out that's been incredibly unfair and adverse,

         20        and seems completely contrary to public policy?

         21             And I would submit to you that the cases where the

         22        courts come out and say, This is taxable, is the cases

         23        like the private country club in Tallahassee where the

         24        Supreme Court says, just because the city of Tallahassee

         25        owns the property, the fact that they lease out a private


          1        country club to somebody else who has members and can keep

          2        out who they want, you know, that looks like it ought to

          3        be taxable.

          4             And in every case that holds government-owned by

          5        non-governmental used property taxable, I would submit is

          6        a case that, if you were looking at it from a matter of

          7        public policy, you would agree with.  The ticket counters

          8        in the airport, they are leased out, but they are exempt,

          9        no one makes those taxable.  What we are talking about in

         10        this is when the airport leases out a space for McDonald's

         11        or TGI Fridays or something like that, they lease that

         12        private business space out, and the courts have said, in

         13        essence, that that's probably taxable.  And that's what

         14        you are being asked to do here.

         15             But also, and I would question Commissioner Brochin's

         16        comment where he said that it may not even be necessary to

         17        show public purpose, I think that that's probably a

         18        correct reading of the pure language when he said that.

         19        But if you go a little bit further, in other words, we are

         20        going to the exempt airport, seaport for public purposes

         21        as defined by general law.  And, not only these good

         22        purposes, and uses incidental thereto.

         23             So, we have a public purpose, supposedly defined by

         24        the Legislature, and then something that's incidental to

         25        that is also exempt.  So as soon as the Legislature


          1        creates an exemption, anything that's incidental to that

          2        is also -- so, I would ask you to support the amendment.

          3        The amendment makes that proposal at least fundamentally

          4        sound from the constitutional perspective and keeps this

          5        on a pure constitutional level and not an artificial

          6        level.

          7             And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for your

          8        favorable consideration of the amendment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment that's here is

         10        Commissioner Brochin's amendment?

         11             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Right.  I like Commissioner

         12        Brochin's amendment.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are supporting it.

         14             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  No special mention of airports

         15        and seaports.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I understand.  Commissioner

         17        Henderson.

         18             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  In opposition of the

         19        amendment.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proceed.

         21             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  On two issues that have been

         22        raised that I want to address in opposition.  First to

         23        Commissioner Brochin, in a perfect world, I would agree

         24        with you that there's probably no need to mention ports

         25        and seaports because hopefully we would all agree that


          1        that's an appropriate governmental purpose and we

          2        shouldn't be in this argument.

          3             The reality of it is, is that it is the pressures

          4        that have been based upon or ports and seaports in

          5        different ways is what has brought this, that's the

          6        pressure that's brought us to this discussion today.

          7             We need, as Commissioner Mills says, a single policy,

          8        a single level playing field with regard to the way we

          9        treat our ports and seaports.  We should not run the risks

         10        of having policy that is the result of 67 different

         11        property appraisers.  And that is the risk that we are

         12        running now.

         13             I have also noted that I -- I don't know who coined

         14        the word, I think I heard Commissioner Barnett use it

         15        earlier.  I think that's part of the argument, is perhaps

         16        we shouldn't constitutionalize the terms port and seaport.

         17        And I've learned that they have already been

         18        constitutionalized, indeed, in Article VII, Section 10, on

         19        pledging credit with bonds, there's reference to airport

         20        and port facilities.  So the terms are already there.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith.

         22             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want

         23        to pose a question to Commissioner Mills because of all

         24        the discussion I have heard so far, his was the most

         25        persuasive to me until I heard Commissioner Hawkes'


          1        example.

          2             I believe that trying to promote trade, especially

          3        being from Miami, you talk about gateway to the Americas,

          4        we are right there at the gate.  And so -- but I don't

          5        see, or please explain to me why you think a McDonald's or

          6        a TGI Fridays or Smith Ice Cream Shop at the airport in

          7        some way promotes trade.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

          9             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, there may be some

         10        other people who have some direct remembrance of a couple

         11        of these cases.  The response to that is I think that's

         12        already the law.  That the courts have found that in the

         13        location of a restaurant in an airport, if the underlying

         14        ground is exempt -- and perhaps I should do a Frank

         15        Morsani and call on Justice Kogan to talk about the case,

         16        was it your opinion?

         17             (Off-the-record comment by Commissioner Kogan.)

         18             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  As I recall, and there may be

         19        somebody else that has a better recollection, but the

         20        issue of public purpose for something such as a restaurant

         21        depends on where it is located.  And there has been

         22        interpretations that if it is at an airport facility, the

         23        absence of anyplace to buy food would be a problem in

         24        international commerce, in other words, the existence of

         25        certain types of functions.


          1             Now as I recall this case, and someone else may

          2        recall it more specifically, that it said such functions

          3        as a hotel at the airport was a public purpose.  And

          4        frankly when you talk about public purpose, in terms of

          5        definitions, you go back to tourism.  I don't mean to jump

          6        too much, but the definition of public purpose as it

          7        relates to tourism and the issuance of bonds goes all the

          8        way to anything remotely close to Disney.

          9             I mean, we have cases, those of you -- I think

         10        Commissioner Nabors actually probably did the case that

         11        said a Motel 6 that was close to Disney was a public

         12        purpose because it helped promote tourism.  So if what we

         13        are talking about is what we have determined a public

         14        purpose to be in this state for purposes of assisting

         15        certain generally-accepted public purposes such as

         16        tourism, it has been pretty broad.  And Commissioner

         17        Nabors may recall that case.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes.

         19             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  And in part answer to

         20        Commissioner Smith's question, I think that the point here

         21        is that in Miami at the Miami Airport, if they lease out a

         22        McDonald's, for example, that is immune from taxation.  In

         23        other words, it is county.

         24             In Orlando, you have the land owned by the city but I

         25        think it is a special district.  But if Orlando leases out


          1        a McDonald's it is not immune from taxation.  And this

          2        simply would give the Legislature the authority to, if the

          3        Legislature decided to, to even it up.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Is a bar a public purpose?

          5             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Depends on which airline you

          6        fly.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Depends on which airline you fly.

          8             (Laughter.)

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  As I understood his explanation,

         10        we could claim that any motel was a public purpose whether

         11        it was owned by anybody.  I don't think that was what he

         12        meant.  All right.  Commissioner Nabors.

         13             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Commissioner Smith, I want to

         14        ask a question to Commissioner Scott which goes to the

         15        issue that you are concerned about.

         16             Commissioner Scott, as I understand the status of the

         17        law currently is is that for purposes of taxation there

         18        are really two interests in governmental property.  There

         19        is the leasehold interest and then there is the fee

         20        interest or the interest in the land itself which is

         21        governmental.

         22             There is also, as I understand it, each of those can

         23        be taxed separately.  As I understand the law currently is

         24        is that as to the leasehold interest, the private

         25        leasehold interest in governmental property, current law,


          1        general law allows if the lease is over a certain period

          2        of time it's taxed as if, the leasehold interest is taxed

          3        as if owned, and if it has a term of less than a certain

          4        period of time, it is taxed at an intangible rate; is that

          5        correct?

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That's correct and it is not the

          8        intent here to in any way change that.  In other words,

          9        the leasehold interest is still taxable either as an

         10        intangible or whatever the current law is.  It is the

         11        underlying property that we are talking about.

         12             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  So the point is from the

         13        constitutional standpoint this still preserves the right

         14        of the Legislature, Florida Legislature, to tax the holder

         15        of that leasehold either an ad valorem or intangible rate

         16        depending upon their discretion.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on the amendment which is

         18        to eliminate the words airport and seaport, as I

         19        understand it.  That's the, that's what we are on.  We are

         20        not on the main proposal.  And you want to speak to the

         21        amendment, Commissioner?  I said I would recognize

         22        Commissioner Evans-Jones unless you were going to answer a

         23        question.

         24             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         25        I am in favor of Commissioner Brochin's amendment and I


          1        wanted to ask this question.  The Canaveral ruling was in

          2        part based on the court's determination that special

          3        districts is an independent special district and not part

          4        of state government and therefore not immune from

          5        taxation.

          6             And the court stated, accordingly, we find that only

          7        the state and those entities which are expressly

          8        recognized in the Florida Constitution as performing a

          9        function of the state comprise the state, and so forth.

         10             So they said no rational basis exists for exempting

         11        from ad valorem taxation on a commercial establishment

         12        operated by the Cape Canaveral Port Authority property

         13        where similar establishment located near but not on the

         14        CPA property is not exempt.

         15             So if we don't put, if we don't delete this, is this

         16        going to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on this?

         17        Is that what we are concerned about?  And as you know, the

         18        next bill that's coming up is going to try to level the

         19        playing field so that the immunity is taken away from the

         20        county as well so that we will have a perfectly even

         21        playing field.  And to me, people who are in business to

         22        make money, and we are talking about a lot of money,

         23        should have an even playing field.

         24             So I just wonder what does this do to this decision?

         25        You attorneys will have to help me out.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll start with Commissioner

          2        Scott.

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I may not be enough attorney to

          4        hurt or help anymore, but let me just point out to you

          5        that this, I forget the details of that case and it is

          6        true that Commissioner Evans-Jones and Commissioner Hawkes

          7        have a proposal that will be coming up that was not voted

          8        favorably by the committee that it goes in really an

          9        opposite direction but attempts to take away the county's

         10        immunity.

         11             But this points out, seaports, one of the reasons we

         12        need to name ports and airports is that in a port, let's

         13        just -- the people that load the cargo are private

         14        companies, perhaps.  People that operate the cranes, the

         15        stevedores and I forget all the lingo, the port pilots

         16        that take, all these people perform port functions.  But

         17        they are not performed by the government that owns it or

         18        the entity that owns it.

         19             So that's why we want to especially name them and we

         20        just want to make clear ports and airports, and that's why

         21        we oppose this amendment of Commissioner Brochin.  And we

         22        will have a chance to discuss the other proposal which

         23        goes in kind of an opposite direction at that time.

         24             But on this amendment, the committee, this was

         25        brought up at the committee a number of times and


          1        discussed and rediscussed and debated and whatever and we

          2        felt that we should leave these words in.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now Commissioner

          4        Riley.

          5             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  May I ask a question of

          6        Commissioner Scott?

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

          8             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  As it is written, I want to get

          9        back to the Ruby Tuesday's at the airport because I

         10        understand that real well as a commercial landlord.  The

         11        way it is written, airport purposes and seaport purposes

         12        as defined by general law, does that mean then that the

         13        Legislature could in fact define those purposes as

         14        including your people that you were talking about, but not

         15        including the retail stores and the restaurants that -- I

         16        mean, let's face it, that's a great place to be if you

         17        have got no place else to eat.  So it is not bad real

         18        estate.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Which is the reason --

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  -- that part of this proposal is

         22        "as defined by general law" so that case-by-case

         23        inequities if they exist or distinctions between functions

         24        can be made by the Legislature.  And that's why the

         25        committee has structured this in this way.


          1             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  And the Legislature has

          2        currently defined it to include those other retail type

          3        businesses.  As I understand it.

          4             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I don't think so, I'm not sure

          5        about that, whatever they have done or haven't done.  But

          6        here is the point, this is a chance for us to get this out

          7        of the Constitution and into the Legislature where we can

          8        refine it.  Also, where the fiscal impact, as Commissioner

          9        Smith brought up, could be considered.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Another question?

         11             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Would Commissioner Scott yield

         12        for a question?  In response to Commissioner Evans-Jones'

         13        proposal and question, I understand there are two ways to

         14        level the playing field.  I just want to make clear that

         15        everybody understands the distinction.  This proposal to

         16        level the playing field provides some exemptions for these

         17        public purposes.  The other way to level the playing field

         18        is to raise taxes to all come to an even playing field;

         19        isn't that correct?

         20             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I would say this, the other way

         21        is to take away the county immunity for all the ports

         22        which would be detrimental.  In other words, it would be--

         23             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It would be coming up.

         24             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  It would be coming up.  It would

         25        be raising taxes and that's one of our concerns here is


          1        they have got to compete internationally and interstate

          2        with New Orleans, with other places.  And believe me, time

          3        and again we have had discussed in the Legislature at home

          4        in Port Everglades, for example, in Miami about the

          5        problems that they have competing.

          6             That's why we want to make clear that they are being

          7        treated equally.  They will all be, regardless of whether

          8        they are owned by a special district or a municipality or

          9        a county they will all be basically created the same.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mathis.

         11             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Anything other than clearly

         12        defining ports and airports as exempt doesn't level the

         13        playing field, it cripples the state and puts us at a

         14        competitive disadvantage.  We are not competing amongst

         15        one another, but currently right now we are competing

         16        between whether a municipality owns an airport or whether

         17        a county owns an airport.

         18             And it is my contention that that shouldn't even

         19        factor into the decision as to whether or not to construct

         20        an airport or a port.  That airports and ports serve this

         21        state, build our competition internationally.  And if some

         22        little small coastal town wants to build a port and they

         23        feel like there is a market, they should not have to

         24        decide whether they want it to be a special district or

         25        whether they want it to be county owned or whether they


          1        want it to be city owned because that port or that airport

          2        has regional impact, not just countywide.

          3             And so I suggest to you that this amendment cripples

          4        our state and puts us at a competitive disadvantage

          5        globally.  And that is what we need as a state.

          6             By clearly defining ports and airports, we move from

          7        the discussion whether or not a county owns it, whether or

          8        not a city owns it, whether or not a special district owns

          9        it, and we move further toward the discussion of where

         10        will it help Florida be competitive.

         11             So I say let's stand -- let's let this state stand on

         12        two legs and compete in the global market by keeping the

         13        clear definition of ports and airports, our windows to

         14        international commerce, open and to clearly define that

         15        those functions that are part of airports and ports are to

         16        be exempt.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         18        Evans-Jones you were up.  Did you have anything further?

         19             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  I guess I was just asking,

         20        I had been told that if we passed this we will wipe out 60

         21        years of case law.  I am not an attorney and I don't know

         22        whether make that's a good idea or a bad idea.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I don't know that we will, but

         24        the people that voted for it might.  We are on the

         25        amendment at the moment, not on the proposal.  We are on


          1        Amendment No. 1.  And we will now vote on Amendment No. 1

          2        -- No. 2, excuse me, No. 1 was Commissioner Scott's.  This

          3        is Commissioner Brochin's Amendment No. 2 that's been

          4        filed and you have another one after this, I understand.

          5             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I'd like to close on this.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Beg your pardon?

          7             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I'd like to close on it.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Absolutely, you can close.  I

          9        forgot you, you have been so quiet through all this.

         10             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I opened and then I'll close.

         11             I really want to emphasize that this amendment

         12        probably has nothing to do with all the reasons that most

         13        of the people said for or against.  Let's be somewhat

         14        intellectually honest about this.  This amendment permits

         15        the Legislature to exempt.

         16             If you want to make a policy purpose that airports

         17        and seaports are the economic engines, which again I don't

         18        disagree, then change the word from "may" to "shall."

         19        What this proposal was supposed to do was to say to the

         20        Legislature, if it is owned by a governmental entity and

         21        it is used for public purposes, Legislature, you may, you

         22        may exempt it from taxation.  And you may define what a

         23        public purpose is.

         24             I bring you this amendment in the spirit of the fact

         25        that we are writing a Constitution and we are not trying


          1        to make public policy and legislate in 1998 that an

          2        airport, a seaport, a hospital or any other public purpose

          3        at this moment in time is appropriate for the

          4        Constitution.

          5             The reason I bring it is to say it is consistent with

          6        the language of the Constitution by leveling the playing

          7        field for municipalities and special taxing districts to

          8        go to the Legislature and all this Constitution will say

          9        is you have got two things; one, it is owned by a

         10        governmental entity, and two, it is used for public

         11        purposes.

         12             You, the Legislature, can tell us if the airports and

         13        the seaports are the economic engines of this state.  You,

         14        the Legislature, can carve out whether the McDonald's or

         15        the cargo place is a public purpose.  What we want to do

         16        constitutionally is simply set the framework and in that

         17        framework we say governmental entity and public purposes.

         18        If it doesn't meet that, then it would be constitutionally

         19        infirm.  If it does meet that, then it is constitutionally

         20        permissive.

         21             If you read this carefully the way it is written,

         22        airport and seaport are redundant, they don't need to be

         23        in there, they know it.  And I suggest that it comes out

         24        in the spirit that we are trying to set the framework for

         25        the next 20 years and not sort of dictate or send messages


          1        as to which of these particular public purposes may be

          2        exempt.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Having closed on the

          4        amendment, open the machine and we will cast the vote.

          5             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce the

          7        vote.

          8             READING CLERK:  Eight yeas, 22 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now we have another amendment on

         10        the table by Commissioner Brochin.  Would you read it

         11        please?

         12             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Brochin, on Page 1,

         13        Line 22, delete, and uses that are not -- and uses that

         14        are incidental thereto.

         15             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  This will take less explaining

         16        and probably go with the same success.  Again, I would say

         17        that what this amendment does is strike the words

         18        "incidental uses thereto."  And, again, I found it vague,

         19        ambiguous language.  If you are going to level the playing

         20        field and allow a governmental entity who is doing it for

         21        a public purpose to be exempt by the Legislature, so be

         22        it, a concept I would support.

         23             But someone has to explain then what incidental uses

         24        thereto are and therefore what right or what guidance we

         25        are putting in the Constitution for the Legislature to


          1        actually now permissively again exempt not only uses for

          2        public purposes, but uses that are somehow, quote,

          3        incidental, end quote, thereto, a term that I'm not

          4        familiar with in legalese or constitutional structure in

          5        terms of being a permissive tax structure that are related

          6        or incidentally related thereto.

          7             And therefore to make it a clean proposal, and one

          8        that puts in a very nice sense what the Legislature can do

          9        and determine I would suggest the words come out.  And

         10        that's what the amendment does.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The word what?

         12             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  The words "and uses that are

         13        incidental thereto."  Let me read it in whole, All

         14        property owned by a governmental entity, and still, and

         15        used for airport, seaport or public purposes as defined by

         16        general law may be exempted from taxation.

         17             I can't emphasize enough the word "may" in there.

         18        And Commissioner Scott is right, if there was a consensus

         19        at the Finance and Tax Committee meeting it was that the

         20        Legislature should handle this.  This is something that is

         21        very appropriate for them to handle in terms of making a

         22        decision.

         23             And we were convinced that to make that decision we

         24        had to give them the permissive language that essentially

         25        dealt with the case law so they would have the permissive


          1        language in the Constitution.  That part I think is a good

          2        idea.

          3             The part I do object, like the airport and seaport,

          4        is it should be a general permissive language with as

          5        little criteria as possible, but criteria that is critical

          6        to their analysis.  And, again, that is that it is owned

          7        by a governmental entity and it is used for public

          8        purposes.  When you, to borrow a term from yesterday, junk

          9        up the Constitution with language like "uses incidental

         10        thereto," I think it is the wrong thing to do and I think

         11        it ought to be a lot clearer and simpler.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner -- which one of you

         13        guys wants to go first?  You do, all right.  Commissioner

         14        Scott, you seem to be ramroding this thing.

         15             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, and thanks to the

         16        assignment you gave me as chairman of this committee, not

         17        by volunteer, necessarily.

         18             In any event, we need to have this in here because it

         19        allows the flexibility that we need for the Legislature to

         20        deal with specifics regarding any particular inequity, if

         21        you take the point of view of Commissioner Evans-Jones.

         22             The Black's Law Dictionary says an incidental use is

         23        a use depending upon or pertaining to something else as

         24        primary, something necessary pertaining to or depending

         25        upon another which is principle.


          1             And I think that clearly gives the -- you know, it

          2        does give authority, but that's the purpose here.  We

          3        don't want to be back here, or not be back but in two

          4        years find out that we, somebody says that we didn't do

          5        this to give enough authority to the Legislature.  And

          6        that's the whole purpose of it.  And there may be -- I

          7        will tell you if you sat through the 12 hours in committee

          8        and plus all of the written and whatever --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I can't hear you.

         10             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  You can go to any particular

         11        thing and it is very complicated.  And that's the purpose

         12        here is that committees in the Legislature would have a

         13        chance to sort out and handle whatever is necessary to

         14        handle this and to make the level playing field.  And

         15        that's the purpose of the majority of the committee and

         16        the people supporting this.

         17             So I would ask you not to adopt Commissioner

         18        Brochin's amendment and leave it as it is so that we

         19        can -- that the Legislature can deal with this as

         20        necessary.  And that's the whole thing.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  A question for Commissioner

         23        Scott please if he yields.

         24             Commissioner Scott, we all relate to our localities

         25        where we come from.  Surrounding the Dade County Airport,


          1        which is government owned, are a tremendous amount of

          2        rental companies, automobile rental companies that have

          3        real property.  There is no question that they are an

          4        incidental use to that airport.  Would they then be

          5        permitted to be exempt from taxation?

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I really don't have any idea.  I

          7        guess it would depend on --

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'm hearing from Commissioner

          9        Lowndes that he said that they are not owned.  If that's

         10        going to be the criteria that they must be owned, I think

         11        this language needs to be cleared up a little bit.

         12             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  What do you mean "owned," by the

         13        government?

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yeah.  As I understand his

         15        explanation in my right ear is that only property that's

         16        owned by the government will be exempt.  Therefore I don't

         17        know why you need the incidental thereto because it is

         18        already owned then.  I thought the incidental thereto

         19        related to the primary use as you defined it just a moment

         20        ago by the government agency.

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner Barkdull, this use,

         22        it says, "uses incidental thereto."  It has nothing to do

         23        with other property.  It is only the government property

         24        that we are talking about to begin with.  And I have no

         25        idea about Dade County, but it would not affect property


          1        that's not owned by the government.

          2             And then if it is a leasehold, as Commissioner Nabors

          3        as our discourse explained, the leasehold would be taxable

          4        either as an intangible or otherwise, depending on the

          5        length of it.  But this is not in any way, you know, to

          6        expand anything beyond government property because that's

          7        what it modifies.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's what I thought you

          9        meant, but the definition you read to us just a minute ago

         10        about incidental use was incident to the primary use.  And

         11        that's what concerns me.

         12             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  But it is property that we are

         13        talking about, use of the government-owned property.  I

         14        don't know why I read that.  Somebody looked it up here so

         15        it would give me something -- but the fact is we need the

         16        discretion in the Legislature to do this.  That's the

         17        conclusion that we came to.

         18             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman?

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg.

         20             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  For a question.

         21             Commissioner Scott, let me go back to Commissioner

         22        Barkdull's hypothetical.  Well I have two for you.  Let's

         23        take his first.  National Car Rental doesn't own, let's

         24        say -- and let's put it in a municipality because that's

         25        what we are dealing with here.


          1             The Hialeah International Airport has car leasing

          2        facilities around it.  The property is owned by the City

          3        of Hialeah, but is leased to National, Avis, whatever the

          4        others are to provide rental cars for passengers utilizing

          5        that airport.

          6             Isn't the use of that property -- it is owned by the

          7        City of Hialeah, it may be leased but it is owned by the

          8        City of Hialeah, and it is used for a purpose incidental

          9        to the operation of the airport.

         10             The second hypothetical, let's go back, was it

         11        Friday's, TGI Friday's or something?  In the Hialeah

         12        Airport terminal building, and it certainly is incidental

         13        and surely the bar in there is incidental to the operation

         14        of that airport because people have to steel themselves

         15        before they get on those airplanes.  And, hence, why is

         16        that not incidental to an incidental use to the airport,

         17        the public purpose there?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, to be honest with

         20        you, we do not know -- I do not personally know but I

         21        think maybe Commissioner Nabors could help us out on this.

         22        This has never been, this question was not asked or in any

         23        way brought up by anyone.  So I would defer to

         24        Commissioner Nabors.

         25             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  But does it suggest the


          1        reason why Commissioner Brochin's amendment might be

          2        appropriate?

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Let's ask Commissioner Nabors.

          4             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Is Commissioner Brochin's

          5        amendment appropriate?

          6             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I am not voting for

          7        Commissioner Brochin's amendment therefore it is obviously

          8        not appropriate.

          9             (Laughter.)

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me tell you why.  What this

         11        means to me is that if you had -- let me give you your

         12        example of the rental car.

         13             If the off-site rental car agency was on private

         14        property, obviously, even though it is incidental, it

         15        would still be fully taxable.  Let's make sure everybody

         16        understands that.  But let's say that it is, that the

         17        property is off site but it is owned by the airport

         18        authority and it is leased to a rental car agency to do

         19        off-site rental car uses.

         20             The Legislature would have to make a determination as

         21        to whether they thought that was incidental to the airport

         22        or not.  If it made that determination, what it would mean

         23        is the fee simple, the fee simple, the government's

         24        interest in that would not be taxable but the leasehold

         25        interest would be taxable.


          1             It would be taxable either at -- current law it would

          2        be taxable at the intangible rate but it could be taxed at

          3        the ad valorem rate.  It depends on what the Legislature

          4        made the decision to do, but it is a separate estate that

          5        would be taxable.

          6             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Commissioner --

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg.

          8             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  -- Commissioner Nabors, you

          9        are absolutely right on the current state of the law.  My

         10        problem is it says uses may be exempted and it doesn't

         11        talk about the quality of title in the property.  All it

         12        says is so long as the property is owned by one of these

         13        governmental entities, then those incidental uses can be

         14        exempt.

         15             And so as I say, I don't know why the quality or the

         16        dignity of the title to that property, whether it is in

         17        fee simple or a lease or for a term of years has anything

         18        to do with this incidental use language.

         19             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  That could be the case today

         20        under current language with immune property, too.  The

         21        Legislature could decide not to tax the leasehold

         22        interest.

         23             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Absolutely.

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  That's the case of the state of

         25        the law now.  That's always going to be a consequence.


          1        The Legislature -- when you and I were young and limber in

          2        the '80s the Legislature used to tax these leasehold

          3        interests at the ad valorem rate.

          4             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Yes, they did.

          5             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Now they tax them basically if

          6        they are below 100 years at the intangible rate.  And so

          7        the Legislature has always got the ability to make these

          8        kind of choices and I would argue that this doesn't really

          9        affect that ability.  It's just the fact that it expands

         10        it to cities -- I mean, to cities and special districts

         11        just like counties have it now in the state.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Lowndes,

         13        Commissioner Riley I believe was up first.

         14             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I have a question for

         15        Commissioner Nabors.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

         17             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  If the phrase in this "as

         18        defined by general law" were after "incidental thereto,"

         19        Then I would agree with you.

         20             So my question is, as I read it, because it comes

         21        after the general law phrase then general law is not going

         22        to define what incidental is.  And that concerns me.  Now

         23        I would be comfortable with it -- and of course I have a

         24        great depth of knowledge, of course, that started on the

         25        16th of June, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as I


          1        understand it, the way it is written, it doesn't mean what

          2        you are saying.  Am I understanding it correctly?

          3             So that if you were to take general law and put it

          4        after incidental, then the Legislature could define what

          5        incidental is.  And if you don't, it means anything that

          6        anybody wants it to mean.

          7             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  The only thing I can say in

          8        terms of the record is it is the intent of everybody

          9        involved is that the question of whether it is incidental

         10        or not is also within the authority of the Legislature to

         11        define.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think, Commissioner Riley, the

         13        Education Committee was giving you a grammar lesson.  It

         14        didn't have anything to do with the merits, necessarily.

         15        Is that right, Commissioner Riley?  You think

         16        grammatically it doesn't say that?

         17             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I don't know about grammar, but

         18        I can tell you about in terms of what I understand the

         19        purpose of this to do that it doesn't do what Commissioner

         20        Nabors said it does.  And so in that respect, as far as

         21        the English part of it we better move it around or it is

         22        not going to do that.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Lowndes.

         24             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I had a better comment before

         25        I heard Commissioner Riley.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now it got to be a different one.

          2             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.  I think

          3        Commissioner Riley is probably right, it should really be

          4        reversed because I think it would read better and be less

          5        apt to be misinterpreted.

          6             But I think the intention is -- I served long and

          7        hard on this committee -- and the intention was to leave

          8        these decisions up to the Legislature.  And the reason the

          9        term incidental uses was in there was so that the

         10        Legislature could decide which incidental uses should be

         11        exempt and which incidental uses should not be exempt.

         12        Leaving the term in there doesn't determine that.  It is

         13        up to the Legislature to determine that.  And that was the

         14        intent.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now we are on

         16        Commissioner Brochin's amendment.  You have the right to

         17        close.  Commissioner Brochin, you are recognized to close.

         18             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I just want to take this

         19        opportunity to reiterate this point:  The playing fields

         20        we are talking about is this proposal, underlying proposal

         21        is to allow municipalities and special districts to,

         22        quote, get on a level playing field with the county who is

         23        immune by case law, essentially.  It is a good idea and I

         24        would like to vote for that idea, but we still leave this

         25        language that's mucking it up.


          1             Commissioner Evans-Jones is going to come forward

          2        along with Commissioner Hawkes and they are going to talk

          3        about leveling the playing field between all of now these

          4        public entities that have an exemption, including now the

          5        municipalities and the taxing district, to make them more

          6        competitive with the neighbors who have a proprietary

          7        interest.  I happen to think that's a good idea.

          8             And the reason Finance and Tax had so much trouble is

          9        we couldn't marry those two ideas into acceptable language

         10        because there is a lot a lot of money involved.

         11             The reason I think these two amendments are good is

         12        because it makes it constitutionally clean.  And we should

         13        just say in a general sense that if you are going to level

         14        the playing feel for municipalities and special taxing

         15        districts, good.  You have our permission, through the

         16        Constitution, to do so.  Our requirements are simply it be

         17        a governmental entity owning the property, municipality,

         18        special district, county or otherwise, and it be for

         19        public purposes, it be for public purposes.

         20             You, now the Legislature, have the permission to do

         21        that under our Constitution and you have the permission to

         22        define public purposes and tailor it as narrow or as broad

         23        as you want as long as it comes within the well-defined

         24        case law limitations of what we all know to be a public

         25        purpose.  And it is for those reasons I offered this


          1        amendment and the one prior to that.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  On Commissioner

          3        Brochin's amendment, prepare to vote.  Open the machine.

          4             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          5             READING CLERK:  Twelve yeas, 21 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment fails.  We are now

          7        on the amended -- proposal as amended, I think is where we

          8        are.

          9             I had a question, Commissioner Scott.  I haven't

         10        heard this come up but I remember in '78 -- Commissioner

         11        Barkdull correct me on this -- the real thing that kept

         12        coming up in these discussions is what this did to the

         13        Okaloosa Island Authority and what this did in -- Santa

         14        Rosa was the one.  And what this did to the -- go ahead.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We have a paid expert from 20

         16        years ago.  Commissioner Barnett can explain all that,

         17        that was her baby.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And then the other one that flew

         19        by all the time was the racetrack.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well I wasn't going to raise

         21        that issue.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does that apply here?  I didn't

         23        see where it did, I was just wondering.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  They have limited it to

         25        airports and seaports now.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It doesn't.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Unless it is one of these

          3        special taxing districts.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do you want to present the

          5        matter?  Which one of you wants to -- we are now on, we

          6        are moving the proposal, but we haven't concluded the

          7        debate on the proposal.  We have been debating the

          8        amendments.  Who wants to open?  I'll recognize

          9        Commissioner Hawkes since he wants to be recognized.

         10             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Well I'm not sure if I'm

         11        opening in favor of the proposal, I am opening in favor of

         12        good public policy.

         13             First of all, Commissioners, I would submit to you

         14        that we heard about bonding when we first came together

         15        and we learned that I think it is in 2013 or 2017,

         16        Commissioner Barkdull will correct me, the state's bonding

         17        authority may expire.  And we needed to do something so if

         18        the Legislature wanted to issue bonds to buy

         19        environmentally sensitive lands, they would have

         20        sufficient time to engage in a good economic

         21        decision-making process and issue those bonds for longer

         22        if they wanted to.

         23             We have heard debate today on whether or not we

         24        should revamp Florida's initiative process because we had

         25        a lot of people come forward and they told us some things


          1        that were wrong with the initiative process and some

          2        concerns that they had.  And we understood those concerns

          3        and we thought those were legitimate concerns.

          4             And of course we have already discussed once today

          5        sovereign immunity.  I have met in about four or five

          6        committee meetings on sovereign immunity and we heard

          7        people come and tell us about sovereign immunity and where

          8        they had problems.  And even President Jennings stood up

          9        and said, from a legislative perspective there is problems

         10        with sovereign immunity.  And we know that there are

         11        problems in that area.

         12             And then we had people come and we talked about

         13        reapportionment commissions and we talked about all kinds

         14        of issues.  And on every one of them, no matter if you

         15        were for the proposal or against the proposal, I would

         16        submit that at least you knew the problem that was

         17        attempting to be addressed.

         18             In this case, in this situation, I would challenge

         19        for someone to just illustrate where an airport or a

         20        seaport or a municipality has been taxed in a situation

         21        that you would find personally offensive where you think

         22        public policy is being violated.  And in reality, I don't

         23        believe you will find that situation.  Instead we hear

         24        about how seaports are the, and airports are the engine of

         25        our state's economy.


          1             But their core activities are not taxed.  What are

          2        taxed is when they lease out to these private proprietary

          3        interests.  That's the only time they come on the tax

          4        roll.  And Commissioner Barkdull said he wasn't going to

          5        mention the Speedway with a little bit of a smile.  Why?

          6        Because the Legislature tried and tried and tried and

          7        tried to exempt the Speedway and they couldn't find a way

          8        to exempt the Speedway.

          9             Is the Speedway a great public policy or is the

         10        Speedway a great economic interest that has some

         11        opportunity to influence the Legislature?  And I would

         12        submit it was because the Speedway had the opportunity to

         13        influence the Legislature, not because exempting the

         14        speedway from ad valorem taxation would allow the Daytona

         15        500 to continue because it is still going on.  And even

         16        though they have to pay property taxes, it is still going

         17        on.  It is still functioning.

         18             You know, we had the private county club in

         19        Tallahassee.  We have had testimony before this commission

         20        about the shopping center in Orlando, Commissioner Riley.

         21        $150 million worth of property in Orlando, off the tax

         22        roll, that competes exactly with private business,

         23        100 percent, no difference.  You could not walk on that

         24        parking lot and see a difference except the ownership

         25        happened to be in the county and therefore it was exempt.


          1             And the municipalities came and said, We would like

          2        to own shopping centers and lease them out without paying

          3        property taxes, too.  And I thought if I was a

          4        municipality I would probably want to do that too.  But

          5        that doesn't make it right.  What's right is when

          6        government decides to let someone else use their property

          7        then they ought to play by the same rules.

          8             And this is someone engaging in a proprietary or

          9        business function.  The courts have talked about that.

         10        They have talked about what is proprietary and what is

         11        governmental.  And so even if government were to let

         12        someone else use their property for a governmental

         13        purpose, it would still be exempt from taxation.

         14             If we look at the proposal itself, we notice that

         15        very early on in the proposal the first thing that this

         16        constitutional proposal does is strike, "exclusively by

         17        it."

         18             If you go down just one sentence below the proposed

         19        amendment, you'll see that such portions of property as

         20        used predominantly for educational, literary, scientific,

         21        religious, or charitable purposes may be exempted by

         22        general law from taxation.  And so what we do there is we

         23        give a percentage tax break on property that is used

         24        predominantly, more than 50 percent.

         25             Well now on municipally-owned property if they use it


          1        at all, any use by government, under the language of this

          2        constitutional proposal, would exempt that property from

          3        the tax rolls because there is no exclusive requirement.

          4        There is no predominant requirement.  The only requirement

          5        is if it is used by the governmental entity.

          6             So if the government used it 30 percent of the time,

          7        and a private business used it 70 percent of the time, it

          8        is off the tax roll.  Well that's a pretty big exemption

          9        in and of itself.  And then we go on and we say we are

         10        going to let the Legislature define public purpose.  And

         11        we all have great visions of what public purpose is but

         12        the case law shows us what it has been in the past when

         13        the Legislature has tried to do it.

         14             SECTION G.

         15             And we all have great visions of what public purpose

         16        is, but the case law shows us what it's been in the past

         17        when the Legislature has tried to do it.  And I think that

         18        if we just look at some of the current situations,

         19        Commissioner Nabors thought that it would be good idea,

         20        before the Legislature exempted any more items from the

         21        sales tax that they do a single bill stating the public

         22        purpose that is going to be achieved by creating a sales

         23        tax exemption.

         24             And that was based upon his experience and his

         25        understanding of testimony of people that, in fact, the


          1        Legislature, perhaps, hasn't always had public policy as

          2        the forefront of their decision-making process in creating

          3        some of these exemptions, and it was felt that it would be

          4        better if we made them focus on that and it was

          5        identifiable so that we could hold them accountable.  But

          6        of course there's no accountability in this proposal.

          7             Also Floridians value their public records rights,

          8        and so we say that the Legislature, because we thought

          9        that the Legislature might be exempting too many records

         10        from public records, so we said a single bill, no more

         11        sweeping public records exemptions, we want single bills

         12        if you are going to do a public records exemption.

         13             We thought the Legislature might be creating too many

         14        trust funds, so we said a single bill on trust funds.  So

         15        these issues are much more protected than what we are

         16        proposing here where we are allowing the Legislature to

         17        take money away from local communities, because this isn't

         18        the Legislature saying, We'll take less money, this is the

         19        Legislature saying that your local community will take

         20        less money.

         21             I say that in leading up to the proposal that follows

         22        is the proposal by Commissioner Evans-Jones and myself,

         23        and it truly does level the playing field.  It doesn't

         24        just level the playing field between municipalities and

         25        counties because what it does, it makes counties play by


          1        the same rules that municipalities have to play in the

          2        current law.  It levels the playing field between

          3        government and the private sector.

          4             It says, if you are going to the engage in the

          5        activities of the private sector and compete with the

          6        private sector, then you are going to compete all the way

          7        and you are going to carry the same burdens that the

          8        private sector carries, as well as some of the same profit

          9        and benefits that the private sector carries.

         10             We could have offered an amendment, I suppose,

         11        striking everything after the enacting clause and debated

         12        our proposal first, but we didn't do that.  So I would

         13        submit that you really have three options.  One, you can

         14        vote and make the folks that are watching pleased that

         15        they now have a lot of exemptions off of the tax roll

         16        without anyone testifying or giving us evidence of where

         17        the abuses occurred, or two, you could truly level the

         18        playing field by voting in favor of Commissioner

         19        Evans-Jones' proposal and my proposal.

         20             Or three, you can leave the status quo as it is and

         21        vote no on both.  Because, again, I would submit that the

         22        only problem that we have heard about was that the playing

         23        field, perhaps, wasn't level.  And this, this doesn't

         24        really make it level either.  This might make it level

         25        between municipalities and counties in some circumstances,


          1        but it doesn't level the playing field between private

          2        business and counties.

          3             And the other place where it's not quite level, if

          4        you could think about it, if the City of St. Petersburg

          5        decides to buy property outside of their city limits under

          6        this proposal, they can take that property off of the tax

          7        rolls of Pinellas County.  And the people who elect that

          8        city commission have no, the people in the county don't

          9        elect the city commissioners.  So they have -- there's no

         10        accountability and property has been taken off.

         11             So I would submit that the current system has a level

         12        playing field now, because at least if your county

         13        purchases property that you don't know that they ought to

         14        be purchasing and takes it off of the case roll, at least

         15        you as a citizen have a right to vote who the county

         16        commissioners are that you are losing ad valorem tax to.

         17             But I would submit, I would ask you to please ask

         18        yourself where the problem is and to please vote against

         19        this proposal; it is not good public policy.  Thank you.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

         21        table by Commissioner Lowndes.  Would you read the

         22        amendment, please?

         23             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Lowndes, on Page 1,

         24        Line 22, delete and insert, As defined by general law,

         25        Line 23 after taxation, As defined by general law.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are really just having the

          2        one page, not both pages; is that right?

          3             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, just the one page.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, tear the back page off.

          5             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Right.  This is a not very

          6        artful effort on --

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I thought it looked quite

          8        arty, I can't read it.

          9             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That too.  But it's not a very

         10        artful effort to clarify the problem which I think was

         11        inherent in the drafting of the main amendment.  And the

         12        intent of the committee, I believe, and the intent of the

         13        drafters of this was that the Legislature would define

         14        those incidental uses that would be exempt.  And maybe

         15        this language is not the best language to do it, but I

         16        think it gets on record that intent, and hopefully there

         17        are a lot of bright people on the Style and Drafting

         18        Committee that could put it together a little bit better

         19        than that.  But I would move the amendment.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Since Commissioner Lowndes is on

         22        Style and Drafting, I was just talking to him.  One of the

         23        reasons that we didn't put, As defined by general law, at

         24        the end of that sentence, is because it looks like it

         25        might only modify, uses incidental thereto, and not


          1        modify, seaports, airport, and public purposes.

          2             So, I would ask this, since he's on the committee, if

          3        maybe, if he would consider withdrawing this with the

          4        representation that the intent here is to have, As defined

          5        by general law, modify the whole sentence, but there is no

          6        way to do it without it looking like that at the

          7        committee.  I had the staff trying to do this.  Otherwise

          8        Style and Drafting will come back with it with the clear

          9        intent that all of this is to be as defined by general

         10        law, including the uses incidental thereto, the seaport,

         11        airport and the public purpose.  And I am not -- you could

         12        write it twice, I suppose, you could just add it in twice,

         13        but if you don't -- I think if we make the clear statement

         14        of intent, then I would ask --

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think if Style and Drafting is

         16        still going to deal with it that way, you probably ought

         17        to drop the amendment and then Style and Drafting would

         18        have the latitude to make it clear what you said.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Okay.  Then, we would have no

         20        objection to the amendment with the understanding that we

         21        would --

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's right, it would then be

         23        clear that Style and Drafting were charged with making

         24        that --

         25             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  We would not object to the


          1        amendment then.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Is that agreeable to you,

          3        Commissioner Riley?  All in favor of the amendment, say

          4        yea.  Opposed?

          5             (Verbal vote taken.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment carries.  We are

          7        now back on the main proposal as amended.  Commissioner

          8        Scott, you are recognized.  Or do you want to be

          9        recognized now, or do you want Commissioner Evans-Jones?

         10        Commissioner, you may be recognized.

         11             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         12        I would like to speak against the bill.  You have on your

         13        desk a white letter, white paper, from Tom Drage

         14        (phonetic), representing the property appraisers.  There

         15        are also several editorials that are on there.  And I

         16        talked to Rich Crowdy, the Orange County property

         17        appraiser, yesterday and he was saying, for instance,

         18        Commissioner Mills was saying that we would have to pay

         19        more taxes.

         20             But what you are going to do if you pass this

         21        proposal, in Orange County alone, you would remove 300

         22        properties valued at $144,999,606 from the tax roll.  And

         23        based upon the current millage rates, exclusion of these

         24        properties would cost Orange County government $766,888,

         25        Orange County schools would lose $1,316,116, and the City


          1        of Orlando would lose $113,956 in tax revenue.

          2             And Rob Turner has said that in Hillsborough County,

          3        you would lose 5.5 million annually in ad valorem revenue.

          4        William Marcum has said in a letter to us that government

          5        property occupied by for-profit corporations should be

          6        taxed in the same manner of fairness to those businesses

          7        which are forced to compete with tenants of public bodies

          8        who enjoy, even then, a competitive advantage of

          9        approximately 15 percent of gross revenues because of

         10        their location.

         11             I don't think that they should be granted this

         12        immunity, I think that it's a dangerous precedent.

         13        Mr. Drage has said that you would be given -- you would be

         14        allowing the seaports and the airports to have a lot more

         15        exemptions than they have today and that that probably

         16        would be very dangerous.  You need to have it in the

         17        Constitution and not really allow the Legislature to just

         18        accept anybody and everybody for anything.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.

         20             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I'm looking at the headline that

         21        says, Beware, The Unfair Tax Break.  And I'm very

         22        uncomfortable with a county in a state that gets tax

         23        breaks that give unfair competition to county and state

         24        against private business.  However, if they are going to

         25        have that, I think that the municipality should have that


          1        equally unfair tax break.

          2             So, in that respect, I support this proposal.  I

          3        think what we have done, and I think that with the next

          4        proposal also we can make it that we don't make economic

          5        development more difficult in the State of Florida, but

          6        hopefully make it better.  I agree with Commissioner Scott

          7        and the other people, Commissioner Henderson, that have

          8        spoken about bringing businesses into the State of

          9        Florida.

         10             And in areas where counties, and where the State and

         11        where municipalities have an opportunity to bring business

         12        in and to do that, need tax breaks, I think the

         13        Legislature ought to have the option of doing that.  And I

         14        think what we have done with this, since we have added all

         15        of the phrases and additions, I think we have done that.

         16        And I think in the end we will have done hopefully more

         17        than just level the playing field between state, county,

         18        and municipalities, but made sure that we have a level

         19        playing field between Alabama, and Georgia, and North and

         20        South Carolina and Florida.

         21             We cannot do anything, and certainly in our

         22        Constitution, that's going to hinder economic development

         23        in the state.  And I think this helps economic development

         24        in the state, and yet allows the Legislature to

         25        judiciously hand out that exemption and not just have


          1        everybody get it, but to make sure that it does what it's

          2        supposed to do.  So I support the proposal now.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes.

          4             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I would like to rise in

          5        support of the proposal also.  And notwithstanding the

          6        eloquence of Commissioner Hawkes, I think the Legislature

          7        is the proper body to determine public policy.  You know,

          8        in Orlando, which I'm probably more familiar with than

          9        most places, we have a very important airport.  And it is

         10        probably the most important single institution for the

         11        economy of Orlando.  And perhaps I'm lucky that Mr. Corr

         12        is not here because the Disney people might argue that

         13        point.

         14             But in any event, it is a very important airport.

         15        And the Legislature who sets public policy should be in a

         16        position to decide whether the hotel at the airport is

         17        important to the proper operation of the airport, whether

         18        it is the -- of public purpose.

         19             As things exist now, and the reason for all of the

         20        kind of attention and problems over this issue, there is

         21        the contest between the county tax appraisers and the

         22        people who operate airports and the people who operate

         23        seaports.  The county tax appraisers are doing what they

         24        should be doing, they are looking for places to collect

         25        more taxes and they can't get enough to satisfy the needs


          1        of local government out of the private sector, so they are

          2        going after the public sector.

          3             And the reason that we had so many people up here

          4        talking to us from so many different places was because

          5        governments are trying to tax governments.  And this

          6        amendment gives the Legislature the right to be the

          7        referee in that argument rather than the courts because

          8        you are leaving it to the Legislature to set the public

          9        policy of the state and not the courts.  And I think

         10        that's what this proposal does.  And I would urge

         11        everybody to vote for it.  Thank you.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin.

         13             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I rise in support of the

         14        amendment or proposal, although I'm going to do it holding

         15        my nose.  The reason I think it is a pretty good idea is

         16        because of its underlying policy, and its underlying

         17        policy is that counties, municipalities, special taxing

         18        districts are all the creatures of the Legislature; and

         19        hence, the Legislature is ultimately responsible for their

         20        operation.

         21             And therefore, I think it should be constitutionally

         22        permissible for that very same Legislature who is

         23        responsible for these various entities to have the

         24        constitutional authority, if you will, to exempt or not

         25        exempt those particular entities and their particular


          1        property.  That's why I think it makes a good idea from a

          2        constitutional sense.

          3             I also think the idea brought by Commissioner --

          4        Commissioners Hawkes and Evans-Jones is also a very good

          5        idea.  And I was hopeful that there would be some way to

          6        make these two ideas work.  So, I think we ought to vote

          7        for this.  I think we ought to pass it to Style and

          8        Drafting, and maybe what I need to do is become a lobbyist

          9        in that respect and lobby the Style and Drafting and see

         10        what we could do to make the language appropriate.

         11             But I didn't mean to be disruptive in terms of the

         12        process and language because I think underlying all of

         13        this is a very good thought.  And, again, it's not so much

         14        leveling the playing field, but allowing the Legislature

         15        who has all of these constitutionally and

         16        statutorily-created entities, to finance it, exempt it, as

         17        it sees permitted and as it defines by general law.  And

         18        for those reasons, I'll vote in favor of this.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I would like to make inquiry of

         21        Commissioner Brochin, or the sponsor, whomever,

         22        Commissioner Scott, and here's my concern.  I like the

         23        fact that the Legislature, the most accountable branch of

         24        government, would make the determinations about who gets

         25        the benefit of the exemptions, I think that's appropriate.


          1        Let me tell you what my concern is and it arose out of

          2        Commissioner Riley's argument when she said it's unfair to

          3        the private businessperson when government gets the

          4        benefit of this kind of exemption, and it creates a

          5        competitive advantage for government and those who are

          6        with government in the competition against the private

          7        businessperson.

          8             And then Commissioner Riley said, You are right, it

          9        is unfair, but I think to the extent it confers an unfair

         10        advantage, municipalities ought to have that same unfair

         11        advantage.  Now, what that tells me is that you are lining

         12        up more players against the private businessperson with an

         13        unfair advantage than you have before.  I'm not really

         14        worried about protecting government here, I'm more worried

         15        about protecting the rights of individual citizens,

         16        protecting their ability to make a living.

         17             Now, maybe I misunderstand that, but if what this

         18        means is we have more, we have more players augmented by

         19        an advantage that accrues only to government lined up

         20        against private business people who don't compete with

         21        that same advantage, I'm inclined to vote against it, even

         22        though the Legislature might determine who gets the

         23        benefit of exemptions.  So, that's my concern and I

         24        welcome any clarification on that.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.  Do you still


          1        have the floor, Commissioner Brochin?  You sat down,

          2        didn't you?  Commissioner Riley.

          3             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I just wanted to respond to

          4        that, since you referenced what I had said.  And

          5        hopefully, I also said that I was supporting the proposal.

          6        And I am the person who builds that shopping center and I

          7        am the representative of private business who builds

          8        commercial and develops.  And the reason I now support it

          9        is because I don't want it to be just open, and opening it

         10        to more people, I would agree with you, I don't think that

         11        this proposal, and Commissioner Hawkes' proposal cannot

         12        both be supported.

         13             I think that we make it equal and then we make sure

         14        that the Legislature understands the reasons why those

         15        exemptions should be given and that they are not just

         16        openly given to anybody for any reason.  So, that -- did I

         17        answer your question or clarify?  No.  Did I convince you?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin.

         19             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I just wanted to respond in a

         20        sense to what Commissioner Connor was saying.  I think you

         21        framed it perfectly clear and well.  I think you

         22        understand it perfectly that we will be adding another

         23        list on that public playing field.  That's why I was

         24        trying to make the distinction of which playing field you

         25        are talking about.  Right now we are talking about an


          1        intra-governmental playing field which is not level, this

          2        will level the intra-governmental playing field.

          3             They are going to talk about trying to level the

          4        inter-governmental playing field, that's the playing field

          5        versus all of these governmental entities, no matter how

          6        they are constructed, versus the private people the

          7        property appraisers brought forward.  I think you framed

          8        it right and I think that, in essence, is the issue that

          9        faces us, and how we come out on it, we are groveling with

         10        this.

         11             But right now, our Committee on Finance and Tax

         12        supported the one that's before you and opposed the one

         13        that Commissioner Evans-Jones is going to propose.  But I

         14        think you framed it earlier right in terms of the way it's

         15        working.

         16             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If I may just follow-up, an

         17        inquiry on that?  Okay, if you take care of any disparity

         18        between governmental entities, what happens -- is there

         19        a -- is there a vehicle for taking care of the private

         20        citizens or the private businessperson that is going to

         21        mitigate the impact of bringing more people with greater

         22        advantage against these private business folks?  Is

         23        there -- have you got the silver bullet for that or not?

         24        I mean, that's -- in other words, we level that

         25        intra-governmental playing field, what about the


          1        businessperson?

          2             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Let me try to answer a little

          3        bit about that.  To some extent, in my opinion, where

          4        that's settled, it really is settled in the Legislature.

          5        For example, in Orlando, the airport owns really two

          6        airports, the executive airport and the one south of town

          7        at the International Airport.

          8             At the executive airport, they had a lot of land out

          9        there that they weren't using for anything, so they built

         10        shopping centers on it, or leased land to people who built

         11        shopping centers.  Those have been on the tax rolls right

         12        along, and nobody has suggested that that was a public

         13        purpose or incidental to the operation of the airport, it

         14        was just the use of excess land.

         15             On the other hand, they have a hotel on the airport,

         16        which the tax assessor wants to tax, and the question

         17        really, in my view, that the Legislature would have to

         18        decide is, number one, is that hotel really competitive to

         19        the hotels outside of the airport since the hotel there is

         20        really serving the people who pass through the airport as

         21        opposed to the people leaving the airport.

         22             But the other shops and whatnot in the airport, you

         23        have to decide whether they are really competitive.  And

         24        my sense is, in the final analysis, the balance of that is

         25        going to have to be in the Legislature, which they think


          1        is the more important public interest.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          3             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  My concern is not whether or

          4        not Hyatt can get that kind of relief in the Legislature,

          5        my concern really is whether or not the guy who owns

          6        Blimpies or, you know, a souvenir shop or something like

          7        that can.  And I have real questions about that.

          8             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Of course, the question really

          9        is whether or not there's really a competitive advantage

         10        also because if somebody has a souvenir shop inside the

         11        airport, probably he's paying as much rent in relationship

         12        to his location as to the guy who has a souvenir shop

         13        outside of the airport, it's simply that the airport is

         14        getting the advantage of that rent and not the taxing

         15        authority.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         17             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Just briefly, you know, in favor

         18        of the proposal.  What we are talking about here is

         19        government taxing government.  And I was talking to

         20        someone about, Well, what happened here?  Well, if

         21        government gets taxed, then, they have got to, I suppose,

         22        pay themselves, and they have also got to pay whatever

         23        else, and then they have got the tax more.

         24             So, the average person out there, you know, this is

         25        what you have to get to a balance of it.  And that's why,


          1        the way to do it, the only reason this is here, unlike

          2        some of the other proposals we have, the only reason that

          3        it's here is because the courts have said, the

          4        Constitution prohibits the Legislature from dealing with

          5        it, it's just that -- it's basically that simple.

          6             It's not a simple issue.  And that's all -- what we

          7        are saying is, Let them deal with it.  And in e process,

          8        don't take away the immunity of counties, states, and

          9        school boards in the process, because that's the direction

         10        that the other proposal went and that's where the

         11        committee came down.

         12             So I think this is the best proposal and the best

         13        direction for us.  It does leave the Legislature

         14        discretion, but at least, you know, that they will be able

         15        to deal with this whole question of private versus public,

         16        and this makes it a level playing field.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin.

         18             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yes, Commissioner Connor, I

         19        would just, in direct response, I would urge you to vote

         20        in favor of this proposal to allow the playing field to be

         21        leveled intra-governmental.  And then let's hear the

         22        debate on the following proposal, and perhaps there is a

         23        way to make the two married.  But that's what I would

         24        suggest because the next time it comes around, if we are

         25        not satisfied and I'm still going to listen, we can take


          1        another shot at it.  That's what I'm going to do, and

          2        that's the reason I'm going to do it.

          3             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'll do it with this

          4        understanding, and that is, where government taxes

          5        government, the burden ultimately falls upon the taxpayer.

          6        And that's another concern.  I mean, those are individuals

          7        who ultimately wind up making that compensation.

          8             But I do eagerly await seeing how the businessperson

          9        gets relief and votes for it as I have with all, all of

         10        those I have voted for, saying that when it comes up on

         11        the next round, I'm going to apply a heightened scrutiny

         12        standard for review on whether or not I will vote for it

         13        ultimately.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Anybody want to close or do you

         15        need to close?  Okay.  All right, Commissioner Anthony

         16        wants to close.  You may close.

         17             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you for your

         18        consideration and favorable support of this proposal.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Great speech.  Vote.

         20             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Announce the vote.  Lock the

         22        machine and announce the vote.

         23             READING CLERK:  Twenty-eight yeas, 4 nays,

         24        Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Move to the next


          1        item.  I think we are ready, I believe I've been told, we

          2        are ready to go back to 138 and 89, which is the second

          3        item on the special order calendar.  Committee Substitute

          4        for Proposals 138 and 89 by the Committee on Education,

          5        and Commissioners Nabors and Riley relating to the

          6        Lottery.

          7             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes, Commissioner Langley.

          9             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  For the benefit of all of us,

         10        why don't we go on and do this other tax exemption right

         11        behind this one while everybody has got it fresh on their

         12        minds.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are right, we'll do that one.

         14        It's tax day, I can tell by the large gallery we have.

         15        The next item on the tax proposal is -- now, we have done

         16        all but Proposal 41 by Commissioner Mathis.  We have done

         17        the two committee substitutes and now we are on

         18        committee -- I mean, on Proposal 41 by Commissioner

         19        Mathis.

         20             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  No.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  No.  Have we done Committee

         24        Substitute for Proposals 106 and 137 by Hawkes and

         25        Evans-Jones?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I thought I called it, but they

          2        say I haven't.  Okay, we will do that one.  I will do them

          3        all.  Would you read it, please?

          4             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposals

          5        106 and 137, Article VII, Section 3(a), the Florida

          6        Constitution; providing a tax exemption for certain

          7        property owned by any governmental entity, providing that

          8        certain property owned by a governmental entity may be

          9        taxable, as provided by general law, providing that no

         10        governmental entity shall have immunity from taxation

         11        under certain conditions.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioners

         13        Evans-Jones or Brochin or Hawkes.  Excuse me, Commissioner

         14        Hawkes, would you like to?  You are recognized.

         15             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we

         16        have filed an, and Commissioner Evans-Jones and I have

         17        filed an amendment.  But I can talk about the proposal,

         18        because it's really very simple, ladies and gentlemen,

         19        this truly levels the playing field.  What this says is

         20        that no governmental entity is going to be immune.

         21             And if you really want to allow the Legislature to

         22        make the exemptions, take away the immunity and let the

         23        Legislature have a public policy debate and I would submit

         24        that if you want to -- if you really want to achieve good

         25        public policy, put the requirements in there like Mr.


          1        Nabors proposed on the tax, the sales tax, and like we do

          2        on some other things where they have to do a single bill

          3        and they have to state the public policy so it's not in

          4        the middle of a train, it's not in the middle of the

          5        night, and it's something that is debated that the public

          6        knows about and is in the open, and then we can exempt

          7        that property from ad valorem tax that we think is

          8        appropriate.

          9             Because I would remind you, you have to remember that

         10        the only property that we are talking about is property

         11        that is owned by a governmental entity but used by a

         12        private sector, individual for-profit goals.  That is the

         13        only profit that's ever placed on the tax rolls.  We are

         14        never talking about government taxing government when

         15        government is doing functions.  Every one of these leases

         16        that comes out of the person leasing the property paying

         17        the ad valorem taxes that are due.

         18             And again, I would remind you, we haven't seen the

         19        horror case where someone is getting taxed and we really

         20        think they ought not.  So, if you think the Legislature

         21        ought to have the authority to look at each of these

         22        situations and decide, vote in favor of this, make it so

         23        that nobody is immune.

         24             When we go to Style and Drafting, we can make it so

         25        that the Legislature passes out, one at a time with a


          1        public policy statement so that we are really getting the

          2        public policy debate that the commission has indicated

          3        that they wanted and we can move forward to establishing

          4        good public policy for the people of the State of Florida.

          5        And the amendment merely clarifies that, Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have three amendments on the

          7        table.  Would you read Amendment No. 1, please?

          8             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Butterworth, on Page

          9        1, Lines 21 and 22, delete, such governmental entity, and

         10        insert on Line 22, "before" for "it".

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor, could you

         12        and Commissioner Scott afford Commissioner Butterworth the

         13        right to be seen?

         14             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         15        I have no problem with the Hawkes' amendment going first.

         16        It probably should go first.  That's probably amendment

         17        number three.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  We had number one, which

         19        was the one she read.

         20             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Okay.  That would be fine.

         21        I just tried to make it very, very simple, by allowing all

         22        governmental entities that are being used by government to

         23        not be taxed, and I just took out the, in the first

         24        amendment, I will read, All property owned by the state, a

         25        county, a school district, municipality, a special


          1        district or any other governmental entity and used by it

          2        for governmental or public purposes shall be exempt from

          3        taxation.  I think that's very simple.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You have three

          5        amendments up here.  Are they all yours?

          6             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Mr. Chairman, I have two

          7        of them.  They really should be read together, I would

          8        assume.  It takes out the last sentence which is

          9        underlined on Subsection A.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are going to read

         11        your first one, Commissioner Butterworth, and then we'll

         12        move that.  Now, let's read his first one.  If you would

         13        listen, and this is the way they have got them in order up

         14        here.  This is your first amendment, they are going to

         15        read it now.  This is amendment number one.

         16             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Butterworth, on Page

         17        1, Lines 21 and 22, delete, such governmental entity, and

         18        insert on Line 22, "before" for "it".

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  That's number one.

         20        And then you are telling us that you need them both

         21        together?

         22             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Yes.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You want to combine

         24        them as one amendment.  Then read No. 2.

         25             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Butterworth, on Page


          1        1, Lines 23 through 27, delete everything underlined.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, Commissioner Butterworth, if

          3        I can get order, we seem to be underwhelming our

          4        membership with this today, but I had to vote on it last.

          5        I'm not sure to go forward.

          6             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  But it will say, Section

          7        3, Subsection A, will now read, All property owned by a

          8        state, a county, a school district, a municipality, a

          9        special district or any other governmental entity and used

         10        exclusively by it for governmental or public purposes

         11        shall be exempt from taxation.

         12             And then the rest of that particular paragraph will

         13        then be deleted.  So, what we are taking out is such

         14        "governmental entity," so it's not used exclusively with

         15        such governmental entity.  And well, I should probably

         16        write the whole paragraph over again, it would be easier.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott has a

         18        question.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner Butterworth, what

         20        is the purpose here of this?

         21             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  This really levels the

         22        playing field, that's what you guys wanted to do.

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Sort of like those bombs in

         24        Kuwait, levels the playing field?

         25             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  No, I think it does what


          1        you want it to do.  I was just trying to help you out,

          2        Senator.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          4             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Your fax machine wasn't used up

          5        enough on Commissioner Rundle, you are going to hear from

          6        our home county.  Seriously, what is the purpose of it?

          7             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  The purpose would be,

          8        it'll read, it will say, All properties owned by a state,

          9        a county, a school district, municipality, a special

         10        district, or any other governmental entity and used

         11        exclusively by it for governmental or public purposes

         12        shall be exempt from taxation, period.

         13             So, if you own property as one of those entities and

         14        you use it for a governmental purpose, you are exempt.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson, do you

         16        want to be recognized for a question?

         17             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         18        Yes, sir.  Commissioner Butterworth, help me out here.

         19        I -- are you familiar with an entity called the Reedy

         20        Creek Improvement District.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Oh yes, the Magic Kingdom.

         22             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Is that a governmental

         23        entity?

         24             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  I am asking, are you

         25        familiar with Reedy Creek?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I am very familiar with it.

          2             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  And is that not a

          3        governmental entity?

          4             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  I believe it is.

          5             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  And do you believe that

          6        there's a public purpose served by it?

          7             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  I certainly do not.

          8             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  You don't think so?

          9             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  No, I do not.

         10             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Would you -- it occurs to me

         11        that I think there is an argument that perhaps there is a

         12        public purpose associated with that, and in fact, that

         13        what this does is create an incredible opening of the

         14        Pandora's box for all kinds of things to come off of the

         15        tax roll.

         16             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Well, I mean, somebody

         17        wanted to level the playing field, I was really leveling

         18        the playing field for them.

         19             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  This sounds like carpet

         20        bombing.

         21             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  No, I don't mind taking

         22        some things out.  We can take special district out.  We

         23        can take a lot of things out of here, but I voted in favor

         24        of the last one.  I wanted to level your playing field, I

         25        wanted to see who is awake here, level it completely.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes, are you

          2        trying to be recognized or are you just lounging there?

          3        All right.  I can tell that Commissioner Scott is not

          4        lounging, he wants to be recognized.

          5             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  On the good order of the

          6        commission, I'll withdraw these amendments.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I was kind of enjoying that.

          8             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  I was glad somebody was

          9        listening, I didn't think anybody was listening for a

         10        while.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All kind of nerves running

         12        through --

         13             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Easy to understand

         14        amendment.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That was one of the problems with

         16        it, Commissioner Butterworth.

         17             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  No more taxation, no more

         18        taxation in the State of Florida.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are still on the

         20        Committee Substitute for Proposals 106 and 137.  I think

         21        that's all of the amendments, or do we have another one?

         22        One more amendment.  Would you read the amendment, please?

         23             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Evans-Jones and

         24        Hawkes, on Page 1, Line 25, delete the word "may" and

         25        insert "shall".

                     DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS (850) 488-9675


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Hawkes.

          2             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Actually, there should be a

          3        corrected amendment.  And this one we really don't want.

          4        Is there another amendment?  The committee had prepared

          5        earlier an amendment.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, I know why I skipped this.

          7        Do you need -- tell us what you are trying to do.

          8             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  What it really is, is there's

          9        one more word, nonexempt.  It would read, Property owned

         10        by a governmental entity and used by a nongovernmental

         11        entity by a proprietary or other nonexempt purposes shall

         12        be taxable.

         13             What we are trying to clarify there, Mr. Chairman, is

         14        that sometimes a governmental entity will loan its

         15        property out to another entity that would qualify for a

         16        tax exemption, and we are certainly not trying to make it

         17        taxable, maybe they loan it out for a spouse abuse center,

         18        maybe they loan it out for a historical center.

         19             And that just clarifies that those uses would still

         20        be exempt.  But what this amendment does is it takes away

         21        immunity from government.  And if you combine it with the

         22        last one, it requires the Legislature to determine what,

         23        when private businesses use government property, when

         24        public purposes can be achieved to exempt that from the

         25        tax roll, when the Tallahassee Golf and Country Club, I


          1        guess, can be removed from the tax roll I guess is what

          2        the real question is.

          3             But this takes away immunity, this is truly leveling

          4        the playing field.  And I tell you what, I don't want to

          5        hear complaints about the fax machines.  I mean, I put up

          6        with 167, I couldn't even use my fax machine, I couldn't

          7        even keep paper on hand.

          8             So, you know, this is good public policy and you

          9        ought to support it because there's certainly nothing

         10        contrary in this than supporting the last one.  The

         11        difference between this one and the last one is, do you

         12        want the Legislature to decide public policy -- do you

         13        want the Legislature to decide public policy?  This really

         14        lets the Legislature establish public policy because it

         15        allows them to establish public policy on the county-owned

         16        property as well.  And I would ask for your favorable

         17        consideration.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  They are about to try

         19        to find your amendment which said that.  And this is the

         20        inter- instead of intramural amendment, is that it?

         21             I don't think we have got the amendment Commissioner

         22        Hawkes, that you are alluding to on the table.  I think we

         23        have got -- I think we better TP this until we get the

         24        correct amendment and we'll move to the next one, with

         25        your permission.  Well, it's got to be quick enough to


          1        pass it out.  Wouldn't it be just as well to TP it and

          2        move to the next one?  That's not it.  That's not it.

          3             All right, we are standing in recess for one minute.

          4        Commissioner Scott, you better not leave.  That ought to

          5        level the playing field right out.

          6             (Brief recess.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mathis, we are going

          8        to TP it.  And Commissioner Mathis, I understood from

          9        someone at the recess --

         10             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I want to go home sometime.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  -- that you were going to

         12        withdraw your proposal that I was trying to bring up a

         13        while ago, is that correct, Proposal 41?

         14             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         16             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to

         17        second the motion to TP this proposal until about June the

         18        5th.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are going to TP it until we

         20        can get back to it and we are going to move to Proposal 41

         21        by Commissioner Mathis.

         22             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I don't know if this is out of

         23        order or if I should say point of order, but we are

         24        discussing the issue of exemption and immunity for

         25        counties, municipalities and special districts.  We have


          1        all lent our intellectual power to that specific subject

          2        for the last hour or so.

          3             And so I don't know if it is appropriate, but I think

          4        that we should continue this discussion because truthfully

          5        I have two kids and a husband I would like to get home to

          6        and I have got a business to run.  And we keep TPing

          7        everything.  And I think we are ready to move forward on

          8        this proposal.  As a special request from those of us in

          9        the back row, I would just request that we move forward.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I am perfectly willing to go

         11        forward, but we do not have the amendment on the table

         12        that's being offered.  I can't go forward.  They have TP'd

         13        it, they are doing it and now I'm calling Proposal 41

         14        which is by you and I'm going to ask them to read it.

         15        This will help you get home.

         16             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Can I ask that we TP Proposal

         17        No. 41?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well that might not get you home,

         19        but we will do it.  We have TP'd 41.  Now with that being

         20        the case, we are going to move to more tax problems but we

         21        are going to move to the Lottery, which is Committee

         22        Substitute for Proposals 138 and 89.  Commissioner Scott.

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to

         24        make, the last proposal passed 28 to 4, as I recall.  Now

         25        this proposal that we are TPing is diametrically opposed


          1        to that proposal and so I was just curious how long are we

          2        going to TP it?  Are we going to do it today?

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well my original action which I

          4        was corrected on was that I thought that had disposed of

          5        it when you passed the other proposal.  Because they were

          6        in effect opposed to each other.  And I assumed that when

          7        we got to the next one, that it would be presented and it

          8        wouldn't take long to dispose of it since, you are right,

          9        it was 28 to 4 on the other one.

         10             Now I am told it is not being withdrawn and it is

         11        still on the special order.  So I don't believe we can tie

         12        up the whole afternoon waiting on this.  I agree with you

         13        on that.  Commissioner Connor.

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I move to

         15        reconsider the vote by which the previous proposal passed,

         16        having been a member on the prevailing side.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Do you want to take

         18        it up?  Commissioner Scott.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Under the rules it would come up

         20        tomorrow.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's true, but it could also

         22        come up today if everybody wanted it to.

         23             Are you doing that to try to keep the thing level?

         24        Is that what you are trying to do, Commissioner Connor?

         25        Are you doing that so that it will be alive while we


          1        consider the other one?

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.  Very frankly, I

          3        voted for it on the come, so to speak, with the

          4        understanding and expectation that we had a vehicle by

          5        which we were going to provide relief to the private

          6        businessperson who may now have more competitors in the

          7        marketplace that had the benefit of tax immunity that

          8        accrued by virtue of government ownership.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So what you are doing, you put

         10        the other one on reconsideration and now we are moving to

         11        the one that does that, that's what it wants to do.

         12             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Well and I had the sense,

         13        frankly, from our discussions during the recess that in

         14        fact it did not do that and I know Commissioner Brochin

         15        was trying to figure out a way to do that.  And, frankly,

         16        as I say, I voted for that other one to level that

         17        intra-governmental playing field with the expectation that

         18        we were going to level the extra-governmental playing

         19        field as well.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well our problem right now,

         21        Commissioner Connor, is we are having trouble with the

         22        playing field, it is muddy.  And we need to get this thing

         23        going.  I am perfectly willing to move on to yours,

         24        Commissioner Mathis, if you are, with the understanding we

         25        are going to come back to this one.  That's Proposal 41.


          1             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  We have -- one, we have been on

          2        notice that Proposals 106 and 137 were going to be

          3        discussed today and we have been here for a good portion

          4        of this week to discuss this.

          5             I understand there may be some desire now to amend it

          6        in order to try to salvage it, but I don't think that's

          7        intellectually honest.  And so I'd like to, I still would

          8        like to propose to move forward with 106 and 137, but if

          9        that's a lone voice I'd like to TP 41.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We're going to TP 41

         11        now.

         12             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Excuse me --

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I understand they are

         14        prepared to go forward.

         15             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  -- Mr. Chair, if 106 and 137

         16        fail, then I will withdraw 41.  And that's why rather than

         17        wasting this body's time in arguing 41, it is really

         18        dependent on what happens with 106 and 137.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now who is it that we

         20        are waiting on on 106 and 137?  Are you ready?

         21             (Off-the-record comment.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  If we TP it now we are

         23        going to move to the Lottery.  So there was an objection

         24        to leaving the subject at all, but we are going to have to

         25        leave the subject and let's go to the Lottery.


          1             Committee Substitute for Proposals 138 and 89 by the

          2        Committee on Education and Commissioners Nabors and Riley.

          3        This was adopted and a motion was adopted on

          4        reconsideration and consideration was deferred until this

          5        week.  There is a pending Amendment No. 1 by Commissioners

          6        Riley, Sundberg and Nabors.  And I presume we can start by

          7        reading it.  Read the proposal and then read the

          8        amendment.

          9             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         10        Nos. 138 and 89, a proposal to revise Article X, Section

         11        15 of the Florida Constitution; limiting the use of state

         12        Lottery net proceeds to financing certain educational

         13        facilities or funding early childhood care and education

         14        programs.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

         16        table and it is pending.  Would you read the pending

         17        amendment?

         18             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Riley, Sundberg and

         19        Nabors, on Page 1, Line 27 through Page 2, Line 16, strike

         20        all of said lines and insert lengthy amendment.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  On the amendment, Commissioner

         22        Mills.

         23             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, there is an

         24        amendment which was passed out earlier, I know everyone

         25        has all their papers well organized on their desks.


          1        Commission Nabors, is the one that is being considered the

          2        one that includes the language -- because if you have the

          3        right amendment up there, we are ready to go and it is

          4        easy.

          5             (Off-the-record discussion.)

          6             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well why don't I go ahead and

          7        describe what he, I think, intends to offer?  There were

          8        two problems, Mr. Chairman, that we discussed with regard

          9        to the proposal as written on the Lottery.  One was the

         10        way it was written it was exclusive and it was impossible

         11        for any new enhancements to ever be funded by the

         12        Legislature, the way it was written.

         13             If you have the right copy, Subsection 7, on Page 2

         14        simply says, to enhance the funding of education programs

         15        not existing prior to the effective date of this

         16        amendment.  You don't have that.  Well I'll proceed to

         17        explain what that does.  Okay.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm going to ask everybody to pay

         19        attention.  When we have these amendments, what you are

         20        doing is offering a substitute amendment.  And it has just

         21        been brought up here, and they haven't had an opportunity

         22        to get it distributed, is my understanding, nor have we

         23        read the substitute amendment.  So I'm going to ask

         24        everybody to please listen and we will read the substitute

         25        amendment.


          1             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Riley, Sundberg and

          2        Nabors, delete everything after the proposing clause and

          3        insert, Section 1, Section 15, of Article X, Florida

          4        Constitution, is revised by amending that section to read

          5        Article X, miscellaneous, lengthy amendment.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now Commissioner Nabors, that's

          7        your substitute amendment?  You are recognized to explain

          8        the substitute amendment.  It will be passed out if it

          9        hasn't been.  Tell us what it does.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I'm going to defer that

         11        explanation to Commissioner Mills.  This is the amendment.

         12        It should have been on the desk, it is just a question of,

         13        because we had this typed this morning.  I don't know how

         14        it ended up not on the desk.

         15             But this is the result of a meeting yesterday, we got

         16        into the debate between Mr. Mills and I, we TP'd it, we

         17        have gotten together all the people involved in Lottery

         18        and we have worked out the language to everyone's

         19        satisfaction.  So you are being handed out to you the

         20        amendment to the amendment which has all the current

         21        language in it.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  This is a substitute amendment is

         23        what it is, if we ever get it.

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, Mr. Chairman?

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.


          1             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Let me go ahead and explain it

          2        to you.  And candidly for anybody I'll tell you precisely

          3        whose interest it satisfies and whose it doesn't.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I started to say that we have got

          5        37 members and I don't think it has all been satisfied.

          6             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I think that's clear.  There

          7        were two issues.  One issue was could you, could a future

          8        Legislature do any enhancement that wasn't enumerated here

          9        as a matter of constitutional law.  And the way it was

         10        written you could not.

         11             This amendment says, it adds another purpose.  And

         12        that purpose is to enhance the funding of education

         13        programs not existing prior to the effective date of this

         14        amendment.  So what that means, anything that exists on

         15        the date that this amendment passed, if it is successfully

         16        passed by this commission and sent to the public, will

         17        automatically not be considered an enhancement, the

         18        Legislature would have to deem something an enhancement

         19        and it would not be currently funded.  So that allows the

         20        Legislature the flexibility in the future to invent new

         21        ideas.

         22             It also, here is what it also does which is more

         23        important to those who are concerned about the fiscal

         24        impact.  The way this is written, once it takes effect, no

         25        money could be spent on the FEFP because that is a program


          1        currently in effect.  And therefore by definition, the

          2        FEFP would be excluded as an enhancement.

          3             So what this does is allow for the invention of new

          4        programs.  I think it handles that pretty well.  With

          5        regard to those that are concerned about the hole in the

          6        budget, Commissioner Nabors has scheduled the

          7        implementation of this over five years.  And so what this

          8        does, in five years you would have a Lottery that would be

          9        expended for solely the enumerated purposes, early

         10        childhood, it includes school advisory councils, it

         11        includes pre-K, it includes scholarships and it includes a

         12        category that would allow the Legislature in the future to

         13        be able to deem something an enhancement and to fund it.

         14             It also at that point would constitutionally prohibit

         15        something from being an enhancement which was previously

         16        funded and that will include the FEFP.  So that means when

         17        this occurs, when it is finally in effect, you will have a

         18        Lottery totally devoted to enhancements as enumerated.

         19        And at least one of the provisions allows for new

         20        programs.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, just one minute.

         22        What did it do to the provision in there about the bonds?

         23        There would be no more bonds except the ones that were

         24        just issued?

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, it didn't modify


          1        the provision about bonds at all.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's what it was before, wasn't

          3        it, Commissioner Nabors?  Is that correct?

          4             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Can I speak to that?  And it

          5        will explain this other three-page piece that we just

          6        recently got, which is in fact what we had passed and then

          7        voted to look at again a couple weeks ago.  And then it

          8        includes what was in yesterday's schedule which was our

          9        yesterday's addition and changes, all of which we have now

         10        added others.

         11             So what you are going to get is what we hope is the

         12        final version, which has the changes as listed by

         13        Commissioner Mills, which include that the bonding is

         14        limited to only what is in existence now, it adds the

         15        Student Advisory Councils, does not reference the Florida

         16        Statute, and it says -- and I don't have it in front of

         17        me -- and its successor in purpose.

         18             It adds in the Bright Futures Scholarships, and has

         19        those over a period of time allowing the Legislature to

         20        replace those with other types of scholarships.  And the

         21        one that is a result of yesterday's debate, in fact, as

         22        Commissioner Mills says, allows the Legislature in the

         23        future years to add other things that are not currently

         24        being funded as existing educational programs but that

         25        would be new enhanced educational programs as decided by


          1        general law.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does it specifically include the

          3        early childhood programs, as it did before?

          4             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  As it did before.  And the

          5        pre-K, as it did before.  So what we have added are about

          6        four different things, some of which were given to you

          7        yesterday.  And then we added the one that Commissioner

          8        Mills was talking about after yesterday's session and

          9        that's what we bring to you today.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now does everybody

         11        understand that?  Then we can start the debate.  I'm going

         12        to have to remind everybody that in this chamber, it is

         13        not appropriate to use cell phones.  And they are not

         14        allowed in the gallery.  And I'm not going to call any

         15        specific attention to anybody, but we don't use cell

         16        phones in this chamber.  We have got phones out in these

         17        bubbles.

         18             Now who wants to present this amendment that we are

         19        going to get some day?  We have it.  All right.  Has

         20        everybody got it but me?  Is it being distributed?

         21             Commissioner Thompson.  We are having Xerox problems

         22        they tell me.

         23             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well while they are working

         24        on that, I just wanted to ask a question or two.  I think

         25        we voted on this thing as blind as you can vote before, we


          1        might as well go ahead and vote on it.  But I did want to

          2        ask a question or two.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are a little blinder.

          4             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  For example, I don't know

          5        about you but I still haven't gone and looked up to find

          6        out exactly what a school advisory council is and looked

          7        at that specific statute.  I am assuming the rest of you

          8        have that voted for it and so you know more than I do

          9        about that and where the money is going.

         10             But I did have a specific question for Commissioner

         11        Mills about the new program.  Now if you like

         12        prekindergarten -- let's see, now you start kindergarten

         13        at about five years old; don't you?  So prekindergarten,

         14        we are going to catch them at three.  All right.

         15             If you like prekindergarten, catching the kids at

         16        three and bringing them into the educational system, then

         17        you are going to like this amendment.  If you like early

         18        childhood care, I don't know what that is and how that --

         19        okay, I'm getting an indication that's two.  And I imagine

         20        everybody knows more about that than I do because I don't

         21        know how that differs from prekindergarten, but I assume

         22        we are catching them even earlier than prekindergarten,

         23        you will like this amendment.

         24             If you like the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship

         25        Act, you would like this amendment.


          1             Now if you happen to be like me in a little church

          2        that just paid some money for some Challenge Scholarships

          3        to a community college, which is an existing program of

          4        the state as I understand it, so that the community

          5        college then matches or gets certain money from the state

          6        to match that, and you would hope that maybe in the future

          7        Legislatures might have the opportunity to use some

          8        Lottery funds to help match those Challenge Scholarships

          9        you might not like that too much; is that correct?

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, it depends on how you read

         11        the scholarship language, which I haven't looked at.  If

         12        the scholarship language is broad enough --

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is.  It says, To fund

         14        scholarships established by general law for attendance at

         15        a Florida public or private postsecondary educational

         16        institution.

         17             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Then I guess your group would

         18        like it.

         19             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Where is that?

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Number 6 in the amendment.

         21             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  The one I am looking at has

         22        got number 5.

         23             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  To fund scholarships established

         24        by general law for attendance at Florida public or private

         25        postsecondary educational institutions.


          1             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Okay.  Any other -- well I

          2        need to look at that language.  I'm sorry, I'll just have

          3        to look at the language.

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  To be clear, Commissioner

          5        Thompson, one of the reasons I was concerned about this

          6        before is sort of what your implied concern is.  If you

          7        are not on the list, if you are not on the list, and it is

          8        currently funded, you are out of there.

          9             And it is very clear -- and it is very clear, I mean,

         10        there are a couple purposes here and either you want,

         11        either you want to do this or you don't.  And I understand

         12        why some people may or may not want to do this.  But I'll

         13        be clear about what I think it means.  And here is what I

         14        think it means is that five years from now there won't be

         15        any money going into the FEFP, there won't be any money

         16        going for these other general purposes.

         17             And the only purposes for which the Lottery can be

         18        expended are those that are enumerated here or new

         19        programs not currently in existence.  In other words, we

         20        had two problems we discussed yesterday; one was the

         21        concept of new ideas we hadn't thought of, this solves

         22        that problem.

         23             The other issue was, my goodness, we are going to

         24        eliminate funding in the Lottery for purposes that some

         25        folks believe, and I share, are fundamental, basic


          1        obligations of the state and therefore restrict the

          2        Lottery only to supplemental enhancements.  It does that,

          3        but in the course of doing that, you are going to require

          4        the Legislature otherwise to pick up this funding if they

          5        so choose.  And that's what it does.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now everybody should

          7        have the amendment and it is being discussed.  And

          8        Commissioner Thompson, are your questions answered?

          9             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well I think so.  The way I

         10        understand it, if your program is not listed here, but it

         11        is already in existence, it is just out of luck.

         12             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  That's correct.

         13             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Can I answer that further --

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         15             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  -- Mr. Chairman?  In the

         16        proposal today, number 6 says it would fund scholarships.

         17        So, you know, the fact that Bright Futures Scholarships

         18        specifically would be phased out over a few years doesn't

         19        mean that scholarships under another program could not be

         20        included in this.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well I don't think that was his

         22        question.  He got answers to that one.  It says you can do

         23        all scholarships under this, in effect.  What he is

         24        talking about is the prohibition --

         25             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  School lunch programs.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  -- prohibition against funding

          2        items that are presently not funded.

          3             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  The school lunch program is

          4        in existence.  You would not take Lottery money and use it

          5        to enhance that program under this amendment; would you?

          6             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  No.  If it is an enhancement of

          7        educational purposes --

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Not existing prior to the

          9        effective date of this amendment.

         10             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  So if you have got a program

         11        that exists, existing now and you want to change that

         12        program and enhance it and make it a different program

         13        that may incorporate some of that, then I would say it

         14        would.

         15             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  It might be a program that's

         16        working perfectly today, you just want to take Lottery

         17        money -- or the Legislature might want to take Lottery

         18        money and give it to it, you can't do it under this

         19        amendment.  Is that right or is that wrong?

         20             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Again, the purpose of this is to

         21        try to get a better education and to enhance the existing

         22        general educational dollars.  So, you know, you can split

         23        hairs, but, you know, we were trying to open as many doors

         24        here as possible, not close them.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani.


          1             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Ms. Riley, I want to close

          2        them.  Where are we going, ladies and gentlemen?  We are

          3        not a Legislature, these are not in our purview.  Why in

          4        the world are we continuing to deal with this?  With all

          5        due respect to the very lovely people that are proposing

          6        this proposal and some of the others, these are not in our

          7        purview.

          8             Leave the Legislature to legislate, that's not why we

          9        are here.  And that's what we are attempting to do.  We

         10        are attempting to dedicate and tell the Legislature where

         11        to spend money and how to spend it.

         12             I want to put, I do want to close the door,

         13        Ms. Riley.  We have got to close the door.  We are never

         14        going to get through with this process and I think all of

         15        us are getting pretty doggone tired of regurgitating the

         16        same words every hour, day after day.  Let's get on with

         17        the show.  Let's vote the damn thing, pardon me, let's

         18        vote it down and go on to something else.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Your emphasis is well taken but

         20        slightly out of order.  Commissioner Marshall was up next

         21        and then we have Barnett and Barkdull and Rundle and

         22        Langley.  Gosh, you-all remember the order you get up in,

         23        please.  Commissioner Marshall.

         24             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Mr. Chairman, a very succinct

         25        question I think directed to Commissioner Mills.  What is


          1        an advisory council?  I understand them to be nonlegal

          2        entities, I don't understand how they can receive and

          3        spend public monies.

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well as I understand this, and I

          5        think Commissioner Nabors might understand this better

          6        than I, is that this, there is an existing school advisory

          7        council group, this is actually Commissioner Corr's

          8        proposal, and it is -- there is currently funding that

          9        goes there.  I think it is $40 million.

         10             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman?

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors.  You are

         12        answering the question, right?

         13             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Yes, yes.  Currently there is

         14        funding that goes to the school advisory councils and so

         15        this doesn't pick the current school advisory councils, it

         16        just says, Such school advisory councils as created by

         17        general law.

         18             Let me -- can I take a moment to, can I have your

         19        attention, please?  This is a very important amendment,

         20        proposal.  Now, I apologize for the confusion in everybody

         21        getting a draft to the table.  We had this done very early

         22        today, we met last night and this morning working out the

         23        language that was debated yesterday.

         24             I apologize for the confusion, but I would like

         25        everyone's attention because I know it is late in the day


          1        and we have had a lot of issues dealing with technical

          2        issues.  This is an important issue.  I don't want this to

          3        get short-changed because it is coming up late in the

          4        afternoon.

          5             If you look at what was handed out to you, okay, what

          6        we have changed from what you have seen before is if you

          7        look on Page 2, Line 16, the cause of the concern that

          8        Commissioner Barkdull and others had is we didn't

          9        enumerate the existing student advisory council.

         10             One of the permitted uses is the Legislature would

         11        have the authority to give money to school advisory

         12        councils established by general law for use to enhance the

         13        educational programs.  They do that now so we don't

         14        preclude that.  They can use Lottery money for that.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are not getting anywhere this

         16        afternoon because we are not keeping order in the chamber.

         17        Now we have rules and I hate to be the one that has to

         18        keep bringing them up, and I'm sorry that you had to

         19        mention the fact it was important.  This is no more

         20        important than the others were to somebody else when we

         21        weren't doing very well at keeping order either.

         22             So in respect to the people that are working on this

         23        and how hard they have worked and working this week, I

         24        please would ask that the chamber stay in order.  And

         25        anybody that doesn't have business in here from time to


          1        time, please sit somewhere and be very quiet.  Now I don't

          2        want to be any more direct than that, but we have got to

          3        get on with it.

          4             Now you were up answering a question and I think

          5        that's as far as it should go because I said I would

          6        recognize Commissioner Barnett next.  And you are

          7        recognized, Commissioner Barnett.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  You can pass me.  I guess I

          9        had a question, Mr. Chairman.  I keep hearing references

         10        to the fact that -- and I don't know who to ask this

         11        question to -- that if we pass this, this is going to

         12        create about a $450 million problem for the Legislature.

         13        Is that -- Commissioner Scott, is that --

         14             (Off-the-record comment by Commissioner Mills.)

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  -- so that tells me that if

         16        that's true, and I want a personal income tax, then I

         17        should vote for this amendment; is that correct?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well since you had a couple

         19        Senators present, I think you got their attention and they

         20        left.  The answer to your question according to

         21        Commissioner Mills, which is not in the record, is that

         22        will but he is not supporting the income tax.  Is that

         23        correct?

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  That's very correct,

         25        Mr. Chairman.  But --


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  450 million correct or not?

          2             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I don't think 450 is correct.

          3        Well there is a $220 million issue as it relates to the

          4        FEFP, as I understand it.  I believe that the total

          5        amount, maybe Commissioner Nabors has it, is $400 million.

          6             I mean, let's be candid.  The folks who will vote for

          7        this are voting for this actually going back to

          8        Commissioner Crenshaw's concept which is to say they think

          9        it should be spent for enhancements and believe that the

         10        current program such as the FEFP are not enhancements.

         11             If somebody is voting against this, I can understand

         12        somebody voting against this because they simply don't --

         13        I'm going to vote for it, by the way.  I think some people

         14        said, gee, you are doing a very interesting job describing

         15        this, but are you going to vote for it or against it?

         16             If you are concerned about the creation of that hole

         17        over five years, it does that.  But the idea is to do

         18        that, for those that are supporting it.  Which is to say

         19        that they want to compel that the Lottery be spent for

         20        enhancement purposes and not for basic purposes.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now the next person

         22        to be recognized was Commissioner Barkdull.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I just wanted to see, state a

         24        point of order and see if I was correct of where we are.

         25        This is a motion to reconsider this committee substitute,


          1        in which there has been offered an entire new proposal.

          2        If we vote for this proposal, it substitutes what we

          3        passed yesterday or the day before, or sometime previous

          4        anyway.  Correct?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think we voted to reconsider

          6        and appended it on the calendar; didn't we?

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's what I want to be sure

          8        that we know when we get down to what we are voting for.

          9        As I understand, this is a complete rewrite.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What it is is we came here today

         11        after voting to reconsider, it was deferred until today,

         12        with a pending amendment.  He has offered a substitute

         13        amendment to the pending amendment.  The effect of the

         14        pending amendment is to really rewrite the proposal.  We

         15        do that quite often with these amendments.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I understand that, but I want

         17        to be sure the group understands where we are.  If we pass

         18        this, it substitutes for everything we have done before

         19        this afternoon.  If we defeat this, we are still on the

         20        motion to reconsider the matter which we previously

         21        passed.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Which was the original proposal.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Correct.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.  All right.

         25        Commissioner Rundle, you were next.


          1             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  I am so confused it is hard for

          2        me to know how to phrase the questions.

          3             I guess, Commissioner Nabors, is the concept here to

          4        support all the recent research on readiness, success by

          5        six programs that we have learned about in the last year

          6        or so?  Is that the purpose of this?

          7             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  It is to dedicate the money for

          8        that, plus scholarships.

          9             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  So in some ways what we are

         10        doing is we are shifting whatever enhancement programs

         11        presently exist from the Lottery money; dropout

         12        prevention, I'm trying to think what they might be, Head

         13        Start, gifted programs that presently exist between K and

         14        12, shifting that to the front end from zero to five or

         15        six?

         16             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  That's part of it, that's not

         17        the only use.  One of the difficulties I am having,

         18        Mr. Chairman, in responding to questions is because of the

         19        confusion of what's on the table we haven't had a chance

         20        to explain the proposal in total and that's causing

         21        confusion.  That's why I tried to start out with trying to

         22        explain what they have got.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You explained it before because

         24        we voted on it and then they offered an amendment to it

         25        which was pending on reconsideration.


          1             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  But in my mind it is quite

          2        different because I really support the concept of

          3        investing our money in smaller children earlier.

          4             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me show you what's

          5        different from what you have in front of you to answer

          6        your question.  Commissioner Rundle, what you have in

          7        front of you is different from what you saw before.  Let

          8        me answer your question.

          9             What's different is is on Page 2, Line 5, rather than

         10        name statutorily the current advisory councils as a

         11        permitted use, we just say, Advisory council as

         12        established by general law to enhance educational funding.

         13        So Lottery money could be used for that, okay?

         14             Previously you had provisions that Lottery money

         15        could be used for bonds that have already been authorized

         16        and for pre-K and for early childhood care and education

         17        that didn't exist for enhanced programs.

         18             This also makes it clear on Line 18, Page 2, another

         19        permitted use of Lottery money is to fund scholarships

         20        established by general law.  Whether that's Bright

         21        Futures, Challenge or whatever it is that's another

         22        permitted use.

         23             And what we have added in Subsection 7, as a result

         24        of the debate yesterday, is to make sure if there is

         25        another new idea that comes along in the next 20 years,


          1        that's enhancement, that's not an existing educational

          2        program, that's a permitted use too.

          3             There is no question what that does is that's all the

          4        programs Lottery can be used for, for the bonds that have

          5        already been authorized, for the existing pre-K program,

          6        for early childhood care and education that doesn't exist

          7        on the effective date or enhanced funding level, for

          8        scholarships and for student, for the student advisory

          9        councils as may be established by law, and any other

         10        program not in existence.

         11             Once you do that and you go and look at the existing

         12        use of Lottery money, approximately 400 million of that

         13        money is currently being used for things other than this

         14        enumerated enhancement, for community colleges, for higher

         15        education, for K through 12.

         16             Those who believe this proposal is important say that

         17        that's not enhancement, that's just replacement of

         18        existing dollars.  So what this proposal does in the

         19        schedule is over a five-year period the Legislature would

         20        have to, over a five-year period, one-fifth at a time,

         21        would have to dedicate the money to these enumerated uses

         22        and phase out that 400 million over five years, which

         23        means over the next five years an additional $80 million

         24        would have to be found and would have to go to either a

         25        combination of scholarships, to pre-K, to early childhood


          1        care and education, to all of these enumerated uses and

          2        the Legislature would have to get there but they would

          3        have five years to get there.

          4             If you believe what the people have told us, and that

          5        the Lottery should be used to enhance education, this is

          6        the only way you can get there.  The only way you can get

          7        there, because otherwise it is going to be used for

          8        programs that are in existence now and it is going to be

          9        supplemental.

         10             So all of us who have worked on this now feel very

         11        comfortable that this dedicates the money to those

         12        programs that are enhancements, one.  Also because of

         13        Mr. Mills' concern yesterday, we have added a Subsection 7

         14        to say if there is a new idea that's not an existing

         15        program we don't know about, some type of regional

         16        interactive computer thing we don't know about, that could

         17        be an enhancement too, but not an existing program.  There

         18        is no question about that.  If it is an existing program

         19        on the effective date of this, over a five-year period

         20        that money has got to be phased out.

         21             But that's what the people -- in response to your

         22        question -- that's what the people are telling us they

         23        think the Lottery needs to be used for enhancements.

         24             The Legislature will choose whether to use it for

         25        pre-K, early childhood care and prevention or scholarships


          1        or any other permitted use within here.  They have already

          2        agreed they are going to use it for bonds, no additional

          3        bonds will be used, only those they have already agreed.

          4             So what we have done is we have recognized

          5        specifically in the schedule that the existing Bright

          6        Futures would be honored.  The Legislature next session

          7        could really do the scholarship program again from

          8        Lottery, or they could do Challenge.  They would have

          9        complete flexibility.

         10             What they wouldn't have flexibility to do is continue

         11        forever the funding of existing school programs that

         12        aren't enhancements.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Langley

         14        was next.  Commissioner Mathis, you are after Commissioner

         15        Langley.

         16             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  You know, folks, every two

         17        years in the House and every four years in the Senate they

         18        have a thing called an election.  And in that election the

         19        people who wish to represent the people of their district

         20        go forth and put their names on a ballot and they have

         21        issues in that campaign.

         22             There is no doubt -- I voted against the Lottery to

         23        start with.  I think it is the most inverse tax that there

         24        is.  But in the process of selling the Lottery as the, you

         25        know, the panacea of all the educational ills was an


          1        absolute fraud on the people of this state.

          2             The total Lottery take wouldn't pay 3 percent of the

          3        educational budget and yet the people think it is going to

          4        solve everything.  It is not going to do that.  But more

          5        importantly, we are creating here admittedly somewhere in

          6        the neighborhood of a $400 million deficit, we are going

          7        to consider Article V which may be another quarter to a

          8        half-million dollar deficit that we are passing to this

          9        Legislature.

         10             Now you want to kill every proposal we have on that

         11        ballot, put this one on there with Article V.  People

         12        aren't that stupid.  There ain't no free lunch.  That

         13        money is coming from taxes.  Now who are we to determine

         14        this?

         15             You know, right now we are in a great economic boom.

         16        I have been in this Legislature in '74 and '75 when it

         17        went the other way.  So what happens in the educational

         18        budget when it goes the other way and we can't even meet

         19        the necessities of the FEFP program?

         20             As Commissioner Morsani -- and I thought, it is like

         21        you are going to have a great automobile.  You are going

         22        to have the deluxe trim package, all the mirrors and

         23        vanity mirror and everything there and the leather trim,

         24        but you have got no engine.

         25             So, you can't -- don't put the Legislature in this


          1        box.  Don't pass these deficits on to the Legislature with

          2        the responsibility and say, Oh, they will work it out.  I

          3        asked one of the sponsors, what happens if we can't meet

          4        the basics of the education program?  They can raise

          5        taxes.  Whew, shouldn't have said that.  That's where you

          6        are going.

          7             Let the Legislature take care of this and face the

          8        people every two to four years and answer for what they

          9        do.  Let's don't pay Legislature here.  It is a burden

         10        that we just can't afford to pass on to somebody.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Mathis.

         12             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I have a question for

         13        Commissioner Nabors.  Is there anybody in this proposal

         14        that would prevent the Legislature from terminating all

         15        existing programs, and once this passes, reestablishing

         16        them, in that they would be brand new programs eligible

         17        for funding of Lottery dollars?

         18             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, I don't think I can

         19        answer -- the Legislature, no, the Legislature wouldn't

         20        have -- what the Legislature would have to do if they

         21        abolished the program, they would have to refund it.  They

         22        could only use it for these types of programs.  For

         23        scholarships, they could abolish Bright Futures, they

         24        would have to use another scholarship program.  But let me

         25        finish.  On the early childhood care and education, it has


          1        to be used for programs that didn't exist on the effective

          2        date of the amendment for enhanced funding.

          3             For pre-K, you know, the pre-K program would have to

          4        be expanded.  We have debated this several times and it's

          5        passed favorably.  It is an important issue.  And the

          6        question is, what we have tried to do is address some of

          7        the needs that we heard that people are concerned about,

          8        the fact that scholarships were included in this example,

          9        which we have done.

         10             We have also tried to address the issues about giving

         11        the Legislature a reasonable period of time to grandfather

         12        this in, which is five years.  And we have also said,

         13        Let's make sure we don't preclude their ability in the

         14        future to fund something that no one has thought of, and

         15        we give them that authority.

         16             So, the problem is whether or not you believe that

         17        the people think they have been misled on the Lottery.  I

         18        believe they do.  I believe they thought it was going for

         19        enhancement.  And this is the only way we can ensure that

         20        it'll go for enhancement.

         21             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I have another question.  I

         22        think what we are trying to do is bind the Legislature's

         23        hands to use Lottery's moneys to enhance education, when

         24        in fact that might be a futile effort because they could

         25        always, you know, in all of the programs that are


          1        currently in existence once this passes, institute them

          2        under new names and use Lottery funds to fund those new

          3        programs.  I'm just concerned that an effort to get the

          4        Legislature to do something that there's not the political

          5        will to do is futile.  I'm trying to see and understand

          6        how this --

          7             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me respond to that question

          8        then.  There's no question, we are tying the hands, we are

          9        limiting the hands of the Legislature, but your fear is

         10        unfounded because they would have to use it for these

         11        types of purposes and there's a need there for these types

         12        of purposes.  There's no shenanigans that can occur on

         13        this.  Their hands are being tied, they have to use it for

         14        enhancement, but they cannot do something indirectly that

         15        this doesn't directly require them to do.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         17        Marshall.

         18             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  In response to the first

         19        question that Commissioner Mathis just raised, let me say,

         20        if I were a school board member or a school administrator,

         21        I would be very creative in trying to find ways to do just

         22        that, to reenact some programs that have been disqualified

         23        because they were in effect when this program took place.

         24        I would try to find some way, find some way to reestablish

         25        them.


          1             But, Commissioners, my head, I beg your pardon, my

          2        heart wants to support this proposal.  Largely because I

          3        think it tends to make honest citizens out of us and

          4        causes us to admit the fraudulence that was the Florida

          5        Lottery and that we still live with as a fraudulent

          6        device, but my head tells me there's too many problems

          7        with it that really could create mayhem in the operation

          8        of our schools.

          9             There are programs in effect now that school people

         10        will tell you must be preserved and expanded and enhanced.

         11        Do you want to know what some of those are?  Magnet

         12        schools, school to work programs, very strong current

         13        program with a lot of interest around the state, preschool

         14        programs.  There are now, in effect, in many school

         15        districts, very good preschool programs that go down to

         16        children age 3.  They are in effect now, and therefore,

         17        they wouldn't qualify by the terms of this proposal.

         18             Teacher training for technology, counties are trying

         19        to get that underway now to teach teachers how to use

         20        technology.  Would we disqualify that?  I just don't see

         21        how this is a workable plan.  Well, you know, I would

         22        therefore ask that, in its present form, that it not be

         23        supported.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Rundle.

         25             COMMISIONER RUNDLE:  Commissioner Nabors, I just want


          1        to follow-up on my question and your answer.  I'm very

          2        concerned about something you said.  I am a big advocate

          3        of public schools and I have children in the public school

          4        system.  And my mother was a teacher and I used to be a

          5        teacher, so we are great advocates of our schools, but I

          6        think citizens did expect Lottery moneys to be used to

          7        enhance their educational programs in school.

          8             And I am a little concerned that really a lot of this

          9        may go to before school, which isn't a bad idea, I mean, I

         10        believe in that concept.  But I am a little concerned that

         11        when you say the public thought the money was going to go

         12        for enhancement programs, in a way, what I'm concerned

         13        about is we are defining enhanced programs as being before

         14        school, the emphasis is really before the kids get into

         15        kindergarten.  And I don't know if that's what citizens

         16        are going to support.

         17             I think they want their kids to have better enhanced

         18        programs as they are in school.  That's one concern.  The

         19        second thing, you really didn't answer when I mentioned

         20        Head Start and some serious programs like that.  Do you

         21        think that they will just be -- become a shell game, are

         22        we going to force the Legislature to then perform a shell

         23        game because I think that could be equally disturbing.

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me ask you.  In the first

         25        place, it specifically enumerates the appropriations for


          1        pre-kindergarten programs as a permitted use, and then for

          2        early childhood care and education programs, they have to

          3        be not in existence or increased funding levels.  Pardon?

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, I think you

          5        have something for the good of the order here.

          6             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  The only thing I can say is you

          7        need to vote to keep -- to give it to the public.  I sent

          8        you a tape, Early Childhood Care means Head Start, all of

          9        those types of programs, children with disabilities, all

         10        of that testimony we heard in the committee.  That has a

         11        meaning in the real world as to what kinds of programs

         12        they are.  All of the programs that you are concerned

         13        about are within that terminology.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Scott.

         15             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  One point, just -- the

         16        Legislature didn't pass the Lottery, the Legislature

         17        didn't put it on the ballot, this was done by a petition,

         18        and so, you know, I think we need to -- the idea, I'm

         19        getting the impression that maybe somebody thinks, Well,

         20        this is some kind of legislative plot, that then we took

         21        all of the money and absconded.  Well, the Legislature

         22        didn't do it.

         23             This is just, with all due respect to the goals of

         24        Commissioner Nabors, this is not a good idea.  I mean, you

         25        could come up with smaller class sizes, for example, that


          1        wouldn't be covered.  What if we come up with a policy

          2        that that's an enhancement?  Well, that is already in

          3        existence.

          4             It is not a good idea to do this and I would urge you

          5        to vote for it because if you do, it'll then, in effect,

          6        I'm surprised of some of the people that would be for it

          7        who are interested in current education programs, who are

          8        interested in higher or postsecondary, to say that we are

          9        going to take $400 million, it just isn't -- it just isn't

         10        real and you should let the Legislature do it like

         11        Commissioner Langley said.

         12             And that's the basic, one of the basic things we are

         13        here for is the budget, so I would urge you, again, not to

         14        vote for this.  And there's no form where you are going to

         15        list it and put this in the Constitution, it's just not

         16        reasonable.  The idea, perhaps, is good, but it's just not

         17        a reasonable thing for us to be doing.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg.

         19             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I'm trying to put together

         20        the comments I hear, some of which come from the same

         21        speaker.  I hear that the revenues from the Lottery are

         22        nothing more than a drop in the bucket when we are talking

         23        about the cost of education in this state.  I'm told, at

         24        the same time, that this will leave a disastrous hole in

         25        the budget if we approve this proposal.


          1             Now, you can't have it both ways.  I agree that it is

          2        a drop in the bucket in terms of having quality education

          3        in this state, and that the Lottery is never going to

          4        provide us quality education in this state.  Only when the

          5        people's representatives have the will to appropriate the

          6        revenues necessary to do that, and only when the citizens

          7        of this state have the will to vote for the bond issues

          8        that are necessary for the capital facilities that we need

          9        are we going to have those.

         10             What we are talking about here is a rather limited

         11        sort of thing, but it is, by golly, something that I think

         12        the populous out there will magnify us for, they will say,

         13        golly, maybe somebody is coming around, finally, and going

         14        to give it to us straight from the shoulder and we now get

         15        the opportunity to do that which we thought all along we

         16        were doing.

         17             In terms, Commissioner Rundle, and I understand you

         18        say that people thought they were enhancing education of

         19        the school, if you, you know, listened to these tapes,

         20        what I'm hearing, and I was convinced, I harbored some of

         21        the same concerns you have.  I drew a proposal that had

         22        sort of nuts and bolts in it, you know, but I was

         23        convinced by former Chancellor Reed and the others that in

         24        order to enhance the educational experience of the

         25        children of this state, one of the most important things


          1        we can do is address these early childhood programs.

          2             And that, in truth and fact, that will be much more

          3        important than putting computers in the classroom, the

          4        sort of hardware stuff we thought about.  The Legislature

          5        doesn't have to do it, but it certainly opened that option

          6        to them.  Seven opens the entire vista of enhancement.

          7             Now, what this proposal attempts to do is to say,

          8        somehow we got off on the wrong foot with these Lottery

          9        moneys, everybody perceived, and I think rightly

         10        perceived, based on what was represented to them, that

         11        this was going to be used to enhance education in this

         12        state not substitute for other general revenue funding of

         13        education in this state.

         14             And I submit to you that if you say, Well, we really,

         15        yep, we all agree that's what it was supposed to be but

         16        now look at what they did and because of what they did, it

         17        has become irretrievable.  We can't do anything about it.

         18        They have got us in the hole and there's no way to get out

         19        of it.

         20             What this does is to say, ladies and gentlemen, to

         21        the people, that the Legislature is going to have to wean

         22        itself off the use of these Lottery funds to provide for

         23        other than enhancement of education in this state.

         24             I suggest to you that you earlier voted on this

         25        proposal or an earlier version of this proposal.  This


          1        simply is the February 11 version of that proposal and it

          2        is the newer, snappier, better one and I urge you to

          3        please support it.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I have never

          6        voted for this proposal and don't intend to, because I

          7        believe, its sponsors have succumbed to the notion that

          8        nothing matters beyond politically desirable results,

          9        however achieved.  I would like to read for you, if I may,

         10        just an ever-so-brief portion from Judge Bork's book

         11        called the Tempting of America.  And Judge Bork is very

         12        critical of the judiciary when it usurps legislative

         13        authority.

         14             And I would suggest that, as I read this to you,

         15        where the term Judge is used, would you substitute the

         16        word Commissioner and evaluate whether or not this doesn't

         17        have application to this body?  "In law, the moment of

         18        temptation is the moment of choice when a judge realizes

         19        in a case before him, his strongly held view of justice,

         20        his political and moral imperative is not embodied in a

         21        statute or any provision of the Constitution, he must then

         22        choose between his version of justice and abiding by the

         23        American form of government.

         24             "Yet the desire to do justice, whose nature seems to

         25        him obvious is compelling, while the concept of


          1        constitutional process is abstract, rather arid, and the

          2        abstinence of counsel is unsatisfying.  To give into

          3        temptation this one time solves an urgent human problem

          4        and a faint crack appears in the American foundation, a

          5        Judge or a Commissioner has begun to rule where a

          6        Legislature should.

          7             "The American people are tempted as well.  Many of

          8        the results seem good and they are told that the choices

          9        are between a cold, impersonal logic on the one hand and

         10        on the other hand morality and compassion.  This has

         11        always been the song of the tempters and now it's heard

         12        incessantly from those who would politicize the courts in

         13        the Constitution as a necessary stage in the

         14        politicization of culture at large.

         15             "The democratic integrity of law, however, depends

         16        entirely however upon the degree to which its processes

         17        are legitimate.  Ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to

         18        you that the process by which we go about our business is

         19        every bit as important as the product.  And to the extent

         20        that we subvert the process in order to achieve a

         21        politically desirable result, that is to do an in-run

         22        around the Legislature whom we complain has not been

         23        willing to do its job, is to subvert the process, and in

         24        my judgment, to bring discredit upon this body which

         25        becomes then just another political group seeking to


          1        achieve political ends, and in the process we subvert this

          2        democratic constitutional republican process that we enjoy

          3        at this state and we continue to erode the foundation of

          4        our republic."

          5             It's for that reason that I'm going to vote against

          6        this proposal, yet one more time.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.

          8             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, it's interesting,

          9        I didn't realize that we were going to erode the

         10        foundation of our republic.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are not judges.

         12             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Oh, good.  I would like us, I

         13        would like us to read the last paragraph and then I'll

         14        read it for you, just before our amendment, our proposed

         15        amendment, which says that, Net proceeds derived from the

         16        Lotteries shall be deposited in a state trust fund to be

         17        designated to state education Lottery's trust fund to be

         18        appropriated by the Legislature.

         19             It doesn't say what for, it can be appropriated for

         20        anything, not even for education, as I read this, other

         21        than we would -- as we would hold the feet to the fire,

         22        the feet of our legislators to the fire, I would suggest

         23        that all we are doing here is giving some very strong

         24        options and also listing some things that the dollars must

         25        be used for, and that we are making this better and not


          1        worse and I suggest that we get to the vote because I know

          2        people are tired of talking about it.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, somebody is

          4        going to close.  But first I want to tell you what we are

          5        voting on, now that we have these discussions.  We have

          6        pending a substitute amendment for a pending amendment

          7        when we left this matter before.  If you vote down this

          8        substitute amendment, then we go back to the pending

          9        amendment and that will be taken up.

         10             Then if you vote that down, then we go back to the

         11        original proposal and we take that up.  And if you vote

         12        that down, then we are through with it for a while.  I

         13        think we are through with it because this is on

         14        reconsideration.  Am I right, Commissioner Barkdull?

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir, that was the reason

         16        I raised the point of order earlier to be sure we

         17        understood the posture that we were going to end up in.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  So, now, what we are on,

         19        and I think we probably have had enough debate.  If

         20        anybody feels otherwise, I won't cut them off.  I doubt if

         21        anybody is going to change any more votes.  Commissioner

         22        Nabors may.

         23             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I hope we have a quorum.  I

         24        hope we do.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have a quorum.


          1             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I know we have debated this, I

          2        am not going to delay it.  I regret this came up late in

          3        the day today, I think everybody is tired.  I think the

          4        fears that I've heard are true on this, this is an

          5        important thing we have heard from the people.  We are not

          6        doing anything, the people will vote on this.  I would

          7        hope -- this is a very important issue.  Those of you who

          8        are concerned about it, we need to keep this alive.  It

          9        doesn't need to be killed today.  We voted out favorable,

         10        I think it was 17 to 7, when we were more energetic, less

         11        tired.

         12             And I would urge you to vote for this, I think it is

         13        one of the most governmental, important things that we can

         14        do is to make sure that the money is spent for enhanced

         15        education, and to have a dedicated fund for these early

         16        childhood care and education programs.  Without those, we

         17        are going to lose generations of kids.  And I just think

         18        it is absolutely the right thing to do.

         19             One of the things wrong with our process is, is we

         20        don't have a public hearing forum.  We had six people at

         21        the education committee who chose to read the publisher of

         22        the Miami Herald and other people talk about this, this

         23        compelling testimony.  I sent tapes out.  We need to keep

         24        this alive.  I would urge you to vote for it.  We have

         25        improved it from the other two that you have received.


          1        You have another bite at the apple if you don't like it

          2        down the line.  I think you would like it if you weren't

          3        tired and we had a chance to talk about it in more detail.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are going to have

          5        a quorum call before we vote.  We are going to have a

          6        quorum call.

          7             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum call.  Quorum call.  All

          8        commissioners indicate your presence.  Quorum call.

          9             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I thought all of those people had

         11        left, that had cleared the gallery.  I see they didn't.

         12             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

         13             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Yes, sir,

         15        Commissioner Barkdull.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  You understand now, this is

         17        on the substitute amendment.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  This is on the substitute

         19        amendment which we have been discussing.  And then after

         20        we vote on that we'll know what else we vote on.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Now, if the substitute

         22        passes, then we vote on the proposal as substituted.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  If the substitute fails, we

         25        still have to vote on the proposal.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have to vote on the amendment.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The amendment then.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If that fails, then we vote on

          4        the proposal.  If it passes, then we vote on the proposal

          5        as amended.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Right.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  But right now, this last

          8        substitute amendment is what we are voting on, which has

          9        been very well discussed.  All right.  Would you open the

         10        machine and let us vote.

         11             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and record the

         13        vote.

         14             READING CLERK:  Twenty yeas, 12 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We revert to the proposal as

         16        amended by the substitute amendment.  Does everybody

         17        understand that?  Now, you can debate this.  Okay, thank

         18        you.  We took a vote and you can't debate it.  All right.

         19        Now, prepare to vote on the real vote, whether or not you

         20        are for this proposal as amended by the substitute

         21        amendment.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of inquiry.  If it does

         23        not get an affirmative vote, that lays this matter to

         24        rest, correct?

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If it does not pass, it's dead.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  If it does, it isn't,

          3        it still has to go through the process.  All right.  Open

          4        the machine and let us vote.

          5             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine.

          7             READING CLERK:  Fifteen yeas, 17 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Somebody fouled me up.  I thought

          9        I was going to cast the tie-breaking vote and you slipped

         10        in there and voted with me.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, I now move that

         12        we take up what we temporarily passed, which is Committee

         13        Substitute for Proposals 106 and 107 by Hawkes and

         14        Evans-Jones.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are back on

         16        Committee Substitute for proposals 106 and 107 and we were

         17        waiting for an amendment, I believe, which is on the

         18        table.  All right.  We already have one amendment on the

         19        question, and we have a question about that, Commissioner

         20        Hawkes.  We are square.

         21             There's one amendment and you should have it.  It's

         22        not very long.  That's it, isn't it?  All right.

         23        Commissioner Hawkes, you are recognized on the amendment,

         24        and then however you want to proceed from there.

         25             Everybody remember what the proposal is?  This was a


          1        proposal that was explained by Commissioner Hawkes before

          2        we moved to this last item.  And I'm going to allow him

          3        the leeway of refreshing your memory as to what he's

          4        trying to do and then what the amendment does.

          5        Commissioner Hawkes.

          6             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  What we talked about last time,

          7        22 of you felt that some of these issues, when private

          8        enterprise or private sector individuals use government

          9        property, that the Legislature should have an opportunity

         10        to determine that some of these are -- serve a valid

         11        public purpose and should be off of the tax roll and want

         12        to create the authority in the Constitution for that to

         13        happen, what this does is it gives the Legislature all of

         14        the authority, because it removes the immunity from

         15        counties and puts everybody on the level playing field

         16        that was so desirable during the debate.  This is truly a

         17        level playing field and this allows the Legislature to

         18        look at all of these issues and decide when to grant an

         19        exemption from ad valorem taxation.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes, we are going

         21        to get a little order here and I'm going to ask them to

         22        read the amendment, which we didn't do.  And I'm not

         23        trying to interrupt your presentation, but I think I

         24        better do it in the correct order.  Everybody give your

         25        attention, please.  And read the amendment.


          1             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Hawkes on Page 1,

          2        Lines 19 through 27, delete those lines and insert, All

          3        property owned by the State or any other governmental

          4        entity and used exclusively by such governmental entity

          5        for governmental or municipal purposes shall be exempt

          6        from taxation.  All property owned by governmental entity

          7        and used for airport, seaport, or other public purposes

          8        and uses that are incidental thereto may be exempted from

          9        taxation by general law.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead.  There is something

         11        else on mine.  It says, No immunity shall exist to the

         12        extent that it is inconsistent with this subsection.  All

         13        right.  That's it.  Go ahead.

         14             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  That's it, Mr. Chairman, it

         15        just levels the playing field and lets the Legislature

         16        look at all of these issues, and it's truly, if all of

         17        those other arguments were valid, this is truly a valid

         18        way to go if you think the Legislature needs to look at

         19        some of these situations and decide what should be exempt

         20        and what should not be exempt, and I would submit,

         21        Commissioner Connor asked a question about, what about

         22        private business now facing competition from government,

         23        well, this gives an opportunity to take some of those

         24        situations off if they don't serve a valid public purpose

         25        as determined by the Legislature.  I would ask for your


          1        favorable consideration.  Thank you very much.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I have one question, though.

          3        What does the amendment do that your proposal didn't do?

          4             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  My proposal, Mr. Chairman,

          5        originally was, removed immunity and it didn't allow the

          6        Legislature to -- it did not allow the Legislature to

          7        exempt property.  Now, the only property we are ever

          8        talking about in any of these proposals is property that's

          9        owned by government but used by a private, for-profit

         10        entity.  Mine did not allow the Legislature to look at

         11        those situations and decide to exempt some of them.

         12             The body has expressed a desire that the Legislature

         13        should be allowed to look at those situations and exempt

         14        appropriate situations. This adopts the wisdom of the body

         15        and says, Let the Legislature look.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Very well.  Now, Commissioner

         17        Anthony.

         18             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  As we

         19        receive this proposal, we heard a lot of conversation

         20        earlier about the Anthony/Henderson proposal.  Let me make

         21        it perfectly clear.  This is diametrically opposed to the

         22        vote that you made two hours ago.  It does not seem as if

         23        it was two hours ago, but it was almost two hours ago.

         24        And I don't want you to forget that you made a vote, you

         25        took a vote on a proposal that is diametrically opposed to


          1        this proposal.

          2             Now, we can dress it up any way we want to but if we

          3        are going to be a state that moves toward the year 2000

          4        new millennium, providing the opportunity for local

          5        government, state government, counties and any entity

          6        therein to be able to provide economic development, create

          7        jobs in our state, provide a level playing field for all

          8        governmental entities, this does not do it.

          9             This in fact tears down everything that we have been

         10        working for in our state.  And so I don't want it to be

         11        unclear that we -- this is diametrically opposed to what

         12        we have already passed.  It may sound different, it may

         13        sound cleaner, it gives it back to the state Legislature

         14        to review it, but it's in fact, the principles of it has

         15        been changed, but in fact, it says the same thing in terms

         16        of opposing totally what we have already passed.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Scott.

         18             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Amen.  I would just say that

         19        this does take away the immunity of the state, counties,

         20        school districts and universities and that sort of thing,

         21        and if you voted for the other proposal then you should

         22        vote no on this proposal.  And this amendment really

         23        doesn't change the proposal other than take out some words

         24        that I can tell.  But regardless, it's diametrically

         25        opposed, it was discussed at length.  And we would urge


          1        you not to adopt this proposal.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And the other proposal, somebody

          3        moved to reconsider it, didn't they?  Commissioner Connor,

          4        you did I believe.

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

          7        discussion?  Commissioner Barkdull.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This is on the amendment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes, sir.  This is on the

         10        amendment.  Are you ready to vote on the amendment?  All

         11        in favor of the amendment, say yea; opposed?

         12             (Verbal vote taken.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  We'll vote on the

         14        amendment before we vote on the proposal.  Open the

         15        machine.  This is on the amendment.  I was in doubt of how

         16        it really went.  I really wasn't but I thought we better

         17        mark it off.

         18             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, we had 31 votes

         20        last time, we have got 24 this time.  We are voting on the

         21        amendment.  Has everybody voted?  All right.  Lock the

         22        machine and announce the vote.

         23             READING CLERK:  Twelve yeas, 15 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now we are on the

         25        original proposal by Commissioners Evans-Jones and


          1        Commissioner Hawkes.  Who wants to make a presentation?

          2        Commissioner Evans-Jones, Commissioner Hawkes tried and

          3        now it's your turn.

          4             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Well, I think I will

          5        probably do just about as well as Commissioner Hawkes this

          6        time.  I think you sent us a message, however, I'm sure

          7        that all of you still have an open mind.  What we were

          8        trying to do was get rid of immunity, which was in the

          9        original proposal.  We were trying to level the playing

         10        field as far as being competitive with private business.

         11        I still think that it's tremendously unfair, just because

         12        you are on county land or city land or anywhere else and

         13        your neighbor is having to pay property taxes and you are

         14        not.

         15             And basically, that's what we were trying to do, to

         16        make it fair for private enterprise.  We are not talking

         17        about taking anything away except those businesses who

         18        were in there for profit should indeed pay taxes.

         19             You are going to take away a great deal of money with

         20        all of these tax exemptions that seem to be so extremely

         21        popular in today's world.  And what does that do to you

         22        and me, the private person who pays ad valorem taxes?  It

         23        increases it, and that's what it's going to do.  And these

         24        businesses can well afford to pay their fair share.  So, I

         25        ask for your favorable vote on the initial proposal.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proceed to vote on the proposal.

          2        Unlock the machine and we'll vote.

          3             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce the

          5        vote.

          6             READING CLERK:  Seven yea, 20 nay, Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The next proposal we

          8        were going to take up is No. 10 -- 58.  Excuse me,

          9        Proposal 41.  We are going to get to you, Commissioner

         10        Mathis.

         11             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Mr. Chair, I would like to

         12        withdraw Proposal 41 -- not yet?  Okay, we are holding on.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner, what do you

         14        want to do with it?

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  She wants to withdraw it.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Yeah, but he's telling her

         17        not to and she's taking his instructions.  You moved to

         18        withdraw it.

         19             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  No, I take back that movement.

         20        I withdraw the withdrawal, there you go.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Shall I just call on Commissioner

         22        Henderson?  Commissioner Henderson instead of you,

         23        Commissioner Mathis.

         24             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Chairman, there's a

         25        pending motion to reconsider the pending matter that we


          1        need to vote on prior to putting it down.  Then I'll

          2        invite her to withdraw hers.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll take it up if the person

          4        wants to.

          5             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  There's a pending motion to

          6        reconsider.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's right.  Do you want to

          8        take it up, Commissioner Connor?  You don't have to, we

          9        will take it up tomorrow morning or tomorrow.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If we won't be here tomorrow

         11        morning, what I don't want to be is the guy that holds

         12        them over.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are going to be

         14        here tomorrow, and we are going to adjourn very quickly.

         15        I have to adjourn to be out at FSU on a radio program.

         16             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I don't want to take it up

         17        then.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         19        Barkdull.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, we added to the

         21        calendar this morning Proposal No. 58 in reference to the

         22        age discrimination.  That is the next item on the

         23        calendar.  I am not sure that we can conclude that by

         24        5:00 o'clock.  I would suggest that we stop the action on

         25        proposals and have announcements and motions to reconsider


          1        and so forth.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  What we are going to

          3        do is we are going to cease operation here and have

          4        announcements and then we are going to adjourn until

          5        tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock.  Commissioner Barkdull.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I have several items.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Pay attention, please.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the

          9        Commission, I would like to move that all items that are

         10        on reconsideration, Nos. 2, 6, 144, and 172, on today's

         11        calendar be carried over until tomorrow.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, they are.

         13             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I would now like to move to

         14        reconsider Proposition 168 which modified the Cabinet for

         15        the purpose of offering a housekeeping amendment tomorrow.

         16        One sixty-eight, we passed yesterday amended.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  And you move to

         18        reconsider it?

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So, it's carried over

         21        until tomorrow.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Now I would like to announce

         23        that there is no Rules and Calendar Committee meeting this

         24        afternoon.  Does anybody have anything that they want to

         25        withdraw that's left on this calendar?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If you do, now is the time.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I want to say that sovereign

          3        immunity and Article V will be early up tomorrow morning.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.  Commissioner

          5        Riley.

          6             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to

          7        move to reconsider Proposition 13.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Which one was it?

          9             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  That was Commissioner Brochin's

         10        proposal on the death penalty.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  That was adopted

         12        yesterday, right?

         13             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  So, that is done and it's

         15        carried over until tomorrow.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Mr. Chairman, point of

         17        information.  Commissioner Barkdull, did you say Proposals

         18        172 and 162 will be heard tomorrow, they have been carried

         19        over on the Reapportionment Commission?

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That is the Legislative

         21        Reapportionment Commission?

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There's been a motion to

         25        reconsider to be carried over until tomorrow along with


          1        the other motions to reconsider.  And he announced that

          2        tomorrow, early on, we'll be taking up sovereign immunity

          3        and Article V costs.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Could I ask Commissioner

          5        Anthony to take the floor and I'll ask him a question,

          6        please?

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Anthony.

          8             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  I yield.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Anthony, I

         10        notice you have gotten up, and we didn't reach it today,

         11        Proposal No. 46.  I think you indicated that you wouldn't

         12        be here tomorrow.  I know that relates to sovereign

         13        immunity.  Do you want to leave that on or --

         14             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will

         15        be here tomorrow.  I'll start my life off in the wrong

         16        direction with my future mate and I --

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I don't know if that's a

         18        good idea or not, a lot of them go that way anyway, you

         19        know.  But you will have better luck, Commissioner

         20        Anthony, and we'll all send you an extra present.  Now,

         21        anything else?

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I move we recess until

         23        9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  It is done.

         25             (Session adjourned 5:00 p.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  Suncom 278-9675
         20                      Fax Filing (850) 921-6847