State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for February 24, 1998 (File size=521K


          1                        STATE OF FLORIDA



                                  COMMISSION MEETING



              DATE:                   February 24, 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
                                      MONA L. WHIDDON
         15                           JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
                                      Court Reporters
         16                           Division of Administrative Hearings
                                      The DeSoto Building
         17                           1230 Apalachee Parkway
                                      Tallahassee, Florida









          1                           APPEARANCES


          3   CARLOS ALFONSO
          4   ANTONIO L. ARGIZ  (ABSENT)
              PAT BARTON
          6   ROBERT M. BROCHIN
          7   KEN CONNOR
              CHRIS CORR
              VALERIE EVANS
              PAUL HAWKES
              DICK LANGLEY
         13   JOHN F. LOWNDES
         14   JACINTA MATHIS
              JON LESTER MILLS
         15   FRANK MORSANI
         16   CARLOS PLANAS
              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             (Roll taken and recorded electronically.)

          3             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All unauthorized visitors,

          4        please leave the chamber.  All commissioners indicate

          5        your presence, all commissioners indicate your

          6        presence.  Quorum call.  Quorum call.  All

          7        commissioners indicate your presence.

          8             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

          9             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If everyone will take their

         11        seats, we'll come to order.  Will the commissioners

         12        and guests please rise for the opening prayer given

         13        this morning, and let me, as we approach this prayer,

         14        ask each of you to join all of us in prayer for those

         15        who have lost their homes and their families, and

         16        their injuries in the great disaster that occurred in

         17        Central Florida.  It's something that we all feel

         18        collectively very, very bereaved about.  Reverend.

         19             REVEREND MCWRIGHT:  Let us pray.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Excuse me, this is Reverend

         21        Frank McWright from St. John's Episcopal Church.

         22             REVEREND MCWRIGHT:  Let us pray.  Lord, we do

         23        come to you this morning with heavy hearts for lives

         24        that are lost.  We pray for their souls, we pray for

         25        their families, and for all of those who are close to


          1        them.  Lord, I pray particularly for this group

          2        gathered this morning, that we can set aside our

          3        agendas, our self-centeredness and be focused on those

          4        in need as we go about our work.  Help us have mercy,

          5        help us to be vehicles of your grace and your love

          6        throughout the day and in the coming year.  In

          7        Christ's name we pray.  Amen.

          8             Good luck.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Please remain standing for

         10        the pledge of allegiance led this morning by students

         11        from Hosford Elementary and Junior High School in

         12        Liberty County.  They are Jennifer Smith, Laura

         13        Miller, Karrie Flowers, Tommy Robbins, Brent Justice

         14        and Chris O'Neal.  Michelle Gawin is their sponsor.

         15             (Pledge of Allegiance.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  These young people will be

         17        our pages for today and will be with us, and we are

         18        delighted to have you over here from Hosford.

         19             I am reminded in a note here to remind everybody

         20        that this is Fat Tuesday, for those who are

         21        interested, Mardi Gras is ending tonight.  This is

         22        your last shot, Commissioner Morsani.  All right,

         23        Commissioner Barkdull, you are recognized.  The

         24        Chairman of Rules.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of


          1        the Commission, your daily order of business on the

          2        calendar is here.  The program is to continue with the

          3        matters on reconsideration we were on yesterday and

          4        the items that were temporarily passed.  Hopefully we

          5        can clean off all of these matters until we reach the

          6        committee report on Style and Drafting.

          7             At that time we'll probably take a short recess

          8        to consider the recommendations of the report before

          9        we go into the items in the report.  The main thing

         10        will be that the committee, as I understand it, will

         11        recommend one of two different alternatives, which may

         12        require a change in the rules.  And if they do, we are

         13        going to have a short Rules Committee in the recessed

         14        period of time after we complete the special order of

         15        the items that are on reconsideration and those that

         16        haven't been heard yet.  So, I suggest that we go to

         17        the special order as outlined in the calendar on the

         18        desk.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull, due to

         20        the non-attendance of a lot of members that are not

         21        here, would it be possible to have that meeting now?

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir, but I'm short

         23        two members of the --

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, one of them just walked

         25        in the door.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  And you thought you were

          2        going to sneak in.  I would like to have a full

          3        complement  of the Rules Committee to take these items

          4        up, sir.  We could do that, but Commissioner Scott has

          5        had no notice of the fact that we were going to do

          6        this.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley.

          8             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Our executive director

          9        confirmed that Commissioner Scott is here, he's just

         10        not come in yet, so we could send for him.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think it would be -- we

         12        only have 22 people here.  And I don't feel very

         13        comfortable going forward here unless we can get

         14        people in here.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I'll be happy to go

         16        over the special Rules Committee meeting, but I think

         17        we have got to alert Senator -- Commissioner Scott.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, that's being done.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Okay.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think if --

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, then I would

         22        suggest, if you want to follow that procedure, that we

         23        hear from Commissioner Mills, the chairman of Style

         24        and Drafting and the staff can be prepared to pass out

         25        the two alternatives.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Then I'll recognize

          2        Commissioner Mills to explain the proposal of Style

          3        and Drafting for the rest of the procedure of our

          4        work.  Commissioner Mills, you are recognized.

          5             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, yesterday

          6        several of the commissioners expressed concern about a

          7        process of consideration that would have us

          8        reconsidering all votes this week next week.  If the

          9        staff is going to pass out these two options, let me

         10        try to explain those two options because I think, at

         11        this point, what we need to do is make a decision and

         12        stick with it.  We need to decide how we are going to

         13        consider this and have a firm, firm view as to how we

         14        are going to do this the rest of the week.

         15             Now, as the option as presented yesterday was all

         16        58 proposals would be considered individually in these

         17        topical groupings, those that got a majority vote or

         18        those that got 22 would move forward.  Those that did

         19        not receive a majority would not move forward and

         20        would therefore be ultimately deceased.

         21             For your information, of the 58 proposals, 38 got

         22        more than 22 votes, 20 got fewer than 22 votes.  The

         23        process then would go to the date of March 17th.

         24        Under option one, all proposals that had passed this

         25        week would be available for a reconsideration, that is


          1        both the majority and those that got more than 22.

          2             Of course the body would have the option of not

          3        reconsidering those that got more than 22.  Those that

          4        got fewer than 22, if not reconsidered, would be dead

          5        because they would never have gotten 22 votes.  In

          6        other words, if something got a bare  majority and

          7        over the period of public hearings the commission

          8        wasn't persuaded that it even should be reconsidered,

          9        then it would be dead.

         10             Option two, which Commissioner Connor and I

         11        think -- Commissioner Connor and I think Hawkes and

         12        others discussed yesterday, would say that during this

         13        week, again, those that didn't receive a majority

         14        would die.  Those that received a majority or 22 votes

         15        would proceed forward, and there would be no rule

         16        concerning reconsideration, which means when you

         17        return on the 17th you would vote on all of those

         18        remaining proposals again.

         19             And in terms of actual effect, I personally don't

         20        see too much difference.  In terms of time I see some

         21        difference.  I think there are really two issues.

         22        Commissioner Connor and others are concerned that

         23        something that got 22 votes and was only available for

         24        reconsideration would have some priority; would,

         25        therefore, be considered to have some advantage.


          1             The other issue is the fact that if we come back,

          2        whatever the number is under option two, you have to

          3        vote on all of them.  Under option one on

          4        reconsideration, you only have to vote on those that

          5        you choose to reconsider.  So, I'll be glad to answer

          6        questions and proceed in either way the body wishes.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          8        Langley.  The Rules Committee is going to have a

          9        meeting after these discussions to consider these

         10        proposals and come back with a recommendation, and you

         11        are on the Rules Committee?

         12             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley, you are

         14        recognized.

         15             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, just for the body to

         16        understand, it's not quite that simple.  A proposal

         17        that has gone through here with 22 votes now should

         18        have no particular sanctity.  If we go to public

         19        hearing and we come back and you have to prevail on a

         20        motion to reconsider that, then basically say, like

         21        today, there are only 27 of us here at the time, then

         22        14 people could pass that proposal because they could

         23        defeat a motion to reconsider, and in effect, a

         24        proposal could go out of here with 22 votes with many

         25        that might have been, Well, let's let it go on and


          1        we'll look at it later, courtesy votes.  But when it

          2        comes back, 14 adamant supporters of that proposal

          3        could pass the bill, proposal.

          4             And that's not why we are here.  I think anything

          5        that we put on the ballot ought to be here for a final

          6        vote and have 22 positive votes.  I thought that was

          7        the intent of all of us when we got here.

          8             So, if in fact -- anyway, the Rules Committee is

          9        meeting and that's why I personally prefer proposition

         10        number two.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         12        Lowndes.

         13             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, sir.  My concern is,

         14        is the time that we have got to do what we have got to

         15        do.  We have got 58 proposals now.  And I don't think

         16        that anybody here seriously wants to put 58 proposals

         17        on the ballot.  We really have four days left this

         18        week and two days in March to do all of this.

         19             In my view, it's time for us to start deciding

         20        what we want to put on the ballot and what we don't

         21        want to put on the ballot.

         22             It's time for us to pass beyond wanting to, as

         23        Commissioner Langley said, giving courtesy votes and

         24        to take a look at everything that we have and decide

         25        which one of those proposals we really feel should go


          1        forward.  I really think it's more fair to the public,

          2        if rather than kicking everything down the road to

          3        March 17th, we really go to the public with things we

          4        really think we want to put on the ballot, as opposed

          5        to things that we are going to decide on March 17th

          6        whether we are going to put on the ballot.

          7             If 58 proposals show up on March 17th, then we

          8        are going to have to deal with 58 proposals; we are

          9        going to have to vote on them about every six or seven

         10        minutes in our seven-hour meeting.  And I don't think

         11        there's any way that we are going to get finished.

         12        And my concern is, having been up here for these eight

         13        months, we really need to try to figure out how to get

         14        out of here and how to finish our business.  And I

         15        think we are much more apt to, under Proposal No. 1,

         16        the initial proposal of the Style and Drafting, to

         17        finish our business.

         18             Under that proposal, we would have to, this week

         19        when we vote on these things, be careful what we are

         20        voting about, making sure when we vote for it that we

         21        want it to go on the ballot, not just that we can

         22        decide later.  And if not enough people show up here

         23        on March the 17th, as Commissioner Langley suggests, I

         24        think that's kind of a tragedy because I think that is

         25        a critical day and I think everybody should show up.


          1        But if they don't, I don't think we can let a few

          2        people not showing be the reason we can't finish our

          3        business.  So, I would urge you to vote for Proposal

          4        No. 1.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Without further

          6        discussion, we'll take a five-minute recess for the

          7        Rules Committee to meet briefly to make their

          8        recommendation.  We'll stand in recess.  You can meet

          9        back in the bubble, back where Commissioner

         10        Butterworth is on the phone.  But he'll probably move

         11        to another location, if necessary, or stay at the

         12        meeting, if you would like.

         13             All right.  We'll stand in recess for five

         14        minutes.  We will come back at 9:25.  Commissioner

         15        Thompson.

         16             (Off-the-record comment by Commissioner

         17   Thompson.)

         18             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  -- have public access a

         19        little more than being in the bubble, couldn't we just

         20        go to a room right around here somewhere, maybe drop

         21        down a floor or something, Madam?

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do whatever you like.  I just

         23        said that because it was convenient.

         24             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  The president's

         25        conference room and let the world out there know


          1        that's where we are going to be.  She's got to clean

          2        up her room first, but all right, we'll be there

          3        shortly.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I guess we have

          5        already killed two minutes, so we'll come back at 9:27

          6        now.

          7             (Brief recess.)

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, our 10-minute or

          9        5-minute break, whatever it is, has now turned into 38

         10        minutes.  I was wondering if somebody could go back

         11        and tell the committee that we are ready.  All in

         12        favor say aye.

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries unanimously.  If

         15        anybody wants to attend the meeting of the commission,

         16        you can go to the committee meeting.  Apparently, the

         17        room is so full you can't get in, so.

         18             (Brief recess.)

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Give us a quorum call,

         20        please.

         21             READING CLERK:  Quorum call.  Quorum call.  All

         22        members to the chambers.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Come to order, please.  All

         24        right, would everybody take their seats, please?

         25        Commissioner Scott.  Would you be seated, please.  I


          1        have an announcement that's of some importance.  Thank

          2        you.

          3             Commissioners, Commissioner Corr is back with us

          4        today and we are certainly glad you are back.  We all

          5        were aware, Commissioner Corr, of the unfortunate

          6        death of your father, Thomas Paul Corr, and we all

          7        want you to know that we have thought about you and

          8        you were in our prayers and you still are, because

          9        having lost a father when I was about your age, it's

         10        something that you never, ever get over.  And we

         11        wanted to take this opportunity for all of us to let

         12        you know that we sincerely are with you in this time

         13        of grief, and your family.

         14             All right.  We'll now proceed with the Rules

         15        Committee.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The Rules Committee will

         17        have a recommendation for procedure, which generally

         18        follows the Proposal No. 1, except rather than having

         19        the matter on reconsideration on the 17th when we come

         20        back, upon a show of five hands, the matter will be

         21        revoted and there will be no motion to reconsider.

         22             That proposal -- report of the Rules Committee is

         23        being put in written form at the present time and will

         24        be on your desk as soon as it is completed and I would

         25        defer any action on the -- to approve that until such


          1        time it's in written form in front of the commission.

          2             Now, I would suggest that we revert to the

          3        special order.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We have first on

          5        the special order matters on reconsideration, Proposal

          6        No. 144 by Commissioner Barnett.  Would you read it,

          7        please?

          8             READING CLERK:  Proposal 144, a proposal to

          9        revise Article I, Section 17, Florida Constitution;

         10        relating to punishment for crime.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett, would

         12        you like to briefly explain that again?

         13             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Mr. Chairman, this is a

         14        proposal that -- let me just read it to you so I can

         15        refresh your memory on it, that adds to the

         16        Constitution in Article I, Section 17, dealing with

         17        punishment, the following language:  No punishment may

         18        be imposed or inflicted in an arbitrary, capricious or

         19        discriminatory manner.

         20             The purpose of this language was to embed in the

         21        Constitution the current standards that are being

         22        applied, supposedly being applied in our court system

         23        in the punishment phase of criminal activities.  And

         24        it's my understanding, it is my intent, not

         25        necessarily to change the law, but to raise this


          1        aspirational standard to the level of a constitutional

          2        standard.

          3             I'm unsure who moved to reconsider it.  I would

          4        certainly be glad to go through all of the debate that

          5        we had before, but hopefully it's not necessary.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We had a motion to

          7        reconsider, you are right.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  I understand, also, that

          9        the Chairman has an amendment to the proposal which

         10        adds language in the proposal to say, No punishment

         11        may be, and he wants to adds the words "intentionally"

         12        or "purposely" imposed or afflicted in an arbitrary,

         13        discriminatory manner.  And those are acceptable with

         14        the sponsor.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I thought they

         16        would be, because I think this alleviates some of the

         17        perceived problems with your proposal, and that was

         18        the reason that I was willing to offer this amendment

         19        to do that.

         20             Commissioner Barkdull, we are on the motion to

         21        reconsider.  And if you vote to reconsider, then the

         22        amendment, with the permission of the sponsor, would

         23        be offered.  Ready to vote on the motion to

         24        reconsider?  All of those in favor of the motion, say

         25        aye; opposed?


          1             (Verbal vote taken.)

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Motion carries.  If you will

          3        offer the amendment.  Commissioner Barnett, will you

          4        offer that so I don't have to leave the chair?

          5             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  On request of the Chair,

          6        the amendment on line one.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's being distributed.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  On Line 15, the

          9        language -- and I will read it, it's very short so

         10        I'll read the language as amended.  No punishment may

         11        be imposed, excuse me, no punishment, how is it, may

         12        be intentionally or purposely imposed or afflicted in

         13        an arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Technically, I

         15        need to ask that the amendment be read.

         16             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Barnett, on

         17        Page 1, Line 15, after "no punishment may be," insert

         18        "intentionally or purposely imposed or afflicted in an

         19        arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner."

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any discussion on

         21        the amendment?  If not, all in favor of the amendment,

         22        say aye; opposed?

         23             (Verbal vote taken.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is amended.  We are now on

         25        the proposal as amended with the added language.


          1        Would you care to make any further comments,

          2        Commissioner Barnett?

          3             (Inaudible response.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You will have the

          5        right to close.  On debate today, I would like your

          6        attention, we are going to try to ask everybody to

          7        speak once on these proposals instead of four and five

          8        times like we did yesterday, and we are also going to

          9        try to ask everybody to stay in their seats as much as

         10        they can to avoid interfering with the debate.

         11             And if we could do that, I think we might speed

         12        up our process quite a bit.  Commissioner Langley, you

         13        wanted to be recognized on this proposal.

         14             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  To oppose the proposal,

         15        Mr. Chairman.  I don't know that the language helps it

         16        or hurts it, or the amendatory language.  Basically,

         17        you know, we are tampering again with the process.  I

         18        don't know what this language means.  Does it mean

         19        discrimination as far as age, race, sex, national

         20        origin, sexual preference, poverty level; what does it

         21        mean?  You know, I don't believe the sponsor can tell

         22        us what it means, and I don't believe, I just talked

         23        to my good friend Judge Wetherington here who says he

         24        thinks this is already the law.

         25             But when you put something like this in the


          1        Constitution, it turns the spotlight on this, and the

          2        first liberal judge that comes along is going to say,

          3        Well, you know, it appears from statistics that --

          4        yes, that's you, Judge Sundberg -- it appears from

          5        statistics there's more poor people executed in the

          6        state of Florida than there are rich people.

          7        Therefore, the current statute discriminates against

          8        the poor; we can't have any more capital sentences.

          9             It is just -- maybe it is broke, but the old

         10        saying, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  But maybe it

         11        is broke, but I don't think this fixes it.  And I

         12        think it's just tampering with something that's going

         13        to create a thousand more appeals as time goes on.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, Members of

         16        the Commission, I rise to oppose it.  As Commissioner

         17        Barnett pointed out, this is already the law.  It is

         18        an aspirational statement in the Constitution, and I

         19        think to put it in at this time, and with the debate

         20        that will go forward if it's in there, if you want to

         21        aspire to the fiat programs, it is a good proposal in

         22        that regard; otherwise I don't like it.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

         24        debate?  Commissioner Butterworth.

         25             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Mr. Chairman, this


          1        obviously is a good idea and it is something which is

          2        very difficult to vote against, but I will have to

          3        vote against it for the simple reason, as has been

          4        stated, this is the law as it stands now in the

          5        McCluskey case, United States Supreme Court, and the

          6        Forrester case in our Supreme Court.  I'm really very,

          7        very concerned that this is going to cause constant

          8        litigation on sentencing issues and we'll never have

          9        closure.  I think I can see it causing so many

         10        tremendous problems or potential problems within the

         11        criminal justice system that I would urge everybody to

         12        vote against it.  Even though it's difficult to vote

         13        against it, but I really believe that we have to vote

         14        against it.  Thank you.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further debate?

         16        Commissioner Barnett to close.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Mr. Chairman, yes, this is

         18        the law today, this is supposedly the case law and the

         19        statutory law today, but I think those of you who were

         20        here when we debated this issue and when I went into a

         21        lot of details about it recall that even though this

         22        is the law today, it's not working.  There are many

         23        instances in which punishments are being imposed in an

         24        arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner, in

         25        which race, particularly, is an issue.


          1             Everything from the death penalty in the capital

          2        cases, down the line, all of the available statistics

          3        show that indeed the law is not working.  And the

          4        purpose of this, by putting it in the Constitution, is

          5        hopefully so that the judges, and so that the

          6        prosecutors of this state will say, Yes, that is the

          7        law, maybe we need to give a little bit more attention

          8        to the issues related to arbitrary, capricious or

          9        discriminatory punishments, maybe we ought to take it

         10        a little bit more seriously and do a little bit more.

         11             Now, the language that Commissioner Douglass

         12        offered, the purpose for the intentional language

         13        really was designed, I believe, to take care of the

         14        concerns about McCluskey and Forrester and not

         15        necessarily overturn those cases.

         16             I think what he was trying to do was address some

         17        of the problems people have in this.  But I find it

         18        incongruous for people to say, This is the law, but if

         19        you put it in the Constitution, it's going to create a

         20        lot more litigation and concern and debate.  That

         21        concern to me almost proves the fact that people in

         22        law enforcement and otherwise know that the law indeed

         23        is not working.

         24             I think for the people in the state of Florida to

         25        have in their Constitution a very simple statement


          1        that in this state, when we impose punishments, up to

          2        and including the ultimate punishment, that our

          3        people, our citizens want to make sure that it's

          4        imposed in a manner that's not arbitrary, not

          5        capricious, and most certainly, most certainly does

          6        not discriminate.

          7             So, I ask you to support this.  I frankly think

          8        this could be one of the more popular proposals and

          9        one that we will be, perhaps, proudest of if we could

         10        put it in our Constitution.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Unlock the

         12        machine and let's vote.

         13             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         15        the vote.

         16             READING CLERK:  Nine yeas, 21 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you have

         18        defeated Proposal No. 144.  We now move to Committee

         19        Substitute for Proposals 172 and 162 which we debated

         20        yesterday and carried over until today by the

         21        Committee on Legislative, and Commissioner Thompson

         22        and Evans-Jones.  Do we need additional debate?  I'll

         23        call on Commissioner Evans-Jones first as a proponent.

         24             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  There is an amendment

         25        on the desk, Mr. Chairman.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

          2        desk.  All right, there is a pending amendment on the

          3        desk.  Read the amendment, please.

          4             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Do you want to

          5        withdraw that amendment or do the substitute

          6        amendment, Commissioner Zack?

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack is

          8        recognized.

          9             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Withdraw the amendment to

         10        allow a substitute amendment to be put on the table.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Are you going to

         12        offer a substitute amendment?  Oh, you are.  Is it

         13        offered yet; is it on the table?

         14             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It's on behalf of Mr. Mills,

         15        Evans-Jones and Zack; is that correct?

         16             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  That's correct.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Which really, Commissioner

         18        Mills, Commissioner Zack, and Commissioner Evans-Jones

         19        offer the substitute amendment which is on the table.

         20        Would you read the amendment, please, substitute

         21        amendment?

         22             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Mills and Zack,

         23        on Page 2, Line 10 through Page 3, Line 17, delete

         24        those lines and insert lengthy amendment.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner


          1        Mills, you are recognized.

          2             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, after the

          3        concerns expressed yesterday on the issues of racial

          4        equity, Commissioners Evans-Jones, Zack and I had a

          5        conversation about where we were before the series of

          6        amendments, that is the Henderson amendment, which I

          7        guess really generated the beginning of this

          8        conversation.

          9             What this does is put us back where we were, and

         10        where we were before that amendment makes it clear

         11        that the issues of racial balance and discrimination

         12        have priority before the issue of compactness.  And

         13        that clearly, really actually reflects the law.  That

         14        is a federal law on the voting rights act, et cetera.

         15        But what this does from the point of view of racial

         16        equity in apportionment and a particular directive to

         17        this commission is to make it clear that it is the

         18        constitutional law of Florida that that commission

         19        cannot dilute voting strengths of any racial minority

         20        as a priority.  And that is a first priority before

         21        the issue of compactness, which I think responds to

         22        the concern.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further discussion on the

         24        amendment?  Commissioner Henderson.

         25             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  If Commissioner Mills


          1        will yield for a question.  Why is this even necessary

          2        to put this in there if it in fact is the federal law?

          3             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, I would suggest, the

          4        reason to put it in the Constitution, even though the

          5        federal law is good on it, is the federal law can

          6        change.  The federal law in the future may or may not

          7        reflect that priority, and this reflects, I think, a

          8        simple constitutional priority to not dilute.  And it

          9        still has the issue of compactness, but it raises the

         10        issue of dilution to a priority.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further -- Commissioner

         12        Zack.

         13             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Well, there's no such thing

         14        as absolute compactness.  And when you have various

         15        considerations that are being presented to the

         16        commission, he needs to understand that the creation

         17        of an over-seized (phonetic) has priority over

         18        compactness.  So, we will have to consider compactness

         19        in light of the constitutional requirements of equal

         20        protection.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         22        Smith.

         23             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I

         24        want to address this question to either of the

         25        sponsors.  Is this amendment a by-product of the


          1        discussion from Commissioner Scott concerning his

          2        concern for minority districts?

          3             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commissioner Smith, I think

          4        we all have that concern.  I know Commissioner Scott

          5        expressed it.  Just to read this language, there's

          6        several criteria, as shall be drawn as nearly a

          7        population as possible, which is the constitutional

          8        requirement.  And then the language says, "and may not

          9        be drawn in a manner that dilutes the voting strength

         10        of any racial or language minority group."  That's

         11        what it says.  In other words, it is a mandate that

         12        this commission do that.

         13             And the next sentence, which is the -- where we

         14        got into the conversation yesterday, "except to meet

         15        the foregoing requirements, the commission shall

         16        consider creating districts that are compact," which

         17        means the foregoing requirements, including you can't

         18        dilute is a priority that must be considered before

         19        you can consider compactness.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  On the amendment.

         21        Any further debate?  On the amendment.  All right, all

         22        in favor of the amendment, say aye; opposed?

         23             (Verbal vote taken.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment is adopted.  We

         25        are now on the proposal as amended.  Commissioner


          1        Evans-Jones, Commissioner Thompson, you are recognized

          2        on your proposal.  Commissioner Evans-Jones, you go

          3        first.

          4             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  All right.  Thank you,

          5        Mr. Chairman.  I want all of you to think very

          6        seriously before you vote here today.  What we are

          7        going to do is to put this on the ballot so that

          8        people will have an opportunity to vote on how we

          9        redistrict in our elections.  The legislators are

         10        going to be allowed to appoint the minority leader and

         11        President of the Senate and Speaker of the House and

         12        so forth.  We'll have 17 members.  And I think

         13        increasing the number to 17 does give us an

         14        opportunity to have more diversity there, and that the

         15        general public will be better represented.  I also

         16        think that the fact that they are going to be going to

         17        public hearings is going to be very helpful.

         18        Everybody in the state of Florida is going to know who

         19        is doing the reapportioning.

         20             When we reapportion now, the Legislature does it.

         21        In my opinion, it's very self-serving, as far as I

         22        would be concerned about my seat.  And I think it's

         23        unrealistic to expect the legislators to think any

         24        other way.  And I think that they also should be

         25        concerned with other affairs that are extremely


          1        important.  And I would like to relieve them of having

          2        to be burdened with this reapportionment.  It is very

          3        time consuming.  It is very important.  And I think

          4        that all of the citizens of Florida will be better

          5        served by having an independent reapportionment

          6        commission.

          7             As you remember, we went to the public hearings,

          8        and I think at every single public hearing that we

          9        attended, people said they did not want the

         10        legislators to reapportion themselves.  I know, in

         11        1993, President Crenshaw at the time proposed a

         12        reapportionment commission, and that commission would

         13        have been appointed by the judiciary.  I think Senator

         14        Scott and Senator Jennings both supported that at the

         15        time.  And I think that this is a better way to do it

         16        by letting the legislators appoint the people instead

         17        of the Supreme Court.  I think that's much fairer.  I

         18        think it gives the legislators some power, but not

         19        complete authority as far as the seats are concerned.

         20             So, I would urge you to vote yes on this very,

         21        very important proposal.  And I can assure you that

         22        it'll be accepted and voted on by the people in the

         23        state of Florida.  So, I urge you to vote yes.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson.

         25             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I think she's closed very


          1        well.  I just move the proposal.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further debate?

          3        Commissioner Langley, you are in opposition?

          4             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, sir.  You know, it

          5        would be nice if everything worked as we often planned

          6        it did.  To call this commission independent is

          7        certainly an oxymoron when it's appointed by the

          8        politicians.  To call it unbiased or nonpolitical is

          9        certainly not true because, you know, you have -- you

         10        name the two parties in the respective houses as being

         11        those who support the commission.

         12             I think there's two words that you need to think

         13        about.  The first one is accountability, and the

         14        second one is representation.  Ms. Evans-Jones, I want

         15        you to tell me, after I'm through, whether you think

         16        Okahumpka ought to be grouped with Leesburg as a

         17        community of interest or with Clermont; do you know?

         18        You don't.  And neither will the people on that

         19        commission.

         20             But the local representatives do know where that

         21        community interest is, they do know where the trade

         22        routes are, they do know where the shared

         23        environmental resources are.  And, you know, the

         24        representation currently, I think a House member

         25        represents about 90,000 people, and a Senate member


          1        about 300,000 people.  This commission of 16 will each

          2        theoretically represent 1.8 million people.  And where

          3        are they going to come from, you know, name the four

          4        big democratic politicos in the state, that's where

          5        they will come from, and the four big republicans,

          6        that's where they will come from.  And you will have a

          7        total lack of representation.

          8             And more important to me is the accountability.

          9        These people are appointed politically and they are

         10        accountable to no one, no one at all.  But when your

         11        representative gets up there and divides up your

         12        counties and divides up your communities, he has to

         13        answer for it.  These people answer to nobody.

         14             What's wrong with the democratic process?  What's

         15        wrong with representative government?  And who knows

         16        more about how to divide this state into communities

         17        of interest and best representative of all of the

         18        people including minorities than the people who have

         19        been elected to represent those people they are

         20        dividing?  What's wrong with it?

         21             Sure it has its problems, they are wheeling and

         22        dealing.  And if you don't think they will be wheeling

         23        and dealing in this commission, then you don't

         24        understand life, because these people are going to

         25        answer to whomever appointed them.  That's the only


          1        people they are going to answer to.  So, I think it is

          2        a bad idea.  It's working and let's keep it working.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          4             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I rise in

          5        opposition to the proposal and I reject the notion

          6        advocated by some that this is purely a partisan

          7        issue, and that if you don't support this proposal you

          8        are voting your Republican interest, and if you do

          9        support it, you are voting your Democratic interest.

         10        It's rare that I have ever found myself aligned on the

         11        same position with Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings and

         12        Corrine Brown, but I think that speaks the fact that

         13        this is not a partisan issue, that there is more to

         14        this than partisanship.

         15             I reject the notion that if you come down on one

         16        side or the other, you have more concern for racial

         17        minorities than if you are in the other position.  I

         18        think Alcee Hastings and Carrie Meek and Corrine Brown

         19        understand something about racial sensitivity and the

         20        importance of ensuring that all of our citizens are

         21        appropriately empowered under our system of

         22        government.

         23             One observation that I'll make, I'm troubled by

         24        this proposal and I have discussed this with the

         25        sponsor, is this, is that for the period of time that


          1        we continue to have the two party system.  And I will

          2        suggest to you that that will predominate for some

          3        extended period of time into the future.  The effect

          4        of this proposal is to render party parity when the

          5        people have not done so.

          6             For example, if you have a Legislature that

          7        breaks down 65 percent to 35 percent based on the

          8        election by the people, what this commission does, as

          9        framed, is to restore party parity to a 50/50 basis,

         10        even though the people, regardless of which party is

         11        in power, even though the people obviously were not

         12        comfortable in seating 50/50 relationships to the

         13        Legislature.

         14             So, for example, if you had the Republican party

         15        representing 65 percent of the Legislature, under this

         16        proposal the Republican party only gets 50 percent.

         17        The same is true if you flip that for the Democrats.

         18        And I would suggest to you that this may be perceived

         19        by some to represent an attempt to maintain party

         20        parity when the political winds of the state are

         21        shifting.  And I dare say that same argument may be

         22        made about the limitations that some wish to put on

         23        contributions to political parties.

         24             But I dare say, ladies and gentlemen, that it's

         25        more equitable to have a body that's represented in


          1        proportion to the way in which the people of Florida

          2        voted for their representatives than to create some

          3        artificial party parity simply by virtue of the fact

          4        that this is a two-party state.  I don't think that's

          5        appropriate and I think that is a flaw in this

          6        proposal.  Approved, though, this proposal is by

          7        virtue of enlarging the body, which would yield

          8        greater diversity.  I reiterate that there's no more

          9        diverse branch of government in this state than the

         10        legislative branch; racial diversity, religious

         11        diversity, geographic diversity, gender diversity.  It

         12        is about as much of an amalgamation as you will get in

         13        state government.

         14             I believe that those elected representatives are

         15        the ones who have the responsibility and who ought to

         16        be accountable for the way in which we redistrict our

         17        state.  For those who have sought to abuse this

         18        process and use it to their own advantage, history

         19        speaks the fact that the public was not so ignorant or

         20        stupid that they couldn't see through the way in which

         21        they sought to promote their own self interest, and

         22        typically they were penalized at the polls for doing

         23        it.

         24             I urge you to maintain this critical function in

         25        the hands of the most diverse, most accountable branch


          1        of government, the legislative branch.  Thank you.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Crenshaw.

          3             COMMISSIONER CRENSHAW:  Mr. Chairman, Members,

          4        just very briefly, since people get invoking my name

          5        in terms of trying to change the system, I just want

          6        to make it clear that in 1992 when the Senate was

          7        going through reapportionment, there were 21 Democrats

          8        and 19 Republicans.  And one of the Democrats felt

          9        disenfranchised by his party, and so every time there

         10        was a vote on reapportionment, he voted with the

         11        Republicans.  And so every time there was a vote on

         12        the reapportionment plan in the Senate, the vote came

         13        out 20/20.  The House passed the reapportionment plan

         14        just fine, no problems.  But in this body, it was

         15        almost like purgatory; every time you would vote, a

         16        plan would fail, 20/20.

         17             So, I guess I became convinced that if there was

         18        some way to remove the politics from the

         19        reapportionment process would be a good idea, and I

         20        proposed to do that, as far as I could get it away

         21        from politics, which was actually having the Supreme

         22        Court Justices, through a series of interviews, et

         23        cetera, appoint a commission, which in my view would

         24        be a lot farther from politics than having the Senate

         25        President or the House Speaker appoint people.


          1             As Commissioner Connor pointed out, I think what

          2        this does, after going through what I went through in

          3        1992, this just perpetuates the purgatory of 1992 and

          4        writes it in the Constitution forever, and I think

          5        that's wrong.

          6             If there was some way to get it away from

          7        politics, which I thought my proposal 10 years ago or

          8        whenever I madd it did, I would certainly support it.

          9        But this certainly isn't as good, it's worse.  It just

         10        narrows the members of the commission and takes the

         11        politics and reduces it down, and again, just

         12        perpetuates what we saw in 1992.  So I don't think

         13        this is a very good solution.  And I wanted you-all to

         14        know that since I'm the one that would like somehow to

         15        remove it from politics.  But this certainly doesn't

         16        do it.  I am going to vote against it.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barton.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  I rise to speak in favor of

         19        the proposal.  Let's face it, we've been doing it one

         20        way for a long time.  It has not been exactly fair.

         21        It's called gerrymandering.  I don't know that this

         22        will work, but we don't have it forever as

         23        Commissioner Crenshaw has said, we have it for 20

         24        years, max, unless it does work; and I think we ought

         25        to try it.


          1             Just for example, one of the finest state

          2        senators I have ever had representing my community is

          3        Senator Scott who lives in the Fort Lauderdale area,

          4        Broward County, and I happen to live in Collier County

          5        on the other coast.  That's an example of the

          6        gerrymandering that did occur for many years.  And I

          7        think it is better, but I don't think it's perfect.

          8        And I also would point out that this has broad support

          9        across this state by people who have watched the

         10        process unfold so unfairly.  I think we need to take

         11        the high road in this particular issue and I urge your

         12        support.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         14             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Briefly, I know you're

         15        tiring of hearing me on that.  And let me just say,

         16        it's great representing Collier County.  They gave me

         17        80 percent of the vote in the first primary against

         18        the 12-year incumbent House member running for the

         19        Senate.  But in the spirit of what was best for the

         20        state, which is what you often find, I know people

         21        want to take a negative attitude about political

         22        officeholders, I gave that up, you know, to go for

         23        single-member districts so that we could have one

         24        minority member in the Florida Senate.  There were

         25        none for the first six years I served here.


          1             And subsequently, we have pursued that.  Let me

          2        just speak for just two seconds on behalf of the

          3        members of the Senate and the House who are minority

          4        members.  You don't know.  You cannot imagine, it's

          5        like you have heard that song, Walk A Mile In My

          6        Shoes.  You cannot imagine the insecurities and the

          7        problems that they have faced in view of the Supreme

          8        Court of the United States' decisions in recent years,

          9        up until the last year or so.

         10             And in doing reapportionment there is no way that

         11        someone else -- no one knows who they are until just a

         12        year before they are appointed.  I want to put our

         13        names on this commission out and find out who knows

         14        who we are or how many people actually even know we

         15        are meeting, in view, in spite of all of the press

         16        we've gotten.  But they do know who their

         17        representatives are.

         18             And I mean, you take someone like Betty

         19        Holzendorf, I mean, she knows, she knows, where the

         20        community of interest is.  You take Jim Hargrett in

         21        Tampa.  There is a community of interest all the way

         22        through Hillsborough and parts of Pinellas, goes

         23        around Tampa Bay, economic, socioeconomic, and other

         24        communities of interest.  And I just want to tell you

         25        that it has been great having served, you know, with


          1        no minority members, to have five of them in the

          2        Florida Senate to interact with them.

          3             You know, the argument used to be that people

          4        that wanted multimember districts would say, Well, no,

          5        it would be much better if they -- a few of them are

          6        here and a few of them there and a few of them here,

          7        then they will have more people accountable to them,

          8        but the reverse is totally the truth.  And they don't

          9        get to sit at the table.

         10             Think about sitting at the table and being able

         11        to say, Look these are people that I know and if you

         12        don't believe me, ask them, or they told me last week

         13        when I was down there or they told me last year that

         14        they really liked, and here is whatever.  So I would

         15        just urge you to keep thinking, those of you that feel

         16        like you want to be for this keep, to keep thinking

         17        about the reality of it is not good all across the

         18        state.  And like Ander says, I don't remember if I

         19        voted for that, but if I did, I was temporarily out of

         20        my mind and now I have it back.  So I would urge you

         21        to not go forward with this.

         22             And in addition to which, it's been pointed out

         23        by some of the other commissioners, it is potentially

         24        very divisive because of the fact that it's leadership

         25        of either party that's doing the appointing.  So why


          1        not -- I think the time has come and gone.  I think

          2        when Marilyn  Evans-Jones proposed this 15 years ago

          3        --

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, please

          5        refer to these people as Commissioner.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I would appreciate it,

          7        Mr. Chairman, if you would quit interrupting me when I

          8        am speaking on a matter that you do not agree with.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I haven't said anything on

         10        this matter.

         11             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Okay, thank you.  I lost my

         12        train of thought for a second.  But I would point out

         13        to you that the people that are elected from whatever

         14        part of the state ought to be the ones to make this

         15        decision that the time for this has come and gone and

         16        all the people that want it, you know, we get up here

         17        in the Legislature and it is the lobbyists and the

         18        press and a few interest groups, the people out there

         19        are not going to want this when they find out about

         20        it, and believe me, they will find out about it.  I am

         21        sure that you all saw the letter from the three

         22        Congress persons who wrote to all of you who are

         23        expressing their concerns about it.  I just think it's

         24        not a good idea and I would urge you to vote against

         25        it.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates.

          2             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioners, I rise

          3        in support of this proposal.  I agree that communities

          4        of interest are an important piece of selecting a

          5        district.  But I disagree strongly that the only

          6        people that can make those decisions are the elected

          7        representatives.  I believe an independent commission

          8        will do very similarly to what the Constitution

          9        Revision Commission did.  They will go out, they will

         10        hold public hearings, they will hear from the elected

         11        representatives.  Their proposals will be out there

         12        and available as we heard testimony.  They will be

         13        available on the Internet probably.  It will be easy

         14        for people to see what they are doing.

         15             And I think people will come and talk and express

         16        their opinions.  And I believe that these citizens who

         17        are appointed by political officials, as we are, will

         18        come in and do their job the best possible way they

         19        can having studied the issues and listened to the

         20        people.

         21             This is a good proposal.  It takes it out of the

         22        hands of the Legislature which already has plenty to

         23        do, and puts it in the hands of an independent

         24        commission.  It is a good proposal and I urge your

         25        support.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any further debate?

          2        Commissioner Evans-Jones to close.

          3             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you,

          4        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.  I want to

          5        tell you that it may sound good that each legislator

          6        has so much information and that they are going to

          7        really be involved in the reapportionment process.

          8        The fact of the matter is that they are not.  Out of

          9        the 120 members, maybe there are 2 or 3 that are going

         10        to make all these decisions.  They really can't have

         11        any sort of input into the process, and they don't,

         12        and they haven't.  So I think you need to consider

         13        that.

         14             Yes, I am trying to be fair.  I'm trying to be

         15        fair to the Democrats, I'm trying to be fair to the

         16        Republicans.  But the people I'm really trying to be

         17        fair to is all those people out there who are

         18        concerned with reapportionment.

         19             If the Democrats are in control, this is going to

         20        be a very fair process for Republicans as well.  And I

         21        think you really need to consider that, so yes, it is

         22        parity.  And I can assure you that these commissioners

         23        will find out what the communities of interest are

         24        when they go out on the trail and have the public

         25        hearings, they are going to know and they are going to


          1        find out.  And you can say -- well you heard from

          2        three incumbents I think you mentioned.  Those are

          3        also people who are running for election.  I imagine

          4        they want to keep their seats just like each Senator

          5        and each member of the House does.  But we are going

          6        to have single-member districts, it's going to be

          7        fair, and the people who are the best candidates are

          8        going to be the ones who are going to be elected.  And

          9        I think that's what all of us want.

         10             This is really a matter of equity.  It's a matter

         11        of fairness.  We don't know who is going to be in

         12        charge as far as we have more Democrats registered

         13        right now than Republicans, but the Republicans are

         14        now in control of the House and the Senate.

         15             I think you just want to try to do the fair

         16        thing, the thing that needs to be done.  The

         17        legislators are never going to give this up their own.

         18        And I think it's our responsibility to give the public

         19        an opportunity to vote for this and to have an

         20        independent, and yes, I think it will be an

         21        independent reapportionment commission.  Thank you.

         22        Please vote yes.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Ready to vote.

         24        Open the machine.  Let's vote.

         25             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

          2        the vote.

          3             READING CLERK:  Nineteen yeas, 12 nays,

          4        Mr. Chairman.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you've adopted

          6        Proposal Committee Substitute for 172 and 162.  We'll

          7        now move to Proposal No. 91 by Commissioner Hawkes

          8        which has been on a motion for reconsideration which

          9        was adopted and it's been deferred since

         10        February 14 -- 26th.  Read it, please.

         11             READING CLERK:  Proposal 90 --

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By Commissioner Hawkes.

         13             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  We've been TP'ing this

         14        proposal.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think we're through TP'ing.

         16        Commissioner Barkdull.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Clean this calendar off.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Read the

         19        proposal.

         20             READING CLERK:  Without objection, it's

         21        withdrawn.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The next group of

         23        proposals are sovereign immunity which we were on

         24        yesterday, and I believe we left with that being the

         25        situation.  Commissioner Zack, you had the floor I


          1        think when we quit, didn't you?

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I withdrew my proposal,

          3        there's nothing pending.  There is a motion for

          4        reconsideration by the chairman on the Lowndes

          5        proposal, is what I recall the status of sovereign

          6        immunity was at the time of adjournment.

          7             At this time -- by the way, last night we made

          8        use of the evening to meet with Commissioner Sundberg

          9        and Commissioner Wetherington to discuss some of the

         10        legal issues that were discussed extensively yesterday

         11        to make sure we were not doing anything that was not

         12        intended to be done.  As a result of that, we do have

         13        presently a committee -- no, not a committee

         14        substitute, it's a substitute for 59.  And it is on

         15        the desk, I believe.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  At the present

         17        time there is a motion to reconsider the Lowndes

         18        proposal on the floor.

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's what I understood, is

         20        where we are at at this moment.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So we could go back to that.

         22        We didn't vote on it, it was placed on the calendar

         23        then we adjourned.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I think I made


          1        the motion to reconsider.  Commissioner Barkdull.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of inquiry,

          3        Commissioner Zack.  If we were to pass the motion to

          4        reconsider and be back on the Lowndes amendment, is

          5        the amendment that you said would be on our desks an

          6        amendment to the Lowndes proposal or an amendment to

          7        the original proposal?

          8             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It would be an amendment to

          9        the new proposal if the new proposal is adopted.  What

         10        is being done now, just so that everyone understands

         11        and we try to demystify a little bit what was going

         12        on, and no doubt it was confusing because of the

         13        member of amendments we were hearing late in the day.

         14        What we did is we have a Provision A --

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Excuse me a minute.

         16        Commissioner Zack, I am not interested in the details,

         17        I am trying to find out where we would be

         18        procedurally.

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It would be an amendment to

         20        the substitute, and it would be C.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It would not be an

         22        amendment to the Lowndes amendment?

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  No, that's correct.  The

         24        Lowndes amendment if adopted would be an amendment to

         25        the Substitute 59.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  But what you were

          2        discussing initially is an amendment that was on the

          3        desk is not right at this point if --

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's not been introduced.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  And we're on a motion to

          6        reconsider.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.  And correct

          8        me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Zack, if this is

          9        adopted, then the Lowndes amendment would pass, it

         10        would go to vote, then you're offering an amendment

         11        which would be to the substitute as amended by the

         12        Lowndes proposal.

         13             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct, but the way

         14        that it actually occurred yesterday is that the

         15        Lowndes amendment was an amendment to 59.  So this

         16        would, in effect, be passing the amendment to 59

         17        before 59 was dealt with, that's where the confusion

         18        is.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, if we do reconsider and

         20        pass the Lowndes amendment then we can start with your

         21        amendments; is that correct?

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  And you can make an amendment

         23        to 59.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         25        Lowndes, is that --


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Or that matter could be

          2        freestanding because they are divisible.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes, it was

          4        your amendment.  Do you understand?  I'm not sure I

          5        do.

          6             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, as I understand to

          7        simplify what Commissioner Zack is saying, is the

          8        so-called Lowndes amendment would work both with the

          9        amendment which has been proposed, 59, the substitute

         10        to 59, and also would work with the substitute to

         11        that, which Mr. Zack is going to propose after we vote

         12        on the motion to reconsider.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  On the motion to

         14        reconsider, Commissioner Freidin.

         15             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  My understanding of these

         16        two proposals or these two amendments, and I'd like

         17        the proponents to correct me if I'm wrong, is that the

         18        Lowndes proposal would work with the Zack amendment or

         19        it would work on its own.  It makes sense to me, and I

         20        will urge the Commission to first take up Commissioner

         21        Zack's amendment and then deal with the Lowndes

         22        proposal because it really is something that follows,

         23        you kind of have to know what you're doing with the

         24        Zack one before you decide the Lowndes one.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor, you


          1        wanted the floor?

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I didn't want

          3        to speak -- I didn't want to speak to that issue,

          4        because frankly I just have to rely on these folks to

          5        let us know in what sequence it ought to come.  There

          6        was an indication by some to me yesterday that the

          7        Lowndes  proposal perhaps it suffered from a lack of

          8        clarity and I was asked in the interest of promoting

          9        the reconsideration to try to clarify what that

         10        proposal did.  I don't know if that would be out of

         11        order or not, Mr. Chairman.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, without objection, tell

         13        us what your clarification is in 75 words or less.

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.  This proposal

         15        would eliminate the claims bill process.  In cases

         16        where a claim exceeded $200,000, the claim would be

         17        submitted in lieu of a trial to an arbitration panel

         18        whose vote would be binding in terms of the outcome.

         19        That means then that, with respect to claims where the

         20        cap -- statutory cap which has been imposed was

         21        exceeded, that the arbitration panel's decision would

         22        be binding on the claimant and on the sovereign entity

         23        whose conduct was at issue, hence you eliminate

         24        altogether the claims bill process.  You effectively

         25        eliminate any cap on sovereign immunity.


          1             I think that's important to understand because

          2        that represents a marked departure from current

          3        policy, and you assure that injured people are

          4        compensated in proportion to the extent of the

          5        injuries that they have sustained.

          6             The concern about the waiver of a jury trial was

          7        deemed to be a matter of little consequence, inasmuch

          8        as one does not have the right to a jury trial when

          9        they seek to recover more than the cap currently,

         10        their remedy is through the legislative arena in the

         11        claims bill process, and there's an explicit provision

         12        here that planning functions would remain immune from

         13        suit and that the rules of the arbitration panel would

         14        be written by the Supreme Court.  That's my

         15        explanation, Mr. Chairman.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani.

         17             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Mr. Chairman and

         18        Commissioners, there is one thing that Commissioner

         19        Connor did not say, but this is the exact language --

         20        I shouldn't say the exact language, but it mirrors the

         21        current federal system.  Am I correct, Mr. Connor?

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Well, actually, it

         23        represents a permutation of the federal system.  It's

         24        my understanding under the federal system that a

         25        federal judge is the ultimate determiner -- arbiter of


          1        the facts in the case and makes the award.  In this

          2        case it would be a panel.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani, your

          4        mic  isn't on.  I am going to try to get it on for

          5        you.

          6             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I know.  There.  But the

          7        jury trial is not available in the federal system, and

          8        that's what I was trying to say.

          9             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  That's precisely correct.

         10        And in cases where it is maintained that the claim

         11        would exceed the cap, the parties would not have a

         12        right to a jury trial.  The thought by the sponsor, as

         13        I understood it, is that helps to protect a sovereign

         14        entity against a potential runaway jury and injects

         15        some balance in there, while at the same time

         16        providing some opportunity for an injured person to

         17        recover the full measure of their damages.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors.

         19             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  As I understand the posture

         20        is to whether we reconsider the Lowndes amendment.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.

         22             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Because I had a lot of

         23        problems with the Lowndes amendment which I am not

         24        going to debate now pending reconsideration.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct, it is a


          1        matter on reconsideration.  Are we ready to vote,

          2        Commissioner Zack, on reconsideration?

          3             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Mr. Chairman, Commissioner

          4        Freidin suggested that the Lowndes matter be addressed

          5        after 59.  And I know procedurally that may not be

          6        correct, but I think it's important, if the Chair will

          7        allow it, for an overview of sovereign immunity and

          8        what is being proposed both by 59 and the Lowndes

          9        amendment as it applies to 59, because it needs to be

         10        taken in context.

         11             And what I heard yesterday is that the issue of

         12        sovereign immunity, particularly to those laypersons

         13        on this commission, is not clear as of this time.  And

         14        before the vote, I think it's important that we

         15        understand what we're voting on, and to do that, there

         16        has to be an overview of what we're dealing with as it

         17        pertains to sovereign immunity.  But again I

         18        understand that procedurally  that is not the posture

         19        that we're in.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, in answer to that, if

         21        you vote to reconsider and it is affirmative that we

         22        do reconsider, then you could move to delay the

         23        reconsideration until after your --

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's perfectly acceptable.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And that would, I think,


          1        probably meet the approval of Commissioner Lowndes.

          2        Would it not, Commissioner Lowndes?

          3             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, sir.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So the issue is

          5        not as described, we can still reach that if the vote

          6        to reconsider is a positive vote.  All right.  So now

          7        we'll vote on the motion to reconsider the Lowndes

          8        amendment.  I think everybody fully understands it at

          9        this point.  So open the machine and let's vote.

         10             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         12        the vote.

         13             READING CLERK:  Seventeen yeas, 9 nays,

         14        Mr. Chairman.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, as I

         16        understand, Commissioner Zack, with the concurrence of

         17        Commissioner Lowndes, moves to pass this pending the

         18        consideration of his amendment which he's placing on

         19        the desk.  Now, is that an amendment to the amendment?

         20             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, it's an amendment to the

         22        amendment that was on the floor that had passed.  No,

         23        it had not passed, it was on the floor.  All right.

         24        Commissioner Zack has an amendment on the table which

         25        we'll read.  I think this is your definitive


          1        amendment; is that correct?

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  This is the definitive

          3        substitute amendment after consultation with

          4        Commissioner Sundberg and Commissioner Wetherington

          5        about the concerns that were discussed yesterday late

          6        in the day.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.

          8             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  And there are two different

          9        amendments that you have before you.  You have to have

         10        two different sheets of paper to understand what's

         11        happening.  Until -- that's the problem.  There has to

         12        be two sheets of paper that each person, each

         13        commissioner is looking at.  There is the first sheet,

         14        which is the amendment, which has provision Section

         15        13A, (a) and (b).

         16             (Off-the-record comment.)

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  As far as I'm concerned, we

         18        can vote on the Lowndes amendment if everybody is in

         19        the chamber.  I have no problem with that.  You need

         20        to get your stuff together so we know what we're

         21        voting on.

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It's been together, Mr.

         23        Chairman, it's been presented before.  As a matter of

         24        fact, it was typed up.  I reviewed it before the

         25        Lowndes amendment.  The Lowndes amendment was then


          1        typed up to be attached to it but considered

          2        separately from it.  And that's why each person should

          3        have before it -- I can't help it has not been passed

          4        out, it should have been passed out.  You should have

          5        before you two sheets.  Does everybody have two

          6        sheets?  A and B.  All right.  Commissioner Barkdull

          7        doesn't have two sheets.  Commissioner Mathis doesn't

          8        have two sheets.  What we need is these passed out.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  They are now passing

         10        something out.

         11             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Apparently the machine is

         12        broken is what I have been told.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, the

         14        machine is broken.

         15             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  How about my microphone?

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's working full time.

         17             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Thank you.  Can I be

         18        recognized?

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You already have been.

         20             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Okay.  When you called the

         21        vote you said on reconsideration of the Lowndes

         22        amendment, and that's what we say when it will have

         23        passed.  But what apparently you were doing is

         24        reconsidering the vote by which it failed, and I was

         25        confused, so I voted yes thinking, you know, whatever.


          1             So, I think we should either revote, or I would

          2        now move to reconsider the vote by which whatever

          3        happened last time.  You know, it failed once and we

          4        reconsidered, and I now move to reconsider that

          5        reconsideration because there is a lot of confusion

          6        here on what we're voting on.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do you want to just change

          8        your vote, Commissioner Scott?  Would you like

          9        unanimous permission to change your vote?

         10             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  No, I would just like the

         11        vote to be explained properly that what we were voting

         12        on was a motion to reconsider the vote by which the

         13        Lowndes amendment failed, and that was not what was

         14        said.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It was said.  It might not

         16        have been said right at the end, but it was said

         17        several times in the discussion when you were not

         18        there.  And maybe I called it at the end wrong, and

         19        you're absolutely right, I should have been

         20        technically correct at the end so you would have known

         21        what you're voting on.  But I think everybody in the

         22        chamber knew what they were voting on.  And if you

         23        would like permission, unanimous permission, to change

         24        your vote, I think you can get it.

         25             Commissioner Riley.


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

          2        throw away some papers that are on my desk, but before

          3        I throw them away, I would like to make sure I'm

          4        throwing away the right stuff.  So, my question is,

          5        what I need to have on my desk are the two things that

          6        have just been passed out and the Lowndes proposal,

          7        Lowndes and Morsani, which talks about the

          8        three-person arbitration.  Everything else I can throw

          9        away?

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  As it relates to this

         11        proposal, I think that's correct according to

         12        Commissioner Zack.

         13             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  As it relates to Proposal

         14        59.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And all the combined

         16        proposals.

         17             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Well, it's the combined

         18        stuff that's worrying me.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, don't worry about that

         20        yet.

         21             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Every time I think I

         22        understand it, somebody hands me another piece of it.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What you should have before

         24        you on this consideration are the two proposals, or

         25        amendments rather, offered by Commissioner Zack and


          1        you should have the Lowndes amendment also on your

          2        table.

          3             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Thank you.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, does everybody have that

          5        information on their desks?  If so, we'll proceed with

          6        Commissioner Zack on his amendments.  Commissioner

          7        Zack.

          8             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Will Rogers once said that a

          9        pretzel is a bread stick described by a lawyer.  I'm

         10        going to try to turn this pretzel back into a bread

         11        stick.  And it is very, very simple.  But I'm going to

         12        start at the beginning, which is with the king because

         13        there used to be a king.  And all the law in the

         14        United -- there still is a king, but a different king.

         15             But the king could do no wrong in England, and

         16        our law comes from common law England, as we discussed

         17        yesterday, and there was a principle that the king

         18        could do no wrong.  That means you couldn't sue the

         19        king no matter what the king did, no matter how

         20        egregious the crime.  Some of you saw Brave Heart, you

         21        could not sue the king for what the king did, no

         22        matter what.  That is called sovereign immunity.

         23             When we adopted the common law of England in this

         24        country we accepted sovereign immunity.  The sovereign

         25        became the state and the state had the same rights as


          1        the king and the state could do no wrong.  And the

          2        state could not be sued no matter what the state did.

          3        Some people felt that was just a little unfair.

          4             As a result of that, there was a limited waiver

          5        of sovereign immunity by the state.  And that limited

          6        waiver, which occurred in 1981 or '83 -- it was '81,

          7        was for $100,000.

          8             Now, in 1986 there was the Tort Review Commission

          9        that Commissioner Wetherington sat on.  I don't know

         10        if Commissioner Kogan sat on it or not, but in 1986,

         11        10 years ago, it was recommended that that cap be

         12        raised from 100 to $200,000.  Not a big raise, but it

         13        was just reviewed by that commission and felt it was

         14        fair to raise it to $200,000.  Ten years has gone by,

         15        nothing has happened.

         16             We went around the state of Florida and at every

         17        public hearing we have heard about the abuses that

         18        occurred in this area.  Particularly where the state

         19        has taken on the role of private industry and does not

         20        have the same obligations to insure over its wrongful

         21        acts.

         22             This proposal still protects the state.  It is a

         23        very limited fix, if you will, of the very limited

         24        waiver that exists today of sovereign immunity in the

         25        state of Florida.  And this is No. 59 (a) and (b).


          1        (a) contains the word "may," the Legislature may.

          2        Again there was waived sovereign immunity.  There was

          3        concerns yesterday about legislating to the

          4        Legislature that they shall waive sovereign immunity.

          5             So, in fact, this still preserves the right of

          6        the Legislature to maintain sovereign immunity;

          7        however, (b) says that if there is going to be a

          8        waiver of sovereign immunity, which we anticipate in

          9        view of the history of that waiver would continue to

         10        exist, then it should be as set forth in (b).

         11             And (b) says that the $100,000 cap is raised to

         12        $200,000, that that amount is increased by the CPI

         13        annually so we don't get into the disparity that we

         14        presently have, and that this doesn't have to be fixed

         15        on an annual basis.

         16             It also provides that costs are in addition to

         17        the $200,000.  But attorneys' fees are not considered

         18        costs.  The attorneys' fees are part of the $200,000

         19        recovery.  It also has a bad faith provision which you

         20        have heard me identify as a, quote, accountability

         21        provision, because what that faith does is it makes

         22        the person determining whether or not to pay a claim

         23        accountable for acting in a reasonable way, not as a

         24        guarantor that the decision is correct, because it can

         25        be wrong.  There is no bad faith if there are two


          1        competing claims -- views of the situation.

          2             In other words one witness said it was a red

          3        light, the other one says it was a green light when

          4        the accident occurred, and there is no clear

          5        determination, and the jury decides in favor of the

          6        plaintiff.  There is no bad faith because that was

          7        reasonable, there were two people that witnessed the

          8        accident, and the adjuster does not have to pay any

          9        money in that situation.

         10             However, if you have a bus driver who is

         11        intoxicated and runs on the other side of the road and

         12        kills an individual or makes them a quadriplegic and

         13        that information is represented to the claims adjuster

         14        and proven to the claims adjuster by the accident

         15        report of the police officer, then the claims adjuster

         16        has a very simple thing to do, it will have a

         17        reasonable period of time to make an investigation,

         18        and then pay the $200,000, and there can never be any

         19        bad faith because they acted properly as any

         20        reasonable person will do.

         21             If they do not, however, if they do not, and they

         22        say, We're not going to pay anyway, we're just going

         23        to keep the money in our pocket, we're not going to be

         24        accountable and you can't do anything to us, that's

         25        the situation today.  We can say, No, you can be


          1        guilty of bad faith, but there is a limitation.

          2             And we put on a limitation last night to the

          3        extent not to exceed $1 million.  The reason we did

          4        that is so that there would be not an unlimited

          5        liability, and the concerns that we've heard from

          6        various government entities about unlimited liability.

          7             So, if you adopt (a) and (b), and if the

          8        Legislature continues to have a waiver of sovereign

          9        immunity, (a) and (b) is what you see, and that will

         10        be the sovereign immunity law of the state of Florida.

         11             Now, what happens today if you have a verdict in

         12        excess of $100,000, which is what the cap is today?

         13        You can come to the Legislature and you can seek a

         14        claims bill, and to the extent that there is a claims

         15        bill, as it exists today, there is an unlimited waiver

         16        of sovereign immunity if the claims bill is passed.

         17             In other words, you have a $12 million verdict in

         18        a quadriplegic case, and if the state, after you come

         19        up here and present your information and a claims bill

         20        is in fact passed by the Legislature, there is no

         21        limitation.  What's the problem with that system?  It

         22        is what has been described to us by President

         23        Jennings, by people here in this chamber over and over

         24        again, that that is justice for the rich, that is

         25        justice for people who can hire the best lobbyist, who


          1        can make the appropriate campaign contributions and

          2        can get a claims bill through.

          3             Now last year President Jennings looking at the

          4        situation felt it had been abused so extensively in

          5        the past that there would be no claims bill of any

          6        kind, and there have been no claims bills passed last

          7        year.

          8             What Commissioner Lowndes' amendment to my

          9        amendment does is it replaces that claims bill

         10        process; in other words, anything over the waiver of

         11        sovereign immunity with an arbitration panel, a

         12        three-person arbitration that will determine whether

         13        or not any monies should be paid over the sovereign

         14        immunity cap, period, that's what it does.  There is

         15        no limitation, however, to that amount, just as there

         16        is no limitation today on a claims bill.

         17             So, you can adopt 59 and all that does, again, is

         18        allows the Legislature first to make the decision of

         19        whether to waive; and two, if it does waive, it will

         20        be the waiver to the extent identified in (b) that is

         21        before you.  You can adopt that by itself, however, if

         22        you do not believe that the claims bill process as it

         23        exists today is fair and that the Lowndes amendment,

         24        which is (c) would be fairer to the people of Florida

         25        than what exists today, then you will move, and it's


          1        been moved and you will vote in favor of the Lowndes

          2        amendment.

          3             However, if you vote against the Lowndes

          4        amendment, Amendment 59 still needs to be voted on.

          5        And if you defeat the Lowndes amendment and you pass

          6        59, what you have is the new terms of (b) and you

          7        maintain the claims bill process that exists today in

          8        Florida.

          9             If you defeat the Lowndes amendment and you

         10        defeat Amendment 59, what you are left with is the

         11        $100,000 sovereign immunity cap.  That's what I

         12        understand is before the body.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Zack, yield

         15        for a question?

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes, sir.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Zack, the

         19        $100,000 limit is not in the Constitution today, is

         20        it?

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's what we discussed

         22        yesterday.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  No, it's not in the

         24        Constitution today.  It's a statutory --

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I accepted that as an


          1        accurate statement yesterday.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Now, as I read your (b)

          3        when you talk about a million dollar limit, you read,

          4        In the event of a finding of bad faith and the failure

          5        to settle such a suit.  Now a bus driver's got 32

          6        passengers and he doesn't run and get hit by a driver,

          7        he gets drunk and runs off of a mountain and there is

          8        bad faith, is it 1 million for the 32 or $32 million?

          9             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Each person shall have the

         10        same rights as every other person.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's the way I read it.

         12        And I appreciate your candor and the answer because

         13        that's the way I read it.

         14             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  As a matter of fact that's

         15        why the occurrence limit that was previously in one of

         16        them was deleted because it wasn't felt that by

         17        happenstance every citizen in Florida should be

         18        treated inferior to any other citizen.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I have been

         21        advised by the clerk that we need to read the

         22        amendment since we haven't.  Would you please read it?

         23        This is the Zack amendment.

         24             READING CLERK:  Substitute Amendment by

         25        Commissioner Zack on Page 1, Lines 15 through 28,


          1        delete those lines and insert lengthy amendment.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, Commissioner

          3        Morsani.

          4             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Just as a clarification.

          5        This amendment actually becomes a proposal.  So

          6        everybody really understands, all those other papers

          7        that are on your desk, throw them away.  This actually

          8        becomes the proposal.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We haven't voted on yours

         10        yet, so don't throw them all away.  All right,

         11        Commissioner Brochin was up first.  Commissioner

         12        Brochin has a question.

         13             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Commissioner Zack, is the

         14        intent of this amendment by picking $200,000 to adjust

         15        the amount from the original $100,000 amount; is that

         16        the intent?  Do you know how the original $100,000

         17        amount was picked in the first place?

         18             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I have no idea.

         19             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Well, is there any tie

         20        that that is somehow justly compensating victims in

         21        any sense since we are now picking another amount off

         22        of the original?

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We know one thing, that we

         24        heard if you factor in the inflation, that a person,

         25        inflation, not even in considering the higher


          1        inflation rate of medical care, that the very least

          2        amount would be 200 -- it's probably 250 to $300,000.

          3        It depends on what discount rate you want to use.  As

          4        you know, you can use any discount rate and change the

          5        number.  But what we felt, and again, I am trying not

          6        to repeat what was said yesterday, but it was felt

          7        that a citizen of Florida in 1998, if they are injured

          8        by the state should be able to receive the same health

          9        care benefits and other benefits that they would have

         10        had if they were a citizen in this state in 1981.

         11             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  And that's what I'm trying

         12        to understand.  As arbitrary as the $200,000 number

         13        was, perhaps the $100,000 was arbitrary in terms of

         14        compensation of the victims.  Because if I understood

         15        it right, when you are putting sovereign immunity in,

         16        the caps don't relate to compensation, they relate to

         17        the ability of the sovereign to pay or be protected.

         18             And you selected 200,000 and now you select a

         19        million dollars, I'm just trying to understand why we

         20        are putting these numbers in the Constitution and what

         21        basis there is for these numbers other than they are

         22        building upon statutory numbers that have already been

         23        created some 15 years ago.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Never arbitrary in the sense

         25        that that is what is required to be paid on any claim.


          1        If a claim as determined by a jury is a $10,000 claim

          2        or is not compensable at all, then nothing is paid.

          3        This was a cap.  So it can never be -- you know, it's

          4        not an automatic payment, I want to make clear about

          5        that as well.  So, it's not arbitrary, it really is a

          6        backstop to protect the state from unlimited amounts

          7        of claims.

          8             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Precisely.  And if it's a

          9        backstop to protect the state from unlimited claims,

         10        I'm curious as to how we came up with $200,000 or

         11        $1 million as an appropriate backstop.

         12             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's easy, that is your

         13        question.

         14             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  That is the question.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  What we tried to do, again,

         16        is to provide a citizen in Florida today with the same

         17        rights they had in '81, and the $200,000 played off of

         18        the $100,000 figure using inflationary numbers since

         19        that time.  As far as the million dollar concern was

         20        because originally it was unlimited.  And as you know,

         21        bad faith is a contractual -- comes from contractual

         22        law.  What it does is it avoids this scenario.  And

         23        again, for those in attendance yesterday, I apologize,

         24        but it has to be as it relates to a specific scenario.

         25             If you have, again, that quadriplegic I'd


          1        identified earlier, in today's environment, and I can

          2        tell you and I can present you cases where this does

          3        occur, this is not just being made up, you can have a

          4        quadriplegic and you can call the state adjuster, and

          5        the state adjuster will say a couple of things.

          6             Number one, I want you to take depositions of all

          7        the people around the incident, quote, unquote, what

          8        that means, you translate it into English is, We want

          9        you to spend money off the cap.

         10             So, it's going to cost you 10,000, $15,000 in

         11        costs to take those depositions and do that discovery.

         12        Then, we're not going to pay you for a year, two

         13        years, maybe five years.  You say, How can you do that

         14        to me, what is my remedy?  It says, You don't have any

         15        remedy.  If I have 200 cases, if I have 400 cases, I

         16        don't care because no matter what happens, no matter

         17        how irresponsibly I act, no matter how offensive I am

         18        to you and callous to your needs to have medical care

         19        at that moment, you can't do anything about it.

         20             Now, you have a claim for a quadriplegic that's

         21        worth $10 million over your lifetime, it is a young

         22        teenage quadriplegic, and that's a low number based on

         23        what they'll tell you.  It will be paid, it's going to

         24        be paid by somebody, it can be paid by a public

         25        hospital, it can be paid by the taxpayers somewhere


          1        along the way.

          2             But that $10 million claim, if it's paid under

          3        this proposal, it will be a $200,000 payment.  Today

          4        it would be a $100,000 payment less the cost of

          5        discovery, 15,000, less the time value of money not

          6        paid, say another $10,000 deduction, so you are down

          7        to $75,000, it's not a $100,000 cap, it's 75,000.

          8             But what happens on the eve of trial?  The

          9        adjuster calls you up and says, Mr. Zack, I know

         10        you're a very busy lawyer and it's going to cost you

         11        $25,000 to try this case, so if you give me another

         12        $10,000 break, I'll pay you $65,000 and you're still

         13        way ahead of the game.  And there is nothing more you

         14        can do about it.  And people have had enough.

         15             And we have -- let me finish.  We have heard that

         16        around the state, the people have had enough.  So what

         17        does bad faith do?  Bad faith says that if that

         18        adjuster doesn't pay that $200,000 under the new

         19        proposal --

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I hate to interrupt you, but

         21        it's been suggested that we limit time to debate on

         22        this because we debated it yesterday afternoon.

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I would be happy to do that,

         24        but I need to finish up and I will finish up very

         25        quickly, then a subsequent jury will decide whether


          1        that adjuster acted in bad faith, and if it is an

          2        insurance company and it's $10 million, they have to

          3        pay the entire $10 million because they acted in bad

          4        faith.

          5             But because this is the state and the concerns of

          6        Commissioner Wetherington and Commissioner Sundberg

          7        and other concerns we have heard, we're going to limit

          8        it to a million dollars, so there will be an $800,000,

          9        in effect, maximum bad faith judgment.  And I assure

         10        you that with that, the adjuster or the claims persons

         11        in this instance  will not act in a way that is

         12        arbitrary and capricious, and that's the protection

         13        that the citizens of this state have.  And if a

         14        subsequent jury finds that they acted properly, there

         15        is no bad faith.

         16             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  If I could just follow up

         17        with one other question on a different matter,

         18        Commissioner Zack.  Do I understand it correctly that

         19        if this amendment is defeated, and then we consider

         20        Commissioner Lowndes' amendment that the effect of

         21        Commissioner Lowndes' amendment would be to waive all

         22        caps on sovereign immunity?  I thought that's what I

         23        heard Commissioner Connor say in his clarification,

         24        but I want to know, and we all ought to know, is that

         25        the issue in part that we'll be voting on when we


          1        consider Commissioner Lowndes' amendment, that is all

          2        caps on sovereign immunity?

          3             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Again, I want to

          4        differentiate between Commissioner Lowndes' proposal

          5        and 59.  There is a limitation in 59.  As far as

          6        Commissioner Lowndes' proposal, it is the same

          7        limitation or lack of limitation that exists today in

          8        the claims bill process.  In the claims bill process

          9        there is no limitation on a waiver of sovereign

         10        immunity, none.  And on the Lowndes bill, there is no

         11        limitation of sovereign immunity.

         12             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  So, in effect, we would be

         13        removing the caps from sovereign immunity if we adopt

         14        it?

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes and no.  You are not

         16        doing anything other than what exists today.  Today,

         17        if there is a claims bill, there is no cap, if there

         18        is a claims bill.

         19             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Not to be argumentative,

         20        but there is a distinct difference because with the

         21        claims bill process it is still the legislative body

         22        who is making the decision on the cap and whether the

         23        amount of the cap should be extended.  That's the same

         24        Legislature that created the cap in the first place,

         25        that's a significant distinction when you're taking it


          1        and putting it into three arbitrators and telling

          2        them, There are no caps and you can make a decision

          3        notwithstanding the statutory caps of $100,000.

          4             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Excuse me, that's a

          5        completely different question than what you asked me.

          6        The answer to your question now is yes, it is now

          7        taken away from the Legislature and given to three

          8        arbiters under the Lowndes amendment.  However, it

          9        doesn't change the fact that under the claims bill

         10        there is no cap, and under the Lowndes' there is no

         11        cap.  You understand the distinction?

         12             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yes, I do.

         13             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Okay.

         14             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  And I'd like, at the

         15        appropriate time, to speak against this amendment.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right now.  I believe the

         17        first one up was Commissioner Lowndes.

         18             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I rise for a point of

         19        clarification.  I'm not sure what -- whether we're

         20        discussing Mr. Zack's -- or Commissioner Zack's

         21        substitute amendment or are we discussing my

         22        amendment?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are supposed to be

         24        discussing his substitute amendment and yours is still

         25        pending.


          1             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I understand from my good

          2        friend Commissioner Barkdull that a procedural motion

          3        might be to divide the question.  So because I believe

          4        that, whether or not Commissioner Zack's substitute

          5        amendment passes, that the amendment which we're

          6        reconsidering, which was my amendment, could stand on

          7        its own.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So you're making a motion to

          9        divide the question which would separate your

         10        amendment from the proposal -- the amendment that's

         11        now on the floor; is that your purpose?  Now, you have

         12        an amendment on the table which you've offered; would

         13        that be what you would offer to divide?

         14             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So what is before us then

         16        would be a motion --

         17             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Point of order,

         18        Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I would like some help on

         20        this.  Who's first ordered?

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Point of order,

         22        Mr. Chairman.  I think the motion to divide the

         23        question is inappropriate inasmuch as we're on the

         24        Zack proposal, and by virtue of our previous vote, as

         25        I understand it, that will be followed by a discussion


          1        on the Lowndes amendment.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me say that on the table

          3        it was just placed, and I think this may be what

          4        precipitated it, because it hasn't been read yet, is

          5        an amendment to Commissioner Zack's substitute

          6        amendment by Commissioner Lowndes, which is what he's

          7        trying to divide --

          8             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  He may want to just --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That procedurally is a

         10        correct motion.

         11             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  He may prefer not to

         12        proffer that amendment at this time so we can stay

         13        focused on the Zack proposal.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  So what you're saying

         15        is if his substitute amendment is defeated or

         16        whatever, he would have the opportunity then to bring

         17        this forward on its own merits, is that what you're

         18        saying?  That would be true now, would it not?

         19             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I will withdraw my motion

         20        and anything I can do to keep this commission

         21        focussed, I'd like to do.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you very much.

         23        Commissioner Zack.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Respectfully, I don't ask for

         25        a ruling that you would have nothing to amend if the


          1        proposal was defeated.  It would appear to me that

          2        procedurally, procedurally you will have to take up

          3        the amendment.  And I have no problem taking the

          4        amendment up first now that the context in which it's

          5        taken up is understood.  You would have to take up the

          6        amendment first, it has to be voted on, and then you

          7        have to take up 59, I believe that's the correct

          8        posture.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I'm going to rule

         10        anything that will get this going, and the ruling is

         11        going to be that you haven't filed your second

         12        amendment yet, Commissioner Lowndes; is that right,

         13        you've got it on the table but you have not moved it?

         14             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right, sir.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now we're back

         16        and we're going to deal with Zack's amendment.  Now,

         17        Mr. Connor, is that okay?

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  That's fine with me, I'd

         19        just like to ask some questions of Commissioner Zack.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  If you could do

         21        the best you can to get him to give short answers.

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Okay.  Commissioner Zack,

         23        as I understand your proposal, it remains within the

         24        discretion of the Legislature to provide provisions

         25        for bringing suit against the state; that correct?


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If the Legislature views

          3        the cap provisions, including the million dollar

          4        exposure for bad faith to be draconian, would the

          5        Legislature in its discretion be able to prevent

          6        suits, to avoid a waiver of sovereign immunity?

          7             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Absolutely.

          8             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Okay.  Now, is it your

          9        understanding or is it your intent to incorporate the

         10        existing law about bad faith, that body of law that's

         11        been developed by a court decision, into this

         12        proposal?

         13             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes, it is.

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Now, historically, as I

         15        have understood that law, bad faith was a judicial

         16        concept that rose by virtue of a contractual

         17        relationship that typically had existed between an

         18        insurance company and an insured.  And the insurance

         19        company by virtue of that relationship was deemed to

         20        have a fiduciary obligation to act in good faith

         21        towards its insured to mitigate or eliminate, when it

         22        could, its exposure for a judgment in excess of the

         23        policy limits; is that correct?

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

         25             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  As I understand the law,


          1        then, liability for bad faith on the part of an

          2        insurance company arises when it negligently fails to

          3        settle a claim within policy limits when given an

          4        opportunity to do so, or when it maliciously fails to

          5        do so; is that correct?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That is correct.

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  You would acknowledge,

          8        would you not, that this fiduciary relationship would

          9        not be quite the same in this instance, in that you

         10        would have two adverse parties?

         11             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I wouldn't really acknowledge

         12        that, no, I think you have a situation here where the

         13        state is acting as the responsible individual just

         14        like the insurance company is for the acts of its

         15        insured, in this case, its agent.

         16             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  In any event, what I'm

         17        trying to get at, is bottom line, regardless of

         18        whether the state stands in the place instead of an

         19        insurance company, is it your intent to have that

         20        standard of negligent failure to settle when it

         21        reasonably ought to have settled or a malicious

         22        failure to settle, would you expect that be -- is it

         23        your desire to have that be the standard by which the

         24        conduct of the state is judged in reference to the

         25        settlement of these claims?


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  All right.  Now, with

          3        respect to the million dollar exposure, do I correctly

          4        understand your proposal to be, if the state acts in

          5        good faith that its exposure is limited to $200,000?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That is correct.

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  It's only when the state

          8        acts in bad faith that it may have excess exposure up

          9        to but not exceeding the million dollars?

         10             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Likewise correct.

         11             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Okay.  Now, would you be

         12        amenable -- would you view it as a friendly amendment

         13        to insert before the last sentence, This waiver shall

         14        not apply to planning functions?

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I have no problem with it,

         16        but I've been advised and I asked that question last

         17        night.  Commissioner Wetherington tells me it's not

         18        necessary to do so because that is the law if this

         19        passes.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Even with the existing

         21        waiver, we have immunity --

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Absolutely.

         23             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  And that would be deemed

         24        redundant?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.


          1             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Those are all of the

          2        questions I have, thank you.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett.  You're

          4        next, Commissioner Ford-Coates.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  For some questions,

          6        Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Commissioner Connor has

          9        asked several of the ones that I was interested in,

         10        but let me follow up on the question about the bad

         11        faith example.  Based on what I've heard him say, is

         12        it true that this would now, for the first time, give

         13        a new cause of action against the state for bad faith

         14        in settling these particular types of tort claims and

         15        that this -- that right now that exists only between

         16        the insurance company and the insured, and this would

         17        now exist between the individual and the state and it

         18        would be an additional cause of action?

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes, and that is in response

         20        to the fact of the frustration that there is no

         21        accountability because there is no cause of action as

         22        of this time.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  With regard to this total,

         24        the total proposal, considering even Commissioner

         25        Lowndes' concept in this one, how would the attorneys'


          1        fees actually work here?  In each stage of this, and

          2        there are at least three stages, one is up to the

          3        $200,000 and then potentially up to the million, and

          4        then either the claims bill and/or the arbitration

          5        panel; how would that work?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It is my understanding that

          7        there be a maximum period of 25,000 -- 25 percent,

          8        which would be in all government-related type of

          9        actions.  So, regardless of the fact that it's in

         10        excess of $200,000, you're still limited to 25

         11        percent, which as you know, is about 15 percent less

         12        than what is generally charged today.

         13             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  That would be like 25

         14        percent of --

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Of the million.  It would be

         16        $250,000.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  In addition to the

         18        million?

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  No, I want to be very clear,

         20        that's not an additional cost.  The only thing that is

         21        in addition to the million dollars is if you have

         22        deposition fees, conference fees, things of that

         23        nature.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  What about if you settled

         25        up with the policy limits, it would be 25 percent of


          1        the $200,000?

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct, plus costs.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  And then either in the

          4        claims bill and/or the arbitration award, how would

          5        the attorneys' fees be handled there?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  The same situation.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Where does the 25 percent

          8        come from?

          9             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  From the award.

         10             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Where does the 25 percent

         11        come from though?  I mean, where is that, that's not

         12        constitutional?

         13             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  The statute right now

         14        provides for it.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  So you are just going to

         16        incorporate the statute.  And appeals from the

         17        arbitration panel, how would those be handled?  It

         18        says, As determined by the Supreme Court.  Is it

         19        possible that the court would say there would be no

         20        appeals?  But it's in the Lowndes'.

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Right.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  What's your understanding

         23        of that?

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I understand the appellate

         25        procedure to be exactly the same as it is today,


          1        however under no circumstances would it be entitled to

          2        more than a million dollars.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  But in the appeal under

          4        the arbitration process, if we go to the Lowndes

          5        amendment, it says the Supreme Court will determine

          6        any appellate process.

          7             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Right.  But see, you need to

          8        whisper to your Commissioner mate sitting next to you.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Well, I did, and that's

         10        why I'm asking the question.  He concedes that it's

         11        possible there may be no appeal, depending on what the

         12        Supreme Court actually ruled for the arbitration

         13        award.

         14             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  If you look --

         15             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  In fact, the arbitration

         16        award would be final and that it is possible there

         17        would be no appeal?

         18             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's a possibility.  There

         19        are also other possibilities that you do at your own

         20        risk.  For example, the appellate courts could easily

         21        do it on the basis that you see other situations

         22        where, if you do it and it is not affirmed that the

         23        cost of that will be an addition or a subtraction from

         24        the amount that you are awarded.  The courts could

         25        easily do that.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I notice in your

          3        proposal, particularly in Paragraph B, you have a

          4        waiver that's a general waiver for suits against the

          5        state of any kind, whereas the Lowndes amendment

          6        relates only to tort.

          7             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Frankly, I didn't see any

          8        reason to assert these for any reason, as far as

          9        contractual obligations.  We do -- well, I knew there

         10        was a good reason, but I had to have it reminded to

         11        me.  There is no sovereign immunity on contractual

         12        obligations, that's why it's there, that's what I have

         13        been advised, that's why it's done the way it's done.

         14        By the way, Lowndes' was not intended to be a

         15        procedure for contractual claims against the state and

         16        to supersede any claims bill for contractual

         17        obligations.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The point I want to make

         19        though is in the Lowndes proposal, if it's adopted,

         20        will relate to a procedure for the resolution of tort

         21        claims.  And the general law will apply to contract

         22        claims.

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  But there is a

         25        distinction being made for tort claims.


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  And for the reason I stated,

          2        there is no sovereign immunity.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          4        Ford-Coates, you have been up a long time.

          5             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Thank you.

          6        Commissioner Zack, your proposal refers to plus costs.

          7        As a non-attorney, can you explain that to me and give

          8        me a dollar figure because that raises the amount,

          9        obviously?

         10             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Well, costs has been

         11        identified in cases by the courts as to what it

         12        specifically means.  It doesn't mean lunches; it

         13        doesn't mean, you know, roses for your secretary.

         14        What it means is deposition costs, expert witness

         15        fees.  These are hard costs that are not Xerox charges

         16        at a specific amount, not a dollar a page or whatever

         17        your actual costs are for Xeroxing, things of that

         18        nature.  Long distance phone calls that are

         19        substantiated.  This is not money that is in addition

         20        to attorneys' fees, this is monies paid to third

         21        parties for doing services that are necessary in the

         22        discovery process.

         23             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I heard you say

         24        earlier I believe, for instance, I believe $10,000 in

         25        fees.


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  You mean costs.

          2             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Costs, I'm sorry.  Is

          3        there an average?

          4             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  No, it depends on how many

          5        witnesses there are.  There could be a very small

          6        amount of costs.  Let's say there is a drive, two

          7        drivers, a police officer and a witness and a couple

          8        of doctors, relatively small amount of costs; however,

          9        if you have a catastrophic accident with many

         10        witnesses, you have questions as far as accident

         11        reconstruction of witnesses, things of that nature,

         12        completely different situation, so there is no

         13        average.

         14             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Is it not true that

         15        governments frequently settle today these cases above

         16        the cap?  Is it not -- that's not an unusual

         17        situation?

         18             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's -- no, that's a very

         19        unusual situation.  I have explained one that I was

         20        personally involved in that it was done, but --

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Do you have figures on

         22        the number of cases that exist around the state, those

         23        that are resolved, the numbers of the problems that

         24        you have been talking about?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It's almost impossible to do


          1        that, because what happens is, in practicality, if you

          2        have a case that's worth $150,000, $200,000, nobody is

          3        going to go through the claims bill process as it

          4        exists today.  So, those cases are never brought.

          5        Those are decisions that are made in the offices at

          6        the time of the case; there's no way to gather all of

          7        that information.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Wait a minute.

          9        Commissioners, we are getting a little too spread out

         10        here all over the chambers.  If everyone would do the

         11        best you can to get in your seat, it would be helpful.

         12        All right, proceed.

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I just want to make

         14        sure I understand, then, we really don't -- and I

         15        asked you yesterday, do you have an anticipation of

         16        the costs of this to local state government, et

         17        cetera, and you didn't know, but we don't even have a

         18        good feel, an accurate estimate of even the number of

         19        cases that we are talking about, correct, so the

         20        impact could be great or could be minimal?

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We were told, as I mentioned

         22        to you yesterday by somebody who never explained the

         23        basis of their statement, that they thought there

         24        would be an increase in insurance.  It's obviously an

         25        insurable risk of somewhere between 5 percent and as


          1        much as 20 percent, but they had no idea of the costs

          2        themselves.

          3             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Or in the actual cost

          4        of insurance.  If they are self-insured, it won't go

          5        to insureds?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.

          7             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  And just a final

          8        question is, am I correct that all of these decisions

          9        could be made by the Legislature?

         10             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I've answered that several

         11        times affirmative.

         12             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Okay, I just wanted to

         13        make sure.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, the troops

         16        are getting restless; could we call all of this to a

         17        close and take some votes?  We are on the substitute

         18        to the Lowndes  amendment.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, we are not on that.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, the Zack proposed

         21        amendment to the Lowndes amendment.

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Well, just the opposite.  It

         23        is the Lowndes amendment to the Zack.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What is before us, everybody

         25        has forgotten in the interim period.  We have not


          1        voted on the Lowndes amendment again, and he has

          2        another amendment which he hasn't offered.  We are now

          3        on the Zack proposal, and we have been talking about

          4        that now for 30 minutes, the Zack proposal.  And every

          5        once in a while we talk about the Lowndes proposal,

          6        but we are actually on the Zack proposal.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Can we go get to a vote?

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, you know, if somebody

          9        moves to limit debate, I guess we could.  And then we

         10        have to take up the Lowndes proposal and his motion to

         11        divide it.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Let's vote on the Zack

         13        proposal.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The Zack right now has a

         15        subacute amendment, correct?

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I don't understand, if the

         17        Chair can explain how you can vote on the Lowndes

         18        proposal, if the Zack proposal was defeated there

         19        would be no vehicle to amend.  So, as I understand

         20        parliamentary procedure, the Lowndes proposal, which

         21        has been discussed simultaneously, should be voted on

         22        first without any further conversation.  If that's

         23        passed --

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Just a minute.  I can explain

         25        that to you, okay.  You have a substitute amendment to


          1        the proposal.  If your substitute amendment is

          2        defeated, the Lowndes amendment would go to the

          3        proposal and he could even make it a substitute for

          4        the proposal if he chose.  So, procedurally, we are

          5        not on the proposal at all, we are on your substitute

          6        amendment to the proposal.

          7             If it should fail, then we are right where we

          8        started with the proposal.  His amendment to that

          9        proposal, if he chose to do so, he could make it a

         10        substitute to the proposal and he could proceed from

         11        there.  But what we need to do is get to the

         12        conclusion of the substitute amendment, because you

         13        might pass it, but if you keep talking I'm not so sure

         14        you will.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I waive my closing comments.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         17        Thompson.

         18             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, I just wanted to

         19        say a word against the proposed amendment, if I could.

         20        I mean, everybody has been asking questions.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think I have to recognize

         22        you for that.

         23             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Is it too late?

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, sir.

         25             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I mean, I'm ready to


          1        leave any time that anybody else wants to, because I'm

          2        one of those people that think if we have well

          3        considered a lot of issues we have done our job.  And

          4        I always thought that when I was in the Legislature.

          5        I never did think people were elected to come to

          6        Tallahassee to pass laws and that you had to have a

          7        new set of laws every year.  And I'm not so sure that

          8        every 20 years the Constitution of the State of

          9        Florida needs a big change.

         10             I think one of the things that you probably all

         11        have realized now in respect to sovereign immunity is

         12        that what we are doing here is just legislating.  If

         13        you will look at the present Constitution what it says

         14        is "suits against the state."  Provision may be made

         15        by general law for bringing suits against the state as

         16        to all liabilities now existing or hereafter

         17        originating.  And all we are doing is taking what the

         18        Legislature has done so far and saying we don't like

         19        it much, so we want to propose these changes.

         20             And certainly in other areas we are talking about

         21        changes that the Legislature can make.  I'm not saying

         22        we are wrong in all of those areas; I'm saying that we

         23        are wrong here.  And I am saying the dialogue that we

         24        have been having here all of this time, it proves

         25        that, it proves my point.


          1             I don't want to be painted on the side of the

          2        people that are so callous that think that people

          3        should not be compensated for their injuries, and

          4        certainly not those who cause them, no matter who that

          5        is.  But if you drive down U.S. 90 to my home right

          6        now, which is about 25 miles away, you will probably

          7        run across 80 percent of the drivers who, if you got

          8        hurt, you wouldn't get the $10,000 worth of insurance

          9        coverage.

         10             So, what we are saying is that, just because of a

         11        local government -- let me tell you something, I was

         12        just going to ask a few questions because the whole

         13        debate was about the great, big, old bad State of

         14        Florida, but there are a lot of little cities out

         15        there and a lot of little counties out there that, and

         16        a lot of school boards that are trying to provide for

         17        essential services that are going to be impacted by

         18        this.  And I don't know the nature and the extent of

         19        the impact.  I'm not real comfortable opposing what

         20        you are trying to do but I'm sure not comfortable in

         21        supporting it.  I'm very comfortable, though, in

         22        leaving that language in the Constitution that's there

         23        now and allowing the Legislature to well consider

         24        these kinds of things, in committees, in getting some

         25        information.


          1             And let me tell you something, they look out

          2        there in the audience and they demand that insurance

          3        carriers come back and give them some facts and

          4        figures about what this is going to cost the Gadsden

          5        County School Board, and they demand that the

          6        Department of Insurance bring them those kinds of

          7        figures.  And they get them, and they are pretty

          8        accurate.  And if they are not, they come back 12

          9        months later and they revisit and they make some

         10        changes.  The thing that we are about to do here is

         11        going to last for about 20 years, and so I would urge

         12        your caution.

         13             The only thing that I want to be sure, and I was

         14        going to ask this in a question, but that's not

         15        proper.  Let me just tell you this, it doesn't matter

         16        what Commissioner Lowndes' and Commissioner Morsani's

         17        amendment does, it doesn't matter what Commissioner

         18        Zack's amendment does, you are going to have claims

         19        bills.  Claims bills are not all based on somebody

         20        going to court, getting a judgment in excess of the

         21        limited waiver of sovereign immunity and then coming

         22        to the Legislature and hiring a high-priced lobbyist

         23        on a contingency fee basis and getting the money from

         24        the folks.

         25             That's not the only thing that is the subject of


          1        the claims bill by far.  The Rosewood matter was a

          2        subject matter -- a claims bill is an appropriations

          3        bill, that's all it is, and you are not addressing

          4        that in this and neither are these amendments, and you

          5        can't do that.

          6             The Legislature has got to have the authority and

          7        the responsibility to appropriate your money, and they

          8        can appropriate money that goes down the line from

          9        holding it back from school boards or from revenue

         10        sharing or whatever they need to do from the local

         11        government.  So, you are not going to do away with

         12        claims bills and you don't want to do away with claims

         13        bills.

         14             One of the first jobs that I had in the Florida

         15        House of Representatives, and there were a lot of good

         16        people that had this job.  I think former House member

         17        Jim Redman is a good friend of ours, Commissioner

         18        Langley, he chaired the little claims committee, and

         19        the way you do that is, they would call me up and, Say

         20        we have got five claims bills, here is your special

         21        master.  The special master goes and looks at

         22        everything, and then says, Wait a minute, we have got

         23        the little town of Gretna here and somebody has got a

         24        half of a million dollar judgment against them.

         25             Now, let's look at the situation of this person.


          1        This person needs a wheelchair and the treatment that

          2        goes with that, this person needs a specially-equipped

          3        van and the house needs to be changed so that, for the

          4        handicap, and so you make sure that those people get

          5        that much money that year.  And then you can structure

          6        that thing so it doesn't bankrupt the little city, but

          7        at the same time the person's needs are taken care of.

          8             You can do equity, you can have people that get

          9        hurt on the job working for government.  And the

         10        worker's compensation for some reason just is, by far,

         11        not sufficient to take care of their problems.  And

         12        you can weed out some equity there.  And the

         13        Legislature does that and has done that.

         14             The statute of limitations runs on people before

         15        they know what their rights may or may not be, or the

         16        law changes two years after they were hurt and they

         17        could have gotten something, but they can't because

         18        they didn't meet that.  They bring it to the

         19        Legislature and the Legislature decides that.

         20             Fortunately, we are not going to do anything

         21        about that under either one of these amendments.  But

         22        I want to submit to you, after all of the wrangling,

         23        and I'm still not fully convinced on how I'm going to

         24        vote on Commissioner Lowndes' amendment.  I'm

         25        convinced that I shouldn't vote for this amendment


          1        because it's purely  legislative.

          2             If you want to try to change the structure of

          3        what we are doing, which is what we are here for and

          4        what this is all about, we might ought to consider the

          5        Lowndes amendment.  I am not sure of all of the

          6        details of the technical problems of having one

          7        without the other.

          8             But I want you to think about the things that

          9        I've said, because I think you can be impacting some

         10        children's rights to go to school, and some folks that

         11        need water and sewer that were on a system where they

         12        had to walk down to a creek and dip water out of it if

         13        you don't be careful here.  The Legislature has the

         14        time, the expertise and the background to make those

         15        decisions better than we do.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right now, he's closed

         17        once.  All of y'all want to speak on this amendment,

         18        this substitute amendment, or do you want to speak on

         19        the issue like Commissioner Thompson just did?

         20        Commissioner Wetherington.

         21             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  I'll say very

         22        briefly, on the concept.  If you want me to wait, I'll

         23        wait.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead, this is the

         25        substitute amendment I understand.


          1             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  I understand that.

          2        This is a -- the proposal here of Commissioner Zack is

          3        comparatively modest.  In 1986, the litigation

          4        commission that was appointed by the Florida Bar

          5        recommended an increase between 1 to $200,000.  The

          6        effect of this basically is to give you what you would

          7        have gotten roughly in 1981.  I agree totally it's

          8        something that should be done by the Legislature.  The

          9        Legislature, for some reason, hasn't addressed this

         10        issue or responded to this issue over this period of

         11        time, and it doesn't look like they are going to.

         12        They should respond to it, this should be done by

         13        commission, but nobody is apparently doing anything.

         14             So the question is, is there some necessity for

         15        some relief out there?  And the answer is, clearly

         16        there is.  This is a modest proposal, it doesn't

         17        change anything about the State's ability to decide

         18        what's covered by sovereign immunity and what is not

         19        covered.  It simply tries to bring a little bit of

         20        parity.  If the people paid insurance premium rates in

         21        1981 at $100,000, the functional equivalent of that

         22        hasn't changed at $200,000.

         23             This is a fairly modest proposal, you could take

         24        the view you are going to leave it alone, the

         25        Legislature is not going to do anything about it, and


          1        we can continue with what's now become a substantial

          2        inequity in the state of Florida, or we can try to do

          3        something, which is modest, and I will speak about

          4        Commissioner Lowndes' proposal later.  I think it's

          5        wonderful, I love Commissioner Lowndes, the only

          6        problem is I think it's going to cost too much money.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          8        Smith.

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Very briefly, Mr. Chair.  I

         10        rise to support the substitute.  And one of the first

         11        reasons why I'm supporting the substitute is because

         12        of something that Commissioner Thompson said to me in

         13        Miami.  He pulled me aside and gave me the same, not

         14        lecture, but philosophy that he shared with you today,

         15        and that is, it's not necessary to change the

         16        Constitution just for the sake of changing the

         17        Constitution.  And I had some ideas coming on to the

         18        commission about proposed changes and I tried, it

         19        sounded very reasonable to me, and so I tried as hard

         20        as I could to try to adopt his philosophy, and that

         21        is, nothing necessarily needs to be changed unless you

         22        convince me that it does, which was the opposite of

         23        how I started.

         24             So, what I did was, starting in mind when he

         25        pulled me aside, that's where we found out that both


          1        of us shared the name Harold.  I said, I'm going to

          2        try that philosophy.  And one of the things that the

          3        people said to me was, the people is whose

          4        Constitution this belongs to, the people who own

          5        Gretna, the people who own Dade County, the people who

          6        own the state of Florida have said, Look, this is an

          7        outrageous injustice, please do something to help us

          8        with regard to this in our Constitution.  And so, as

          9        Commissioner Wetherington has said, this is a very

         10        conservative remedy for what the people have cried out

         11        to us to do.

         12             Two quick things.  One, if I had any concern

         13        whatsoever that this would bankrupt Gretna or any

         14        other facility, as much as I like it, I would vote no.

         15        But why do I have comfort that it will not?  Because

         16        other states, with regard to tort litigation can waive

         17        sovereign immunity altogether.  We haven't heard of

         18        two places being possibly bankrupted in the last two

         19        years, one is New York City and that didn't happen,

         20        and Orange County, and that didn't happen.  Neither

         21        had to do with tort litigation, because you can buy

         22        insurance.  And since this does have caps equivalent

         23        to other states like Florida, of the size of Florida,

         24        I feel very confident that we, the people, can give

         25        the people a little bit of relief and at least put


          1        them up to the level where they were in 1981.

          2             And secondly, I can assure you that we will have

          3        much more savings in the sense of settlement because

          4        there now is an incentive to give that paraplegic or

          5        whatever the $200,000 right off of the bat than to

          6        risk paying another $800,000 for a claim that will

          7        probably be in excess of a million dollars.

          8             So, because of the wisdom imparted to me from my

          9        dear friend Commissioner Thompson, I'll vote yes.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg.

         11             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  One short question,

         12        Commissioner Zack.  If in fact the Legislature, in its

         13        infinite wisdom were of a mind that this $200,000 cap

         14        and million dollar for bad faith were going to

         15        bankrupt the public treasury, would they not be able

         16        to simply say, We take back the waiver of sovereign

         17        immunity in their next session?

         18             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Zack

         20        to close.

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Most everything has been said

         22        and I'll be very, very brief.  But Commissioner

         23        Thompson's remarks about the $10,000 coverage that a

         24        person who is in an accident going to his home would

         25        get reminded me that there is such a difference here


          1        than in that particular situation.  That situation, I

          2        know that there are people with $10,000 coverage, or

          3        no coverage at all, and I can get uninsured motorists

          4        coverage, I can go out and buy it myself, and protect

          5        myself; you can't do it against the State.  There's no

          6        way to protect yourself against the State.

          7             And, you know, what the sovereign does wrong 200

          8        years ago, it does wrong today.  There's got to be

          9        some balance, some sense of fairness to those injured

         10        people who have to rely on the sovereign to get even a

         11        modest recovery.  If I thought there was any way in

         12        the world in which the Legislature was going to act, I

         13        never would have made this proposal.  It's only after

         14        ten years of inaction, after the tort commission

         15        extensively reviewed this, all of the facts, the

         16        figures, bells and whistles, and not a peep out of the

         17        Legislature.

         18             And you know, I find it very interesting,

         19        Commissioner Brochin, Commissioner Nabors, you talked

         20        about the tax exemptions, including the legislative

         21        prerogative, but when it is a situation where you

         22        think the Legislature is not going to act or has not

         23        acted, then you bring it before us, and we are in the

         24        correct place to deal with these inequities.  As a

         25        matter of fact, I personally believe that's why it's


          1        in the Constitution that every 20 years, we meet,

          2        listen to the people of the state of Florida, and try

          3        and resolve problems that can't be resolved by the

          4        Legislature.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will proceed

          6        to vote on the Zack amendment, which is a substitute

          7        amendment to the proposal.  Open the machine and let's

          8        vote.

          9             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment -- close the

         11        machine, please, and record the vote.

         12             READING CLERK:  Thirteen yeas, 19 nays,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The substitute amendment

         15        fails.  We are on the proposal.  And now we have, I,

         16        guess -- where are we now, we are on the Lowndes

         17        amendment which was on reconsideration?  I mean, the

         18        one that's on reconsideration, we haven't voted on it.

         19        All right.

         20             Commissioner Lowndes, she tells me that you have

         21        to redraft that because it was to another amendment.

         22        Do you wish to make the one that you have on the desk

         23        a substitute amendment for the proposal?

         24             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I have redrafted a

         25        substitute amendment to the proposal, which is --


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Which is now

          2        coming forward; is that correct?

          3             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Right, yes.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, that will put us in a

          5        position that when we vote on this, we won't have to

          6        worry about reconsidering your prior amendment; is

          7        that right?

          8             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, sir.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, you are offering a

         10        substitute amendment to the proposal?

         11             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Right.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And this would then become

         13        the proposal?

         14             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Right.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody clear on that?

         16             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  And I would be glad to

         17        explain it while it's being passed out.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  They are making

         19        copies of this, which you will soon have.  And while

         20        we are waiting on the copies, let's take just a moment

         21        to get the report of the committee that met for the

         22        period of time that they did during this morning's

         23        session, the Rules Committee.

         24             Commissioner Barkdull, does the committee now

         25        have a recommendation as to how we proceed?


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir, we do.  I'm not

          2        sure that everybody has got it on their desks.  It's

          3        in written form and I want to be sure that everybody

          4        has got it on their desks before we take it up.  I

          5        would like to suggest that we defer the time of recess

          6        for lunch until we complete the debate on this

          7        sovereign immunity issue.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That will be done without

          9        objection, but let's proceed on the report and

         10        recommendation of the Rules Committee.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's now being handed

         12        out and we'll take it up at the conclusion of the

         13        sovereign immunity debate.  If that's all right with

         14        the Chair.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's fine.  We can do it

         16        now, I don't think we are quite ready on this.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'll move you, sir, that

         18        the written report of the Rules Committee that is

         19        before you, be adopted as the procedure which we'll

         20        follow for the remainder of this session and the

         21        remainder of the sessions scheduled for the commission

         22        on the 17th of March and the 23rd of March.

         23             It provides that, as we can all read it, the only

         24        substantial change from what the Style and Drafting

         25        Committee recommended is instead of having


          1        reconsideration when we come back on the 17th, there

          2        would only be a revote in the event there are five

          3        hands raised by members of the commission to take a

          4        revote.

          5             In other words, if a matter passes this week --

          6        well, first, if a matter does not get a majority vote

          7        this week, it'll be dead.  Second, if it gets a

          8        majority vote but less than 22, it'll still be alive

          9        for five hands after we come back to see if it can

         10        then garner 22 votes.  If it get 22 votes, we come

         11        back on the 17th and there are no five hands raised,

         12        it'll have had its 22 votes and does not need a

         13        revote.  But if it got 22 votes and then when we come

         14        back and somebody wants a revote, if there are five

         15        hands up, there would be a revote on it.

         16             Well, the big, really the only substantial

         17        changes, other than having to put it on

         18        reconsideration and running into the problem that

         19        Commissioner Langley outlined, this puts it in a

         20        situation where if five people want the issues

         21        revoted, they would be revoted.  And I move that this

         22        be the procedure that we use for the next, the

         23        remainder of this week and the sessions on the 17th

         24        and the 23rd.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There's been a motion by the


          1        Rules Committee which is before you that this is a

          2        procedure we follow for the balance of this voting on

          3        the motion?  Was this a unanimous vote of the

          4        committees?

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Of both Style and Drafting?

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, it was for the

          8        Rules Committee.  And the Style and Drafting Chair was

          9        there, but I don't think we had all of the members of

         10        Style and Drafting present.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I have got a

         12        whole bunch of people up.  I guess the first one that

         13        got up was Commissioner Brochin.

         14             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I just had a question.

         15        What are we anticipating happening if we come back on

         16        March the 17th for one day and don't complete the

         17        work?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's why we have got a day

         19        scheduled for the 23rd.

         20             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Well, we would come back

         21        and complete the work on the 23rd, and then what would

         22        we do vis-a-vis the work that you have scheduled on

         23        the 23rd?

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  If we don't finish it?

         25             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yeah.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We may not reach it, or

          2        we may schedule another session, but that's going to

          3        be up to a lot of things, whether we have facilities

          4        which are not available here.  And we will reach that

          5        bridge when we get to it.  But we are scheduling some

          6        pretty long days, and hopefully we'll be able to

          7        conclude the final vote on all of it on the 17th and

          8        the 23rd.

          9             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Is it reasonably

         10        anticipated that we will complete our work on the day

         11        of the 17th and then subsequently the day of the 23rd?

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.  I think we are

         13        hopeful that we pare down some of these things the

         14        remainder of this week if we ever get to the report of

         15        the Style and Drafting Committee.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I think,

         17        Commissioner Smith, you were next.

         18             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you.  I have two quick

         19        questions of Commissioner Barkdull.  First of all,

         20        with regard to the recommendation that was made and

         21        adopted for five members to raise their hands to

         22        request a revote, was it at least -- was it all

         23        discussed or considered, that when we initially

         24        started for a proposal that came from the public to be

         25        presented took ten votes?  Five votes seems like a


          1        very, very small number of people.  And for all

          2        purposes, we are going to vote on everything.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It was not discussed, to

          4        answer your question.  The five votes, I think,

          5        originated because I believe, in one of the

          6        legislative bodies, either the House or the Senate,

          7        five votes gets a roll call, five hands gets a roll

          8        call vote.

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  The second issue,

         10        which is not major, but I think it may cause some

         11        confusion.  Under 2, it defines what happens with a

         12        simple majority, but less than 22 votes, and then it

         13        describes what happens with 22 or greater and it is

         14        the same thing.  And I think that would cause

         15        confusion.  I think if we were to say a simple

         16        majority, this is what happens.  Do you understand?

         17        It's confusing.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.  I

         19        think you have got it right, that's what it provides,

         20        five hands gets a vote on either one.

         21             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  But what I'm saying

         22        is, we have, under No. 2, simple majority but less

         23        than 22 votes, then 22 or greater vote.  The exact

         24        same thing is written next to each.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's correct.


          1             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  So please explain to me why

          2        we divide them up like this if they don't have any

          3        different impact.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Just to make it clear.

          5        We could have said all of the proposals that have

          6        received more than majority votes will then be subject

          7        to a revote upon five hands.  But we wanted to make it

          8        clear that a proposal that's gotten 22 votes this week

          9        and doesn't get five hands --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We started off with a

         11        proposal that everything would come up on

         12        reconsideration, and this was their effort to

         13        compromise that.  Unless this is ahead of Commissioner

         14        Thompson or Henderson, Commissioner Hawkes, you are

         15        going to have to follow them because Henderson was up

         16        first.  Commissioner Henderson.

         17             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         18        Commissioner Barkdull, one question for procedure for

         19        when we come back.  Let's say at public hearing we

         20        learn, you know, someone brings forward an issue, a

         21        technical issue regarding an amendment that we need to

         22        fix.  So, on the 17th, I'm assuming that amendments

         23        can still be offered.  Under this procedure, does it

         24        take five people to sign on an amendment or does it

         25        take, or just propose an amendment and you have to get


          1        five hands?

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think you have to get

          3        five hands and then a simple majority to pass the

          4        amendment.

          5             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Thank you.  That answers

          6        the question.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, Commissioner

          8        Thompson.

          9             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I just want to clarify,

         10        by question, Paragraph No. 4, the last sentence, to

         11        me, what I understand from that is that we will, on

         12        March 23rd, get back groups of proposals from the

         13        Style and Drafting Committee, and any amendment to any

         14        of those groups of proposals will require 22 votes.

         15        And then final adoption of any of those groups will

         16        require 22 votes; is that correct?

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, Commissioner

         18        Hawkes.

         19             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Just a question,

         20        Mr. Chairman.  I read the same thing that Commissioner

         21        Smith read, and I took it to be, if in fact we don't

         22        get five votes for something that passes by a simple

         23        majority, but not 22, there's not five hands, and I

         24        guess that proposal never comes back and it doesn't

         25        become part of -- so, we can defeat something by


          1        silence is what this allows versus by affirmative

          2        action.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's correct.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.  Commissioner

          5        Ford-Coates.

          6             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Let me clarify one

          7        question on if we don't finish our work on the 17th, I

          8        think that the case is, as I read it, if we don't

          9        finish, considering whatever proposals get five or ten

         10        votes, whatever it may be, on the 17th, then Style and

         11        Drafting doesn't have all of the proposals to bring

         12        back on the 23rd, which in itself is a challenge from

         13        the 17th to the 23rd for those final votes on the

         14        23rd.

         15             So, I mean, I think we need to realize that

         16        whatever action we take, if we are going to meet this

         17        schedule of reconsideration on the 17th, final votes

         18        on the 23rd, then we better be sure that we can finish

         19        on the 17th.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We are hopeful in doing

         21        that.  All I can say to you, Commissioner, is if we

         22        run into an impasse, we'll face that rule change at

         23        that time.

         24             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Okay.  Then I would

         25        suggest that we use 10 votes, which Commissioner Smith


          1        raised, which seems like a reasonable number and would

          2        not, perhaps, add as many to the hopper.  If you can't

          3        get 10 votes to reconsider something, then the chance

          4        of it passing or changing its vote, I think, is pretty

          5        slim.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I believe that

          9        Commissioner Coates, I'm going to assume that that is

         10        a motion to amend the motion that I made to make the

         11        vote to revote to be in the number 10 instead of 5.

         12        Is that correct, Commissioner Coates?

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You made a motion to make the

         14        change, change the number to revote on everything from

         15        5 to 10; is that my understanding of the motion?

         16        Okay, that is the motion, and you have been heard on

         17        it.  Commissioner Langley, you want to be heard on it?

         18             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, in opposition.

         19        Again, some of these proposals passed by such a narrow

         20        margin.  And I, among others, cast a few courtesy

         21        votes, and I'm sure many of you did, we'll look at it

         22        after Style and Drafting gets through with it, what

         23        have you.  Those narrow margins, five people can

         24        certainly affect them.  I mean, do you want anything

         25        out of here with that close of a margin, if we can't


          1        agree on it, what in the world are the people of the

          2        state going to understand about it or vote on it.

          3             So, five hands, actually, is constitutional, if

          4        you want to read it, anytime in either house of the

          5        Legislature that you are not satisfied with the

          6        Chair's call of a vote, if five Representatives or

          7        Senators raise their hands, the Chair must put it on

          8        the board.  And that's where that number came from

          9        this morning.

         10             It was a compromise between one person being able

         11        to do it as opposed to having to carry a motion for

         12        reconsideration which could result in a bare majority

         13        of this group putting something on the ballot.  And I

         14        think it was all our congenial consent from day one in

         15        here that it takes 22 votes.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think our rules require

         17        five votes, same thing.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'm opposed to the

         19        motion.  We thought five was sufficient, it's a

         20        unanimous recommendation of the Rules Committee with

         21        no objection from the Chair of Style and Drafting.  I

         22        urge you to defeat the amendment and adopt the

         23        proposal as offered.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Quickly close on the

         25        amendment.  We all understand it.


          1             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, for the

          2        good of the body, I'll withdraw the amendment.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Now, let's move to the

          4        motion, which is to adopt the report of the Rules

          5        Committee.  All of those in favor, say aye; opposed?

          6             (Verbal vote taken.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries, we have adopted

          8        this.  I will announce that if we have need for

          9        another day, we'll have an alternate location and have

         10        it.  If we have to, we will.  But that's going to be

         11        very, very difficult.  If we will move these debates

         12        along we won't need to do that.  Yes, sir,

         13        Commissioner Langley.

         14             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I offer our civic

         15        auditorium in Clermont.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have to meet here.

         17             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Sir?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have to meet here.  Thank

         19        you.  It would be very nice, we could go to that

         20        winery down there and probably get happy before we got

         21        there.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, I have been

         23        in discussing with Commissioner Lowndes, and I would

         24        like now to ask us to recess until 12:20 -- or 1:20.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Without


          1        objection, we'll recess for lunch and other matters

          2        until 1:20, okay.  We are in recess.

          3             (Lunch recess.)

          4             READING CLERK:  Quorum call, quorum call.  All

          5        commissioners, please indicate your presence.

          6             (Pause.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I wonder if we could get

          8        somebody to go in the back and round somebody up.  We

          9        need to get started.  It's 1:22 and we recessed until

         10        1:15.  I hear a lot of complaints about we are not

         11        moving very fast but we can't even get moving at all.

         12        Welcome back, Commissioner Marshall, we hope

         13        everything is fine, and we are glad to have you back.

         14             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We do have a quorum present

         16        and we are in a position to get started.  Okay, let's

         17        come to order please.  When we left for recess we had

         18        completed the adoption of the proposal by the Rules

         19        Committee and we are now moving forward and we are on

         20        the Proposal No. 59, I think it is.  And the present

         21        situation left it with Commissioner Lowndes who was

         22        going to offer something on this.  Commissioner

         23        Lowndes, you have the floor.

         24             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  I

         25        think you have on your desk a substitute amendment for


          1        Proposal No. 59.  And this substitute amendment simply

          2        adds to the existing constitutional provision which

          3        allows the state to waive sovereign immunity in some

          4        limited instances.  Added to that is, in the area of

          5        tort claims, there would be an arbitration procedure

          6        which, as we pointed out this morning, would go beyond

          7        the waiver of sovereign immunity by the Legislature.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Let me have it

          9        read and then you can discuss it.  Would you read the

         10        substitute, I guess it is substituting it for the

         11        proposal; is that what it does?

         12             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, sir.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         14             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Lowndes for

         15        amendment by Lowndes, Zack, Morsani and Hawkes on

         16        Page 1, Lines 15 through 28, delete those lines and

         17        insert Section 13, suits against the state; provision

         18        may be made by general law for bringing suit against

         19        the state as to all liabilities now existing or

         20        hereafter originating when any tort claim is filed

         21        against the state or political subdivision, agency,

         22        district, or municipality which exceeds a limited

         23        waiver of sovereign immunity established by general

         24        law.  It shall be submitted by the court in which it

         25        is filed in lieu of trial to a three-person


          1        arbitration panel that shall, by a majority vote,

          2        render a decision on the claim.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Read the rest.  Go ahead and

          4        read the last sentence.

          5             READING CLERK:  The rules that govern the

          6        proceedings of the arbitration panel and any appeal

          7        taken therefrom shall be determined by the state

          8        Supreme Court.  Sovereign immunity shall be waived to

          9        the extent of any final arbitration decision made

         10        pursuant to this section.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes, you are

         12        recognized on your proposal.

         13             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  It is a very simple

         14        proposal.  It simply provides a forum for people who

         15        are damaged by the negligence of the state to recover

         16        damages in excess of the caps that the state has

         17        imposed.  In this instance it would be, in the real

         18        world as it works out, it would be in excess of a

         19        $100,000 cap.

         20             And, in effect, it is, for those suits that the

         21        state allows to be brought against the state, it does

         22        away with the caps in the instance of an arbitration.

         23        I don't know how else to explain it.  I don't think we

         24        need to talk about it a lot longer because I think we

         25        have all talked about it a whole lot, so I will just


          1        close and be happy to answer any questions.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  How about any further

          3        discussion on this?  Commissioner Langley, you are

          4        recognized.

          5             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Just briefly.  The good

          6        thing about this is, one, with the exception of some

          7        very few things like Rosewood, this would eliminate

          8        claims bills.  Two, there was some question about the

          9        appellate process.  This does give the Supreme Court

         10        the right to make those rules of appeal.  And if those

         11        rules were to be arbitrary as allowing no appeal, the

         12        Legislature can, by two-thirds' vote, make procedural

         13        rules which the court has to follow.  So it does have

         14        safeguards in it.  And let me tell you as a person who

         15        has been up here fighting claims bills for 20 years,

         16        they are very unfair, they are very unfair, they are

         17        very arbitrary; it is who you know and which firm you

         18        get to lobby it, and it is just not a fair way to do

         19        it.

         20             And this will also do away with so-called runaway

         21        juries where the arbitrators would be more qualified

         22        to give realistic damages.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         24        Smith.

         25             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I rise to say that I agree


          1        with Langley, Commissioner Langley.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Would everybody please take

          3        note of that, that's all right.

          4             (Laughter.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

          6        discussion?  Oh, Commissioner Nabors.

          7             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Lowndes, let me ask

          8        you, to make sure I understand this, we have had

          9        testimony that essentially there's no limit in terms

         10        of the amount of claims that can be awarded in this

         11        arbitration process; is that correct?

         12             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.

         13             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  And the other thing that

         14        bothers me in the way I read this is that the Supreme

         15        Court has the authority to do rules of procedure in

         16        terms of how the arbitration would work, but I don't

         17        see any general law reservation to the Legislature in

         18        order to limit like economic damages or to do anything

         19        in terms of dealing with attorneys' fees and costs, it

         20        is whatever the arbitration panel decides to do; is

         21        that correct?  In other words, I'm concerned about --

         22             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  No, I don't think that's

         23        correct.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes, turn

         25        the mike on for him please.


          1             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  My interpretation of that

          2        is we are dealing here with the suits that the

          3        state -- the Legislature says can be brought against

          4        the state.  Now, if you read that statute that allows

          5        certain suits to be brought against the state, it has

          6        within it certain limitations.  Limitations such as no

          7        punitive damages and limitations as to the amount of

          8        attorneys' fees and whatnot.  And my sense is that

          9        this wouldn't abrogate that, that would still be the

         10        law.  It would be a condition of bringing the suit in

         11        the first instance.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

         13        debate or questions on Mr. Lowndes' proposal?

         14        Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         15             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioner Lowndes,

         16        let me understand, since again I'm not an attorney, by

         17        this unlimited, by no cap, is there the potential that

         18        there would be more suits filed against government,

         19        whether local or state, perhaps in the nature of

         20        frivolous suits by attorneys whose ethics are not up

         21        to the standards of those on this commission and

         22        therefore local governments would have to spend quite

         23        a bit of money defending themselves in front of these

         24        arbitration panels?

         25             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  The question was, is there


          1        a potential or possibility of that, I would have to

          2        say yes.

          3             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  So we really don't --

          4        again, we are in a situation where we don't know what

          5        the total costs may be to local government which could

          6        be a problem, and could this not be done by

          7        legislative action?

          8             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, it could be done by

          9        legislative action.

         10             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Thank you.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anything further?

         12        All right.  Does everybody understand what we are

         13        voting on?

         14             (Off-the-record discussion.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

         16        desk which has been dropped here on us by who?

         17        Commissioner Brochin.  I don't have it.  Does anybody

         18        else have it?  Oh, okay, is this it?  All right.  Read

         19        the amendment, please.

         20             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Brochin, the

         21        following amendment to Substitute Amendment 5 on

         22        Page 1, on Line 27 before the period, insert,

         23        "Provided that any such decision does not exceed

         24        $500,000."

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin, you are


          1        recognized on your amendment.

          2             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  As I understand

          3        Commissioner Lowndes' proposal, it will effectively

          4        waive sovereign immunity in an unlimited amount and it

          5        would switch the process away from the claims process,

          6        if you will, to the arbitration panel.

          7             This is an amount that would cap those decisions,

          8        and the amount I selected was arbitrary.  I made it

          9        up, I don't know why 500,000 is an appropriate amount,

         10        but I thought it was worthy of consideration to see if

         11        we want to limit it in any extent or we want to simply

         12        remove the cap on sovereign immunity totally, which is

         13        what I think Commissioner Lowndes' amendment would do.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Question, Commissioner Smith.

         15             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Commissioner Brochin,

         16        obviously any kind of limit makes some people on the

         17        fence feel a little more comfortable, especially those

         18        who are concerned about bankrupting Gretna.  However,

         19        in terms of the procedure, am I correct in

         20        understanding, or would you explain whether or not

         21        this will require someone who gets, let's just say

         22        someone has a claim for an amount in excess of this,

         23        they are bound with just 500,000, or could they then

         24        still go to the Legislature?

         25             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I think they could still


          1        and would go to the Legislature.  And I think as

          2        Commissioner Thompson eloquently explained, claims

          3        bill is nothing more than an appropriation, and if

          4        they have a decision from the arbitration panel for

          5        $4 million, they could get their $500,000 because

          6        immunity would be waived, and for the difference, they

          7        would seek an appropriation from the Legislature.

          8             By having some process, if you will, to take

          9        claims say in excess of $100,000 and now, this

         10        proposal 500,000 or 1 million, in theory there would

         11        be insurance for the municipalities, in theory there

         12        would be less of a claims process because more people

         13        would be awarded their just compensation and therefore

         14        less need to seek appropriations.  But my

         15        understanding is you can only seek appropriations

         16        through the claims process.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

         18        discussion on the amendment?  All right.  We'll

         19        proceed to vote on the amendment.  All in favor of the

         20        amendment say aye.  All opposed?

         21             (Verbal vote taken.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Unlock the machine.

         23             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Announce the vote.

         25             READING CLERK:  Twenty yeas, 11 nays,


          1        Mr. Chairman.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  By your vote you

          3        have adopted the amendment.  We are now on the

          4        substitute amendment by Commissioner Lowndes as

          5        amended by Commissioner Brochin to proceed further.

          6        Is there debate on the substitute amendment, further

          7        debate?  If not, Commissioner Lowndes, you may close.

          8             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I think we have taken

          9        enough time on sovereign immunity.  I would urge you

         10        to vote for the amendment.  Thank you.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will proceed

         12        to vote.  Unlock the machine and vote.  It is on the

         13        substitute amendment as amended.  It is the Lowndes

         14        amendment with the Brochin addition.  This is on the

         15        Lowndes amendment with the addition of the Brochin

         16        amendment.

         17             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         19        the vote.

         20             READING CLERK:  Seventeen yeas, 14 nays,

         21        Mr. Chairman.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  By your vote you

         23        have adopted the amendment which replaced the previous

         24        proposal.  We now must vote on the proposal which is

         25        the Lowndes amendment we just passed with the Brochin


          1        amendment on it, the same vote we just took we have to

          2        take again.  Open the machine and record the vote.

          3             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are voting on the same

          5        thing.  What we did is -- clear the machine.  Clear

          6        the machine.  Now, what we have to do, we adopted the

          7        substitute for the proposal but I'm informed by the

          8        Secretary that we now have to just vote the same vote

          9        again in order to officially adopt the proposal; am I

         10        right?

         11             (Off-the-record discussion.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct, the proposal

         13        as amended.  All right.  We are going to vote --

         14             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  We have to debate it.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I asked for debate.  I

         16        am half deaf in one ear so I now hear you, you have

         17        got the floor if you want it.

         18             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Are you talking to me?

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Who else would I be talking

         20        to?

         21             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I just wanted to remind

         22        everybody of the passionate debate that Commissioner

         23        Anthony who is having much more fun than all of us

         24        this week on this subject matter.  What we have now

         25        is, I suppose, a $500,000 limit, no trial by jury but


          1        some sort of binding arbitration and sovereign

          2        immunity is being waived.  And I just, I think at this

          3        point, I would urge everybody, on Commissioner

          4        Anthony's behalf, to vote against it.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I'm sure he is proud of

          6        that.  Commissioner Wetherington.

          7             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  We needed some reform

          8        on sovereign immunity in this state.  This is a very

          9        sensible proposal and I think you should support it.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Could I ask Commissioner

         12        Scott a question, please?

         13             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Is it friendly?

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Friendly.  Commissioner

         15        Scott, do you believe that the Legislature could enact

         16        this same thing by statute, this same procedure?

         17             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Yes, absolutely, after

         18        hearing from everyone and giving everybody a chance to

         19        figure out what the ramifications, how much it would

         20        cost, they could do it, yeah.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Any more debate?

         23        Commissioner Butterworth.

         24             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  I just have a

         25        question.  What happens if, I don't know who can


          1        answer this, maybe Mr. Brochin can, but from the

          2        standpoint that, let's say you have a claim for a

          3        million dollars, is it best just to go to a regular

          4        jury trial now and still go to the Legislature for a

          5        claims bill; or is it best just to -- or do you have

          6        your choice of forums, I guess it would be?

          7             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  You know, I think the

          8        answer to that question would be a strategic decision

          9        made by the plaintiffs and their attorneys and whether

         10        they want to bring their case to a trial.  But if they

         11        want to get the mandatory aspect of this proposal,

         12        which says if you file a tort claim it shall be

         13        submitted to the court in lieu of a trial, you would

         14        be required to do that.

         15             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  It says in tort claims

         16        filed against the state or a political subdivision,

         17        you must go to the three-person arbitration;

         18        therefore, you would not have the right to a jury

         19        trial if in fact you decide to sue the state of

         20        Florida or a subdivision.

         21             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yes, but the answer is you

         22        don't have the right to a jury trial now for that

         23        amount.

         24             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  But you have a claims

         25        bill, but you might get a judgment first, then a


          1        claims bill.

          2             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yes, it is the same

          3        judgment, but you don't have a right in a jury trial

          4        for an amount in excess of $100,000 now.  That's

          5        right, I misspoke, you have the right to a jury trial,

          6        but it is not enforceable beyond the cap.

          7             COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH:  Mr. Chairman, I am

          8        opposed to this.  I really feel very strongly about

          9        the right to a jury trial and I would vote against

         10        this.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

         12        discussion?  Commissioner Lowndes, you may close.

         13             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Well, I would just close

         14        by saying I don't think that this precludes a jury

         15        trial.  What this says is that you go to the

         16        arbitration proceeding, which presumably is an

         17        election on the part of a plaintiff in those instances

         18        where you are claiming an amount higher than the cap.

         19             I used to be a trial lawyer years and years ago,

         20        but my recollection is when you go into the circuit

         21        court you don't have to file in your complaint how

         22        much damages you are looking for, you can go into the

         23        circuit court now, and this doesn't take it away, you

         24        get a jury trial.  You only go into the arbitration

         25        proceeding if you tell the circuit court you are


          1        asking for more than the cap, so this doesn't take

          2        away the jury trial at all.  And presumably you would

          3        still have the right if you elected to go the jury

          4        route, to come to the Legislature for a claims bill.

          5             My sense is that, while on the one hand this

          6        doesn't do away with claims bills, on the other hand,

          7        it makes it much less likely because people would have

          8        an alternative to claims bills which are much more

          9        reasonable and reachable for the average person.

         10             So I urge you to vote for the amendment.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We have had close

         12        on this and now we are prepared to vote on the

         13        proposal by Commissioner Lowndes as amended by the

         14        Brochin amendment.  Unlock the machine and let's vote.

         15             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Has everybody voted?  Unlock

         17        the machine and announce the vote.

         18             READING CLERK:  Fifteen yeas, 16 nays,

         19        Mr. Chairman.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you have

         21        defeated the proposal.

         22             All right.  We now proceed to Proposal No. 77 by

         23        Commissioner Freidin.  Commissioner Freidin, Proposal

         24        No. 77 by Commissioner Freidin and the Committee on

         25        Declaration of Rights is on the calendar.  Would you


          1        read it, please?

          2             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

          3        77, a proposal to revise Article X, Section 13,

          4        Florida Constitution, abolishing sovereign immunity in

          5        contract and in tort.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, you are

          7        recognized on the proposal.

          8             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I'm going to withdraw that

          9        proposal without objection.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, the

         11        proposal is withdrawn.  Now we have a committee report

         12        from Style and Drafting as the next order of business.

         13        Commissioner Mills, you are recognized.

         14             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, based on the

         15        Rules' report as passed this morning, we are prepared

         16        to take up, under the topics that have been

         17        enumerated, the proposals on the agenda for this week.

         18        The first topic is elections.  There are seven

         19        proposals in that area.  And the procedure that we

         20        would propose to follow in considering each of these

         21        for a majority vote or for any positive vote to carry

         22        them on, and again any negative vote would cease

         23        further consideration of the Commission.

         24             What I would propose to do, Mr. Chairman, is I

         25        would move to limit debate on each of these to 10


          1        minutes, and at the beginning of each of these

          2        considerations, when introduced by the sponsor, if the

          3        Chair asks if there are people who wish to debate on

          4        either side, sort of line it up.  We had, in Style and

          5        Drafting, assigned members of Style and Drafting to

          6        deal specifically with an explanation of the overview

          7        of the issue and to describe the technical Style and

          8        Drafting amendments to those proposals.  For the

          9        elections process, Commissioner Ford-Coates would do

         10        that for Style and Drafting.

         11             But before doing that, if I could, Mr. Chairman,

         12        if it would be timely, I would move to limit debate on

         13        each of the items in the election package to 10

         14        minutes.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, you have heard the

         16        motion.  Commissioner Smith.

         17             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Question.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes, Commissioner Smith.

         19             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Question, Mr. Chair.  First

         20        question is, 10 minutes total, or 10 minutes for the

         21        proponents and 10 minutes for the opponents?

         22             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Ten minutes total.

         23             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  With regard to the 10

         24        minutes total, does the proponent of the proposal have

         25        any say-so, or the opponent, the proponent have any


          1        say-so on who will speak?  For instance, if I have a

          2        proposal, there may be certain people that I want to

          3        speak who will cover particular areas of the proposal

          4        which gives my proposal a better chance of passage, as

          5        opposed to having people getting up saying the same

          6        thing or not knowing what they are taking about.  All

          7        right.  Will the proponent of the proposal have any

          8        input on who will do the talking?

          9             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, the proponent

         10        of the proposal will have input by talking to people,

         11        but it is up to the Chair to recognize whomever he

         12        wishes to recognize.

         13             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  And lastly, will the

         14        procedure require that all proponents go first and all

         15        opponents go last, or back and forth, because that

         16        makes a difference in the debate.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  What I would

         18        suggest, with the approval of the group, is that we,

         19        at the outset, ask who is a proponent and who wants to

         20        be an opponent, identify them.  And then I would let

         21        the proponents go first, the opponents go second, and

         22        the proponent to close.

         23             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.  Last question,

         24        Mr. Chair.  Commissioner Mills, does the 10 minutes

         25        also include the close by the proponent of the


          1        proposal?  And if that's the case, does the proponent

          2        of the proposal get at least a specific period of time

          3        to close their own proposal because other people can

          4        use up the whole 10 minutes?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett, you had

          6        a question.

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  We could do 5 and 5 and give

          8        a 2-minute close.  And I would also indicate that what

          9        we need here is sort of mutual discipline of the

         10        group.  If we get to 10 minutes -- I mean, there are a

         11        couple of proposals down the line, with which

         12        Commissioner Smith is very familiar, that probably

         13        can't be handled in 10 minutes, but you can then move

         14        to extend, and if it is the will of the body, we will

         15        do that.  There are many of these proposals, I would

         16        suggest to you, a majority of them can be handled in

         17        10 minutes.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett, you had

         19        something.

         20             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Just a comment,

         21        Mr. Chairman.  I think that the debate might flow

         22        better if you take a proponent and opponent, kind of

         23        alternate them because sometimes saving it all for the

         24        end doesn't allow somebody to respond that might have

         25        a good answer.


          1             Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to save

          2        time for the proponent, outside of the 10 minutes, to

          3        actually close.  Because I think that individual

          4        really should have an opportunity that's consistent

          5        with what we were trying to accomplish at Style and

          6        Drafting.  The whole purpose of this is to try to set

          7        some time parameters to move us through the day.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  And I think that

          9        will be done and I'll do it that way, but I'll ask at

         10        the outset.  We have debated all of these before, but

         11        I'll ask at the outset for the proponents that want to

         12        speak to be identified and the opponents to be

         13        identified, and then I will try to alternate, as you

         14        suggest.  And it might not be a bad idea for somebody,

         15        if there are too many, to suggest who is going to have

         16        the time.  So that's what we will do if you pass this

         17        motion.

         18             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  And, Mr. Chairman, you know,

         19        using your discretion that you would give

         20        approximately 5 minutes per side, if this was

         21        reasonably debatable, and then allowing the proponent

         22        to close.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  All right.  Are we

         24        ready to vote on the motion?

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, if it is the


          1        consensus of the group, about 2 minutes to close so

          2        that gets us through, if we work the entire process it

          3        would be 12 minutes.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Restate the motion.

          5             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  That we limit debate on each

          6        proposition to 10 minutes, 5 minutes per side, in the

          7        discretion of the Chair to alternate back and forth so

          8        as to create a fair debate, and 2 minutes to close for

          9        the proponent.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody ready

         11        to vote on the motion?  All in favor of the motion,

         12        say aye.  Opposed?

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The motion carries.

         15             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, then, in an

         16        ecumenical sense, I will take it upon myself to stand

         17        up at 10 minutes just so you will know when we are

         18        there, if the Secretary will help me.  And before we

         19        go into the individual proposals, Commissioner

         20        Ford-Coates can give you a brief overview of

         21        everything in elections so you will know what you are

         22        voting on and tell you about the three, basically,

         23        noncontroversial amendments, if you will recognize

         24        Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates.


          1             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioner Mills,

          2        you want the amendments done now and not as we take --

          3        right, you want it the opposite way.  Let me just say

          4        that Style and Drafting has on these seven proposals,

          5        three amendments that are merely technical in nature

          6        which affect three of the proposals.  I will move

          7        those amendments as we get to each proposal.  And I

          8        would ask, I assume it will be the will of the body

          9        that those amendments and in that portion of the

         10        process, that that not be counted against the 10

         11        minutes of debate.

         12             So, the elections proposals, as Commissioner

         13        Mills said, are seven in number.  They cover the areas

         14        of public financing for statewide campaigns, ballot

         15        access in allowing easier ballot access for minor and

         16        independent candidates, minor party and independent

         17        candidates, a change in the primary election process

         18        when the primary is the last election, a change in the

         19        way the Governor, the gubernatorial candidates select,

         20        the time frame in which they must select their

         21        Lieutenant Governor, putting it after the primary.

         22        Change for putting single-member districts, that

         23        requirement within the Constitution, nonpartisan

         24        election of school boards.

         25             We also have the Apportionment Commission in the


          1        elections provisions, but since we voted on that this

          2        morning, we felt that it would be more appropriate to

          3        bring that up again for debate a little later in the

          4        week, so we are not going to re-debate that issue

          5        within this elections package today.  And the final

          6        one is the limitation on political contributions from

          7        political parties and to political parties.

          8             With that, I'd like to move to the first proposal

          9        in your package, Committee Substitute for Proposal 16.

         10        This requires a system of spending limits for

         11        campaigns for statewide office and a system for public

         12        financing of those campaigns and further requires that

         13        the Legislature provide sufficient funding for the

         14        provision.

         15             Style and Drafting has two technical amendments

         16        which are in your packet.  The first amendment --

         17        shall we read the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, we'll have the clerk to

         19        read the amendment.

         20             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  That's what I mean, to

         21        get it on the desk.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Is it on the desk?

         23             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  It is in the pink

         24        packet, it's right in your pink packet.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Read the proposal first.


          1             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

          2        No. 16., a proposal to create Article IV, Section 7,

          3        Florida Constitution, and Article 12, Section 23,

          4        Florida Constitution; providing for public financing

          5        of campaigns for elective statewide office and for

          6        spending limits.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now there is an

          8        amendment on the table offered by Style and Drafting.

          9             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Well, actually it

         10        would be offered by Commissioner Ford-Coates because

         11        if it were offered by Style and Drafting it would

         12        require 22 votes.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  It is offered by

         14        Commissioner Ford-Coates, which is the recommended

         15        additional language, as I take it; is that correct?

         16        Read the amendment, please.

         17             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         18        16 by Commissioner Ford-Coates, the following

         19        amendment on Page 1, Line 17, 18, strike "effectively

         20        compete without the disproportionate influence of

         21        special interests" and insert "compete effectively."

         22             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Okay.  This amendment

         23        takes out some unnecessary and perhaps gratuitous

         24        language, that is without the disproportional

         25        influence of special interests.  The feeling of the


          1        committee was we shouldn't place special interests

          2        within the Constitution and that it fixes a

          3        grammatical error from changing "effectively compete"

          4        to "compete effectively."

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  All in favor of

          6        the amendment say aye.  Opposed?

          7             (Verbal vote taken.)

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Amendment carries.  We are

          9        now on the proposal as amended.  Is there another

         10        amendment?

         11             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Yes, Mr. Chairman,

         12        there is.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  There is another

         14        amendment on the desk by Commissioner Ford-Coates

         15        under the same conditions as the last one; is that

         16        correct?

         17             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  That's correct.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner -- read the

         19        amendment, please.

         20             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         21        16 by Commissioner Ford-Coates, the following

         22        amendment on Page 1, Line 23, after the period insert

         23        "general law implementing this paragraph shall be at

         24        least as protective of effective competition by a

         25        candidate who has agreed to spending limits as a


          1        general law in effect on January 1, 1998."

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates.

          3             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioners, this

          4        amendment moves the language from a schedule section

          5        into the body of the proposal, clarifies that language

          6        and simplifies it and implements the intention that

          7        general law in effect today complies with the

          8        requirement and that future legislation cannot dilute

          9        but only strengthen what we have today.  This is

         10        merely a clarification of the intent.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, it is replacing the

         12        schedule?

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  The schedule.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And there won't be a

         15        schedule?

         16             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody

         18        understand the amendment?  All in favor of the

         19        amendment, say aye.  Opposed?

         20             (Verbal vote taken.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment carries.  Is

         22        there another amendment?

         23             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Not that I know of.

         24        At this point I would turn it over to the sponsor, but

         25        the sponsor is in the Chair currently.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, Commissioner Connor was

          2        a cosponsor and he is going to handle it on the floor

          3        and he is recognized as a proponent.  Other

          4        proponents, any other proponents?  Any opponents?

          5             All right, we have one, two opponents and one

          6        proponent.  Three opponents.  Commissioner Connor, do

          7        you want me to quit and come down and help you or can

          8        you handle it?

          9             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I always welcome the aid of

         10        the Chair, always.

         11             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I will take the Chair.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I don't think we can afford

         13        it.

         14             (Laughter.)

         15             (Commissioner Thompson assumes the Chair.)

         16             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Douglass, would you

         17        like to lead off then?

         18             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Commissioner Connor, you

         19        are recognized.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         21        Members of the Commission, without a doubt, I believe

         22        that this proposal is one of the most significant

         23        proposals that this Commission can put into the hands

         24        of the people.  If we really believe that all

         25        political power is inherent in the people, which is


          1        the very first proposition expressed in our

          2        Constitution, this is the means by which we assure the

          3        political power remains in the hands of the people.

          4             What we have seen over the course of time without

          5        a doubt is that increasingly, government has begun to

          6        be dominated by special interests.  Those special

          7        interests invest in political campaigns as a cost of

          8        doing business, expecting to get a return on their

          9        investment if they ride the right horse to office.

         10        And all too often we know that that return on

         11        investment comes out of the public purse, whether it

         12        is by way of direct appropriation, whether it is by

         13        way of tax break, or whether it is by way of

         14        contracting with the state.

         15             I would submit to you that we need to move away

         16        from a process that is dominated by special interests

         17        and that we return political power to the hands of the

         18        people.  Increasingly we have seen an erosion of that

         19        power from the people into the hands of special

         20        interests.

         21             In response to that, we have seen the people

         22        respond by the imposition of term limits, we have seen

         23        a rise in the citizen initiative process, and we have

         24        seen all kinds of symptoms within and among the public

         25        that reflects their frustration and consternation at


          1        the fact that they believe they are increasingly being

          2        disenfranchised.  I believe that there is no more

          3        important proposal to assure the political power

          4        reposes in the hands of the people than to pass this

          5        proposal.  This proposal is modest, it is limited in

          6        scope, and it applies only to statewide offices.  And

          7        I believe, and my fervent hope is that, to the extent

          8        that the public enthusiastically embraces this

          9        proposal, and I believe it will, we'll begin to see

         10        this concept being broadened so that once again we

         11        will wind up eventually having the people's

         12        Legislature as well rather than one that's dominated

         13        by special interests.  Thank you.

         14             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Opponents?  Commissioner

         15        Douglass as a proponent.  Now, I was going to

         16        recognize you to close, although you have got some of

         17        the first five minutes if you would like.  Why don't

         18        you go ahead and use the rest of this and then you can

         19        close later.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think we were going to

         21        alternate.

         22             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Okay.  Well, I called for

         23        an opponent, so let's see who it is.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I rise to oppose this,

         25        not because I am opposed to public funding of


          1        campaigns but I am opposed to putting it in the

          2        Constitution.  The Legislature is working on this now

          3        and I don't think we need to elevate what's now a

          4        statute or what's beginning to be a statute into the

          5        Constitution.

          6             I think that there are a lot of good arguments

          7        that can be made; Commissioner Connor has made a lot

          8        of them.  I just have a great deal of concern of

          9        locking this into the Constitution, and I also have a

         10        great deal of concern, and I will have this and will

         11        rise on other occasions because this is an issue that

         12        will have a substantial group of people that will not

         13        support it.

         14             One of the problems that we are going to have in

         15        getting whatever we think is absolutely necessary for

         16        us to offer to the people is to consider that if we

         17        get a number of these things that are going to draw a

         18        great deal of negative attention, the people that vote

         19        negatively generally will vote negative on everything.

         20             The people that vote affirmatively don't

         21        necessarily do that, they will vote affirmatively on

         22        the issue they want and they will skip over the

         23        others.  So, I think if we begin to build a structure

         24        that has a number of built-in negative voters out

         25        there, we jeopardize our entire package.  This does


          1        not have to be in the Constitution, and that's the way

          2        I am examining a number of these proposals.  It can be

          3        addressed by the Legislature, it is being addressed by

          4        the Legislature, and I think we should leave it there.

          5             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Proponent, Commissioner

          6        Douglass.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Just in response.  Many

          8        things that are in the Constitution don't have to be

          9        there, about half of it could have been done by the

         10        Legislature.  That's not a valid argument in amending

         11        the Constitution or revising it, it's one that's made

         12        by those that generally want to shy away from what the

         13        people want and are afraid of these very special

         14        interests that this particular item seeks, to minimize

         15        their control over the electorate in the elections.

         16             This has been one of the more popular proposals,

         17        as far as our public hearing was concerned, all of

         18        them and what we have heard.  We have had no

         19        opposition expressed to this other than such as was

         20        just given by Commissioner Barkdull and the six people

         21        who voted against it on its original passage, 20 to 6,

         22        with one of the gentlemen for it not being here, or

         23        two at the time, expressed their desire to vote for

         24        it.

         25             It seems to me, if we are going to offer any


          1        reform in an elections package, which this is, that

          2        this is one of the very, very essential things that we

          3        continue to carry forward in this process.  I discount

          4        the argument of my good friend and long time

          5        compatriot Commissioner Barkdull on this, and I am

          6        sure he's going to make it on many others, but I don't

          7        challenge him to strike everything from the

          8        Constitution that could be done by the Legislature

          9        because we wouldn't have much left.

         10             So, I urge you very strongly to continue the

         11        overwhelming support for this limitation on campaign

         12        spending and the kick-in that's provided here for

         13        public funding when somebody doesn't.

         14             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Okay.  Opponent?

         15        Commissioner Morsani, you are recognized.

         16             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         17        With all due respect, who are the special interests?

         18        Are they big sugar?  Is it the Citrus Commission?  Is

         19        it Disney World?  Is it automobile dealers?  Or is it

         20        common cause, environmentalists, the teachers'

         21        associations, or trial lawyers?  That kind of takes

         22        care of all of us in this room, I believe, and it

         23        takes care -- so, special interest is a way of life.

         24             Those are catchwords that people like to talk

         25        about, but in reality, that's America.  And we have


          1        divided ourselves, we have driven these wedges in our

          2        society, and we continue to drive wedges in our

          3        society on issues that are not issues in our nation,

          4        they go to the very fiber of our country.  I happen to

          5        think the First Amendment gives us the right to give

          6        to political parties and political candidates, and

          7        eroding that privilege and right -- there's been a

          8        great deal of talk the last few days about jury

          9        trials, how important that is and nobody wants to give

         10        that up, and yet you would infringe on my right to

         11        give to a candidate of my choice, and limit those

         12        contributions, and say that it's only, it's only

         13        special interests.

         14             Now, as I've also said in this chamber, I have

         15        backed a number of people in both parties for

         16        elections.  I haven't always agreed on how much money

         17        they collected or where they got their money from.

         18        Locally, in our city of Tampa, Florida, when Mr. Sam

         19        Gibbons was running for the last time he was in

         20        Congress, he raised a million dollars for the

         21        campaign, all of which, $750,000 came from PACs

         22        outside the city of Tampa and outside the State of

         23        Florida.  And another $100,000 -- he only raised

         24        $150,000 from his local constituents.

         25             Well, that was up to the constituents of his


          1        locale to say, you are out, Mr. Gibbons, if you can't

          2        raise money here where we elect you, then you

          3        shouldn't have it.  But that's the political process.

          4        We have that ballot right.  I urge you to vote against

          5        this amendment, this proposal.  It's not right and I

          6        don't think we should have limitations by this body.

          7        If our Legislature so desires to make a law, that's

          8        one thing.  I don't think we have that right in this

          9        body.

         10             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Further debate?  Further

         11        debate?  Now there is two minutes to close on the part

         12        of the proponents.  Commissioner Douglass, do you wish

         13        to close?

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I would like to point out

         15        that Commissioner Morsani is arguing against the

         16        proposal that comes up later on the calendar.  This is

         17        not a proposal that limits his right to give as much

         18        as he wants to, what this does is afford a candidate

         19        the opportunity to elect to be bound by campaign

         20        spending limits, and if he does, that will be what's

         21        done.  If one elects not to limit his campaign

         22        spending, in this case, the statewide office for

         23        Governor I think was five and a half million last

         24        time, and then if one elects not to and goes above it

         25        for what he raises, then you get public funds kicking


          1        in to keep the playing field level.  We fully

          2        discussed this when we passed it.

          3             The proposal Commissioner Morsani refers to is

          4        the one by Commissioner Thompson, which is on the

          5        special order, which limited the amount of money that

          6        could be given to candidates in political parties.

          7             So, insofar as this proposal is concerned, and I

          8        really enjoyed knowing that somebody had money enough

          9        to get that concerned with this proposal.  And in

         10        hearing Commissioner Morsani's very emotional and well

         11        put arguments against another proposal, but I suggest

         12        to you that we should pass this one for what it is,

         13        which is making the playing field level.

         14             We wouldn't have Commissioner Milligan or Brogan

         15        probably, we certainly might not have Governor Chiles,

         16        which could please some of you, but it might please

         17        some of you not to have had the others, but the

         18        playing field was level and it was done in a manner in

         19        which the people of Florida had the right then to vote

         20        for those candidates without being overwhelmed.  I

         21        join Commissioner Connor and the many, and the other

         22        18 of you who voted for this on the first time, asking

         23        for everybody to vote for this this time as being one

         24        election package that will be well received and should

         25        be in the Constitution.


          1             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  So, the question recurs

          2        for the adoption of Committee Substitute for Proposal

          3        No. 16.  The Secretary will unlock the machine and the

          4        members will proceed to vote.  All members voting.

          5        All members voting.

          6             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The Secretary will lock the

          8        machine and announce the vote.

          9             READING CLERK:  Eight ayes, 12 nays,

         10        Mr. Chairman.

         11             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Eighteen.

         12             READING CLERK:  Eighteen yeas, 12 nays,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, that proposal is adopted.

         15        Commissioner Mills.

         16             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  All right.  Mr. Chairman,

         17        the next proposal would be Proposal 79.  And

         18        Commissioner Ford-Coates will be offering a technical

         19        amendment on that one as proposed by the Style and

         20        Drafting Committee.

         21             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  All right.  Take up 79,

         22        and read the first amendment by Commissioner

         23        Ford-Coates.

         24             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         25        No. 79, a proposal to revise Article 6, Section 1,


          1        Florida Constitution, providing that requirements for

          2        placing a name of a candidate with no party

          3        affiliation or minor party candidate on an election

          4        ballot must not be greater than the requirements for

          5        major party candidates.

          6             (Chairman Douglass resumes Chair.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Ford-Coates.

          8             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Let me just check with

          9        staff here.  Is that the correct amendment, Ms.

         10        Kearney?  Is that the correct amendment on the desk?

         11             MS. KEARNEY:  Yes.

         12             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  And they are passing

         13        that out currently so that the Commissioners will have

         14        it on their desk.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, we are reading the

         16        amendment that is being passed out.  Read the

         17        amendment, please.

         18             READING CLERK:  By Committee on Style and

         19        drafting, the following amendment on page 1, Lines 20

         20        to 25, strike the underlined language and before the

         21        period, insert, however the number of petitions

         22        required of the candidate.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         24        Ford-Coates.

         25             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I don't think that


          1        they have got it yet.  The amendment in your book is

          2        not the amendment that I'm proposing, and that's what

          3        she's about to read, is the correct amendment.

          4             READING CLERK:  By Committee on Style and

          5        Drafting, the following amendment.  On Page 1, Lines

          6        20 to 25, strike the underlined and before the period

          7        insert, however the requirements of a candidate with

          8        no party affiliation or a candidate of a minor party

          9        for placement of the candidate's name on the ballot

         10        must be no greater than the requirements for a

         11        candidate from the party having the largest number of

         12        registered voters.

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Thank you.

         14        Commissioners, you have, that was just placed on your

         15        desks recently, a chart which is different from the

         16        chart in your pink packet and more clearly delineates

         17        the current situation and the situation as proposed by

         18        this amendment.  Basically the current situation is

         19        that independent candidates do not have an option,

         20        independent and minority party candidates.  Members of

         21        the majority parties may either pay a filing fee or

         22        get signatures.

         23             Under the current situation, independent and

         24        minor party candidates must get signatures and pay a

         25        filing fee, and get more signatures than those of the


          1        major party candidates.  The current proposal will

          2        make a change in that so that those independent and

          3        minor party candidates will have the same options and

          4        opportunities as the major parties to either pay a

          5        filing fee or get the signatures under the way the law

          6        is written today.

          7             We didn't adopt the amendment, though, did we?

          8        So, the first thing we need to do, and the amendment

          9        just clarifies that point more clearly.  Clarifies

         10        more clearly, that is a little redundant.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, does everybody

         12        understand the amendment proposed by Commissioner

         13        Ford-Coates on behalf of the committee?  All in favor,

         14        say aye.  Opposed?

         15             (Verbal vote taken.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Amendment is adopted.

         17        Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         18             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, I would

         19        like to yield the floor to the sponsor, Commissioner

         20        Riley.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Before we do

         22        that, we need to know if there are other proponents

         23        who want to speak.  Commissioner Smith.  Any

         24        opponents?  Commissioner Barkdull.  We just have a

         25        standing order for you; is that correct?  Okay, you


          1        may proceed, Commissioner Riley.

          2             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, I was very

          3        sorry to see a hand being raised for someone who might

          4        be against this.  I really hope that this might be the

          5        first through the shoot as we go to get those 22 votes

          6        with no opposition, and to me it seems a slam dunk,

          7        but obviously everybody doesn't see it like that.  Let

          8        me make it very clear what this does.

          9             And I think Commissioner Ford-Coates explained it

         10        well.  But currently for independent candidates you

         11        must pay a filing fee and must get signatures.  What

         12        this amendment does, it says for independent

         13        candidates you may do one or the other.  And the

         14        number of signatures, if you choose to get on the

         15        ballot in that manner, is the same, and I think that's

         16        clear in the paperwork that you have in front of you,

         17        is the same as the largest number required by majority

         18        party.  If that's not clear, talk to Commissioner

         19        Ford-Coates.

         20             Yesterday I was coming down the elevator in the

         21        hotel and a woman said, Hello, and she said, Are you

         22        here on business?  And I said, Well, we are here to do

         23        the Constitution Revision Commission.  And she said,

         24        Well, what are you doing?  And I said, Well, we are

         25        looking at the Florida Constitution.  And she looked


          1        at me with horror and she said, Why?  And I thought

          2        that was a really good question.  And my answer to it

          3        is this, this is why we are doing this, because

          4        there's currently a law, there's something that is

          5        patently unfair in the process of elections.  There's

          6        nobody in the State of Florida as we speak who didn't

          7        say that this was unfair.  The groups that support

          8        this are all across the board.  It is the League of

          9        Women Voters, it is common cause, it is the

         10        Libertarian party, not a surprise.  I haven't heard

         11        people stand up, as we did our 13 public hearings and

         12        say how you get on the ballot is right, the inequality

         13        of it is right.  What everyone said was, this is not

         14        right, This is our opportunity to fix this problem.

         15             Is it constitutional?  I answered to that, Yes.

         16        Is it necessary?  Most certainly it's necessary.  And

         17        I would certainly like to see us do one unanimous

         18        vote, Commissioner Barkdull, and all of us vote yes on

         19        this.  I think it's extremely important.  Everybody in

         20        the State of Florida thinks it's important.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Everybody but me as they

         23        say back here.  Once again I rise to not put something

         24        in the Constitution that statutorily -- I can't help

         25        those items that are already in there, but I don't


          1        want to continue to prolong that process.  If

          2        everybody in the state is for this and everybody has

          3        elicited that they are for it, and the overwhelming

          4        support that's been indicated, they ought to be able

          5        to get the Legislature to change it or take the

          6        initiative route.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith, as a

          8        proponent.

          9             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you very much,

         10        Mr. Chairman.  This is an issue of fundamental

         11        fairness.  I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that as

         12        politically active as I have been in my neck of the

         13        woods, I never knew nor could I have imagined

         14        something this unfair as an integral part of Florida

         15        law.

         16             The reason -- this was one of the proudest votes

         17        that I participated in because, if not all, just about

         18        all of us are Democrats or Republicans, and therefore,

         19        this is a vote, really, against our party's best

         20        interest, for all of us.  But we are not here for a

         21        party, we are here for public policy that is fair.

         22             I can't think of too many other things more

         23        important to put in our Constitution than fundamental

         24        fairness for all people who are involved in this

         25        process.  And while I agree with Commissioner Riley,


          1        it would be good for us to have unanimity, unanimity

          2        is not necessary in a democracy.

          3             I would be very, very proud if we could have 22

          4        who say, People, you decide.  Please vote yea.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Opponent?  The

          6        proponents' time, is it up?  It's up.  Okay, so the

          7        time limit on debate for proponents is up.  You may

          8        close.

          9             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I would give my time to

         10        someone else.  I think it's been closed.  Let's vote.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Unlock the

         12        machine and let's vote.

         13             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         15        the vote.

         16             READING CLERK:  Thirty-eight yeas, 1 nay,

         17        Mr. Chairman.  Twenty-eight yeas, Mr. Chairman.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  It was 28 to

         19        Barkdull.

         20             (Off-the-record discussion.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  He couldn't stand

         22        it.  They have an objection, and it takes a unanimous

         23        vote, so -- all right, let's move on.  Commissioner

         24        Ford-Coates.  Commissioner Mills, you are up.

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I would take up Proposal


          1        128, which happens to be by Commissioner Ford-Coates

          2        as well as for her explanation.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  How should we

          4        proceed here, do you want to speak for the committee,

          5        or let Commissioner Ford-Coates?

          6             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  She can do it.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are recognized,

          8        Commissioner Ford-Coates for -- wait a minute, let's

          9        read it.  Proposal No. 128, would you read it please?

         10             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 128, a proposal to

         11        revise Article VI, Section 5, Florida Constitution,

         12        providing for primary elections.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.

         14             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, since

         15        this is my proposal, do you want to go right in to

         16        recognizing proponents and opponents?

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         18             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Let me read what the

         19        staff says this does so you will know I am not in

         20        debate.  This proposal provides that if all candidates

         21        for an office represent the same political party and

         22        the winner shall have no opposition in the general

         23        election, all qualified electors may vote in that

         24        primary.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Proponents other


          1        than Ford-Coates, Commissioner Lowndes and

          2        Commissioner Connor.  All right.  Opponents,

          3        Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Barton.  All

          4        right, then we will proceed.  You may open.

          5             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioners, this,

          6        to remind you, is not about an open primary.  It does

          7        not allow members of other parties to select the

          8        nominee from one party.  It does not eliminate the

          9        second primary.  Some opposition has arisen on this

         10        proposal, and it's come, as I have heard it, primarily

         11        from the political parties themselves.  As I see it,

         12        the political parties want to totally control the

         13        process in this situation beyond the nomination.

         14             And I compliment the parties for wanting to

         15        control the process of selecting their nominees.  I

         16        think that is a very good thing.  This does not change

         17        that process.  Each party has the opportunity to file

         18        a candidate.  In the case where no other party has

         19        filed, where there's no independent and no minor party

         20        candidate, the primary is for all intents and

         21        purposes, the general election.  That's where the

         22        public officials are selected.

         23             That person who is elected at that primary

         24        becomes the public official.  It is my contention and

         25        the contention of those to whom I have spoken, that


          1        when it's the actual election of the person who will

          2        serve you from four to six years, two to four to six

          3        years, everyone should have the chance to vote for

          4        that person on that day.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Opponent,

          6        Commissioner Scott, you were the opponent.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  There were two, I think.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And Commissioner Barton.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  This is a version of an open

         10        primary.  And I think that we have political parties,

         11        we happen to have two major ones, the political party

         12        ought to be able to select their nominee.  And what

         13        this would allow, depending on the circumstances and

         14        where you are, would allow 30 percent of the

         15        membership of another party to come and pick, perhaps,

         16        someone that is the most conservative and might not

         17        represent that party's philosophy.

         18             I really think that we need to proceed with

         19        caution in interfering with political parties.  I

         20        think that what we have done -- we have gone from a

         21        time that this might have benefited Republicans, and

         22        in some areas still might and it might benefit

         23        Democrats, it really doesn't matter, but I think the

         24        members of the party, let them reregister in that

         25        party if they want to vote in it, but that they should


          1        be able to select their nominees, so I would urge you

          2        to vote against this.

          3             And I think when you couple this with a couple of

          4        the other things that are directed at political

          5        parties, I really don't think that it's a very good

          6        package, so I would urge you to vote against this one.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  We have two

          8        proponents.  Who wants to go first?  Do you want

          9        Commissioner Lowndes to go first?  Okay, Commissioner

         10        Lowndes.

         11             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  It would probably be more

         12        effective if I went first since Commissioner Connor is

         13        so much more eloquent.  You know, I grew up in North

         14        Carolina, and when I turned 21 Eisenhower was running

         15        for President for the first time, and I was a great

         16        admirer of his since I grew up during the Second World

         17        War and I wanted to vote for Eisenhower so I went and

         18        registered as a Republican.

         19             And I found out in North Carolina in those days,

         20        registered as a Republican completely foreclosed you

         21        from voting in any election except the national

         22        election because there were no Republican candidates,

         23        the election was always determined in the Democratic

         24        primary.  So I was excluded from being able to vote

         25        for the candidates who were elected year after year,


          1        and I think that was a bad situation.

          2             I think this proposal cures that situation.  And

          3        if the primary election is the election, if the

          4        primary election is going to determine who the

          5        officeholder is, not just who the candidate is, but

          6        who the officeholder is, I think it's fair to let all

          7        of the people vote for the officeholder.  So, I'm very

          8        much in favor of it, thank you.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Opponent,

         10        Commissioner Barton.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  I'm glad I don't have to

         12        follow Commissioner Connor either.  I, of course, am

         13        an opponent of this proposal.  The reason is is that I

         14        am a very strong proponent of the political science

         15        background.  When you study political science, you

         16        learn that the purpose of a primary is to select the

         17        party's candidates.  That is the main purpose of the

         18        primary, perhaps the whole purpose of the primary.

         19             And it taints that process to allow members of

         20        another party to vote in a primary contest.  I would

         21        agree with everything that Commissioner Scott said and

         22        I urge you not to vote for this proposal.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor, they all

         24        fear you.  You may rise.

         25             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Well, thank you,


          1        Mr. Chairman.  I hope that I can make the case.  For

          2        most of my life as a Republican, as politically active

          3        as I've tried to be, I've been largely disenfranchised

          4        everywhere I have ever lived.  In Jackson County, the

          5        predominate political party was Democratic.  In Polk

          6        County, the predominant party was Democratic.  In Leon

          7        County, the overwhelming party here is Democratic.

          8             As a consequence of that, I've rarely had the

          9        opportunity to cast many votes, I've rarely had the

         10        opportunity to participate in the selection of who was

         11        ultimately elected to fill a position.  And the

         12        argument that has always been made to me, and I

         13        confess that in a moment of weakness in Polk County I

         14        acceded to that argument, and I wound up doing exactly

         15        what Commissioner Scott said which violated my

         16        conscience, but if you want to vote, then you need to

         17        be in the other party.

         18             And I would submit, and after a while, frankly

         19        ladies and gentlemen, after a brief period of time,

         20        after being affiliated with a party of Ted Kennedy and

         21        Jimmy Carter, I couldn't stand it any longer and I

         22        said I would rather have a clear conscience and be

         23        disenfranchised.

         24             But the reality of it is, ladies and gentlemen, I

         25        would submit to you, that this proposal will encourage


          1        people to affiliate with a party of their choice in

          2        the place in which they reside based on their

          3        conscience and based on the way in which their own

          4        philosophy winds up mirroring or conforming to the

          5        political party of their choice.

          6             And so rather than forcing people into a Hopson's

          7        choice where they have to make a bad decision to

          8        violate their conscience in order to exercise their

          9        franchise, I would submit to you that we helped

         10        promote the protection of conscious, and indeed I

         11        think we would have seen Florida become Republican

         12        much sooner if the Democrats hadn't held the hammer in

         13        the primaries.

         14             And I think this is a principle that we ought to

         15        go forward with, I think it's good, I think it will

         16        promote people to affiliate with the parties that they

         17        believe in.  Thank you, and I hope you will support

         18        the proposal.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Let's see, you

         20        have the right to close, Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Gee, I want to say it

         22        is a pleasure following Commissioner Connor.  Even

         23        when I can't be as eloquent, at least if he's on the

         24        same side, I can't think of anyone better to follow.

         25             Commissioners, I've often heard it said, and I


          1        will bet you have said it too, that, you know, if you

          2        don't vote, you have no right to complain.  And let me

          3        tell you what it feels like when you know you want to

          4        go complain to your official about an issue and you

          5        want to discuss it with them and you know very well

          6        you never had a chance to vote for that person because

          7        that party, which is not your party, was the only one

          8        to fill candidates in that race.  It's not a very good

          9        feeling.

         10             We have truly disenfranchised the voters of this

         11        state.  And to quote from our other eloquent

         12        Commissioner, Commissioner Smith, we are not here for

         13        political parties, we are here to take action for the

         14        public.  This is an issue of fundamental fairness.

         15        It's time that we give the right to vote for their

         16        public officials back to the public.  I urge you to

         17        support this good proposal.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I would have to say, on

         19        behalf of Commissioner Connor, your eloquence was

         20        equal to the task.  All right.  Unlock the machine and

         21        let's vote.

         22             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         24        the vote.

         25             READING CLERK:  Fifteen yeas, 14 nays,


          1        Mr. Chairman.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It was just equal to the

          3        task.

          4             (Laughter.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          6        Mills.

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  We'll then take up Proposal

          8        149 by Commissioner Scott and recognize, if you would,

          9        Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         10             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioners, this is

         11        the proposal that deals in gubernatorial elections to

         12        allow a candidate to not name a Lieutenant Governor

         13        candidate until the general election.  We have a

         14        technical amendment to the proposal which I would like

         15        to offer.  I guess the proposal hasn't been read yet

         16        either, so we need to read the proposal and then the

         17        amendment?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Correct.  Read the proposal,

         19        please.

         20             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 149, a proposal to

         21        revise Article IV, Section 5, Florida Constitution;

         22        providing for the candidate for the office of Governor

         23        to run without a Lieutenant Governor candidate.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  There's an

         25        amendment on the table.  Would you read the amendment,


          1        please?

          2             READING CLERK:  There's no amendment,

          3        Mr. Chairman.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's in the packet?

          5             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  It's in the packet.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It's not in my packet.

          7             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Okay.  Would you like

          8        me to tell you what it says because I do have a copy

          9        of it?  I apologize.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I guess you could tell us

         11        while we are waiting to get it -- we have it now, so

         12        she can read it.

         13             READING CLERK:  By the Committee on Style and

         14        Drafting, the following amendment on Page 1, Lines 23

         15        to 24, and in party primaries, if held, and insert.

         16             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Okay.  In other words

         17        on Lines 23 and 24, we would insert, And in party

         18        primaries if held -- no, that doesn't make sense.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What was wrong with the way

         20        it was?

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  It should not change

         22        anything, it should strike the words, "and in party

         23        primaries."  If not stricken the words would create an

         24        ambiguity or defeat the purpose of the proposal.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Oh, I see.  You are saying


          1        that you don't need that?

          2             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Because if you have the

          4        provision in the primary election, all candidates for

          5        the office of Governor should run without a Lieutenant

          6        Governor and you don't need the reference in general

          7        elections.

          8             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Right, the sentence

          9        after the proposal says, In the general election and

         10        in party primaries.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You just need to strike, And

         12        in party primaries?

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Which is what you are trying

         15        to do.

         16             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Which then makes it

         18        consistent.

         19             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay, I've got you.  So that

         21        makes it a clean proposal.  Okay.  So the amendment

         22        then was to strike the words, And in party primaries,

         23        as being out of place.  Yes, Commissioner Barkdull.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Why would you leave "if

         25        held" in?


          1             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  We would strike "if

          2        held" also.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think "if held" should be

          4        stricken also, all right.  All right.  Now, let's see

          5        where we are.  We have an amendment which eliminates

          6        the language, And in party primaries if held, which

          7        then says that there will be no candidate for

          8        Lieutenant Governor in the primary elections, but in

          9        the general election the, All candidates for the

         10        offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor should

         11        form joint candidacy in a manner prescribed by law.

         12             That's Commissioner Scott's intent, I think, but

         13        we just left that other language in there.  Yes,

         14        question, Commissioner Smith, this is on the

         15        amendment, right?

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, the one

         17        question that I meant to ask that I didn't ask is, if

         18        the people have legitimate questions, not the, What

         19        you would believe, but a legitimate question, is there

         20        room either before the 10 minutes start, during the 10

         21        minutes or after the 10 minutes, somewhere before the

         22        10 minutes that you could ask a question because I

         23        have a question.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Ask your question.  On this

         25        amendment?


          1             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  No, when we get to the

          2        proposal.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  When we get

          4        through, you can ask the question.

          5             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Yes, sir.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll deal with that as we

          7        go.  So far we haven't had a problem with it.  Does

          8        everybody understand the amendment which merely

          9        doesn't change the proposal at all, it merely makes it

         10        consistent with what the proposal is, as I understand

         11        it.  That is the Style and Drafting's understanding?

         12             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  That's correct.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  On the amendment.  All right,

         14        Commissioner Henderson.

         15             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Just looking at this,

         16        you know, I don't know what's a good idea or not,

         17        what's a bad idea.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You mean, the amendment?

         19        That's what we are on.

         20             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Let me suggest

         21        something.  You know, I'm not sure that I'm sold that,

         22        if you do this, you have got to do it this way.  If

         23        you just adopted the amendment, which is to strike

         24        that part about party primaries, then it's really kind

         25        of optional to that gubernatorial candidate, he could


          1        run with a Lieutenant Governor or he could put it off,

          2        or she, excuse me, he or she.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Form joint candidacy, if you

          4        will read the rest of it.  And it has nothing to do

          5        with this amendment.  We are on the amendment.

          6             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I don't think it says

          7        that you can't name a Lieutenant Governor earlier, it

          8        just says you don't have to.

          9             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  No, it says you shall.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You would run without him,

         11        but you could name him.  That's what she is trying to

         12        say, I think.  Anyway, we are not to that point, we

         13        are on the amendment.  So, let's not get sidetracked.

         14        I'm not going to recognize anybody except on the

         15        amendment, which is on the table and it strikes the

         16        language, And if party primary held.  Al of those in

         17        favor of the amendment, say aye.  It carries.  It is

         18        amended.  Now --

         19             (Inaudible conversation.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I did, didn't I?  I didn't.

         21        I did pretty good on that one.  You have to forgive an

         22        old man, Commissioner Barnett.  Everybody in favor of

         23        Style and Drafting's amendment say aye.  Opposed?

         24             (Verbal vote taken.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The ayes have it.  Now, we


          1        will move to the proposal.  Proponents first.

          2             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I would like to

          3        recognize Commissioner Connor.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Before you do that --

          5             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, may I

          6        clarify that it was our intent that questions be asked

          7        before the 10 minutes began.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Well Commissioner

          9        Smith has a question.

         10             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Of Commissioner Scott.

         11             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Actually it's

         12        Commissioner Connor's proposal.

         13             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Connor

         15        will answer your question.

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  And my question is, was it

         17        your intent -- well, first of all, I think the general

         18        idea is a good idea, but was it your intent to

         19        preclude a gubernatorial candidate from selecting a

         20        Lieutenant Governor if he or she wanted to, because

         21        strategically someone may feel that letting the public

         22        know who the number two person is at an early date is

         23        an advantage, so I just wanted to ask what your intent

         24        was.

         25             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, my intent was to do


          1        that, believing that this enables candidates to form

          2        and build the strongest teams at the time of the

          3        general election.  And it certainly would be -- a

          4        candidate may -- there is a school of thought that

          5        says you may be better off to field your team early

          6        and you may do better in the primary because of it.

          7        But the intent here was to foreclose the selection of

          8        the Lieutenant gubernatorial candidate until they

          9        wound up going forward in the general elections.

         10             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  And my second question is,

         11        would you as the opponent be ultimately opposed --

         12             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  No, I would not --

         13             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  -- to an amendment?

         14             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  -- to providing that it be

         15        discretionary rather than mandatory.

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I make it, yes.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We don't have any amendments.

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  With a unanimous consent,

         19        could we accept that, Mr. Chairman?

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, it has to be in

         21        writing.

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  All right.  Do you want to

         23        put that in writing?

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Did you have a question,

         25        Commissioner Barton?


          1             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  Yes.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Who to?

          3             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  To Commissioner Connor.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  He yields.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  My question is, by doing

          6        this in this manner, which timetable --

          7             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  With the amendment now that

          8        we are speaking of or as drafted?

          9             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  Both.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Okay.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  My question doesn't relate

         12        to that, but it could.  By doing it in this manner

         13        with this timetable, would you not also preclude

         14        possible candidates from running for office because

         15        they have to qualify before the primary?  In other

         16        words, you may have all sorts of people hanging out

         17        there waiting to be selected Lieutenant Governor who

         18        then could not run -- I mean, it fixes one thing but

         19        it causes other problems, I think, too.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I don't really see that,

         21        frankly, as much of a problem.  There are many people

         22        who feel that when you run for Governor, people vote

         23        for the top of the ticket.  Someone who is a

         24        Lieutenant gubernatorial aspirant is, you know, wants

         25        to consider something else, this would require them to


          1        fish or cut bait earlier than they otherwise might be,

          2        based on what you are saying.

          3             In other words, if they aspire to another office

          4        but held out hoping to become a Lieutenant Governor's

          5        candidate, they would have to qualify earlier if they

          6        were going to run for another office.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Hold on just a minute.  We

          8        are going to read the amendment so we can discuss it

          9        again.  Would you read the amendment, please, offered

         10        by Commissioner Henderson, is it?

         11             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Henderson, the

         12        following amendment on Page 1, Line 22, delete

         13        "shall," insert "may."

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are on the

         15        amendment now.  And Commissioner Henderson to explain

         16        his amendment.

         17             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  I'll do it very briefly,

         18        Mr. Chairman.  I think that when we elected the

         19        Governor, that we as voters are entitled to know that

         20        the most important decisions that the Governor is

         21        going to make are in the area of appointments.  The

         22        first decision that a gubernatorial candidate makes

         23        with regard to an appointment is who the running mate

         24        should be.

         25             I don't think this is a bad idea that is being


          1        proposed, but I don't want to preclude us from asking

          2        the Governor, the gubernatorial candidate, who is your

          3        Lieutenant Governor candidate going to be and preclude

          4        them from the strategic step of choosing to do that

          5        early and running as a team from the beginning so the

          6        voters can see exactly the chemistry of the proposed

          7        new administration.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on the amendment.  I

          9        might tell you that I have chosen my candidate for

         10        Lieutenant Governor, and it's Commissioner Scott.  He

         11        and I are going to run as a team.  And we'll beat them

         12        too, okay.

         13             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Then I'm not at all adverse

         14        to the amendment.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody ready

         16        to vote on the amendment?  Everybody understand the

         17        amendment?  All in favor of the amendment say aye.

         18        All opposed, no.

         19             (Verbal vote taken.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries, it is amended,

         21        the amendment is adopted.  Now, Commissioner Connor is

         22        a proponent.  Do we have other proponents that want to

         23        speak?  Any opponents that want to speak?

         24        Commissioner -- we waited a little too long, we have

         25        got another amendment.  This is an amendment by


          1        Commissioner Langley, Barnett and Langley.

          2             Which one of you is Lieutenant Governor and the

          3        other one Governor, Commissioner Langley?

          4             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  This amendment is serious,

          5        folks.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Let's pay

          7        attention to Commissioner Langley and Barnett's

          8        amendment.

          9             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I think this would readily

         10        pass the people, and this abolishes the position of

         11        Lieutenant Governor.  They don't do anything now but

         12        spend money and cut ribbons, you know, so let's do

         13        away with it.

         14             (Inaudible.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I like that, I like that.

         16        Point of order.

         17             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I believe that at some time

         18        now we have been involved in debate on this issue, so

         19        I would ask that at least they start to run the clock

         20        now.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Before we run the clock,

         22        there is an amendment.  Read the amendment.

         23             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Barnett and

         24        Langley, on Page 1, Lines 18 and 25, delete line 18,

         25        And Lieutenant Governor, and Line 25, And Lieutenant.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Langley,

          2        on your amendment, you and Barnett.  Okay, you go.

          3             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Nothing tricky about it,

          4        it just says, you know, why have a Lieutenant

          5        Governor.  We voted one in, when, '68 or whenever we

          6        did that.  And a good trivia question was, who was

          7        Graham's first Lieutenant Governor?  We got one answer

          8        from the senior citizen there, he was the only one who

          9        knows.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He was Governor, Mixon.

         11             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yeah, for three days or

         12        something.  That was the second one, you missed the

         13        trivia question.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He was the first one, too.

         15             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Jim Williams was the first

         16        one, wasn't he?

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, he ran.

         18             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, the point is, nobody

         19        knows and no one cares.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mixon cares.

         21             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, and he is a great

         22        guy.  But anyway, I yield to Commissioner Barnett.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are recognized.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I

         25        do think this is a serious proposal.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barnett, you are

          2        recognized.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you.  I do think

          4        this is a serious proposal.  When this came up before,

          5        a number of us talked about, why not at least discuss

          6        the question of what role the Lieutenant Governor

          7        plays in Florida's government, and if we are looking

          8        towards the future, is there a legitimate role and

          9        need for the Lieutenant Governor to be elected with

         10        the Governor.

         11             I, without any disparagement to the past

         12        Lieutenant Governors or current ones, many of whom I

         13        think have done a remarkably good job serving the

         14        state and have indeed had aspirations to move into the

         15        Governor's office, the job they have done is not one

         16        the Governor could not have appointed a citizen to do

         17        anyway.

         18             It's not -- I've seen very few jobs that the

         19        Lieutenant Governor does that the Governor could not

         20        appoint or assign to a citizen of the state.  So I

         21        just raise the question in a time of shrinking

         22        government, making government more responsible, why,

         23        in fact, we need a Lieutenant Governor.  And,

         24        therefore, this proposal is offered in the spirit of

         25        discussion about it, and with the thought that perhaps


          1        we do not need that office in the future.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Brochin, you

          3        rise to question the proponent?

          4             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Yes, I just don't know the

          5        answer.  If we eliminate the Lieutenant Governor and

          6        the Governor dies or becomes incapacitated,

          7        constitutionally who then becomes the Governor?

          8             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Article IV, Section 3 is

          9        going to require an amendment if this proposal goes

         10        forward because of that very issue.  Currently under

         11        the Constitution the Lieutenant Governor succeeds and

         12        then the order of succession is designated by general

         13        law.  I would suggest that if you want to do this, you

         14        may want to couple it with an amendment that says the

         15        order of succession will take place by general law and

         16        amend that.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Isn't that already in there?

         18        Even if we adopted that, wouldn't that already still

         19        be in the Constitution?

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Well, it states, upon

         21        Article IV, Section 3(a), Upon vacancy in the office

         22        of Governor, the Lieutenant Governor shall become

         23        Governor, further succession of the office of the

         24        Governor shall be prescribed by law.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, what you are saying is


          1        you need to strike that.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  You need to change that.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If they are adopted, this

          4        amendment will need another amendment.

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  He's absolutely right on

          7        that, Mr. Chairman, that if this were adopted, that it

          8        would require complementary scheduling changes.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Brochin,

         10        another questions?

         11             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  In your proposal, do you

         12        anticipate constitutionally we would provide for

         13        succession, or the Constitution would be silent?

         14        Well, the Constitution, as I understands says it will

         15        be provided by general law.  Is that what you would

         16        anticipate us leaving it, or would we

         17        constitutionally, since constitutionally now there's

         18        one succession provided for, would we try to revise

         19        the Constitution also and provide for a successor at

         20        least in the first instance?

         21             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  There would be two options

         22        available, at least two options available.  One would

         23        be simply to strike the language that mandated

         24        succession to Lieutenant Governor and leave that up,

         25        as it is now, to the Legislature.  Or the commission


          1        could specify the President of the Senate or the

          2        Secretary of State, or whatever other office that we

          3        had that would be the automatic successor.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, just a moment.  We

          5        started out, we were going to have 10 minutes on each

          6        proposal.  We have gone 15 on this and we haven't

          7        gotten to the proposal.  The proposal is here, this is

          8        an amendment.  If we are going to start debating the

          9        merits of having a Lieutenant Governor and who

         10        succeeds and so on, then we need to get on the clock

         11        or not.

         12             I suggest that we vote on whether or not we want

         13        to consider this amendment as part of the proposal.

         14        If we do, then we have an entirely new proposal to

         15        debate than the one we started with.

         16             So, I'm going to call for the vote on the

         17        amendment.  And we have had discussion on the

         18        amendment sufficient to recognize that this totally

         19        changes the proposal that Style and Drafting came back

         20        with.  Commissioner Connor.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Point of order,

         22        Mr. Chairman.  Because of that very thing, I would

         23        submit to you that the posture that we are in is that

         24        this is an amendment that's not germane to the

         25        proposal and is out of order.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, do you

          2        want to be heard on the point of order?

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Yes.  I don't -- I don't

          4        think there's any issue of germanity here.  We are

          5        talking about changing when a Lieutenant Governor

          6        is -- whether they are going to have one or not.  I

          7        mean, that's clearly germane and I think we are going

          8        to run into this on several other proposals.  The fact

          9        that it doesn't go right to when or where you are

         10        going to allow them, I don't --

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

         12             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I would suggest it is a

         13        difference between if and when.  My proposal just

         14        simply goes to when you are going to have the

         15        Lieutenant Governor run, this issue goes to whether

         16        there's going to be a Lieutenant Governor at all.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         18             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Let me refresh this.  And

         19        the Secretary can help me.  The issue is the same

         20        section, is the same subject matter.  There's a list

         21        of criteria that's used and it fits all of those

         22        because it addresses the same section.  It could

         23        address something else in that section, it doesn't

         24        have to just be limited to the one word that you

         25        happen to be changing in the Constitution.


          1             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I withdraw the point then.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull, do you

          3        agree the point of order is not well taken?  You are

          4        the rules chairman.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I agree.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You agree.  Okay.  We are

          7        going to vote on the amendment.  The amendment is to

          8        abolish the office of Lieutenant Governor and then you

          9        will have an appropriate amendment to deal with the

         10        other matter; is that correct?  If you pass this.  If

         11        you don't, you won't need it.  All right, all of those

         12        in favor of the amendment offered by Commissioners

         13        Langley and Barnett to abolish the office of

         14        Lieutenant Governor, say aye.  Opposed?

         15             (Verbal vote taken.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It fails.  Now, we now

         17        revert, Commissioner Connor, to the amended proposal.

         18        And you have the floor to open, starting the clock.

         19             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you.  Ladies and

         20        gentlemen, I would submit to you that, regardless of

         21        your party affiliation, and to the extent that you are

         22        interested in good government, that this proposal

         23        makes imminent good sense.  What it does is to assure

         24        that the finest --

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Hold on just a minute, you


          1        are very eloquent, but you just can't command the

          2        attention of these that are more eloquent at the

          3        moment.

          4             (Gavel.)

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  What this proposal does, I

          6        would submit to you, is to assure that either party is

          7        in a position to field its very best team for Governor

          8        and for Lieutenant Governor.  And I would submit to

          9        you that our experience is demonstrated, oftentimes,

         10        that the best of the best are oftentimes candidates

         11        for Governor, but under our present system, only one

         12        of those persons can be nominated for Governor.

         13             And I would submit to you that, in the interest

         14        of party unification and the aftermath of a factious

         15        primary, in the interest of putting forth the very

         16        best team to give the voters the best array of

         17        choices, that this is the way to go.

         18             I would submit to you that the system, as we now

         19        have it, means, as a practical matter, that very

         20        often, the strongest team, the best team will not be

         21        put forth.  This proposal would remedy that, and I

         22        think it would enhance the choices among the

         23        electorate for the positions of Governor and

         24        Lieutenant Governor.  Thank you.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Opponents?  There


          1        were none.  Is that also the close, or was there

          2        someone else that wants to close?  All right, a lot of

          3        people have left the chamber.  What I'm going to do

          4        after this vote is take a recess if we can't seem to

          5        get everybody to sit down and stay in the chamber

          6        we'll just all go together and see if we can clog up

          7        the works.  Okay.  Now, open up the machine and let's

          8        vote on the proposal.

          9             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         11        the vote.  Lock the machine and announce the vote.

         12             READING CLERK:  Twenty-eight yeas, 2 nays,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You picked up one

         15        that you lost before, and two more.  It passed 25 to 3

         16        the first time, but you changed it and got another

         17        vote.  All right, do you want to take a break now, or

         18        can we all think that we can sit down and get to

         19        business?

         20             Okay.  Other than Commissioners Ford-Coates and

         21        Mills, everybody else please be seated and we'll start

         22        on the next one.  It's by Commissioner -- go ahead,

         23        it's No. 155.

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, yes, 155 by

         25        Commissioner Scott.  I don't think there are any


          1        amendments, but Commissioner Ford-Coates for an

          2        explanation.

          3             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, would

          4        you like to read the proposal?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We will read it, please.

          6             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 155, a proposal to

          7        revise Article III, Section 16(a), Florida

          8        Constitution; providing for the Legislature to

          9        apportion the state into single-member senatorial

         10        districts of contiguous territory and single-member

         11        representative districts of contiguous territory.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         13        Ford-Coates.

         14             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioners, I

         15        hesitate to say this is fairly simple, because when I

         16        said it before on things, it didn't turn out to be.

         17        But hopefully this will be.  Since the apportionment

         18        of 1982, the Legislature has apportioned single-member

         19        districts, has been apportioned within single-member

         20        districts.  Though they are not, however, required by

         21        the Constitution, this proposal would codify the

         22        current practice.  So I would like to yield the floor

         23        to Senator -- Commissioner Scott.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, wait a

         25        minute.  We have got proponents?  Commissioners Smith


          1        and Scott.  Opponents?  Commissioner Barkdull.  Well,

          2        it could be done by general law, I thought.

          3             (Laughter.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You lost that one, okay.

          5        Commissioner Scott, you are recognized.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Now, look, Commissioner

          7        Barkdull, we want a unanimous vote on single-member

          8        districts here.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He's sandbagging, you

         10        understand that.

         11             (Laughter.)

         12             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  We have already debated

         13        this, I think everybody understands it.  It should be

         14        in the Constitution, it's one of the most important

         15        basic rights of such of the people and I think that

         16        it's proved to be working, and why not put it in the

         17        Constitution so we don't have to worry about -- and

         18        this especially could become important if it's going

         19        to be done by an independent group.

         20             So, with that I would urge that you vote in favor

         21        of this amendment unanimously.  Single-member

         22        districts -- you can be excused.

         23             (Laughter.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson.

         25             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Chairman, I'm going


          1        to rise in opposition to it because I don't think it

          2        should be stand-alone, I think this proposal should be

          3        part of the independent redistricting commission

          4        proposal, you know, that they shall be required to do

          5        it in independent districts.  And that way I'm sure

          6        that Senator Scott will join us in support of that

          7        proposal.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's not a bad idea.  Any

          9        further discussion on this?  Commissioner Smith, you

         10        asked to be recognized.

         11             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I was waiting for

         12        Commissioner Barkdull, but I can speak.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He declined to be subjected

         14        to further ridicule.

         15             (Laughter.)

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you very much.  Just

         17        briefly, I rise to support this.  There is a lot of

         18        debate and discussion about things that have happened

         19        in the last 15 years to really make minority

         20        representation a reality and of some effect, and we

         21        have some disagreements about some of the things.  But

         22        one of the things that has, in fact, helped to bring

         23        minorities to the table with more than just an

         24        appetite is single-member -- has been single-member

         25        districts.


          1             And for that reason, I proudly rise to endorse

          2        this proposal with Senator Scott and ask those who are

          3        concerned about minority representation to please vote

          4        for this proposal.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any further

          6        discussion?  Do you want to close?  If not, unlock the

          7        machine and let's vote on the proposal.

          8             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         10        the vote.

         11             READING CLERK:  Twenty-nine yeas, one nay,

         12        Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Very well.  He can move for

         14        rehearing.  All right.  The next proposal is No. 158

         15        by Commissioner Marshall.  Would you read the

         16        proposal, please?

         17             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 158, a proposal to

         18        revise Article IX, Section 4, Florida Constitution;

         19        providing for nonpartisan school board elections.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         21        Ford-Coates.

         22             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Currently

         23        commissioners' charter counties may provide for

         24        nonpartisan school board elections and some do.

         25        Non-charter counties cannot do so without a change in


          1        general law.  But Article III, Section 11 prohibits

          2        special laws and general laws of local application

          3        pertaining to elections, therefore the only way to

          4        implement nonpartisan school board elections is

          5        through a change in the Constitution.  With that,

          6        Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the floor to the

          7        proposer, Commissioner Marshall.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Before we start,

          9        are there any questions of Commissioner Marshall who

         10        is the sponsor of this?  If not, I would like to

         11        have -- find out if there are proponents that want to

         12        speak for this along with Commissioner Marshall who

         13        has the open and close here.  Any proponents?

         14             Are there any opponents that want to be

         15        recognized at this time?  All right.  If there is time

         16        left, you won't be penalized if you decide to take a

         17        minute or two.  Commissioner Marshall, you now have

         18        the floor and it is all yours.

         19             (Commissioner Jennings assumes the Chair.)

         20             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         21        It is a fairly simple issue, I believe, Commissioners,

         22        and I can summarize it -- my view of it, by saying

         23        that many of the issues, I believe most of the issues

         24        though not all, that come before school boards do not

         25        lend themselves really to political debate, or at


          1        least they should not.

          2             Think of the issues that you can remember having

          3        come before your school board.  Those issues would

          4        probably include the dismissal of students, action to

          5        dismiss students for disciplinary reasons, or

          6        disciplinary action against a teacher now and then, or

          7        the zoning for attendance purposes of the school

          8        district into subzones for attendance at various

          9        schools, curriculum matters, issues as to what goes

         10        into the curriculum, what's proper to teach in the

         11        schools and what should not be taught.  Those are

         12        things that I don't think political office holders

         13        ought to be asked to account for.

         14             If you are a political office holder in your

         15        county, I think you would welcome, I beg your pardon,

         16        if you had been an elected school board member by the

         17        partisan procedure, I think you would welcome the

         18        opportunity not to have to answer questions of those

         19        kinds.

         20             On issues such as bonding, that's another matter.

         21        And I can see how that lends itself to political

         22        alignment.  But for every issue of that kind it seems

         23        to me there are many others that are not really

         24        political and ought not to be viewed politically.  If

         25        I were a political office holder in say this county, I


          1        think I would like to be freed of the questions from

          2        my political supporters that might be addressed to me

          3        on such issues as curriculum and student discipline

          4        and teacher discipline and boundaries for zoning and

          5        things of that kind.

          6             So, I briefly, Madam Chair, suggest that it is a

          7        proposal worth supporting.  Thank you.

          8             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Commissioner Mills has

          9        asked us to remember time frames, so the proponents

         10        and openers took two minutes.  Do we have opponents on

         11        the measure?  I see no amendments.  Any amendments on

         12        the desk?

         13             READING CLERK:  No amendments.

         14             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Well, Commissioner

         15        Marshall, would you like to close?

         16             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  I think I just have,

         17        Madam Chair.

         18             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Okay.  That's nice, an

         19        open and a close.  On motion by Commissioner Marshall

         20        to favorably recommend Proposal No. 158, open the

         21        machine and indicate your vote.

         22             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         23             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Lock the machine and

         24        announce the vote.

         25             READING CLERK:  Twenty-one yeas, six nays, Madam


          1        Chairman.

          2             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  And the proposal passes.

          3        Read the next proposal.

          4             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 186, a proposal to

          5        revise Article VI, Section 1, Florida Constitution;

          6        limiting political contributions.

          7             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Commissioner

          8        Ford-Coates.

          9             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I just want to remind

         10        Commissioners that -- did we skip 172 and 162 which

         11        deal with the apportionment commission?  So you are

         12        going over a section in your pink packets.

         13             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  We are on 186.

         14             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Right, we are on 186.

         15             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Oh, that is what you are

         16        saying, that 172 is in your packet next?

         17             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Right.

         18             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Okay.

         19             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  It was listed as being

         20        next in there, but we are on 186.

         21             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  So the next one in your

         22        packets, just skip over, and 186 is the one that

         23        follows that, right?

         24             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Yes.  We want to make

         25        sure that we are looking at this in the whole picture


          1        of elections.  This is another one of those simple,

          2        noncontroversial proposals.  There are no Style and

          3        Drafting amendments to this proposal.  This proposal

          4        limits contributions to political parties to the

          5        amount to be contributed to candidates, which in other

          6        words would limit them to the currently set by general

          7        law, the amount of $500 per election.  It also limits

          8        the amount that political parties may contribute to

          9        candidates, again, to the amount allowed to be

         10        contributed to other entities or $500 per election as

         11        general law now states.

         12             In Style and Drafting we looked at this issue and

         13        one of the questions raised was, Are there limits put

         14        on political parties in other states in the desire to

         15        see if there is any precedent for this.  So you have

         16        in your packet a table that shows what limits are

         17        placed on political parties around the United States.

         18             As you can see, more states than not place

         19        limitation on these contributions.  Florida is one of

         20        15 states that impose no restrictions on party

         21        contributions whatsoever.

         22             With that information, I'd like to yield the

         23        floor to the sponsor, Commissioner Thompson, and the

         24        beginning of the debate.

         25             (Commissioner Douglass resumes Chair.)


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Before we start,

          2        are there any questions?  Commissioner Barkdull.  To

          3        Commissioner Thompson?

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson, a

          6        question.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Thompson,

          8        how does this dovetail in with the public financing

          9        which we now adopted?

         10             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, I think if you put

         11        the two together you have got a real good election

         12        reform proposition to go to the public.  It is not an

         13        either/or.

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I understand that, but

         15        I -- I understand that answer, but what I'm trying to

         16        find out is that, then as I understand public

         17        financing, a candidate after he raises a threshold

         18        amount will get some money from the State on a

         19        dollar-for-dollar or two dollars for every dollar

         20        situation.  I'm trying to find out where this PAC

         21        would fit into that?  Can that be counted in the

         22        original threshold, or can it be counted in additional

         23        moneys that a candidate gets as to get matching funds

         24        from the State?

         25             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, I think right now,


          1        and probably that won't change, the matching funds

          2        have to be individual contributions, so I don't think

          3        it will impact that.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Okay, thank you.

          5             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I think, thereby,

          6        combining these two, when you take away the

          7        contributions, the huge contribution that the party

          8        could make to an individual, by combining these two

          9        ideas, you have another source which is public

         10        financing to help finance that campaign.  And I think

         11        from that point of view they will be healthy for each

         12        other.

         13             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  But as I understand your

         14        explanation, then, the PAC money, even though it's

         15        going to be cut down substantially, still cannot be

         16        used for the threshold or any matching funds?

         17             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  That's my understanding.

         18        At present, present law, I think.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones.  A

         21        question?

         22             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Yes, a question.

         23        Commissioner Thompson, does this place any

         24        restrictions on gifts from labor unions?

         25             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  As far as I know it does


          1        not.  This only relates, the plain language of it

          2        relates to political parties and its committees and

          3        then, of course, nobody can make more than the

          4        statutory amount that's established by law to the

          5        candidate, so I don't think so.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.  Wait a

          8        minute, Commissioner Lowndes was up first.  Thank you.

          9             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I have a question of

         10        Commissioner Thompson.  What is the time period in

         11        which you can only make a limited contribution to

         12        political parties?  Is that annually, or what does it

         13        relate to?  It doesn't seem -- I can't relate that to

         14        any time period.

         15             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, I hadn't gotten

         16        into my initial comments about this proposal yet, I

         17        was going to say something about that.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You can probably save your

         19        questions.  I'll give you another shot at questions.

         20        Let him explain his proposal, if that's agreeable with

         21        Commissioner Scott, and then question him.

         22             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, however you-all

         23        want to work it, but in answer to that question, and I

         24        guess in furtherance of some initial comment, under my

         25        proposal, the proposal that I filed is not the


          1        proposal that's before you today; we amended that

          2        substantially.  And one of the things we did is we

          3        said that Florida law would control the amounts that

          4        can be contributed.  Florida law then would control

          5        the time frames within which they could be

          6        contributed.  But if it follows the norm, the pattern,

          7        you could contribute an amount to the party and the

          8        party could contribute to a candidate in the primary

          9        and the second primary and in the general.

         10             Right now that would only be $500 each time,

         11        that's $1,500.  Many people have many corporate

         12        entities, they are able to give through family members

         13        and so on and so forth.  But anyway, that's what it

         14        would be today.  Now the Legislature -- and I think

         15        the good part of this proposal is the Legislature can

         16        come back and make any changes they want to to those

         17        amounts, and I think they probably will deal with that

         18        as time goes by.

         19             This whole thing, I think we have discussed it

         20        before, is my attempt and I hope your attempt in

         21        trying to address this issue of soft money.  You turn

         22        on the TV and you look at the news media and you find

         23        that the Secretary of the Interior is now bogged down

         24        in a real mess over whether one native American tribe

         25        gave some money and got some influence, so other


          1        native American tribe will or will not be able to go

          2        into the casino business.  What kind of business is

          3        that for government to get involved in?  No wonder

          4        people don't have much confidence in their government

          5        anymore.

          6             I submit to you that the reason for that is not

          7        just that money can be given, that's the American way,

          8        freedom of expression is very important, but freedom

          9        of expression doesn't just mean that you can give a

         10        lot of money.  One of the things that you can do is

         11        walk up and put your arm around the candidate and say,

         12        I'm for that person, and that's an expression, and you

         13        can do that as much as you want to.

         14             It is just that when it comes to something as

         15        serious as money has become in our country today,

         16        things lead to a situation where we can get

         17        embarrassed.

         18             Let me just quote you from a Wall Street Journal

         19        article that was recently printed where the writer

         20        says this, Faced with these tight caps, big dollars

         21        today increasingly funnel money to candidates

         22        indirectly through the two parties.  This is Florida,

         23        that is because there are no legal limits on the

         24        amount an individual can give to a party, and only a

         25        $50,000 limit on party contributions to an individual


          1        candidate.  What's more, even the $50,000 limit

          2        originally passed in '91 has been deleted by several

          3        loopholes, including generic ads.

          4             What I'm trying to tell you is that we are headed

          5        down the wrong road in Florida.  We are going to be

          6        right where we are with the federal government, we are

          7        going to have people embarrassed because it is

          8        unseemly for these public officials to get into the

          9        posture where they are soliciting money that goes

         10        first to the party and then back to the candidate.

         11        There are other ways to do this.  There are clean ways

         12        to get the messages out, but I submit to you that

         13        reasonable amounts of money contributed anywhere, to

         14        the party or to the candidate, is a healthy situation

         15        for our state to be in.  And I think if you will let

         16        the public have the opportunity to tell us all what

         17        they think about this, you will be very pleased.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Question?  Commissioner Scott

         19        for a question.

         20             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner, independent

         21        expenditures would not be covered by this unless it is

         22        by a political party; is that correct?  Independent

         23        expenditures, such as 3 million by the Teachers Union

         24        against whomever, against the slated candidates, like

         25        they once upon a time did to a few of us, Senator


          1        Langley and I and others, I mean, that wouldn't be

          2        covered, but yet the party would be limited; isn't

          3        that true?

          4             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Independent expenditures

          5        in respect to candidates?  Independent expenditures in

          6        respect to candidates, I think the Legislature can say

          7        is a contribution to a campaign.  I think the

          8        Legislature has moved very close to that in

          9        legislation that you have passed recently.

         10             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That's not exactly right.

         11        Independent expenditures are basically unlimited.  We

         12        have got races going on right now in the state where

         13        we received notice that such and such a group is going

         14        to spend $25,000 against this or that Senate

         15        candidate.  This would not cover them, I don't

         16        believe; am I right about that?

         17             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Yes, I think you are

         18        right if they have no link to the candidate.  That's

         19        the critical point.  And I think as this issue

         20        proceeds, and I think as the Legislature and the

         21        courts deal with this issue you are going to see more

         22        and more of a hands-off requirement.

         23             And if it turns out that these expenditures are

         24        made in fact with any complicity from the candidate,

         25        then they are going to be counted under this and other


          1        laws that have to do with expenditure limits.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Opponents?  Now we are

          3        getting close to the clock here.  Commissioner Connor.

          4             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'd like to be an opponent.

          5        With the clock starting, if that's already.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead, clock has been

          7        going.  Look, all of it was not a question.  They are

          8        keeping time and the clock was going on the proponents

          9        when he spoke, and now it is an opponent.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'll get cranking, if I may

         11        then.  Ladies and gentlemen, I will submit to you that

         12        if this proposal is not a democratically-inspired

         13        proposal, you can bet on the fact that they are

         14        praying earnestly in the Democratic party headquarters

         15        that this proposal will pass.  And I credit

         16        Mr. Thompson with ultimate good faith in that regard.

         17             But I would suggest to you that when you limit

         18        the amount of contributions that one can make to a

         19        party, when you are in a period where your party base

         20        is eroding in a state, that that's one way that you

         21        can help stop the slippage.  And I would submit to

         22        you, ladies and gentlemen, that political speech has

         23        been recognized under our Constitution as a preferred

         24        form of speech, and that if you apply the principles

         25        enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of


          1        Buckley versus Valeo which equates the expenditure of

          2        money with freedom of expression, that there is no way

          3        that we can justify the language of Paragraph A.  I

          4        would support this proposal if it were limited to

          5        Paragraph B.  Commissioner Thompson has expressed his

          6        concern about soft money contributions coming into the

          7        parties and then that money funneling on down and

          8        filtering on down in the campaigns.  Paragraph B

          9        solves that problem, it eliminates that problem.

         10             I am concerned about shutting off the flow of

         11        funds to political parties to promote their divergent

         12        and differing philosophies and to foster political

         13        expression, and I don't believe we ought to pass it in

         14        the form that this now exists, and I oppose it.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We will have time for how

         16        many more opponents, Commissioner Mills?  Three

         17        minutes.  Go, Commissioner Scott or Commissioner

         18        Hawkes.  Commissioner Scott is recognized.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  The main point I want to

         20        make is that general, the Paragraph A is the problem.

         21        I voted for this, before but I didn't understand that

         22        it was limiting or trying to limit the amount that

         23        individuals could contribute to their political party.

         24        I mean, they ought to be able to contribute whatever

         25        they want to, weekly, monthly, yearly, according to


          1        their means, and the party ought to be able to espouse

          2        its ideas and its plans for the future of Florida or

          3        any county or whatever.  And to try to limit that is

          4        really not a good idea.

          5             The idea of trying to limit, which we tried and

          6        probably need to improve the limits on how much

          7        parties can contribute or support any particular

          8        candidate is one thing, but to limit what they can

          9        contribute to the party is not a good idea.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  A minute and a half,

         11        Commissioner Hawkes.

         12             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Very briefly.  Thank you,

         13        Mr. Chairman.  I think that you -- if you believe the

         14        professionals in Tallahassee ought to have more

         15        influence and the people back home or back in the real

         16        state of Florida ought to have less influence, then

         17        you ought to vote for this proposal.  Because I know a

         18        lady, and she is a sweet lady, and she has been very

         19        successful, and for some reason she believed it is her

         20        obligation to give $5,000 a year to the Democratic

         21        Party and she is what they call a trustee.  And she

         22        does that, and every year, but now she is going to

         23        give $500, I suppose if this passes.

         24             But if she were a professional in Tallahassee,

         25        she could just form 10 PACs and now she would have


          1        zero times the influence of someone back home, and

          2        this is -- the goal may be worthy, but the path is not

          3        the path we want to take.  Thank you, Mr. chairman.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, Commissioner

          5        Barton.  This is proponent?

          6             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  No opponent.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Time is up, I think.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  Just one quick.  On the 11

          9        states --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead.

         11             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  If you will look at this

         12        chart in here behind the bill or behind the proposal,

         13        only 11 states limit what they can give to a party,

         14        what individuals can give it a party.  So, it is not

         15        the overwhelming number that was mentioned by

         16        Commissioner Thompson.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson, this

         18        isn't the way this thing started, is it, this

         19        proposal?  Did it get amended on the floor, or where

         20        did it get amended?

         21             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I don't understand what

         22        you --

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I thought originally you had

         24        a proposal that limited contributions from every

         25        source to $500 or something.


          1             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Yeah, $500.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  But this doesn't do that?

          3             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  No, we tried to be more

          4        generic so the Legislature can handle it by general

          5        law.  We didn't want to put the amount in the

          6        Constitution.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, that proposal then has

          8        never come up?

          9             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  We substituted this for

         10        that.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Substituted this for that?

         12             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Yes.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I think what I thought

         14        was that the other one was the one you were dealing

         15        with.  All right, so go ahead.

         16             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Before he closes, may I ask

         17        a quick question?

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead.

         19             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Because if the answer is

         20        yes, I could be working while he is talking.

         21        Commissioner Thompson, in view of what you heard, and

         22        in view of it appearing to be a consensus that people

         23        want to move in the right direction and we feel that

         24        (b) is appropriate and (a) is not, would you be

         25        amenable to an amendment that would eliminate (a)?  If


          1        so, I will work on it; if not, I'll just sit down.

          2             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Well, let me tell you a

          3        couple things.  First of all, Commissioner Connor, the

          4        Democratic party is going to be real happy to hear

          5        they have got a new supporter in me because I have

          6        never been involved in party politics much at all and

          7        I never talked to anybody there, wherever they are,

          8        about this measure.

          9             This is something that has come to me and I think

         10        I said this in the beginning about this, this is the

         11        only thing I really filed.  I did put my name on

         12        another one or two things as chairman of the

         13        Legislative Committee.  So it is not party politics

         14        that has generated this, and I want everybody here to

         15        be sure and understand that; that's not my deal.

         16             My deal is this, the only way to really stop the

         17        soft money from flowing is stopping it from coming in.

         18        Now, Commissioner Smith, I see what you are saying,

         19        you are trying to save my proposal.  And I'll tell you

         20        the truth, I don't know what to tell you.  I have been

         21        out here helping a lot of other people with proposals

         22        and this is my only one, so I don't know exactly what

         23        to do.

         24             I am inclined to say this, though, the problem

         25        arises because of raising the money.  The problem is


          1        that you go get these elected officials, the party

          2        people do, and they get them to come in and help them

          3        raise money, and then they have to look in the eye of

          4        the special interests, Commissioner Connor, that they

          5        are dealing every day with.  And instead of soliciting

          6        $500 for so-and-so's campaign or getting a group of

          7        them in and saying I need $500 a piece, would y'all

          8        please help old so-and-so down here that's running

          9        against so-and-so, they have a little private meeting

         10        and they ask them for $25,000.  And they ask them for

         11        $10,000, and they ask them for $5,000.  And they get

         12        all that money, and then you see they can give

         13        $50,000.

         14             And so what I am saying to you is, just let the

         15        public help us decide this.  Just vote for it today,

         16        cut off the flow of funds, and if those independent

         17        expenditures need to be made, I'll tell you what will

         18        happen, they will set up a PAC or some kind of entity

         19        over there and the philosophy will be carried on.  But

         20        we will get them out of the business of

         21        over-influencing our elected officials and they can go

         22        on and do what they are supposed to do.

         23             So, I would submit to you, I appreciate your

         24        help, I'd like to keep it alive.  I ask everyone of

         25        you to vote for if to keep it alive.  As we move


          1        forward, it may be that we all decide it is not the

          2        right thing to do, but right now I think we should

          3        move it on to the next stage.  I appreciate your offer

          4        to help.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith.

          6             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you.  I have a

          7        question concerning procedure.  If in fact a hostile

          8        amendment was made to my dear friend's proposal, which

          9        eliminated (a), and if it was able to stay alive with

         10        the majority vote; after the public hearings, is it

         11        possible then to amend it if it was deemed

         12        appropriate, amend it back, or something like it which

         13        would be less of a problem?

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is correct.

         15             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Okay.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You have to get five hands to

         17        reconsider it if it loses, and then you can bring it

         18        up at the next round, right?  If it goes forward, it

         19        can be amended in any event, in this or the last

         20        round, okay.

         21             All right.  Is everybody ready to vote?  Is that

         22        correct; do you understand?  Okay.  Everybody ready to

         23        vote?  Open the machine and let's vote.

         24             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Lock the machine


          1        and count the vote.

          2             READING CLERK:  Twelve yeas, 20 nays,

          3        Mr. Chairman.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  By your vote you

          5        have defeated that proposal.  Let's see, we now go to,

          6        we skip over to Article V issues, Committee Substitute

          7        for Proposal 66 by the Committee on Judicial, and

          8        Commissioner Wetherington.  Would you read it please?

          9             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         10        Nos. 172 and 162, a proposal to repeal Article III,

         11        Section 16.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, no, come on, we are on

         13        the next one.  Proposal 66, it is the next one.

         14             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         15        No. 66, a proposal to revise Article V, Sections 10

         16        and 11, Florida Constitution; providing for circuit

         17        court judges and county court judges to run for

         18        re-election unless the electors within the circuit or

         19        within the county approve a local option whereby the

         20        circuit court judges or the county court judges are

         21        selected by merit selection and are subject to a vote

         22        of retention.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         24        Mills.  There is an amendment.

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, ladies and


          1        gentlemen, the order of the special order is in your

          2        special order calendar.  This issue is the Article V

          3        issue.  If you go to your pink packet and turn to

          4        Article V issues you will be able to retrieve this.

          5        There were two issues in Article V that were

          6        considered.  One was withdrawn yesterday, that is the

          7        issue on age.  And so we are left with this issue,

          8        which relates to merit retention.

          9             And Mr. Chairman, if you would recognize

         10        Commissioner Lowndes who is handling the Article V

         11        Section for Style and Drafting.

         12             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes.

         14             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I consider it a vote of

         15        confidence that when they gave Commissioner

         16        Ford-Coates the election with eight things to explain

         17        and me only one, I think that --

         18             (Laughter.)

         19             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  -- it was a comment on

         20        their view of my capacity.  But in any event, this is

         21        the Proposal 66 which deals with the election or

         22        appointment of judges and provides that there will be

         23        a mandatory election in November of the year 2000 for

         24        the purpose of providing each circuit and each county

         25        with the opportunity to opt into the system of merit


          1        selection and retention.

          2             It also has, contains that if a county or circuit

          3        does not opt in, it has to wait for another two years

          4        before it can have a similar vote to opt in again.

          5        And if it does opt in, there is a provision that

          6        allows it to opt out.

          7             Now you have passed out an amendment, and it is

          8        not the one in the book, it is the one that was handed

          9        out.  And as I understand it, this is the Style and

         10        Drafting kind of cleanup of the original as it

         11        originally was passed.  I have read it and I am

         12        assured also by the staff it doesn't change anything,

         13        it separated some things into paragraphs, numbered

         14        paragraphs, and so it seems to me that this proposal

         15        which you have in your hand needs to be adopted as an

         16        amendment to the proposal originally passed.

         17             Also there is in the handout, too, additional

         18        amendments which is not -- which are not from Style

         19        and Drafting, which I believe are from Commissioner

         20        Scott, which deal with the term of the county court

         21        judges.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me have the amendment

         23        read, and then we have a couple of amendments to the

         24        amendment on the table.  But we will start with the

         25        amendment, which is what you are offering.


          1             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, I would move the

          2        amendment.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, would you

          4        read the amendment, please?

          5             READING CLERK:  By the Committee on Style and

          6        Drafting, the following amendment:  Delete everything

          7        after the proposing clause and insert lengthy

          8        amendment.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now you are

         10        explaining your amendment as the lengthy amendment

         11        that was referred to.

         12             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, the lengthy amendment

         13        would simply be a cleanup, a little bit of

         14        reorganization of the proposal which was originally

         15        passed.  It does not change anything in the intent and

         16        very little in the rhetoric of the proposal.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  And now there are

         18        two amendments on the table both by Commissioner

         19        Scott.  Amendment No. 1.  Would you read it, please?

         20             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Scott, the

         21        amendment to the amendment.  On Page 2, Lines 4 and 5,

         22        delete those lines and insert, Of six years the term

         23        will be.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, this is

         25        your first amendment which is I believe increases


          1        county judges terms to six years.

          2             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right, if it is appropriate

          3        now, both of these amendments, I didn't know if the

          4        proponent was going to -- but both of these amendments

          5        do exactly the same thing.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So I need to have

          7        her read amendment two at the same time?

          8             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, no, the first one, I

          9        am just explaining that what they do is they allow

         10        county judges to serve a six-year term, the same as

         11        circuit courts.  It is that simple.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Read Amendment

         13        No. 2, amendment to the Amendment No. 2 by

         14        Commissioner Scott.

         15             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Scott, the

         16        amendment to the amendment on Page 3, Lines 21 through

         17        23, delete those lines and insert the terms of circuit

         18        judges and judges of county court shall be for six

         19        years.

         20             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That is what I have

         21        explained.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is what you were

         23        explaining, that you were just making them conform in

         24        two places to show that your amendment to the

         25        amendment would provide for six-year terms in place of


          1        four-year terms for county judges which they now have.

          2             So we are on the first amendment first.  So, the

          3        issue is going to be the same when we get to No. 2.

          4        But the issue is, if you vote for this amendment you

          5        will be amending the amendment to grant six-year terms

          6        to county judges instead of four.  And do you want to

          7        discuss that, I think?  All right.  Does anybody want

          8        to discuss this amendment?

          9             The amendment has been moved.  From four to six

         10        for county judges.  Questions?  Or do you want to

         11        debate it?  Now we are going to vote on it.  All in

         12        favor of the amendment, say aye.  Opposed?

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will vote.

         15        Open the machines.  Everybody know what they are

         16        voting on?

         17             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         19        the vote.

         20             READING CLERK:  Seventeen yeas, 12 nays,

         21        Mr. Chairman.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Amendment No. 1

         23        to the amendment is adopted.  Now we will proceed to

         24        Amendment No. 2, which is the same result in another

         25        spot in the amendment.  Does everybody understand we


          1        are voting on basically the same thing increasing

          2        county judges' terms to six years from four?  All of

          3        those in favor of the amendment, open the machine and

          4        let's vote.  Amendment to the amendment.

          5             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

          7        the vote.

          8             READING CLERK:  Sixteen yeas, 13 nays,

          9        Mr. Chairman.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are losing ground.  Now,

         11        we are on the amendment as amended, which Commissioner

         12        Lowndes, your amendment is now amended.  Do you want

         13        to -- Commissioner Connor, which side do you want to

         14        go on?

         15             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Are we on the proposal as

         16        amended?  I'd like to oppose it.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on the amendment to

         18        the proposal as amended.  In other words, we amended

         19        his amendment to include the county judge provisions.

         20        Now we are on his amendment.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  So we are not on the final

         22        vote?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, no but does this have the

         24        affect of replacing the proposal?

         25             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Yes, it does but it is


          1        simply a cleanup of the original proposal.

          2             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Then I'd like to be heard

          3        in opposition.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Both times, right, if

          5        necessary?  All right.  Then you go ahead, you go

          6        ahead Commissioner Lowndes.

          7             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I don't know what else I

          8        can say, except the very intelligent group of people

          9        in the Style and Drafting Committee thought it needed

         10        a little cleaning up, and this is their presentation

         11        with respect to that.  It does not change the original

         12        proposal of Commissioner Wetherington.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So anybody that

         14        wants to be a proponent of the amendment?

         15             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I would just

         16        suggest that this is not substantive, I just think

         17        adopt the amendment and we can have debate on the

         18        proposal.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, let's adopt the

         20        amendment.  All in favor of the amendment, say aye.

         21        Opposed?

         22             (Verbal vote taken.)

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is now amended.  Now we

         24        are on the proposal, and Commissioner Connor you

         25        registered in as an opponent, correct?  Anybody else


          1        want to come in?

          2             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I'd like yield to

          3        Commissioner Wetherington.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Just a moment.  Commissioner

          5        Barton, do you want to be a proponent or an opponent?

          6        Opponent.  Okay.  There is four of you, five of you.

          7        Are you all going to have a minute a piece?

          8        Proponent, oh, okay, you are proponents, you can have

          9        a minute a piece too.  Now Commissioner Lowndes to

         10        open.

         11             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  I would like to yield to

         12        Commissioner Wetherington, this was his proposal.

         13             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  This is the proposal

         14        that we discussed before on merit retention and

         15        selection, after thorough discussion in the Judiciary

         16        Committee and a thorough discussion before, the

         17        proposal consists of the fact that we allow circuit

         18        option for those circuits that would like to have a

         19        merit selection and retention of their trial judges,

         20        they can select both the circuit level and the county

         21        level.  They can select to have the merit retention

         22        and selection of the county but not the circuit, or

         23        vice versa.

         24             And the feeling is that there are areas that may,

         25        in this state, that circuits that may select and want


          1        to have merit retention, they should have that right

          2        if they feel that that's the system that's best for

          3        them.  There may be other areas that want to retain

          4        the elected judges and allows those areas to retain

          5        the elected judges.

          6             We are talking about a 20-year period and there

          7        should -- there has been a lot of discussion of pros

          8        and cons concerning merit retention and selection

          9        versus election.  There is a difference of opinion on

         10        it.  There are very respectable views on both sides of

         11        it.  There is no perfect method of selecting and

         12        retaining judges.  This would allow each area to make

         13        its own individual decision as to what's best for that

         14        area.

         15             Some areas may have different needs and different

         16        problems with respect to the selection and retention

         17        of judges, and that respecting the diversity of the

         18        state and respecting the importance of judicial

         19        selection and retention, this proposal would allow, in

         20        my opinion, both to occur.  Those that want to have

         21        merit selection and retention to do so, and those that

         22        want to retain the election system to do so in a

         23        logical fashion.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, any -- now an

         25        opponent.


          1             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          3             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Thank you.  Mr. Chairman, I

          4        oppose this provision with all the vigor that I can

          5        muster and I encourage you folks to do likewise.  If

          6        you will recall back to our public meetings, you heard

          7        a great deal of frustration registered by ordinary

          8        people about the role of what they perceived to be the

          9        imperial judiciary.  They perceived that to be, in

         10        part, because of the lack of accountability that we

         11        find in the judiciary.  And I know many of you feel

         12        that an ultimate lack of accountability affords

         13        independence to the judiciary and that many of you are

         14        well-intentioned in seeking to depoliticize this

         15        process.  I would submit to you that we, under no

         16        circumstances, wind up depoliticizing the process when

         17        we go to merit retention, all we do is concentrate the

         18        political power in the hands of fewer and fewer

         19        people, and they are large law firms, contributors to

         20        the Governor, and the media.

         21             Large law firms because they typically are

         22        players in the election of the Governor, and they are

         23        going to be heard from, believe me, when it comes to

         24        judicial appointments.  Contributors to the Governor

         25        for the same reason.  The media for the reason that


          1        the Governor is much more sensitive to media attention

          2        and discussion than ordinary people are.

          3             So, the net effect is that you wind up driving

          4        the politics underground and out of the sunshine so it

          5        simply seems much less visible.  If you think that

          6        this depoliticizes the process, call Senator John

          7        Grant and ask him his assessment of politics in the

          8        judicial arena.  Call any of the nominees for any

          9        circuit position who are filling a vacancy that is

         10        being filled by appointment under the present system.

         11             I would submit to you that as a practical matter,

         12        for those of you who have worried about the influence

         13        of money in political campaigns, that you assure much

         14        greater potential influence in the hands of someone

         15        who is able to influence a vote on a committee of

         16        nine, or a vote by the Governor or decision by the

         17        Governor much more so than somebody who contributes

         18        $500 to a judicial campaign where $100,000 is raised.

         19             So I would submit to you that you, in many

         20        respects, potentially diminish the independence of

         21        judicial appointees because of the sway that a single

         22        person can have on a judicial nomination committee or

         23        on the Governor.

         24             You also elevate substantially the standing of

         25        the general counsel to the Governor with regard to the


          1        judicial selection process, not referring to

          2        Commissioner Douglass necessarily, it is just the way

          3        it works.  I can tell you in my experience, having

          4        seen three different governors involved in this

          5        process, the general counsel to the Governor in many

          6        respects becomes the de facto appointing authority

          7        particularly as it relates to Circuit judges.  And I

          8        can speak to that from having been experienced with

          9        all of the general counsels in many respects for all

         10        the Governors.

         11             And so, ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to

         12        you that we ought not to change this process in the

         13        manner in which we are doing.  If you think the people

         14        are too ignorant to select or elect a judge, I would

         15        submit to you then that they are too ignorant to

         16        reject a judge.  And I know that the argument will be

         17        made, we are just giving the people the choice.  But

         18        the choice we are giving to them is a wrong choice, in

         19        my judgment, because we are asking them to give up

         20        their vote.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Time is up.  Five minutes up

         22        for the proponents, now the opponents.  He was an

         23        opponent, proponents I mean.  The opponents have used

         24        all of their time.  Now, who wants to go first with

         25        the proponents?  Commissioner Kogan.


          1             COMMISSIONER KOGAN:  All right.  Let me say this

          2        to all of you.  First of all, we are not say -- I will

          3        save you time, okay, stop me at four minutes.  Let me

          4        say this to everybody.  The one thing which you have

          5        to understand here -- what's that?

          6             (Off-the-record discussion.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Trying to get a little order.

          8             COMMISSIONER KOGAN:  No, I thought the Chair had

          9        ruled that the proponents --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is your turn as the

         11        proponent, you have five minutes left.

         12             COMMISSIONER KOGAN:  Okay, okay.  Let me say this

         13        from the very outset, by passing this particular

         14        proposal and putting it on the ballot, what we are

         15        essentially doing is telling those circuits where they

         16        want to adopt the merit retention and selection

         17        system, that they can do it.

         18             There is nothing in this proposal that requires

         19        any circuit in this state to go ahead and adopt this

         20        proposal.  It's in the hands of the people.  And I'm

         21        going to tell all of you something that you should

         22        recognize and realize.  Whether or not on the trial

         23        level the judges are appointed by the Governor or they

         24        are elected to office, chances are, more likely than

         25        not, that particular judge will not have, during the


          1        balance of his or her term on the bench, any

          2        opposition at all.  So come election day, the citizens

          3        of this state are not going to have the right to vote

          4        on the trial level.

          5             As far as the appellate judges are concerned, we

          6        are the only public officials in the state of Florida,

          7        and I want all of you to mark my words when I am

          8        telling you this, because I have sat here for months

          9        and I have heard about how unaccountable the judges

         10        are to the public, but I can assure you that we are

         11        the only public officials in the state of Florida who

         12        every six years, with opposition or not, have to stand

         13        before the voters of this state with our name on that

         14        ballot for them to decide whether or not we are fit to

         15        hold office.

         16             You can't challenge it, it is a fact, we are the

         17        only public officials in the state of Florida.  If you

         18        are running for the House of Representatives, if you

         19        are running for the State Senate, if you are running

         20        for a Cabinet position, if you don't have opposition

         21        you don't go on that ballot and you get that office by

         22        default.  We don't.  We are accountable because we are

         23        on that ballot.  And the voters of this state can at

         24        any time take us out of office.

         25             You try to think of another public official who


          1        has to face the voters like we do every six years.

          2        And that's all you are saying to these circuits.  Now,

          3        the people of this state if you want this system, you

          4        can have it, you have to vote for it.  So I commend to

          5        all of you, this is a good proposal, it is a great

          6        compromise, please vote for it.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I have three

          8        other proponents, Commissioner Smith, Morsani and

          9        Langley.  You are going to have to divide your

         10        minutes.  And we have one opponent still to speak,

         11        Commissioner Barton.  Commissioner Barton is going to

         12        be recognized first unless you have a question?

         13             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  No.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  You are recognized,

         15        Commissioner Barton as an opponent.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  Thank you.  I am an

         17        opponent to this on a very gut level.  I don't believe

         18        you should ever take away somebody's rights to vote,

         19        particularly at the local level which our circuit and

         20        county judges are.  And I think that the people who

         21        vote for those folks know them best and are perfectly

         22        capable of making those choices.  We let them make

         23        choices about their school boards, their county

         24        commissions, their city councils.  My goodness, they

         25        even elect Governors and Cabinet members, they are


          1        certainly capable of electing judges who serve in

          2        their communities.

          3             I would say that to move it to a merit retention

          4        and appointment process is elitist.  We don't do that

          5        with any other people who serve us in our communities.

          6        And I really think that the judges are ill-served by

          7        removing them from the election process, for when they

          8        are out there in their communities they become more

          9        aware of the tone and temp and what the feelings of

         10        the people are, and they need to know that when they

         11        are acting in a court just as well as anybody else

         12        does who serves the public.  So I would urge you to

         13        vote against this proposal.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith.

         15             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I rise as a proponent.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proceed.

         17             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I originally raised my hand

         18        as an opponent because I was temporarily hot that

         19        after all of the work of our wonderful Judiciary

         20        Committee and all the compromises at the 11th hour

         21        this county court judges' thing came in, but I have

         22        calmed down and that's not right.  We will maybe get

         23        another bite at that.

         24             I oppose, I am an opponent of merit selection.

         25        But I am a proponent of allowing the people to decide


          1        how they want to select their judges.  I agree with

          2        Commissioner Barton, it would be elitist of us to take

          3        away the people's right to decide, it would be very

          4        democratic of us to allow the people to decide how

          5        they want to elect or select the judges, and for that

          6        reason I'm going to vote yes now and look forward

          7        later to reconsidering the county court judges

          8        six-year proposal.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any other

         10        opponents?  If not, we had other -- you are an

         11        opponent?

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Proponent.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proponent, well we had

         14        Commissioner Morsani was next as a proponent.

         15             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Briefly.  I don't agree at

         16        all that we are taking away anyone's right to vote.  I

         17        think it has been succinct that we are giving people

         18        the opportunity, we have talked about flexibility in

         19        this commission, this is flexibility.  But let's

         20        really examine the problems, especially in the large

         21        counties, we have had this debate, let's not forget

         22        it, let's not forget the debate that in large counties

         23        our people do not know who they are voting for.

         24             You can keep saying, well, it's free and they

         25        could find out, but they don't take the time to find


          1        out.  As a result, people can -- there are some of our

          2        countrymen that attempt to become judges who are not

          3        qualified to be judges.  And those people who are

          4        involved, I think the JQC has done a good job by and

          5        large, I think the appointments have been positive.  I

          6        think we are giving the people the flexibility.

          7             I have investigated the Missouri plan, and I

          8        think that's a popular name around here, and I had

          9        some attorneys give me some very good advice and did

         10        some detailed study of it, I think we are doing the

         11        right thing.  Personally over dinner parties and

         12        others, I even did, just real quickly, a survey among

         13        my own people, 310 employees.  It was overwhelming

         14        that they felt that that's a position that should be

         15        appointed, and if you are down here where I am, you

         16        are dealing with the skilled and unskilled laborers of

         17        these communities, you will find that they appreciate

         18        it because they don't know who they are voting for,

         19        they don't know if they are getting the right person

         20        in the judgeships, and they really do want the right

         21        person in our judgeships.  And I think that

         22        Commissioner Kogan is 100 percent right and I urge

         23        your support.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We have used up a

         25        little more time than should have been used for this


          1        on the proponents, and therefore I think we should

          2        close the debate based on our previous adoption of the

          3        motion.  I know that Commissioner Langley wanted to

          4        speak, Barkdull, and also Commissioner Zack.  And

          5        Commissioner Wetherington does get to close.  You may

          6        close.

          7             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  I'd like to have

          8        Commissioner Langley close for me.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  How about that,

         10        Commissioner Langley, you are recognized to close.

         11             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, thank you

         12        Commissioner Wetherington.  I hate merit selection.  I

         13        think it is terrible.  I voted against it in the

         14        Legislature when we first started with the Supreme

         15        Court and the appellate court and then the trial

         16        courts, but man this state has changed.  We didn't

         17        have those problems before, you know, before you knew,

         18        you knew who your judges were.  How many judges in

         19        Dade County?  Over 100 judges in Dade County now, you

         20        know.  When I first started practicing law, we had one

         21        circuit judge in my county.  Well, you knew him, you

         22        better know him.  But, you know, things have changed.

         23        And I have no doubt that in the metropolitan areas and

         24        the urban areas of this state there are real problems,

         25        and I don't think the best people get in office that


          1        way.  I wish it were not that way, but that's the way

          2        it is.

          3             One important thing about this, Commissioner

          4        Connor, that you may or may not know, this is opt out,

          5        not opt in.  In other words, you have, pardon me, it

          6        is opt in, not out, that you have to have a vote of

          7        the electorate to say, yes, we want to give up our

          8        right to elect and let somebody else appoint, and

          9        that's the only way it can be done.

         10             By the way, the timetable on this, it will be

         11        2002 before this takes effect because there will be an

         12        election in 2000 and it won't become effective until

         13        the next one.  But I think it is a good compromise, we

         14        came a long way from the uniformly doing it all to

         15        this, where you can do it on a county level, you do it

         16        on a circuit level, and frankly from the people I have

         17        talked to back home, including the judges, they are

         18        all for it also.

         19             So I think it is a good deal and one of the

         20        changes that I think will have good support in the

         21        eventual voting on these matters.  Thank you.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Having closed on

         23        the proposal as amended, we are now prepared to vote

         24        on Proposal 66 as amended.  And if you will open the

         25        machine and we will vote.


          1             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

          3        the vote.

          4             READING CLERK:  Twenty-four yeas, seven nays,

          5        Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you have adopted

          7        Proposal No. 66 as amended.  We will now proceed to

          8        Committee Substitute for Proposals 159, 163 and 182 by

          9        the Committee on Executive, by Commissioners Mathis,

         10        Evans-Jones and Riley.  Commissioner Mills?

         11             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.  This

         12        section, if you will look again on your special order

         13        as set by the Rules Committee and look in your pink, I

         14        believe it is the pink folder, yellow folder, the

         15        Executive Branch.  Commissioner Alfonso has the Style

         16        and Drafting issues.  There are three proposals in the

         17        Executive Branch, and Commissioner Alfonso will

         18        discuss those and the proposed amendments.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         20        Alfonso, you are recognized on behalf of -- right

         21        after I read the proposal or have it read, to give the

         22        Style and Drafting report.

         23             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Thank you.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Would you read the proposal,

         25        please?


          1             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

          2        Nos. 159, 163 and 182.  A proposal to revise Article

          3        IV, Sections 3(b), 4, and 8, and Article XII, Section

          4        9(c), Florida Constitution; and create Section 22,

          5        Article XII, Florida Constitution; providing for

          6        membership of the Florida Cabinet.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          8        Alfonso you are recognized.  Also there's an amendment

          9        on the table.  Should I read the amendment?

         10             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Yes, please, and this one

         11        was -- this amendment was added by Style and Drafting.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Read the amendment please.

         13             READING CLERK:  By Committee on Style and

         14        Drafting, the following amendment; on Page 3, Lines 19

         15        through 21, strike all of said lines.

         16             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Okay.  Thank you.  This

         17        amendment strikes the language that had been added on

         18        the floor which allowed for the Department of Law

         19        Enforcement to be headed by the Governor and the

         20        Cabinet.  That amendment was necessary at the time

         21        because we had another proposal, 168, that would have

         22        prohibited agencies being headed by the Governor and

         23        the Cabinet.  Since we have fixed that situation,

         24        Commissioner Barnett, if you are over there, by

         25        deleting the prohibition from Proposal 168, we found


          1        that the FDLE amendment would no longer be necessary.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does everybody understand the

          3        amendment proposed by Style and Drafting?  All right.

          4        All in favor of amendment, say aye.  Did anybody vote?

          5        All in favor of the amendment, say aye.  All opposed,

          6        no?

          7             (Verbal vote taken.)

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment is adopted.  I

          9        remembered it that time.  All right.  You may proceed

         10        with the proposal as amended.  Are there other

         11        amendments on the table?

         12             READING CLERK:  No, there are not, Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Alfonso has the

         14        floor.  Do you want to ask him a question?  All right,

         15        do you yield?

         16             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  I yield.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  He yields.

         18             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Commissioner Alfonso, this

         19        committee, will it handle the retirement trust fund

         20        also?  You know we have that board that is --

         21             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Yes.

         22             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  -- currently, is that

         23        covered in here?

         24             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Yes.  That's the State

         25        Board of Administration, that's correct.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          2        Alfonso, you are recognized on the proposal.

          3             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          4        As you all know, we have discussed this, this is the

          5        Cabinet reform package reducing the size of the

          6        Cabinet from seven down to three.  The combination of

          7        the Comptroller and the Treasurer and the Chief

          8        Financial Officer and the elected Attorney General,

          9        both of those elected serving with the Governor.  The

         10        Education Commissioner will be appointed by the State

         11        Board of Education, which will be a seven-member board

         12        appointed by the Governor who then appoints their

         13        Commissioner.

         14             The proposal remains silent at this time as to

         15        the Secretary of State and the Agriculture

         16        Commissioner, although Proposal 168 which we will deal

         17        with shortly establishes a State Board of Agriculture

         18        which would appoint the Agricultural Commissioner.  We

         19        feel that this places great emphasis on agriculture

         20        and education together in this package.  The proposal

         21        ensures that the Cabinet and the Governor continue to

         22        sit as the trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

         23        Fund and the land acquisitions trust fund, as we just

         24        mentioned.  Which acquisition and management of state

         25        lands, and the Governor and Cabinet would sit as the


          1        State Board of Administration, which is investment and

          2        retirement funds and state bonding.  And the other

          3        duties would be as prescribed by law.

          4             These changes would apply beginning with the

          5        general election of the year 2002.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now who --

          7        proponents be identified, those that want to speak as

          8        proponents of the proposal.  The other introducers

          9        were, let's see, Commissioners Mathis, Evans-Jones and

         10        Riley were the introducers originally.  If there's

         11        anybody who wants to be a proponent, let me know now.

         12        Any opponents?  Commissioner Marshall is an opponent.

         13        Commissioner Henderson is an opponent.

         14             (Inaudible comment.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.  We have been doing

         16        that, so I see no reason not to.  All right.  The

         17        proponents.  Do you want to designate Commissioner

         18        Mathis as a proponent?  Let's see, we will go with the

         19        opponent first, we will take Commissioner Marshall

         20        first as an opponent to this proposal.  You are

         21        recognized Commissioner Marshall.

         22             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         23        I think I understand this proposal well enough to

         24        comment on it.  The aspect of it that troubles me is

         25        addressing Cabinet reform without really addressing


          1        Cabinet reform by pulling the Education Commissioner

          2        out and having him or her appointed rather than

          3        elected as distinct from the rest of the Cabinet I

          4        think has the effect of weakening the influence of the

          5        Education Commissioner on the broad range of

          6        government affairs as a Cabinet officer.  Do I

          7        understand it correctly, Commissioner Alfonso, that

          8        is -- yeah.

          9             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  That is correct.

         10             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  I think the Commissioner

         11        of Education brings a set of ideas and values and

         12        cultural understanding, perspectives that ought to be

         13        valued and ought to be recognized and incorporated in

         14        much of what goes on in the Cabinet affairs.  If we

         15        were addressing the entire range of Cabinet reform, I

         16        would be interested in changing the status of the

         17        Education Commissioner, as indeed I was, Commissioner

         18        Evans-Jones and I, as many of you know, served for a

         19        year on the Cabinet Reform Commission.

         20             And I took the position then that the Cabinet,

         21        that the Governor's office was weak and we needed to

         22        strengthen it by having more appointed Cabinet

         23        officers.  But to do this on a piecemeal basis as we

         24        seem to be doing now, I think, disturbs the balance

         25        that the Cabinet now has in a way that is dangerous,


          1        and for that reason I oppose the proposal.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are recognized as a

          3        proponent.

          4             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I think the issue here is

          5        accountability.  And I think we need to have

          6        accountability in the governorship.  I don't think

          7        that anyone contemplates that the Commissioner of

          8        Education will be making decisions on clemency.  I

          9        think people contemplate that issue being dealt with

         10        directly by the Governor.  And I think if we are going

         11        to have a Governor, we ought to let the Governor be

         12        the Governor and do away with what we have now, which

         13        is I think a plural executive of seven people.

         14             And I think it would also help to restore economy

         15        and efficiency in the executive department and give

         16        the Governor the authority and responsibility, I

         17        believe, that the citizens of Florida currently

         18        falsely believe that he has.  And I think that this

         19        proposal addresses that issue.  And so I would urge

         20        your support.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Henderson as an

         22        opponent.

         23             COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Mr. Chairman, I opposed

         24        this matter in committee and I opposed this matter

         25        when it came before the body last time, I continue my


          1        opposition.  The information that Commissioner

          2        Marshall brought before this body, I think, is very

          3        important.  What we spend more money on than anything

          4        else is education, and yet the proposal before us

          5        takes away our ability to elect an Education

          6        Commissioner to run campaign, run statewide on the

          7        issue of education.

          8             I know that all of you have heard also from

          9        members of the agricultural community that are

         10        concerned about the loss of their ability to vote for

         11        a Commissioner of Agriculture.  I would suggest to you

         12        that it is not about accountability, it is about

         13        perspective.  There are so precious few people in this

         14        state who have a statewide perspective.  We worked in

         15        gaining that in the last year.  But I think the state

         16        benefits from seven people running for office on a

         17        statewide basis in their various fields.

         18             And there is something special about the Cabinet.

         19        I think it is a system which works.  It works to

         20        settle disputes on a statewide basis, it helps to

         21        elevate issues to a statewide level that have helped

         22        in many things regarding policy issues in this state.

         23             I have, it has been my privilege to appear before

         24        and work before the Cabinet under several different

         25        Governors.  I think it is a system that works.  I am


          1        not embarrassed to stand here and tell you that I

          2        support it.  I think that it is something -- it is an

          3        institution which has served this state well.

          4             I know that there are Governors who disagree with

          5        that.  But I know that this Governor and the current

          6        Governor and former Governors who have all taken that

          7        position they have had just a good job, it has been

          8        easy for them to deal with the Cabinet, they have done

          9        very well.

         10             I suggest that this is one of those issues where

         11        people are going to hear from the people, we are going

         12        to hear the people think the system is not broken, and

         13        we are going to hear that indeed this is perhaps too

         14        bold of a step for this commission to take, so I would

         15        urge that this proposal not go any farther.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I believe that's all the time

         17        for the opponents.  Commissioner Alfonso, you are

         18        recognized to close on behalf of the proposal.

         19             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         20        Well, we have discussed this before and as it matures

         21        we have seen a lot of thought take place on this

         22        thing.  Again, every living Governor, liberal,

         23        moderate or conservative has been a proponent of this,

         24        of a stronger Cabinet.  We have fixed the other two

         25        branches, this is the last branch that still dates


          1        back 100 years, the Governor having to work with six

          2        other elected, sometimes opposing, members.

          3             This position which was proposed by two

          4        bipartisan members of the current Cabinet, you know, a

          5        Republican and a Democrat, Milligan and Nelson, is a

          6        compromise between the wholesale abolishment in making

          7        it an appointed Cabinet like in many other states and

          8        keeping the system that we have.  You say that it is a

          9        bold move for us.  It seems to me that having been up

         10        here and not having been in government before, there

         11        is -- it is so difficult to change anything up here

         12        and to streamline.  I consider this a streamline move.

         13        It is not a consolidation, it is a streamlining.

         14             It gives the Governor the ability to be the

         15        Governor, the ability to lead.  It lets the legal

         16        aspects of the state still be in the hands of the

         17        people-elected officials, the same -- it combines the

         18        financial and insurance into the Chief Financial

         19        Officer.

         20             When we were dealing with education and with now

         21        agriculture, which will come up in Proposal 168, that

         22        was really meant to strengthen those two entities.

         23        And Commissioner Marshall says that he thinks that the

         24        Commissioner of Education would not be dealing in many

         25        of the cultural aspects of the state, I guess.  I


          1        never elected the Commissioner of Education to worry

          2        about the fisheries or to worry about, you know, state

          3        lands.  That's not really -- I understand that's a

          4        well-rounded thing, but there are literally hundreds

          5        of things that those commissioners deal with that are

          6        not their auspices.

          7             But with this proposal you insulate education,

          8        you let seven professionals elect their chief

          9        professional.  Same thing with agriculture.  You

         10        insulate them from the whims of an electorate.  And I

         11        recognize that that hasn't come up under this

         12        proposal, but that is our plan to consolidate that.

         13        The whims of the electorate could be that they decide

         14        that one of these entities all of a sudden is not

         15        serving the needs of the people overall as we have

         16        seen in some of these other, such as the net ban, and

         17        then all of a sudden they get, they elect a

         18        Commissioner that is contrary to the needs of the

         19        professionals of that industry, and I have a problem

         20        with that.  I have a problem with that from the

         21        fundamentals of running an organization, I have a

         22        problem with that.

         23             I know there has been a lot of late opposition

         24        here to some of this, and I hear, you know, especially

         25        from agriculture.  And this has been -- I consider


          1        them as a strengthening of both of those departments.

          2        I guess just in closing, this received favorable

          3        recommendation from the Committee on Executive, it

          4        received 20 votes last time.  This, in my opinion, is

          5        a vote for good government, for streamlining.  It is a

          6        vote to let the leader of the state that the people

          7        pick lead the state, and I just urge your vote.  Thank

          8        you.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The time has

         10        expired.  Unlock the machine and let's vote.

         11             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         13        the vote.

         14             READING CLERK:  Twenty-four yeas, seven nays,

         15        Mr. Chairman.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you have adopted

         17        Proposals 159, 163 and 182 as presented by the

         18        Committee on Executive.  And we will move on.

         19        Proposal 168, the next proposal, by Commissioner Corr.

         20        Would you read it please?

         21             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 168 a proposal to

         22        revise Article IV, Section 6, Florida Constitution;

         23        providing that an entity purportedly within an

         24        executive department which is not subject to the

         25        direct supervision of the agency head is a department;


          1        providing that the amendment does not affect the

          2        status of such entities to issue revenue bonds before

          3        a specified date; creating Article IV, Section 14,

          4        Florida Constitution; creating a State Board of

          5        Agriculture; providing for the board to appoint the

          6        Commissioner of Agriculture; creating Article IV,

          7        Section 15, Florida Constitution; providing for the

          8        establishment for the office of custodian of state

          9        records, providing for duties of the office; creating

         10        Article XII, Section 23, Florida Constitution;

         11        providing that the amendment does not affect the

         12        status of such entities in existence on the effective

         13        date of the adoption of the amendment.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  There is an

         15        amendment on the table and the Style and Drafting is

         16        being handled by Commissioner Alfonso.  Is that a

         17        Style and Drafting amendment?  Would you read the

         18        amendment please?

         19             READING CLERK:  By Committee on Style and

         20        Drafting, the following amendment:  On Page 2, Lines 7

         21        through 21, delete those lines and insert lengthy

         22        amendment.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         24        Alfonso, would you explain the lengthy amendment?

         25             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Lengthy amendment coming


          1        up here.  This amendment incorporates two changes.

          2        First it deletes -- well first it simply moves some

          3        language from one place to another for clarity.  What

          4        is currently in Paragraph B is preceded by the word

          5        "except," and it is important that we keep this

          6        language that's represented as an exception.  In the

          7        underlying proposal the "except" had been stricken.

          8             And then that is really the only amendment.  The

          9        first one we didn't do.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The amendment

         11        then has been explained.  Any discussion on the

         12        amendment?  All in favor of amendment, say aye.

         13        Opposed?

         14             (Verbal vote taken.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment is adopted.

         16        Now we revert to the proposal as amended.

         17        Commissioner Alfonso, are you going to handle this for

         18        the Executive Committee, or do you want to yield to

         19        Commissioner Corr at some point?  You are a proponent,

         20        are you not Commissioner Corr?

         21             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  No, I will explain it.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And Commissioner Corr is a

         23        proponent.  Are there any opponents or proponents that

         24        want to be heard on this?  All right.  Proceed.

         25             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Well this is the proposal


          1        that says that, yes, the people meant it when they

          2        said that executive departments were to be limited to

          3        25 in number.  A savings provision is included in the

          4        schedule language to ensure the status of all agencies

          5        until July 1st, 1999 to give the Legislature an

          6        opportunity to again compress executive agencies to

          7        25.  We want to particularly ensure that there is no

          8        question as to the liability of bond issuing agencies.

          9             This proposal also contains the possession

         10        earlier discussed which establishes a State Board of

         11        Agriculture which says that the Governor appoints

         12        seven commissioners and then those commissioners

         13        appoint the Commissioner of Agriculture.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Corr

         15        as a proponent.

         16             COMMISSIONER CORR:  I'm going to waive my time, I

         17        think it has been adequately explained.  Thank you.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is no registered

         19        opponents.  We will proceed to vote.  Unlock the

         20        machine and vote.

         21             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         23        the votes.

         24             READING CLERK:  Twenty-two yeas, six nays,

         25        Mr. Chairman.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Before we go to

          2        Commissioner -- excuse me, Proposal 174 by

          3        Commissioner Sundberg.  Read it, please?

          4             READING CLERK:  Proposal 174, a proposal to

          5        create Article IV, Section 14, Florida Constitution;

          6        providing for a public utilities commission

          7        established by the Legislature to be an executive

          8        agency that exercises quasi-legislative and

          9        quasi-judicial powers.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg, do you

         11        want to yield to him, or do you want to -- go ahead

         12        Commissioner Alfonso and then Commissioner Sundberg.

         13             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Well, there is one Style

         14        and Drafting amendment.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Would you read the amendment,

         16        please?

         17             READING CLERK:  By the Committee on Style and

         18        Drafting, the following amendment on Page 1, Lines 17

         19        through 19, strike, may exercise quasi-legislative and

         20        quasi-judicial powers as provided by law.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody

         22        understand the amendment?  Would you like to --

         23        Commissioner Alfonso, your machine wasn't on there.

         24             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Well, it's a pretty

         25        self-explanatory amendment, that's the case anyway


          1        with or without those words, so we just went ahead and

          2        incorporated them.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  So, on the amendment.

          4        Everyone in favor of the amendment, say aye.

          5        Opposed?

          6             (Verbal vote taken.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries.  All right.  We

          8        are now on the proposal as amended, Commissioner

          9        Sundberg is recognized as a proponent.  Is there an

         10        opponent?  All right.  Proceed, Commissioner Sundberg.

         11             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I may be that opponent,

         12        Mr. Chairman.  Quite frankly, in the whole scheme of

         13        things, I've lost some of my verve for this proposal.

         14        And although I would vote for it, I cannot say that we

         15        need in the same sense that there are -- this occupies

         16        the same priority as many others do.  If there's

         17        someone who would like to find some verve for this,

         18        please stand and be counted.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

         20        Smith.

         21             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  It

         22        appears that Commissioner Barkdull has at least

         23        influenced one of our members with regard to this, so

         24        it hasn't been fruitless, his efforts to make us think

         25        about how important these issues are.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  As I understand

          2        it, what did he do?  I was talking to Commissioner

          3        Thompson.

          4             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  He basically said that he's

          5        lost his verve for this proposal, in the sense that he

          6        doesn't realize that this is some monumental issue

          7        that the public needs to have addressed at this time.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We won't vote on

          9        whether or not he's lost his verve, we'll just vote on

         10        whether or not to adopt this proposal.  Commissioner

         11        Alfonso, you are recognized.

         12             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  To close?

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

         14             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Let's vote.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  This vote will be in the

         16        honor of the verve of Commissioner Sundberg, whatever

         17        that was.  All in favor -- no, open the machine and

         18        let's vote.

         19             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, we certainly didn't

         21        want to make it unanimous that he lost his verve, so

         22        lock the machine and announce the vote.

         23             READING CLERK:  Eight yeas, 22 nays,

         24        Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  One thing about it,


          1        Commissioner Sundberg, you can't correct an opinion of

          2        the Supreme Court, can you?  I said, You can't correct

          3        the opinion of a Supreme Court, can we?

          4             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  No.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Now --

          6             (Inaudible comment.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's not quite right, but

          8        in this case we don't have to worry about it anymore.

          9        Commissioner -- let's see, our next proposal, if I can

         10        find it, it is Commissioner Barkdull's, if I haven't

         11        lost it.  I never should have talked to Commissioner

         12        Thompson.  Proceed Commissioner Mills.  It's 123,

         13        please read it.

         14             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 123, a proposal to

         15        revise Article XI, Florida Constitution, repealing

         16        Section 6 relating to the Taxation and Budget Reform

         17        Commission.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, Mr. Mills from Style and

         19        Drafting.

         20             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, the next

         21        segment of topics deal with amendments.  There is one

         22        that deals with, amending the Constitution.  The first

         23        one deals with the Tax and Budget Reform Commission as

         24        proposed by Commissioner Barkdull.

         25             I believe the second proposal is by Commissioner


          1        Barkdull as well, which is on the extension of time

          2        for the Constitution Revision Commission.  Style and

          3        Drafting has no amendments, Mr. Chairman.  So

          4        Commissioner Barkdull would be appropriate to

          5        recognize.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

          7        table.

          8             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  There is an amendment, not

          9        from Style and Drafting.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There's an amendment from

         11        Commissioner Barnett.  Read the amendment please.  Do

         12        you have the amendment?  Everybody has it,

         13        Commissioner Barnett's amendment.

         14             READING CLERK:  Commissioner Barnett offers the

         15        following amendment:  On Page 1, Line 9, strike all of

         16        said lines and insert lengthy amendment.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lengthy amendment,

         18        Commissioner Barnett to explain.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         20        Members of the Commission, this is an amendment that

         21        essentially puts the Taxation and Budget Reform

         22        Commission back in the Constitution.  The current

         23        proposal repeals it outright, but the change I have

         24        made is along the lines of an earlier change I

         25        suggested, but more -- but it's different.


          1             What I have done in this proposed amendment is

          2        eliminate the language that mandates the voting

          3        procedures of the Tax and Budget Reform Commission.

          4        The Commission will have rules -- the ability to adopt

          5        its own rules, much like we do; and therefore, can

          6        adopt rules relating to the voting.  The current

          7        procedures in the Constitution many people believe

          8        have contributed to the difficult time that the

          9        commission had in not only getting its work product

         10        completed, but in presenting a meaningful product to

         11        the people.  And if I could just ask you all, just for

         12        a minute, to pay attention.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  You all give

         14        attention here.  This is a major amendment being

         15        offered by Commissioner Barnett that requires a little

         16        bit of attention to understand it.  And she's

         17        proposing here, and for those that haven't been

         18        fortunate enough to hear this, the amendment that

         19        she's offering relates to the Taxation and Budget

         20        Commission; she's revising what she considered to be

         21        the problems with it in carrying it forward rather

         22        than abolishing it, which the original proposal was.

         23        Am I right on that so far?

         24             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Yes, you are.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, you are telling us what


          1        you are proposing in your amendment.  Would you

          2        proceed.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  The current status of the

          4        recommendation from this commission is to abolish the

          5        Tax and Budget Reform Commission.  As you all know

          6        from past meetings, I believe that the state of

          7        Florida needs that commission and that we need an

          8        opportunity in this state for a deliberate,

          9        concentrated review of the tax structure of this

         10        state.

         11             This commission has not been able to do that.

         12        The Legislature is not able to do that, not because of

         13        a lack of concern about our current revenue structure

         14        and budgeting structure of this state, but for our

         15        purposes on this commission, a lack of time for the

         16        Legislature, a lack of time, and I think sometimes

         17        perhaps, a lack of will.

         18             This commission provides us an opportunity --

         19        it'll meet again in two years for a concentrated

         20        review of the revenue structure of this state.  And I,

         21        for one, believe that we need that in going forward in

         22        the millennium.  The kind of people, the expertise,

         23        the information that's needed may differ very much

         24        from the people who are on this commission, it may

         25        differ from the people who are in the Legislature, it


          1        may give us an opportunity, really, to come up with

          2        proposals that we can take out to the people, "we"

          3        meaning "we the people" out to the people about

          4        revising our tax structure.

          5             It's very, very difficult to ask sometimes our

          6        elected officials to make some of the hard decisions

          7        that you have to make when it deals with taxing and

          8        revenue and spending, but these are the critical

          9        issues, in my judgment, for this state in the

         10        millennium.

         11             The commission currently is in the Constitution.

         12        Our group has a proposal to abolish that.  One of the

         13        concerns that I and many people had who served on the

         14        initial Inaugural Tax and Budget Reform Commission was

         15        the voting procedures mandated in the Constitution,

         16        and that was a super majority vote of all members of

         17        the commission as well as a majority vote of the

         18        members appointed by each appointing body.

         19             It made it very, very difficult to move forward.

         20        What this -- what I'm proposing is that we continue to

         21        have a Tax and Budget Reform Commission but that we

         22        remove those cumbersome voting procedures and allow

         23        this process to go forward.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Question?  Commissioner Scott

         25        has a question.


          1             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  As I'm hearing you,

          2        originally, on the -- when this amendment was here

          3        before we removed the requirement of specific

          4        majorities or super majorities of each appointing

          5        authority, but we put in a two-third's requirement.

          6        Commissioner Connor had it in, we put in a two-third's

          7        requirement, but you have taken that out.  Am I

          8        correct on that?

          9             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  The current Constitution

         10        requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds plus this

         11        other, plus this additional step.  And I think that

         12        the original proposal simply removed the requirement

         13        that related to the majority members of each

         14        appointing body.

         15             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  But you now are removing the

         16        two-third's requirement, I'm looking at it.

         17             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Yes, that's what we are

         18        trying to do and simply leave it up to that

         19        commission, much as it was left up to this commission

         20        to come up with its voting procedure through its

         21        rules.

         22             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Okay.  So, then this

         23        proposal would mean that a majority of whoever is

         24        appointed by the Governor and the Speaker and whoever

         25        could put on the ballot the personal income tax, the


          1        services tax mandate, and any other kind of tax matter

          2        that they might choose; is that correct?

          3             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  No, what it means is that

          4        a majority of that commission could adopt rules to

          5        reflect the will of that commission as to what the

          6        vote ought to be.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  But it could be just a

          8        majority vote?

          9             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  It could be a majority of

         10        one, if they wanted to do that, it would simply leave

         11        it up to that body the right to set its own rules and

         12        procedures.  I would hope, much as we did, that that

         13        body would look at a two-third's vote or a super

         14        majority vote of some type.  I believe that is

         15        appropriate when you take matters to the ballot for

         16        the people.  But the majority vote would be of the

         17        commission to adopt its own rules.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  On the amendment

         19        now, is there any questions?  You have other

         20        questions.  Commissioner Langley has a question,

         21        Commissioner Barnett.

         22             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I want to speak against it

         23        also.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proponents other than

         25        Commissioner Barnett?  Commissioner Barkdull.  Well,


          1        I'll recognize Commissioner Scott who has been up, and

          2        then we'll go to you.

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I was up for a question.  I

          4        want to refresh you about the debate on this.  I mean,

          5        this is a whole -- this group just met, and if this

          6        was adopted they would meet again in less than two or

          7        three years, 2001, and we are now going to have all of

          8        the tax policies in this state, all of the economic

          9        developmental issues that people are interested in is

         10        going to be back and placed in the hands of an

         11        appointed group with only a majority of that group

         12        having direct access to the ballot.

         13             And if you, if we have all learned anything

         14        serving on here in the last nine months, we know how

         15        important and significant this is, that's why we are

         16        spending all of this time debating every single

         17        proposal and amendment to them, is how important it is

         18        to have direct access to the ballot.  And you will be

         19        just cart blanche giving to a majority of some

         20        commission that will be appointed in less than three

         21        years, to now put back on the table, all of the tax

         22        policies of this state which severely can affect our

         23        economic development efforts.  And I just think that,

         24        you know, that it's a bad idea.

         25             And originally when we debated this there was at


          1        least a two-third's requirement, which is no longer in

          2        here.  So, I would urge you not to adopt this

          3        amendment and stick to the original proposal.  And if

          4        you don't like that, vote that down, but let's don't

          5        go with this amendment, which would really, totally

          6        open it up.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on the amendment, the

          8        amendment offered by -- okay, Commissioner Barkdull.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I rise as an opponent.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Langley

         11        was opposing prior to you.  It's his turn.

         12             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         13        One thing that impressed me serving in the Legislature

         14        were the committee staffs, and particularly here in

         15        the Senate where I spent some 12 years, it was Finance

         16        and Tax Committee on Appropriations.  Now they have

         17        been merged, I understand, but some really bright

         18        people, people who really know the tax structure of

         19        this state, people with whom the Senators and

         20        Representatives are constantly in contact and get

         21        advice from.  They know so much more about this, and

         22        our elected representatives have access to all of this

         23        information.  We don't need this commission.

         24             We particularly don't need an appointed

         25        commission with direct access to the ballot to put


          1        income tax, or services tax, or any other tax that

          2        they may come up with.  If they are appointed, they

          3        are not responsible to the people like their

          4        Legislatures are.  It is just a great idea, whoever is

          5        the sponsor of this, to repeal it, it is a great idea

          6        and we ought to stick with it.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull as an

          8        opponent.

          9             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, I rise to oppose

         10        this amendment because, as has been indicated, this is

         11        going to let an appointed body go directly to the

         12        ballot with a proposal by a simple majority which can

         13        change the tax structure of the state, and that

         14        certainly can end up with taxation without any elected

         15        representation.  And I think it is a very bad

         16        proposal.

         17             If the Legislature wants to present something on

         18        the ballot, they have got to have a three-fifth's

         19        vote.  We have arranged that this commission has

         20        basically a three-fifth's vote to put anything on the

         21        ballot.  I think this is a very bad amendment and

         22        ought to be defeated.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Are you ready to vote on the

         24        amendment?  Commissioner Barnett needs to close, I'm

         25        sorry.  You are recognized Commissioner Barnett.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Thank you.  The Tax and

          2        Budget Reform Commission will consider things other

          3        than the personal income tax or the services tax or

          4        any of those things.  It will consider those, if we

          5        are lucky, but it'll also consider the budget process

          6        of this state, the appropriations process of this

          7        state.  It'll take testimony from citizens of this

          8        state, it'll have the benefit of the staff, as

          9        Commissioner Langley says that are so competent, but

         10        it will also have the benefit of experts that it can

         11        call in to talk about where this state is going in the

         12        next 20 years, what are the demographics of this state

         13        going to be, what do we need to do about

         14        accountability and budget reform, what do we need to

         15        do about accountability to the people of the State of

         16        Florida.

         17             I wish that our commission had addressed the

         18        major tax issues facing this state.  I really wish we

         19        had.  We had an opportunity; we still have some

         20        opportunity.  But in truth, we have not done much.  If

         21        you look at the tax proposals we have, we have not

         22        done much.  If anything, the one that seems to have

         23        the most interest may be the most special-interest

         24        oriented tax proposal that we have before us.

         25             I wish we had done it.  I wish the Legislature


          1        would address these issues, but I don't think it is,

          2        not in the way that we need for the fastest growing

          3        state in the United States to have these issues

          4        addressed.  It doesn't mean they will put something on

          5        the ballot.  Each of you knows, from serving on this

          6        commission, the personal constraints and restraints

          7        that we place upon ourselves and how seriously we take

          8        our responsibilities to the people.

          9             I think it is disingenious to assume that another

         10        commission is somehow going to be a run-away

         11        commission, run-away commission and somehow not have

         12        the best interest of this state in mind when we

         13        consider the revenue structure and the budgeting

         14        appropriation structure of this state.  Our state is

         15        in desperate need of a review of our revenue structure

         16        in my judgment.  And I ask you please to keep this

         17        body alive so that we can have that review.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, on the

         19        amendment by Commissioner Barnett.  Unlock the machine

         20        and let's vote.

         21             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         23        the vote.

         24             READING CLERK:  Eight yeas, 19 nays,

         25        Mr. Chairman.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote, the amendment

          2        fails.  Now we go to your proposal.  Commissioner

          3        Barkdull, you are recognized as the proposer.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'm not going to take up

          5        a lot of time.  I think everybody knows what this

          6        does, it abolishes the Budget and Tax Reform

          7        Commission, I ask we vote.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Unlock the

          9        machine and let's vote.

         10             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Has everybody voted?  Lock

         12        the machine and announce the vote.

         13             READING CLERK:  Twenty yeas, nine nays,

         14        Mr. Chairman.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote, you have passed

         16        Proposal No. 152.  Now, we move into the section

         17        Commissioner Mills has called technical and

         18        noncontroversial.  We'll soon find out.  Commissioner

         19        Mills, you are recognized.  Oh, I passed 152, yes,

         20        okay.  Proposal No. 152, you need to read that,

         21        please.

         22             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 152, a proposal to

         23        revise Article XI, Section 2, Florida Constitution;

         24        amending the deadline by which the Constitution

         25        Revision Commission must file any proposed revision


          1        with the Secretary of State.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  What this does is give

          4        the next commission that meets 20 years from now, up

          5        until 90 days of the general election to file with the

          6        Secretary of State rather than 180 days which we are

          7        under at this time.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does anybody want

          9        to speak for or against?  Which are you, you are a

         10        proponent?

         11             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Amendment, there

         12        should be an amendment on the desk.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Amendment on the table.  I

         14        know always which side you are on.  There is an

         15        amendment on the table, would you read the amendment,

         16        please?

         17             READING CLERK:  There are none on the table,

         18        Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Beg your pardon?  You said

         20        that you had an amendment.

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I gave it to staff

         22        yesterday.  Ms. Kearney, the amendment to 152?

         23             (Pause.)

         24             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I have a copy of it

         25        here.  Let me bring it up.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think we now have a new

          2        copy machine, maybe we can get these a little quicker

          3        than we have been getting them.  I noticed at the

          4        lunch hour they had a box out there.  Whether we got a

          5        new machine or not, we got a new box.  Where are we on

          6        this, we are waiting on an amendment, Commissioner

          7        Mills?

          8             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, while we are

          9        waiting on this, I thought I might propose a means of

         10        dealing with some of these technical, noncontroversial

         11        once we get this amendment taken care of.  If people

         12        would take a look at this, there's a process that we

         13        used two years in the Legislature, which essentially

         14        could expedite noncontroversial matters, and what we

         15        would do, I would propose that we spend 3 minutes

         16        per -- unless there is an objection after there is an

         17        explanation.

         18             And if there's an objection after the

         19        explanation, we'll go the full 10 minutes.  I just

         20        wanted to let people think about that while we are

         21        looking for the amendment.  That would allow us to get

         22        through these ten that I believe are noncontroversial.

         23        If there are any comments on that I would welcome

         24        them.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I believe we have to vote on


          1        each one.

          2             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. chairman, that is what I

          3        am suggesting, we vote on each one with a 3-minute

          4        time limit, unless someone suggests it's

          5        controversial, in which case it then falls to the

          6        10-minute time limit.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  We'll see how it

          8        works.  If it works, it works.  If not, we are not

          9        going to cut off the debate.

         10             Are you ready with the amendment yet?

         11        Commissioner Barkdull.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Ford-Coates

         13        has talked to me about, I believe two amendments, one

         14        which would move the time from 90 days to 120 days,

         15        she thinks that the public officials need that much

         16        time for advertisement, and the other one was to

         17        change, I believe, in the time of appointment.  I

         18        didn't realize there was a third.  The first one, I

         19        don't have any objection to, I would accept that

         20        amendment, to move it from 90 to 120.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That would mean that whoever

         22        was doing this wouldn't have to do it when the

         23        Legislature was in session, they would have 60 days

         24        after the Legislature was in session to complete their

         25        work?


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Correct.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And one of the problems that

          3        we run into at the time that they originally adopted

          4        this, the Legislature met earlier?

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes.  I would accept that

          6        amendment from 90 to 120.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  But that amendment

          8        isn't on the table yet, so I don't know if it's

          9        coming.  Commissioner Ford-Coates, while we are

         10        waiting, do you have some comments?

         11             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Yes, I think I could

         12        explain the substance of my proposed amendment if I

         13        could get the Commissioners' attention.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioners,

         15        please give your attention to Commissioner

         16        Ford-Coates.  And before we do that, we are going to

         17        read the amendment.  Commissioner Morsani, I'm going

         18        to get to you in a minute.

         19             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Ford-Coates,

         20        offers the following amendment, Page 1, Line 10, to

         21        Page 2, Line 7, strike all said language and insert

         22        lengthy amendment.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lengthy amendment.

         24             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  You will have it on

         25        your desk in a just a second.  Let me tell you what it


          1        does; it has three very simple areas.  As Commissioner

          2        Barkdull explains, I had some concerns that if the

          3        proposals were submitted to the Secretary of State

          4        within 30 days, within 90 days before the election --

          5        further on in the Constitution you will see that the

          6        Secretary of State must advertise in the tenth week

          7        and the sixth week in every newspaper in general

          8        circulation in each county.

          9             I felt that by submitting that to the Secretary

         10        of State the first of August it made it kind of tight

         11        to do that by August 25th, approximately, and that it

         12        would be more appropriate to do it in, by the first

         13        part of July, which would actually even be before the

         14        filing deadline for other candidates.  So, that was

         15        the first part of my amendment.

         16             The second part deals with --

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right, a little order.

         18             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  The second part deals

         19        with another problem we have had in the process, which

         20        was getting up and running more quickly.  My amendment

         21        would provide that the appointments be made in the 30

         22        days before the Legislature convenes, so that people

         23        who will be serving on the Constitution Revision

         24        Commission will know in February that they need to

         25        start clearing their calendars after the Legislature


          1        completes their session.  We had a lot of people say,

          2        Gee, if I had known I had public hearings in the

          3        summer, I could have cleared my calendar.  We could

          4        have been a lot farther along in this process if

          5        people knew ahead of time that they were serving on

          6        this commission.

          7             The third area, which I've discovered as I've

          8        gone out and spoken to various groups about the

          9        amendment that will be on the ballot, when they ask

         10        me, How many will you have.  I would say, Well, we

         11        have hoped for five.  I'm sure there will be no more

         12        than 10, but don't forget there may be petition

         13        initiatives on the ballot and there may also be

         14        amendments created by the Legislature, so I'm

         15        submitting an amendment that would provide that in the

         16        years in which the Constitution Revision Commission

         17        places amendments on the ballot, no other amendments

         18        would appear on that general election ballot.

         19             So what I'm trying to do is simplify the work of

         20        the next commission.  Can I answer any questions?

         21        Have they made the copies yet?

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You know, I don't know, did

         23        the copies get distributed, staff?  You mean, the new

         24        machine doesn't work?  Operator error.  Everybody is

         25        waiting.  Commissioner Barkdull.  I'll get to you,


          1        Commissioner Morsani if I ever get something to

          2        distribute.  Commissioner Barkdull.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I have no objection

          4        to temporarily passing this to later on this

          5        afternoon.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It won't be much later on

          7        this afternoon.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I wonder what the

          9        sentiment of the body would be if we go through these

         10        noncontroversial items before we adjourn tonight?  I

         11        am hearing yes around here, and I would like to so

         12        move at this time.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We, I'll tell you what we

         14        need to do, get moving and have a little order.  If we

         15        had this amendment we could complete this one that's

         16        not noncontroversial and let's get it off of the deck,

         17        and then we can proceed with the noncontroversial on

         18        the basis outlined by the chairman of the Style and

         19        Drafting, which was 3 minutes for each one, if

         20        necessary.  If its got to be controversial, we could

         21        temporarily pass it and put it at the end and go 10

         22        minutes.  So, here we go.  Do we have an amendment?

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I'll accept the

         24        amendment.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The amendment is


          1        accepted by the sponsor, but I don't believe that is

          2        the whole way to do it, you have to vote on it.  All

          3        in favor of the amendment.  All right, we have got an

          4        opponent, okay.

          5             Commissioner Morsani has first crack at this

          6        because he has stood there very patiently holding the

          7        mike.  Commissioner Morsani, you are recognized.

          8             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          9        The presenter said that they would take questions.

         10        And I would ask, first of all, I have a lot of

         11        questions about all of the amendments that you made.

         12        I think extending this process is going to erode the

         13        process 20 years from now.  The tighter we keep this

         14        process, I think the more that's going to get done.

         15        We are already seeing the erosion of attendance in

         16        this 20 years in 1998.

         17             I think it's pretty doggone good, what we are

         18        having to work with, meaning the time frame.  I really

         19        don't think that we should be putting in there about

         20        the year 2018 when it's going to be meeting again.

         21        Also, the commitments of people, if you are going to

         22        extend this thing, people just can't make these

         23        commitments.

         24             I think you are going to lower the quality of the

         25        people that are appointed to this commission.  If this


          1        group, and I think, represents, there's an awful lot

          2        of you, there are a lot of quality, automobile used

          3        car mechanics exempt from that.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm going to rule you out of

          5        order if you view yourself as a used car mechanic one

          6        more time as president of the Chamber of Commerce, we

          7        don't accept that.

          8             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Okay.  But I'm very

          9        serious, I don't think that extending this process is

         10        in the best interest of this commission.  I really

         11        have a great deal of reservation about it.  I think

         12        it's worked well, but even this has been a long

         13        process.  And to extend this process, I just don't

         14        think that you are going to get people to make that

         15        commitment because I just -- they are to busy, and in

         16        the year 2018, they are going to be a lot busier than

         17        the 37 people on this commission today.  I'm sorry,

         18        but I don't know where I would start my questions,

         19        honestly.  I know I'm objecting to all of them, I

         20        guess, if you want to know the truth.

         21             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Commissioner Morsani,

         22        may I respond that I agree with you on the workings

         23        and the process, and I think that these amendments

         24        allow us both to get started earlier and maybe not

         25        even use any of the time after the legislative session


          1        meets next time, but at least we won't be faced with

          2        what we are faced with now, which is having to

          3        schedule one day in the middle of the session.  If the

          4        commission in 20 years get to February 28th and

          5        decides that they need to meet a couple of more times,

          6        then they can meet in May and June and finish up,

          7        whether it be one day or two days.

          8             It doesn't say they have to work this more, but

          9        it does say that the facilities will be available.  I

         10        submit to you that the reason the year 2017 is in here

         11        is purely procedural, because 1997 already appears in

         12        the previous section, we just changed that because

         13        what I'm saying is, if you had known in February of

         14        last year that you were going to have to serve in the

         15        summer and had looked at the calendar that the

         16        steering committee prepared for you, we could have

         17        already blocked out those days, we wouldn't have had

         18        to meet the end of June, we could have met in the

         19        middle of May, we could have gotten our work done and

         20        our public hearings completed in July and been long

         21        through this process before February.  So, I think it

         22        gives us an opportunity to get in and get the job

         23        done.  That was the intention.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I would like to make a

         25        suggestion, this is getting a little bit going here.


          1        We can TP this and let's go through these

          2        noncontroversial ones, and let's be sure that we get

          3        them and then we'll come back to this matter because

          4        this is certainly not pressing, we can take it up at

          5        another time.  If everybody is agreeable to that

          6        without objection, we'll move to technical,

          7        noncontroversial.  Commissioner Barkdull.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I move that time of

          9        recess be extended until we conclude those technical

         10        matters and announcements and so forth.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  It's been moved

         12        that we continue through these so-called, we are going

         13        to find out if they are noncontroversial amendments,

         14        until we complete those.  All in favor, say aye.

         15        Opposed?

         16             (Verbal vote taken.)

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll do so, the motion

         18        carries.  Now, for the first one, by Commissioner

         19        Langley, Style and Drafting is going to present this.

         20        Read it please?  You may not even have to say

         21        anything.  Read Proposal No. 4.

         22             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 4, proposal to

         23        revise Article I, Section 18, Florida Constitution,

         24        clarifying the Department of Military Affairs through

         25        courts-martial, to impose sentences of imprisonment


          1        and other penalties.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  This was adopted

          3        by a vote of 31 to 0.  Commissioner Langley.

          4             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  One of the courts in its

          5        dicta, the opinion didn't center directly on this

          6        issue, but indicated that the Department of Military

          7        Affairs would be an agency, and as an agency under the

          8        current Constitution, it's not allowed to impose a

          9        sentence of imprisonment.  This makes it clear that

         10        the Department and the dually-confirmed court-martial

         11        could do that.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Does everyone recall and

         13        remember this one?  If so, open the machine and we'll

         14        vote.

         15             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         17        the vote.

         18             READING CLERK:  Unanimous vote, Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It lost four votes, five

         20        votes.  It was 31 to nothing last time, and it's 26 to

         21        nothing this time.  All right.  Proposal No. 8 by

         22        Commissioner Barkdull.

         23             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This is one that just

         24        gives the governor a little more time to examine

         25        matters for veto purposes after the conclusion of


          1        session.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          3        Mills.

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, it is a Style

          5        of Drafting Amendment on Page 1, Line 18, strike --

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Is that on the table?  It's

          7        in the package.  All right, it's Amendment No. 1 in

          8        the package to Proposal No. 8, and it's now being

          9        explained by the chairman of Style and Drafting, the

         10        amendment.

         11             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  This simply conforms the

         12        seven-day periods to one another, to put it right back

         13        to what it was originally intended, which I believe

         14        Commissioner Barkdull would agree with.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody

         16        understand the amendment?  All in favor of the

         17        amendment, say aye.  Opposed?

         18             (Verbal vote taken.)

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment carries.  Now

         20        we are on the Amended Proposal No. 8 by Commissioner

         21        Barkdull which we have read, and does anybody want to

         22        speak on it?  If not, open the machine and we will

         23        vote.

         24             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, everybody is changing


          1        votes here on us.  Has everybody voted and changed

          2        their vote to where they want to be?  All right, lock

          3        the machine and announce the vote.

          4             READING CLERK:  Twenty-one yeas, nine nays,

          5        Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Before we go

          7        ahead, Proposal No. 4, the vote, instead of unanimous,

          8        was 26 to zero.  I think I announced that, but they

          9        didn't get it in the journal.  Okay.

         10             Proposal 25 by Commissioner Langley, who is going

         11        to be a Colonel in the National Guard when we finish

         12        this.  Colonel Langley, we have just promoted you in

         13        the National Guard, it's Proposal 25.

         14             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  It's just another

         15        conforming amendment to allow for the court-martial

         16        trials.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I would like to ask a

         19        question.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Commissioner Langley, if we

         22        pass all -- if we pass this technical,

         23        noncontroversial amendment along with all 11 of them,

         24        does this go forward then with a special status?

         25             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Under the rules that we


          1        adopted today, it'll just go to the public hearing.

          2        When it comes back, if five people want a revote on

          3        it, then it's revoted.  Otherwise, it'll carry with

          4        the 22 votes or more.

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  In your view, is there an

          6        inverse relationship between the number of proposals

          7        that appear on the ballot and the likelihood of their

          8        passage?

          9             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, Commissioner Connor,

         10        it is the intent, I understand, of Style and Drafting,

         11        to have a catch-all, where the noncontroversial,

         12        technicals will be in one big amendment, unlike the

         13        legislative proposals and initiatives, we can mix

         14        subjects, and they plan to have a catch-all to put all

         15        of these nontechnical -- these are truly housekeeping.

         16             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Okay, thank you.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are on Proposal No. 25 by

         18        Commissioner Langley.  Unlock the machine and we'll

         19        vote.

         20             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         22        the vote.

         23             READING CLERK:  Twenty-eight yeas, one nay,

         24        Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Rundle, you have


          1        a dishonorable discharge.  Commissioner Smith.

          2             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, this is a

          3        question I'm asking today, not for the purpose of

          4        getting an answer, but for consideration as we move to

          5        March 17th.  One of the proposals which is listed as

          6        technical and noncontroversial, and it may happen

          7        again, did not receive 22 votes.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That will have to be voted on

          9        again.

         10             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I understand.  My question

         11        is, by definition, is it noncontroversial if it can't

         12        even get 22 votes in here?  It's not to be addressed

         13        now, but we need to address that.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'll address it this way, a

         15        lot of people have skiddoodled and we don't have the

         16        same number of people in here.  But nevertheless, if

         17        it doesn't get 22 votes, whether it's controversial or

         18        not, won't make any difference.

         19             So, we are moving to Proposal No. 32 by

         20        Commissioner Ford-Coates.  Commissioner Rundle.

         21             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  If I could please have your

         22        apologies, I would like to change my vote on the last

         23        one.  I was getting a little sloppy while reading

         24        something else.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We'll take judicial notice of


          1        the fact that you were getting a little sloppy there,

          2        reading something else.

          3             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Well, as long as I get the

          4        other half, my vote changed.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Your vote will be

          6        recorded as yea instead of nay.

          7             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Thank you.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Therefore, the recorded vote

          9        should be recorded accordingly.  She just had her

         10        first chance to vote for something of yours, that's

         11        why she had to do it.  Commissioner Mills, let's move

         12        onto Proposal No. 32.

         13             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, you might

         14        want to read it.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Has it got an amendment?

         16             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Technical amendment.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  To 32?

         18             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes.

         19             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 32, a proposal to

         20        revise Article IX, Section 2, Florida Constitution;

         21        reducing the voting age to 18.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  An amendment by

         23        the committee -- by Commissioner Mills for the

         24        Committee on Style and Drafting.

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It inserts the words, "The


          1        county where registered," which is a grammatical

          2        change.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody --

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  As required by law, shall be

          5        an elector of that county where registered.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  So, does everybody

          7        understand the amendment?  All in favor of the

          8        amendment, say aye.  Opposed?

          9             (Verbal vote taken.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment carries.  Now,

         11        we'll proceed to the proposal, as amended, which

         12        changes the voting age constitutionally from 21 to 18,

         13        which it is.  Open the machine and cast the vote.

         14             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         16        the vote.

         17             READING CLERK:  Thirty-one yeas, zero nays,

         18        Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll now go to

         20        Proposal No. 35 by Commissioner Freidin.  Read the

         21        amendment.

         22             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 35, a proposal to

         23        revise Article II, Section VIII, Florida Constitution;

         24        relating to ethics in government, including in that

         25        section the requirements set out in Article III,


          1        Section 18, Florida Constitution; which requires

          2        creation of a Code of Ethics, repealing Article III,

          3        Section 18, Florida Constitution, as a distinct

          4        section.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills, on behalf

          6        of the committee, do you have a comment?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commissioner Freidin will

          8        explain it.  This simply transfers the language from

          9        one section to another.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, you are

         11        recognized.

         12             COMMISSIONER FREIDEN:  That's all it does.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I think we recall this

         14        when we passed it, it just changed from one section to

         15        another, no substantive change in the Constitution.

         16             COMMISSIONER FREIDEN:  There's no substantive

         17        change, it takes a conflict of interest section out of

         18        Article III and puts it in with the rest of the Code

         19        of Ethics, the Ethics in Government section of Article

         20        II, there's no substantive change whatsoever.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Style and Drafting reviewed

         22        it and agrees with that; is that correct?

         23             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Unlock the

         25        machine and -- what is the technical problem?


          1             (Inaudible discussion.)

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Unlock the machine and

          3        let's vote.

          4             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

          6        the vote.

          7             READING CLERK:  Thirty-two yeas, zero nays,

          8        Mr. Chairman.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  By your vote you

         10        have adopted Proposal 35.  We move now, but slowly, to

         11        Proposal 37 by Commissioner Freidin.  As I understand,

         12        we have got a little technical problem with the voting

         13        here that they are straightening out, but at this

         14        point we are going to proceed with Proposal 37.  Would

         15        you read it please?

         16             READING CLERK:  Proposal 37, a proposal to revise

         17        the Florida Constitution by adopting language that's

         18        not gender specific.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

         20             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, this is the

         21        non-gender specific language, which I think we

         22        determined at 26 places it makes it non-gender

         23        specific.  Is that right, 26?  Yeah, I think so.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I have a question.  Could I

         25        have a question?  Do we have to put anything on the


          1        ballot other than that, Commissioner Barkdull?

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I would like an answer to

          3        that from Style and Drafting or the proposer because

          4        this affects --

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, you certainly don't

          6        want the whole Constitution in the newspaper.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's my question.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's my understanding, and

          9        the reason I asked that, we don't have to do it on the

         10        ballot language, on the ballot language we can

         11        describe it just a little bit.  But we have to publish

         12        this revision in the Press at a considerable expense

         13        all over the state, in a whole bunch of newspapers,

         14        and if we adopt this it's going to require publication

         15        of almost the entire Constitution.  I've been advised

         16        that by several experts on the subject.

         17             Now, I think before we go doing that, we probably

         18        ought to have a very definite answer on that.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  What does the Chairman --

         20             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Do you want to drop it to

         21        the back of noncontroversial for a moment until you

         22        answer that question?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.  What do you want to do,

         24        move on?

         25             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Just move on to the rest of


          1        noncontroversial and when we come back to it if we can

          2        get an answer to that question in the next 10 minutes.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will, without

          4        objection, we'll pass by this one and return to it

          5        later.  Proposal 34 is next by Commissioner Langley.

          6        Commissioner Langley, sir.  Read it, please.

          7             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  General to you, please.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  One more time and we are

          9        going to make you Secretary of Defense.  Read it

         10        please.

         11             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  This is the third leg of

         12        the three-legged stool to correct the court-martialing

         13        deal.  In the interest of keeping military justice

         14        decisions uniform, the Supreme Court, appellate courts

         15        can get an advisory opinion from the military court

         16        justice.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Does everybody

         18        understand, this is another one of General Langley's

         19        proposals to straighten out matters with the

         20        court-martials.  If you are ready to vote, unlock the

         21        machine and we are ready to vote.

         22             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         24        the vote.

         25             READING CLERK:  Thirty yeas, zero nays,


          1        Mr. Chairman.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, we go to

          3        Committee Substitutes for Proposals 112 and 124 by the

          4        Committee on Finance and Taxation by Commissioner

          5        Mills and Ford-Coates.  Please read it.

          6             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

          7        Nos. 112 and 124, a proposal to revise Article VII,

          8        Section 3, Florida Constitution, providing for an

          9        exemption from ad valorem taxation for certain

         10        tangible, personal property.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, this -- there's an

         12        amendment on the table by Commissioner Ford-Coates on

         13        behalf of the committee.  Read the amendment.

         14             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Ford-Coates,

         15        offers the following amendment:  On Page 3, Line 8 to

         16        18, strike all of said lines and insert, "In addition

         17        to any other exemption granted to tangible personal

         18        property, a county may exempt all appurtenances and

         19        attachments to mobile home dwellings that are

         20        classified as tangible personal property and all

         21        appliances, furniture and fixtures classified as

         22        tangible personal property, which are included in

         23        single-family and multi-family residential rental

         24        facilities that have ten or fewer individual housing

         25        units, as provided by general law.  The general law


          1        shall require the adoption of the exemption on a

          2        county-option basis and may specify conditions for its

          3        application.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The Chair has a question to

          5        the Committee.  How did this get to be

          6        noncontroversial?

          7             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Well, it passed 26 to

          8        nothing which seemed to make it fairly

          9        noncontroversial in the Committee's eyes.  All it does

         10        is allow the county the option of exemption of

         11        attachments to mobile homes and rental furnishings,

         12        which testimony in committee showed were generating

         13        less money than it was costing to collect those items.

         14        And since it -- the amendment itself is just a redraft

         15        making more sense of the original proposal, it does

         16        not change the substance of the proposal whatsoever.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We have heard,

         18        you have told us I guess what it is.  I'm not sure I

         19        understand it.

         20             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Would you like me to

         21        do that again?

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think it would help

         23        probably.  There may be one or two others besides me

         24        that don't understand it.

         25             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Property is taxed, ad


          1        valorem property is taxed in Florida, tangible

          2        personal property consists of three things, business,

          3        taxes on business equipment and furnishings, taxes on

          4        rental properties.  In other words, if you own a

          5        condominium and rent it out.  And attachments to

          6        mobile homes, which means carports and screen rooms.

          7        The average amount for those are somewhere between $20

          8        and $40, depending on which county you look at, the

          9        estimate for the cost of collection runs greater than

         10        that $20 to $40, so what we are doing is taxing for

         11        the sake of taxing and not raising revenue.  We are

         12        actually costing the counties money.

         13             So, this would give the county commissions the

         14        option, as provided by general law, of deciding

         15        whether or not to exempt those properties; and

         16        therefore, not send out tax bills to people just for

         17        the sake of sending out a tax bill.  It is a tax

         18        relief proposal.  That is why we felt that it was

         19        noncontroversial.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, if it is a tax relief

         21        proposal, it still requires something other than the

         22        Constitution to provide the relief, does it not?

         23             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Correct, it requires

         24        the county to make that decision.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It might be a relief in one


          1        county and not in another?

          2             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  That's correct.  Some

          3        counties don't have tangible tax, so they are not

          4        really worried about it.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody understand that

          6        now?  And the amendment, which she just explained,

          7        which will become the proposal.

          8             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  They are both the

          9        same, it's just semantics.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Right.  Let's vote on the

         11        amendment.  All in favor of the amendment say aye.

         12        Opposed, no?

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries.  Now, on the

         15        proposal, we are going to vote on the proposal.

         16        Commissioner Riley on the proposal.

         17             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Question, please.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Question to whom?

         19             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  To the maker of the

         20        proposal, or perhaps Style and Drafting.  I see this

         21        perhaps as noncontroversial but not technical.  So,

         22        when you are talking about, as it goes in the

         23        Constitution, would it go in a section or would it go

         24        under -- I mean, when it goes on the ballot?

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.


          1             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, the ultimate

          2        grouping of this is all in your judgment.  It is, one

          3        of our proposals will likely include a

          4        noncontroversial, technical section.  Some of these

          5        are truly technical, some could be considered

          6        noncontroversial, but that's up to you.  I mean, we'll

          7        end up grouping a section that will do that with the

          8        hope that, I think, as Commissioner Connor was

          9        alluding to, that we reduce the number by having these

         10        truly noncontroversial ones in one section that we

         11        could expect to be passed.  But the point is, it is

         12        going to end up in whatever section it amends.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me remind you, though,

         14        that we are not voting today on grouping, or what's

         15        going to be in anything, we are only voting on these

         16        individually.  And I know he's calling them technical

         17        and noncontroversial, they may get that way before we

         18        are finished.  We are ready to vote on this proposal.

         19        Open the machine and let's vote on the proposal.

         20             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce

         22        the vote.

         23             READING CLERK:  Twenty-eight yeas, one nay,

         24        Mr. President -- Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  By your vote you have passed


          1        Committee Substitute for the Proposals 112 and 124.

          2        Now, Committee Substitute for Proposal 133 by the

          3        Committee on Finance and Taxation and Commissioner

          4        Scott.  Commissioner Scott, you are recognized to

          5        explain this.  Wait a minute, let's read this.  Excuse

          6        me, I am in too big of a hurry.

          7             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  This is the 72-hour budget

          8        straightening out the part --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Read it.

         10             READING CLERK:  Committee Substitute for Proposal

         11        133, a proposal to revise Article III, Section 19(d),

         12        Florida Constitution, providing guidelines for the

         13        public review period for general appropriation acts.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott, tell us

         15        quickly.

         16             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  This is the 72-hours,

         17        straightens out the language in the Constitution that

         18        was put in there a few years ago that says that you

         19        have to wait 72 hours.  Only when the bill, the

         20        appropriations bill is in the form that it's ready to

         21        go to the Governor, which means the conference report

         22        doesn't -- but it could be a bill that just both

         23        houses are passing the same version.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  In my recollection, this was

         25        your effort to reform it so that instead of having an


          1        unknown conference bill passed, you could have 72

          2        hours to study it before both houses voted on it?

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right, on the final product.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  On the final product.

          5             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  You don't have to do it when

          6        the House bill passed the House and the House bill

          7        passed the Senate and so forth like that.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, you are all going to be

          9        looking at the same thing and have 72 hours?

         10             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody

         12        understand the proposal?  Open the machine and let's

         13        vote.

         14             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and record

         16        the vote.

         17             READING CLERK:  Thirty-one yeas, zero nays,

         18        Mr. Chairman.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We now go to Proposal No. 153

         20        by Commissioner Barkdull.  Read the proposal please.

         21             READING CLERK:  Proposal 153, a proposal to

         22        revise Article V, Section 12, Florida Constitution,

         23        providing for membership of a judicial qualifications

         24        commission.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.


          1             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This is a glitch proposal

          2        to cure a schedule that dropped out one of the members

          3        of the judicial qualifications commission after the

          4        '96 amendment increased the size.  It makes the

          5        schedule conform to the body of the Constitution.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody ready

          7        to vote?  Open the machine and we'll vote.

          8             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and record

         10        the vote.

         11             READING CLERK:  Thirty-one yeas, zero nays,

         12        Mr. Chairman.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Next proposal is No. 179 by

         14        Commissioner Thompson.  Would you read it, please?

         15             READING CLERK:  Proposal No. 179, a proposal to

         16        revise Article III, Sections 8, 19, Florida

         17        Constitution, providing guidelines for legislative

         18        consideration of veto messages; revising calculation

         19        of the 72-hour public review period for general

         20        appropriation bills.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  There is an amendment on the

         22        table.  Would you read the amendment, please, by the

         23        Committee?

         24             READING CLERK:  By the Committee on Style and

         25        Drafting, the following amendment:  On Page 4, Lines


          1        11-20, strike all of said lines and insert:

          2        Seventy-two Hour Public Review Period.  All general

          3        appropriation bills shall be furnished to each member

          4        of the legislature, each member of the cabinet, the

          5        Governor and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at

          6        least 72 hours before final passage.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          8             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  The new language, what this

          9        does is make this conform to 133, which we just

         10        discussed a few minutes ago, that is the current

         11        thinking of lawyers and whatever that that is the

         12        better version.  It does the exact same thing, so this

         13        would be an amendment.  But I think we should, since

         14        Commissioner Thompson isn't here, we ought to go ahead

         15        and amend this and pass this one also.  I move the

         16        amendment.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  All in favor of

         18        the amendment, say aye.  Opposed?

         19             (Verbal vote taken.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The amendment is adopted.

         21        We'll now vote on the proposal as amended.  Open the

         22        machine.

         23             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Yes, Commissioner

         25        Scott.


          1             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Before you call this vote, I

          2        did not realize that this has in it also the issue --

          3        the issue of straightening out the question of when

          4        you take up vetoes of Commissioner Jennings.  So

          5        there's two issues in here.  The amendment just

          6        changes the part, and staff, correct me if I'm wrong,

          7        the amendment just changes the part relating to the 72

          8        hours for the budget.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Right.  Well, the original

         10        proposal, regardless of what's in it, is just the same

         11        with this amendment, it just clarified the one portion

         12        of it, right?

         13             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  That's right.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It passed 28 to nothing the

         15        first time, and it has passed 30 to nothing this time.

         16             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right.  The rest of it

         17        straightens out this problem about when you take up

         18        veto messages.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are coming right along,

         20        you have picked up two votes.  It is 30 to nothing.

         21        Announce the vote and we'll move on.

         22             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         23             READING CLERK:  Thirty-two yeas, zero nays,

         24        Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  We picked up two more


          1        votes while we left it open.  Okay.  Point of order.

          2        We voted on both, we voted on the amendment with a

          3        voice vote and then we voted on this.

          4             The next proposal.  We are moving into another

          5        section, but I'm perfectly willing to do this, at

          6        least two of them and then come back to the other

          7        gender one.  Yes, Commissioner Mills.

          8             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  As I understood the motion

          9        of the Rules Chairman, it was to extend to the

         10        completion of this; is that correct?

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Can we go back then

         12        and pick up the gender one, or are we going to wait

         13        and do that at another time?

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We can go back and pick

         15        it up, and go back and pick up the one on the 180

         16        days, to the 90 days or 120, or I'm prepared to make a

         17        motion to extend the time of adjournment until we go

         18        through the three year on local government.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think we probably -- make

         20        your motion.

         21             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I'm not going to

         22        make it, I'm going to leave it to -- too many nos.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  But we can go

         24        back --

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We can go back and pick


          1        up the two that we temporarily passed.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Let's go back to

          3        the one on gender, if you are ready, because I

          4        understand it's clear.  Give me your attention just a

          5        minute on this.  On this gender matter, we have

          6        checked it.  The Constitution requires that every

          7        proposal we have in detail or like this one has to be

          8        published in every county in the state, twice.  And

          9        this would require publishing, essentially, the entire

         10        Constitution.  I'm wondering if the issue is worthy of

         11        that much or not.  That's the only reason I raise

         12        that, because that's the way it is.

         13             (Off-the-record discussion.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I suggest we pass

         15        this, get a correct answer to that question, because I

         16        have a split in the staff.  One group says, the female

         17        member says that we ought to do it anyway, because

         18        it's not what I said, and the male members have

         19        already advised me that it's what I said.  Therefore,

         20        we will appoint a committee of somebody that's

         21        completely neutral, if he or she will raise their

         22        hand.

         23             Commissioner Langley, there's no way that you

         24        have ever been neutral.  We are going to pass this,

         25        though, and we are going to study this and make an


          1        informed decision at a time when we are a little bit

          2        more in order.  And what we are going to do, if

          3        everybody is ready, we will adjourn.

          4             But I need a motion because we do have something

          5        pending.  Somebody give me a motion.

          6             (Inaudible motion made.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Subject to announcements,

          8        there's been a motion that we adjourn until

          9        9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.  Are there

         10        announcements?  Just a minute.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         11             Your attention, please, announcements.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I want to remind you

         13        again, there's mail in the offices of CRC over in the

         14        Historic Capitol for each of us.  Also, there will be

         15        no Rules Committee meeting this evening in light of a

         16        request that's been withdrawn.  And other than that, I

         17        don't have any other announcements.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I would like to announce that

         19        Commissioner Langley has four catalogs on tennis

         20        material over at the CRC if anybody is interested.

         21        Commissioner Mills.

         22             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, the Style and

         23        Drafting Committee will meet briefly in room, is it

         24        313 -- 317?

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Style and Drafting is meeting


          1        upon adjournment in Room 317.

          2             All right.  If there's no further announcement,

          3        we'll stand in recess until tomorrow morning at

          4        9:00 o'clock.  See you then, it was a good day, we got

          5        a lot done.

          6             (Proceedings adjourned, to be continued at 9:00

          7        a.m. on February 25, 1998.)




















          1                           CERTIFICATE

              STATE OF FLORIDA:
              COUNTY OF LEON:
                        We, MONA L. WHIDDON, JULIE L. DOHERTY, and
          5   KRISTEN L. BENTLEY, Court Reporters, certify that I was
              authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing
          6   proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete
              record of my stenographic notes.
                        DATED this ______ day of ____________, 1998.


         10                      ___________________________________
                                 MONA L. WHIDDON

         13                      JULIE L. DOHERTY


         15                      ___________________________________
                                 KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
         16                      Court Reporters
                                 Division of Administrative Hearings
         17                      1230 Apalachee Parkway
                                 Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3060
         18                      (850) 488-9675   Suncom 278-9675
                                 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847