State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for December 11, 1997


          1                          STATE OF FLORIDA
                             CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION



                                    COMMISSION MEETING



              DATE:                   December 11, 1997
              TIME:                   Commenced at  9:00 a.m.
         11                           Concluded at 12:45 p.m.

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

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









          1                             APPEARANCES


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




          1                             PROCEEDINGS

          2             (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)

          3             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Will all unauthorized visitors

          4        please leave the chamber.  All commissioners please

          5        indicate your presence.  All commissioners please indicate

          6        your presence.

          7             (Pause.)

          8             SECRETARY BLANTON:  All commissioners indicate your

          9        presence.  All commissioners, indicate your presence.

         10             (Pause.)

         11             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We'll come to order

         13        please.  Will everyone take their seats, please.  Will all

         14        unauthorized people please leave the chamber.

         15             (Gavel.)

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Take your seats, please.  Would

         17        all commissioners and guests in the gallery, please rise

         18        for the opening prayer given this morning by the Reverend

         19        Emory Hingst, pastor of St. Stephen Lutheran Church in

         20        Tallahassee.  Reverend Hingst.

         21             REVEREND HINGST:  Amid the multiple and diverse

         22        issues of fate and life in your world, we now ask for your

         23        presence all mighty and loving God.  By and with your

         24        spirit, remind us at this moment, and throughout this day,

         25        the very essence of our existence, the very core of our


          1        salvation, the joy of our lives and the privilege and

          2        responsibility to be in community with you and your family

          3        of humankind begins and ends in you.

          4             Oh gracious God we acknowledge your perfection and

          5        our imperfection by coming to you and asking you for your

          6        continued acceptance and forgiveness.  Forgive our

          7        forgetting, forgetting our mixed motivations, or

          8        forgetting to walk in the shoes of experience of those

          9        different from ourselves, so often forgetting the silent

         10        ones and hurting ones of our community and our state.

         11             We also ask for your stirring presence in us, stir up

         12        our sensitivity to be aware of our motivations, needs and

         13        wants as well as the needs and wants of other persons and

         14        other people.  Guide our vision to see more fully and

         15        frequently the goal of justice with peace for all

         16        humankind.

         17             Build into our world the desire to remove the walls

         18        and barriers which separate people by race, culture,

         19        economics or any other divisive means.  And kindle in us

         20        the desire to be more completely tuned into the excitement

         21        of constructing bridges of care and avenues of mutual

         22        growth and shared opportunity in the citizenry movement

         23        beneficial to all.  Be with us, O God, at this moment and

         24        every moment of our lives to direct us to be more human

         25        according to your creation, to appreciate, care for and


          1        share the gifts of our environment, to celebrate the gift

          2        of life.  Amen.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you, Reverend.  Would

          4        Commissioner Riley please come forward and lead us in the

          5        pledge this morning?

          6             (Pledge of allegiance.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Reverend, that was very inspiring

          8        that we all appreciate and we have an opportunity to go

          9        with it to our own various religions.

         10             Before advancing to the daily order of business, I'd

         11        like to say, for the benefit of those that might have had

         12        too many things of your desk yesterday, I'll be hosting a

         13        cocktail party in the lobby of the Old Capitol this

         14        evening following your committee meetings at 5:30.  Or you

         15        can come at 5:30, and I look forward to seeing all of you

         16        at that event.  This has been announced as a nonbusiness

         17        event, and we can all relax and enjoy ourselves at that

         18        event.  I trust that you will all come.  I was told by

         19        Commissioners Evans-Jones she didn't know anything about

         20        it, so I thought I would make sure everybody knew about

         21        it, and you are invited to be there.

         22             We will not have canapes tonight.  I don't know what

         23        they are, that's why we are not having them.  But we will

         24        have roast beef and stuff like that.  We will now proceed

         25        to the daily order of business.


          1             Commissioner Barkdull.

          2             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

          3        members of the commission.  The rules committee met

          4        yesterday afternoon, and on your desk is a proposed

          5        calendar.  I'd like to make some observations as to

          6        certain matters that appear therein.  On Page 4,

          7        commencing with Proposal 97 by Commissioner Evans, there

          8        are four matters there that are indicated that if received

          9        we would take them up.  They were not received, so they

         10        will not be taken up.  And when we get to that portion of

         11        the calendar we will move to temporarily past them.

         12             Going to Page 5, you will -- the first column, about

         13        halfway down, is Proposal 94, and then on the right-hand

         14        column, proposals 108, 153, and 160.  These were all

         15        received from the committees and they will be considered.

         16        They were voted out unfavorably.  Those will be the only

         17        changes that I'm aware of at this time on the special

         18        order.  And with those modifications, I move that the

         19        special order be approved.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Just one correction.  The

         21        Proposal 153 and Proposal 60 I understand reported out

         22        favorably, and of course we will come to that when we get

         23        to it, and the other one was -- the other two were

         24        unfavorable.

         25             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Correct.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So that will be the way we will

          2        proceed.

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Question from Commissioner

          4        Connor.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Connor.

          6             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Chairman, I have a point of

          7        inquiry if I might.  Yesterday, with unanimous consent of

          8        the body, one of the proposals submitted by Commissioner

          9        Rundle was withdrawn from consideration.  And I learned,

         10        and probably should have learned in advance, but frankly

         11        things were happening so quickly, that that proposal

         12        involved authorization of the ethics commission to

         13        initiate investigations.  I would, if it's appropriate, I

         14        had, like as a member of the winning side, if it's

         15        appropriate, to move to reconsider the withdrawal of that

         16        proposal.  It is one about which I feel strongly and I

         17        feel other former members of the ethics commission may

         18        well -- feel strongly as well, and I'm not sure we fully

         19        appreciated the significance of what we were doing.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You can move to reconsider with a

         21        voice vote.

         22             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I would do that, sir.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Mr. Chairman, I was --

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Who was up first, Commissioner


          1        Scott?

          2             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I was going to question whether

          3        you can move to reconsider.  You can move to reconsider

          4        action taken, but I think once something is withdrawn, I

          5        think it is withdrawn.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The Secretary informed me that

          7        the most -- I'm relying on my parliamentarian here.  She

          8        tells me it would be correct for the vote to be determined

          9        since there was a motion made and that the vote on the

         10        motion could be reconsidered or he could ask permission to

         11        waive the rules and introduce it himself and have it

         12        brought back into consideration, either one.

         13             It is my understanding he has moved to reconsider the

         14        motion by which it was withdrawn.  And in order to

         15        overcome that, I would have to get a majority vote -- no.

         16             SECRETARY BLANTON:  I think it would be a waiver of

         17        the rules.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It would be a waiver of the

         19        rules, he would have to get unanimous consent, according

         20        to my secretary here.

         21             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I move we waive

         22        the rules and request that by unanimous consent that

         23        proposal either be reinstated by one of its original

         24        sponsors, or alternatively I would request the opportunity

         25        to sponsor it.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I think what you should do

          2        is, since it's been withdrawn, is ask unanimous consent to

          3        file it as your own proposal.

          4             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Then I do make that request,

          5        Mr. Chairman.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now Senator -- Commissioner

          7        Scott.

          8             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  It was my understanding, from

          9        what Commissioner Rundle said, that the ethics

         10        commission -- that they really didn't want this proposal,

         11        so I object.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, you don't get a unanimous

         13        consent, so if there are any other ethic commission

         14        proposals that come up, you can obviously offer it as an

         15        amendment.  Commissioner Freidin?

         16             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I would ask a question of

         17        Commissioner Rundle, if she had some conversation with the

         18        people from -- I think it was Bonnie Williams from the

         19        ethics commission that spoke to the committee, and I think

         20        she was very cautious about saying that she was not

         21        authorized on behalf of the ethics commission to take a

         22        position.  She had -- she expressed some potential

         23        problems with the proposal but she did not take a

         24        position.  So unless -- unless you had some other

         25        conversation.


          1             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  All my information was from --

          2             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Well, maybe that was a

          3        misunderstanding.

          4             COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  The impression that I got was

          5        that she did not, nor did the commission itself support

          6        that particular proposal.  So in view of that, it was my

          7        opinion that it was a proposal that should not move

          8        forward.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioners, let's don't get

         10        balled up on this too much.  What I believe is the correct

         11        ruling on this is it would take unanimous consent to

         12        reconsider in this instance.  It would take a two-thirds

         13        vote to waive the rules, and therefore Commissioner Connor

         14        has moved to waive the rules to allow him to introduce

         15        this proposal; and therefore, it will take a two-thirds

         16        vote of the body to -- for him to do that.

         17             And what I am prepared to do, and will do, is to call

         18        for a vote on the waiver of the rules to allow

         19        Commissioner Connor to introduce this proposal as his own

         20        proposal, and therefore all in favor of waiving the rules,

         21        say aye.  All opposed?

         22             (Verbal vote taken.)

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will take a vote,

         24        unlock the machine.

         25             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody voted?  Lock the

          2        machine and record the vote.

          3             READING CLERK:  Twenty-eight ayes and four nays,

          4        Mr. Chairman.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  All right, Mr. Chairman, I

          7        don't know whether you put the motion to approve the

          8        calendar, which I made.  We got interrupted.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have a motion to approve the

         10        calendar.  All of those in favor say aye; all opposed.

         11             (Verbal vote taken.)

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is approved.

         13             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  As we talked about yesterday,

         14        we are going to schedule tomorrow's session at 8:30 to

         15        begin with no lunch break.  We hope to conclude around

         16        1:30.  There will be snacks and fruit available in the

         17        rest area.

         18             Two proposals that were referred to committees

         19        yesterday are available for consideration this afternoon

         20        during the committee's committee meetings.  They are not

         21        on the schedule, but I am making the announcement because

         22        they were referred yesterday, and that's committee

         23        substitute for Proposal 45 on unification which involves

         24        the Game and Freshwater Commission and Marine Fisheries,

         25        is in the Legislative committee.  And Proposal 40 relating


          1        to the division of school districts is in the education

          2        committee.  Both of those will be available for

          3        consideration by those committees when they meet today.

          4        Lunch today will be the same as yesterday, hopefully a

          5        half hour or 40 minutes in the lounge area.

          6             The select committee on Article V costs is scheduled

          7        to meet at 4:00 this afternoon in Room 301 for those that

          8        are interested in those items.  I will call your attention

          9        again, and hopefully at the end of this session you will

         10        be prepared, those of you that are interested in

         11        withdrawing any proposals, as we conclude this morning's

         12        session, so the staff will know how to handle them.  I

         13        know I've got a couple I want to ask to be withdrawn, so

         14        I'm just alerting you to that fact that we will get to

         15        that.

         16             Other than that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the

         17        report of the rules committee.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will take up

         19        committee substitute for Proposal 70, which we were

         20        involved with when we adjourned.  What I would like to

         21        suggest is that, because of the procedural knots that we

         22        got tied into there, that we move to reconsider all

         23        pending amendments and start over.

         24             (Off-the-record comment.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She tells me that all we need to


          1        do is move to reconsider the amendments to the substitute

          2        and then start over.

          3             All right.  Because actually this thing -- we have

          4        got it too complicated.  Basically, the substitute was by

          5        Commissioner Mills.  And I'd like to go back and have that

          6        read before we do this, if you would like.

          7             (Off-the-record comment.)

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She tells me that where we got

          9        balled up was the amendments to the substitute were

         10        actually amendments to the proposal and they were adopted,

         11        so now the substitute includes those.  And so we still had

         12        one pending, did we not?

         13             (Off-the-record comment.)

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

         15        that the -- to save some time, that the -- read the

         16        substitute if you would, please.

         17             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Mills, on Page 2,

         18        Lines 16 and 17, delete those lines and insert Paragraph

         19        A1 for purposes of this section.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now, the other

         21        proposals -- amendments, rather, that were passed -- or

         22        were they passed?

         23             (Off-the-record comment.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I'm going to state

         25        for the record that the amendments were to the proposal


          1        rather than the substitute, and the substitute we start

          2        clean -- as clean as we can.

          3             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I have a -- if there is some

          4        motion here, I have a substitute; or if not --

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          6             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  All right.  Mr. Chairman, I move

          7        that we -- I have a motion that says that all those

          8        amendments be shown adopted to the substitute so that we

          9        don't have to go back through every one of these.  Now I

         10        recognize that Commissioner Mills has somebody that wants

         11        to reconsider one of them, but we can still do that.

         12        Rather than go back through all of this again, I mean, we

         13        are going to spend another hour that we have spent

         14        already.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's right.  I take your

         16        motion.  The motion is that the amendments that were

         17        adopted be amendments to the substitute.

         18             (Off-the-record comment.)

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  No, his motion was as to the

         20        substitute, wasn't it; wasn't that your motion?

         21             (Off-the-record comment.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's what I was trying to do.

         23        All right.  We have got to take a vote on this.  But the

         24        motion is that the amendments that were adopted, we are

         25        not going to go back and reconsider them, they are going


          1        to be deemed amendments to the proposal.  And then, that

          2        being the case, we go forward with the substitute, which

          3        included those amendments; is that right?  Now it does

          4        not, all right.  I want to make sure.

          5             So all in favor of Commissioner Scott's motion which

          6        will deem the amendments as having been adopted as

          7        amendments to the proposal, please say aye.  All opposed

          8        say no.

          9             (Verbal vote taken.)

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is done.  Now, we are on the

         11        substitute, and the substitute is offered by Commissioner

         12        Mills.  Would you explain that please?

         13             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I will explain it,

         14        and then I think there is a motion to reconsider the

         15        motion -- the vote by which one of the amendments passed.

         16        Which gets us down to -- there is one simple issue.

         17             My substitute simply gives the Legislature the

         18        discretion to adjust this level, the $200,000 level was

         19        the original constitutional level established here as the

         20        exemption in homesteads.  I think we debated this

         21        relatively thoroughly yesterday.  I hope people know the

         22        positions.

         23             In other words those of us who are doing this believe

         24        that this is the best thing for most Floridians.  This is

         25        to protect people who are owed money who are actually


          1        victims of people who go bankrupt, so they are not

          2        victimized by the huge unlimited exclusion in Florida.

          3             Now recognizing that we didn't want to lock ourselves

          4        in, this substitute says the Legislature can adjust that

          5        level to any level they choose.  So if the Legislature,

          6        next time around, decides to adjust that to 300, to 400,

          7        to 500, they can do that.  But under the current status of

          8        this proposal, as Mr. Scott will tell you, while this

          9        amendment is pending and it is noncontroversial -- I think

         10        it is noncontroversial, you can either go ahead and adopt

         11        this and then there will be a motion to reconsider the

         12        $500,000, or you can take the motion to reconsider the

         13        $500,000 now.  If this is noncontroversial, that is to

         14        give the Legislature the discretion, the way this

         15        amendment -- if this passed right now you would have a

         16        $500,000 limit with legislative discretion.

         17             And I think you might be able to pass that on a voice

         18        vote.  Because you haven't gotten to the main -- you

         19        haven't gotten to the main motion.  Then there will be a

         20        motion to reconsider the 500,000 and you can determine

         21        whether you want the 500,000 to be in the bill.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I think he is correct,

         24        Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to clarify that the

         25        substitute does not in any way wipe out the other


          1        amendments, it is just an additional -- and then he is

          2        going to take up the reconsideration.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Langley was up.

          4             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Question of the sponsor of the

          5        amendment.  Does your legislative ability to adjust go up

          6        or down?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  No.  Based on the amendment that

          8        was offered yesterday that was now placed in the

          9        bill-in-chief, it only goes up.

         10             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  One in the amendment that's

         11        before us that I see, what does it say?

         12             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It wipes out everything other

         13        than, according to legislative discretion, to adjust the

         14        amount.

         15             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, but adjust to me means up

         16        or down.

         17             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yesterday Commissioner Hawkes --

         18        you know, the two amendments that were just discussed,

         19        that Commissioner Scott and the Chairman explained were

         20        adopted to the bill-in-chief, one of those amendments was

         21        to change the word adjust to raise.

         22             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  All right.  But what does your

         23        amendment say?

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  My amendment just --

         25             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  The substitute amendment wipes


          1        out everything prior to it.

          2             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  No, not the way that this has

          3        been explained.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'll tell you what we are going

          5        to do, whatever we vote on this, we are going to get

          6        around to voting on the merits of whether or not we want

          7        to do it at all some time this morning.

          8             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  That's fine.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think that's the issue that we

         10        are going to deal with, ultimately here.  So what you are

         11        saying, again -- I think I have the same problem as

         12        Commissioner Langley.  You are leaving everything intact.

         13        Commissioner Hawkes' proposal or amendment is now a part

         14        of the proposal and you are offering an amendment which

         15        would just amend that to say the Legislature can.  All

         16        right.

         17             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, because those two

         18        amendments yesterday were offered, procedurally

         19        incorrectly, the Secretary is trying to correct that.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.

         21             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  And those have been offered and

         22        adopted as a part of the main bill.  And they are there.

         23             (Off-the-record comment.)

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We are only dealing

         25        with two things, the original Planas' amendment,


          1        Commissioner Planas' amendment, and the Mills' substitute.

          2        Because you made a substitute, you did not make -- you

          3        made a substitute to Planas' amendment, that's what your

          4        substitute goes to.

          5             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  No.  Mr. Chairman, maybe the

          6        best way to do this is just let the Secretary consider a

          7        motion to reconsider the Planas' substitute first.  If

          8        that fails, then you can consider this which does not --

          9        in other words the object of this motion at the moment is

         10        not to change Mr. Planas' successful amendment.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Wouldn't the simplest way to do

         12        this be just to vote these two down, go back to the

         13        original amendment and then you-all start substituting and

         14        amending again?  I think that's the quickest way to do it.

         15        You can offer it again.  Let's vote down your substitute

         16        and Commissioner Planas' amendment, then he can get up and

         17        make his amendment again and maybe he will include what

         18        you have got in it and won't need a substitute.  And then

         19        we can get on track and get back and vote on the original

         20        proposal as amended.  Is that agreeable?  All in favor --

         21        yes, Commissioner Evans, I can't see you over there.  You

         22        are in a dark dress this morning.

         23             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  It is not my fault I was put

         24        over here.  I want to know, I want to see in writing,

         25        before I have to take another vote on anything.  Yesterday


          1        afternoon was extremely confusing; it was a flurry, you

          2        couldn't help but wonder what in the world was going on,

          3        and when it was over I didn't know what had happened.  And

          4        I want to see it in writing.  I don't know what I am

          5        voting on, I am very fearful of voting something down in

          6        the hopes that somebody might do something else because we

          7        might have to have a two-thirds' vote to waive the rules

          8        to do it.

          9             I would like to see exactly the status, in writing.

         10        I don't want to see a piece of paper that doesn't have

         11        anything but blanks on it and a little bit of insert here

         12        and delete there; I want to see the whole thing written

         13        out so I know what I am voting on.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm going to ask Commissioner

         15        Langley to see if you can help her out.

         16             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  If somebody will help me out,

         17        I'll be glad to, but you know --

         18             (Laughter.)

         19             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  The director and I were trying

         20        to figure it out over there.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I will entertain a motion to

         22        temporarily pass this --

         23             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  So moved.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  -- until the next order of

         25        business.  All in favor, say aye.  Opposed, like sign.


          1             (Verbal vote taken.)

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  In the meantime, all of you

          3        parliamentarians out there on the floor get together and

          4        make a motion that will be acceptable and understood by

          5        the rest of us.  Thank you very much.  We will move on to

          6        the next proposal.  The next proposal is No. 85 -- order

          7        please -- by Commissioner Sundberg.

          8             Would you read that, please?

          9             READING CLERK:  Proposal 85, A proposal to revise

         10        numerous provisions of the Florida Constitution, providing

         11        for a unicameral Legislature.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg, you are

         13        recognized as a proponent.  It was disapproved by the

         14        committee on legislative, Article III.

         15             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman, actually this

         16        is a joint proposal by Commissioner Evans-Jones and I, and

         17        I would like to yield to Commissioner Evans-Jones for the

         18        presentation.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Just a moment.  Could you-all

         20        step down there out of the line of fire for a moment.

         21        Thank you very much.  Now, you have yielded to

         22        Commissioner Evans-Jones, or do you still have the floor?

         23             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I have yielded to

         24        Commissioner Evans-Jones until you said wait a minute.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones, no


          1        longer wait a minute; you have the floor.

          2             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  All right, thank you,

          3        Mr. Chairman.  We have a substitute amendment on the

          4        floor, at the desk there.  And what we are doing in that

          5        amendment is taking out the controversial part, at least

          6        some of it.  We are deleting the reapportionment section

          7        there.  We decided that that was one of the battles that

          8        we really didn't want to take on today.

          9             And I don't know whether you have this on your desk

         10        or not, but I wanted to just highlight what is in here so

         11        that it will save you from going through all of the many

         12        pages that are involved.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones, this is

         14        an amendment, is it not?

         15             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Yes.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And it is on the desk?

         17             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Yes.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'll ask the clerk to read the

         19        amendment.

         20             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you.

         21             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Evans-Jones, the

         22        following amendment:  Delete everything after the proposal

         23        clause and insert a lengthy amendment, Mr. Chairman.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, will you tell us what that

         25        does?


          1             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Yes, it does delete the

          2        reapportionment section that had been in there initially,

          3        and it also adds some things that I want to bring to your

          4        attention.

          5             In Article III, Section 7, it says that no bills

          6        shall become law unless it has been printed and upon the

          7        desk of the members in final form at least three days

          8        before final passage.  And obviously what we are trying to

          9        do there is to have an orderly process where the members

         10        will know what they are voting on, the press can report

         11        it, the constituents would know.  So this is just a way,

         12        with a one-house Legislature, to try to have it in order.

         13             And on the legislative apportionment, we are really

         14        saying in there, there may be another amendment there that

         15        there shall be no less than 40, no more than 120 members.

         16        And, of course, the Legislature would determine what it

         17        would be between the 40 and the 120.

         18             Another addition there is on Article III, Section 20,

         19        compensation of members.  The members of the Legislature

         20        shall receive an annual salary and such allowances as

         21        ascribed by law, but any increase or decrease in the

         22        amount thereof shall not apply to the Legislature that

         23        enacted it.

         24             And the reason that we are putting that in there is

         25        we think it would be much more acceptable to the general


          1        public to realize that if you vote your raise, you won't

          2        get it during your term of office for that particular two

          3        years, or whatever the term is.

          4             Committees, the presiding officer of the unicameral

          5        Legislature would appoint all of the committees.  The

          6        difference that we have here than what we are doing

          7        generally is, the members of the committee themselves

          8        would elect their chairman and their vice-chairman, and

          9        this way we feel that that would delete the power of the

         10        presiding officer and would be a more democratic process.

         11        You also would be able to withdraw, with one-third of the

         12        members, you could withdraw a bill so that the entire

         13        membership could vote on it.

         14             And the others are really technical changes on the

         15        revision commission.  It now says that nine members would

         16        be appointed by the Senate and nine members by the House.

         17        So we are saying that nine members would be appointed by

         18        the presiding officer and nine members by the minority

         19        leader.  And the same thing with the taxation and budget

         20        reform.  We are saying that seven members would be

         21        selected by the presiding officer and seven by the

         22        minority leader.  Which would be sure that they would have

         23        proper representation.  And those, basically, are the

         24        changes, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment contains.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So we are now on the


          1        amendment to the main proposal, Proposal 85, unicameral

          2        Legislature.  Does anybody want to speak on that, on the

          3        amendment?  All right.  If not, we will take a vote on the

          4        amendment.  All of those in favor of allowing the

          5        amendment, signify by saying aye; opposed.

          6             (Verbal vote taken.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is amended.  The amendment is

          8        adopted.  We are now on the proposal of Commissioner

          9        Sundberg and Evans-Jones as amended.  You still have the

         10        floor.

         11             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         12        I want to talk to you very briefly about why I think this

         13        is such a good idea to have a one-house Legislature.  And

         14        I had asked my law student assistant to help me get this

         15        information and she contacted Lisa Brown of the Joint

         16        Legislative Management Committee, and I have these figures

         17        here in front of me that I'm sure are quite accurate.

         18             You are talking about a savings of at least

         19        $98 million a year by having a one-house Legislature

         20        instead of two.  And I think that's a very significant

         21        amount of money that could be utilized for many other

         22        purposes.  What you have now, you have very efficient,

         23        capable staff in the House, and you have very capable,

         24        efficient staff members in the Senate.  And they are doing

         25        the exact same thing.  And actually, you simply don't need


          1        that, you just need the one house.

          2             I would also like to point out that the efficiency

          3        would be a lot better.  If you have everybody in one room

          4        and you are conducting business for the people of Florida,

          5        everybody knows what you are doing.  Under the current

          6        system you have a House that's operating, the members and

          7        the lobbyists are running back and forth from the House to

          8        the Senate, and it is pretty much mass chaos; nobody

          9        really knows what anybody is doing.  And this would bring

         10        order into the system.

         11             You don't have, in giant corporations, you don't have

         12        two boards of directors, you have one.  That's how to run

         13        things.  You don't have two county commissioners, boards

         14        of county commissioners, you have one in the county.  And

         15        I think that when Baker versus Carr gave us the decision

         16        that, one man, one vote, that now this is just absolutely

         17        not necessary to have it this way.

         18             We, a long time ago when they first started having a

         19        House and a Senate, the people in the Senate were really

         20        the landed gentry, the property owners.  Those in the

         21        House were so-called the masses.  But now we don't have

         22        that anymore.  We have one man, one vote.  And I think

         23        that it is absolutely unnecessary.

         24             Nebraska is the only state that has done this.  And

         25        you may say, well why haven't other states done this.  And


          1        the reason is because most of the states -- or none of the

          2        states have the opportunity that we have here in this

          3        Constitution Revision Commission to be able to put things

          4        directly on the ballot.

          5             And this gives us an opportunity to do something very

          6        significant that would make a lot of difference here in

          7        Florida.

          8             You can rest assured, because I tried it in 1981, to

          9        introduce the unicameral Legislature in the House, and

         10        obviously it never got out of committee, no big surprise.

         11        The Legislature itself is not going to vote to have the

         12        one house.  There would be members who would do that, but

         13        I'm sure you would not get the majority of the people to

         14        do that.

         15             I'm going to yield right now to Commissioner

         16        Sundberg, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions

         17        that anybody might have.  And so, Mr. Sundberg.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Sundberg.

         19             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         20        Apart from the savings that the commissioner refers to,

         21        and I think they are clearly significant, I suggest to you

         22        that this proposal passes those sort of fundamental tests

         23        that we have, I think, or that we ought to have for the

         24        sort of proposals we ought to be moving forward in this

         25        process.  Mr. Brochin has suggested them from time to


          1        time.

          2             This clearly is not a matter that can be handled

          3        legislatively, for a lot of reasons.  It goes to the

          4        fundamental basis of governance.  It goes to one of the

          5        three coordinate branches of government.  This is a

          6        singularly appropriate body to consider this.

          7             Secondly, I suggest to you it meets the test of being

          8        good public policy.  I believe it is a good public policy

          9        base apart of the gain of significant savings, I think it

         10        will streamline and simply the procedure by which

         11        proposals become law in this state.  I think this has two

         12        virtues to it.

         13             The first is I think it will significantly diminish

         14        the influence of special interests.  It is very easy to

         15        hide the ball in a two-house Legislature.  Everyone who

         16        has had much ado with the Legislature in this house has

         17        played the game of hide the ball between one house and the

         18        other.  It is a very effective device.  Except for Senator

         19        Langley, of course.

         20             (Laughter.)

         21             So as I say, I think it will --

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That is Commissioner Langley now.

         23             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I think it will significantly

         24        diminish the ability of special interests to orchestrate

         25        and influence this legislative process.  I think another


          1        thing of this proposal is at a time when people seem to be

          2        completely -- the citizens seem to be completely jaundiced

          3        about the process, where I think it is evident from our

          4        presence at public hearings around this state that there

          5        is this malaise and lack of confidence in the way

          6        government operates today, I think this gives us them an

          7        opportunity to reenergize their interest in representative

          8        government.

          9             Almost everything we heard at our public hearings had

         10        to do with direct access.  When we talked, almost

         11        universally, those people who spoke to the initiative

         12        process said, for gosh sakes, don't do away with it, it is

         13        the citizens input into our government.  I think we heard

         14        some of the same things when it had to do with reforming

         15        the Cabinet.  They want to be sure that that's not done in

         16        such a fashion that they lose that ability to have access

         17        to government.  I suggest to you that this proposal will

         18        give the citizen much greater access to the legislative

         19        process.  It will be much more easily understood by the

         20        rank-and-file citizens of this state, and hence it has

         21        that virtue to it.

         22             For those reasons, as well as those articulated by my

         23        cosponsor, I urge your passage of this, and let's move it

         24        forward please.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Are there any proponents that


          1        want to speak?  Any other proponents?  Commissioner

          2        Jennings, this is proponents.

          3             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Commissioners, my staff has

          4        certified me as crazy as I am headed for Chattahoochee

          5        after this, but I think and I stand today --

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  For a rest, right?

          7             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  For a rest.  I stand today

          8        in support of Commissioner Evans-Jones' and Commissioner

          9        Sundberg's proposal.  And I have done a lot of thinking

         10        about this.  Now, again, this is our first vote.  I may

         11        have to think again when it comes back to us, because some

         12        of these things in the amendment, like electing the

         13        chairman, I am interested in.

         14             But think back to June when we were here and we

         15        talked about what constitutional revision is all about.

         16        And we had Governor Askew and we had Governor Kirk, and we

         17        had our Governors come and speak with us.  We have had

         18        those who have been here before talk with us about the

         19        process and what has gone on.  And to a person -- they ask

         20        us to be visionary, to look ahead, to look to the next 20

         21        years, not how we have done it in the past and those

         22        things that haven't worked.

         23             And I have been fairly reticent to talk about some of

         24        our issues that we are here about today because I feel

         25        like I have lived through most of them, Senator Scott and


          1        Senator Langley, Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner

          2        Mills, I mean, we feel like we have been through most of

          3        this because a lot of those issues that are before us

          4        today are here because the Legislature didn't address

          5        them.  And as we will find as we go through so many of

          6        these, you will find why we didn't address them.  Some of

          7        them are cost and some are the value of the issues.

          8             But as we look forward, and of course I'm speaking as

          9        a person who has been involved in this two-house process

         10        my entire political career.  And you are right,

         11        Commissioner Sundberg, we have hidden the ball, we have

         12        stolen the ball, we have put the ball in the drawer, we

         13        have done all the things we could figure out.  And Senator

         14        Scott did them all.

         15             (Laughter.)

         16             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  And he taught me how to do

         17        it.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well he is Commissioner Scott.

         19             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Well it was Senator Scott

         20        that did them.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Right, he wouldn't do it as

         22        Commissioner, would he?

         23             COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  And as we look to the next

         24        20 years, you know, I had someone say to me, Well the only

         25        people that ever did it was Nebraska.  Well, you know,


          1        sometimes there is a time to break with tradition.  We

          2        always did things a certain way.  As a matter of fact,

          3        Commissioner Scott has framed something or other, and it

          4        says, we always did it that way, and then there is the

          5        "not" through it.

          6             The greatest concern I have -- and there are so many

          7        pros.  We have talked about the cost of government, we

          8        have talked about the size of government, we have talked

          9        about people being responsive to their government, knowing

         10        who their Representative and their Senator and their House

         11        members are, those kind of things.  But as we look at it,

         12        I guess the biggest reservation I would have is the checks

         13        and balances.

         14             We said the reason we always had a two-house

         15        Legislature -- and it goes back to the old English, the

         16        Lords and the common man, and you know, and we continue to

         17        think we are the Lords down here, and they continue to

         18        remind us that we are not so Lordy most of the time.

         19             But those checks and balances will rise to the

         20        surface if we are talking about a one-house Legislature as

         21        well.  It will be the checks and balances of the two-party

         22        system, which I wholeheartedly endorse.  It will be the

         23        checks and balances of the philosophical differences,

         24        which you see every single day right here in this chamber.

         25             So, as we are sitting here today, and Commissioner


          1        Sundberg and Commissioner Evans-Jones said it so well,

          2        this is one of those things that nobody else can do.  The

          3        Legislature can't address it, I guess the people on their

          4        own initiative could come back to us with an initiative

          5        petition, as they have done on some other issues.  But

          6        before we just sort of summarily say, No, we have always

          7        done it this way, the two houses are best, all those kinds

          8        of things, I would just ask that you think about it

          9        because we are not looking for today, we are looking for

         10        20 years from now, and what may happen in those 20 years.

         11        And Florida has led the nation in a number of things.

         12        There may be truly a reason for us to lead in this

         13        particular circumstance.

         14             So now that I have said my peace, the paddy wagon is

         15        waiting for me outside, but I'll be back in time for the

         16        party.  So, Commissioners as we go forward with this vote,

         17        think about it.  It will need to go to style and drafting,

         18        and in that period of time, we will hear from the public

         19        on this, believe you me, of all of these issues that we

         20        have had out there, this is one that we will probably hear

         21        about a little bit more.

         22             And it will give us an opportunity to say, maybe this

         23        is a good idea -- oh, those are things we didn't think of.

         24        And when we come back looking for that two-thirds' vote,

         25        there may be a difference as we approach it.  But let


          1        us -- let this be part of our visioning, let us look

          2        forward and not backwards.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any other proponents?

          4        Commissioner Marshall.

          5             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Of

          6        all the things that the commission has considered, it

          7        seems to me, this may be the boldest --

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm not sure your mike is on, but

          9        try again.

         10             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  How are we doing?

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Doing great, we got you.

         12             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Thank you.  Of all the

         13        proposals considered by the commission, I would judge that

         14        this is the boldest that's been before us.  And that seems

         15        to me to be just the kind of thing this commission ought

         16        to be entertaining, ought to be considering.

         17             Other speakers have spoken to the efficiency of this

         18        move, cost saving, I think that's important.  But I think

         19        more important is that this is an opportunity for a more

         20        direct exercise of democracy than our present legislative

         21        arrangement allows.  As you pointed out on a previous

         22        occasion, Mr. Chairman, I've been around here for a lot of

         23        years, and while I've never been a member of the

         24        Legislature or been intimately involved with its

         25        proceedings, I have watched it closely and with great


          1        interest all these years.  And I have observed some

          2        awkwardness occasionally, and some inefficiency, some

          3        great performances by great leaders.  But it is not in my

          4        judgment to seem to be the most efficient and sometimes

          5        not the most effective organization.

          6             I think Commissioner Jennings' comment as she posed

          7        is right to the point.  This is something that deserves

          8        the attention of the people of Florida.  It will get the

          9        attention of the people of Florida.  It deserves their

         10        thoughts, as expressed to us.  For that reason, I would

         11        like to support the proposal at this point, hope that it

         12        will receive favorable consideration by this body and that

         13        it will then be considered and debated by the people of

         14        Florida and will have the benefit of their thinking on the

         15        matter.

         16             So it has my endorsement.  Thank you, sir.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Any other proponents?

         18        Commissioner Barton.

         19             COMMISSIONER BARTON:  I certainly have a lot of

         20        questions about the proposal, but I would like to see it

         21        go forward for a particular reason.  And that is that I

         22        have checked with some of my political friends in Nebraska

         23        to ask them how to works there.  And one thing that I

         24        found out that intrigues me greatly as an advocate that

         25        goes from the grassroots is that it is much more


          1        user-friendly than the system that we currently have,

          2        which tends to intimidate, tends to remove our elected

          3        officials from us.  So, for that reason, I am very

          4        interested in seeing this proposal go forward so that we

          5        can think about it, discuss it, learn more about it,

          6        possibly pass it eventually.  Thank you.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proponents?  Commissioner Zack.

          8             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I think most everything has been

          9        said except for one word, and that's accountability.  And

         10        I think a unicameral Legislature will give accountability,

         11        which is where I think the underlying frustration that we

         12        sense in the public begins from -- and they hear, Well we

         13        would have done it here in the House except the Senate

         14        blocked us.  And then the Senate said, Well we would have

         15        done it but the House wouldn't let us do it.  I'm not sure

         16        it is where we need to end up, but I do believe it is

         17        something we need to pursue further at this point.  Thank

         18        you.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Proponents?  Commissioner

         20        Brochin.

         21             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I too am going to vote in

         22        favor of this, along the lines that Senator Jennings or

         23        Commissioner Jennings suggested, that it is as an idea at

         24        least worth advancing and giving further consideration to.

         25        In speaking with Commissioner Evans-Jones about it as we


          1        were about to prepare our respective turkeys over

          2        Thanksgiving, I went back and did a little research on the

          3        history of a bicameral legislative body and learned that,

          4        indeed, there really isn't a very good historical reason

          5        for it.

          6             The actual proponent of it for our federal

          7        Constitution, Roger Sherman, actually you will be pleased

          8        to learn was a proponent of the unicameral Legislature and

          9        believed that that was the best way for the federal

         10        government to be organized, but in proposing the current

         11        system, which he did, he did it only in the spirit of

         12        compromise so they could come out with a Constitution in

         13        1887.

         14             So if you track the historical analysis, you don't

         15        find very good reason for a bicameral legislation.  And

         16        I'm sure in the State of Florida with its diversity, the

         17        unicameral may be a more accountable way to go.  But I

         18        think it is worthy of consideration, I think it is worthy

         19        for us to move it forward.  And as Commissioner Jennings

         20        says, I think it is worth us, in a visionary sense, to

         21        move it forward.  So accordingly, I am going to support it

         22        as well.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I want to suggest,

         24        the way these debates are going, I don't think they are

         25        getting to the point quickly enough.  In the Legislature,


          1        generally, someone would rise and say, Would yield for a

          2        question, and proceed to bring out the other side of the

          3        argument in questioning the proponent while they are on

          4        the floor.  What I think I may do in the future, unless

          5        there is objection to it, is I'm going to go with a

          6        proponent and then I am going to go with an opponent, and

          7        we are going to see if we can't get a little more pointed

          8        debate, because it occurs to me when I listen to each of

          9        you on either side, that there is significant arguments on

         10        the other side, and if they are not presented while they

         11        are going on they tend to get lost in the process.

         12             I know we have a few ex-legislators and legislators

         13        here and they have probably been a little reticent to jump

         14        into the fray like they do, but now we are going to the

         15        opponents.  And I am saying what I say to remind you

         16        proponents that you can ask them to yield for questions

         17        and that does create a lot more lively debate.

         18        Commissioner Scott is an opponent.

         19             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner Jennings, I was in

         20        Chattahoochee.  But -- I was temporarily out of my mind

         21        but I have it back now.

         22             (Laughter.)

         23             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  So I want to start out with

         24        that.  Let me just make a few comments on this, and with

         25        deep respect to Marilyn Evans-Jones, we did not have a lot


          1        of discussion about this in committee.  I frankly didn't

          2        realize that this was something that she had worked on for

          3        a number of years, and so we have apologized for that.

          4             Okay, let's talk a minute about what we have.  What

          5        we now have in this country and in every state except one,

          6        which other than a great football team, they don't have

          7        maybe a lot in common with the state of Florida.  We have

          8        got a system now where we have got 120 people who have --

          9        who run every two years, all of them, and they have their

         10        districts.  And in Broward County we must have 16 or 18,

         11        and I don't know how many in Dade, where they are out

         12        there, they are with their -- close to the people, they

         13        know -- you know, they have got a smaller area.

         14             Then we have 40 Senators that have a broader area, at

         15        least three times as many people.  And they are supposed

         16        to have a little broader view of what's good or bad for

         17        the state.

         18             I think first of all we have to recognize that

         19        government is not a business, we have tried to extol the

         20        virtues of running government like a business, but the

         21        fact that business might have one board of directors

         22        really doesn't apply to what government is all about.

         23             So taking that, it is true that when my party

         24        achieved control of the Senate, the first thing I did was

         25        put in the president's office a sign that basically says,


          1        No business as usual.  And in the years -- in the last

          2        seven years, I might point out that laws -- when I was

          3        first elected, I came up here and I introduced a lot of

          4        bills and I wrote a newsletter.  And I put in it, you

          5        know, how proud I was to be elected to serve.  And I put a

          6        paragraph and I said, I managed to pass 15 bills, 15 bills

          7        into law.

          8             And so I sent these out at my own expense, basically,

          9        in my district to some people.  And I get some of them

         10        back, and one of them comes back and says, I liked your

         11        newsletter until this, and they circled this paragraph

         12        where I said I passed 15 bills into law.  They said,

         13        don't -- it said go up there, don't pass no more, and

         14        repeal some.  So I think what I guess my point of that is

         15        that, what we really need is a lot of caution in changing

         16        the law, in changing people's rights and responsibilities,

         17        financial, property, their very freedom.

         18             The system that we have is not perfect.  Democracy is

         19        certainly not perfect.  We would -- they say the most

         20        perfect form is a dictatorship, hopefully benevolent, but

         21        we have the system that we have.  And while I recognize

         22        the expression of the unicameral idea, I really believe,

         23        just as an example, the House of Representatives, which is

         24        120, which would be the maximum limit that's set here, in

         25        the last seven years during the time that Ander Crenshaw


          1        was president and I, they have passed some 7 or $8 billion

          2        in new taxes, all of which was not passed in the Senate

          3        for the most part.  I think one year maybe 100 million or

          4        something like that.

          5             I think the idea of us having a two-house system

          6        really helps the people, it espouses a point of view that

          7        they are going to have more than one forum to address

          8        policy.  Efficient and effective, now we could say we

          9        could save money by doing one house, 10 million, 2

         10        million, I forget the numbers now, but -- but I would like

         11        you to look at the cost, potential cost, to the taxpayers

         12        of that type of system.

         13             So with the deepest -- oh, and someone mentioned,

         14        Commissioner Brochin mentioned about the Thanksgiving

         15        turkey that he was getting.  Well, let me tell you about

         16        some other kinds of turkeys.  We have had budgets -- and I

         17        won't blame this totally on the House because we have got

         18        two former Speakers here, but we had turkeys that really

         19        even some of the best of us turkey hunters think were

         20        terrible that have come out of the House budget, and I'm

         21        sure that there have been many in the Senate budget that

         22        have come out.  And you go to conference on them and you

         23        get some sense and you inject, hopefully, between the two,

         24        some sense of public responsibility for spending the

         25        public's money.


          1             So the budget process alone would be, to me, a

          2        serious reason for us to have a two-house system.  With

          3        the greatest respect, I'm trying to remember, I know most

          4        of you know this, but Commissioner Jennings and I came to

          5        the Legislature the same year.  And she was in the House

          6        and I was in the Senate when she came over.  And I'm

          7        trying to remember if we have ever, ever had a debate or

          8        disagreed on an issue, and I can't think of one.

          9             So, there is a first time for everything I guess.

         10        But I would respectfully ask you -- and I don't think

         11        that, while it sounds good that we should -- we are

         12        talking policy here, I don't think we should just advance

         13        something just because it might stir everybody up or

         14        because at this point, whatever, we have got enough to do

         15        and very little time to do it.

         16             So, with the deepest respect -- I mean, if you want

         17        to do that -- but I would urge you to seriously think

         18        about this kind of fundamental change, as to whether

         19        that's what we want our project -- or our product to go

         20        out under.

         21             So I'm going to vote no on it.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Hawkes.

         23        I'll get to the rest of you.  Did you have a question?

         24             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I had a question.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well then ask him to yield.


          1             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Would you yield for a question?

          2             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Is it friendly?

          3             (Laughter.)

          4             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I think you will let me know.

          5        While I share -- well, do you feel that it is both

          6        appropriate and fitting that we advance a visionary idea

          7        to hear back from the people, not just to let it go

          8        forward, but to hear what the people have to say about

          9        their government and the vision that this proposal

         10        advances?

         11             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner, I would say,

         12        respectfully, no, I don't think we should do that because,

         13        why not do that with just anything and everything?  You

         14        know, I mean, I think that this process, which is unique

         15        to Florida, and the way it is comprised and who appoints

         16        it, you know, they are looking for our best advice here,

         17        you know, as to what we think is basically a good idea.

         18        And not just to, you know, run up like a sort of a trial

         19        balloon, with all due respect to this particular idea.

         20             So I really don't think that we should do that.  I

         21        think that we should -- I mean if you want to -- if you

         22        want to try to get more input, delay, whatever, that's

         23        fine.  But I really don't think that we should make an

         24        expression because so many times that we have seen this,

         25        in group processes, I mean, it can get out of hand, so to


          1        speak, it could go, whatever, or it could have an adverse

          2        effect, we don't know.  And I really think that in some of

          3        these more controversial areas that we have, we really owe

          4        it to the people to give it our best view of what we think

          5        the results should be.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes.  Any more

          7        questions?  If not, Commissioner Hawkes has the floor.

          8             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          9        Obviously a two-house Legislature is less efficient than

         10        what a unicameral Legislature would be.  And obviously

         11        democracy is less effective than what other forms of

         12        government might be.  And the reason that we have three

         13        separate branches of government is to provide some of

         14        those checks and balances and to make sure that power is

         15        divided so that the people are protected.

         16             If you think that the Senate is in essence the same

         17        as the House it is just that there is different people

         18        that sit there, all you would have to do sometimes is come

         19        and watch when the Legislature is in session and sit up in

         20        the gallery.  Maybe the first thing you will notice even

         21        before they come into session, is the Senate doesn't have

         22        any glass from the public to them.  And in the House, they

         23        have glass from them to the press.  I never quite

         24        understood that.  But in the House they have glass from --

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is bulletproof.


          1             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  They have glass from the pulpit

          2        to the chamber, but they don't have glass in the press box

          3        to the chamber, so just the opposite of what they have

          4        here.  But one of the reasons I think the House has that

          5        is, if you watch it, the House is -- I have always thought

          6        it is dynamic; it is alive; it is productive.  And unruly,

          7        Senator Langley.

          8             But the Senate -- and I think that the behavior -- I

          9        was marveled because obviously when you go through civics

         10        class they tell you that there is a reason for this, that

         11        they do have this different perspective, and you read

         12        about it in books and you answer the questions on the

         13        exams, and you think, okay, that's fine and dandy, but

         14        when you become involved in the process you see that there

         15        really is a difference.  A Senator's perspective is

         16        different than a House member's perspective.  The ideas

         17        that come out of the House are different from the ideas

         18        that come out of the Senate, and it is very -- as a

         19        consequence, it is very, very difficult to pass a bill

         20        into law.

         21             And I think it is good that it is difficult to pass a

         22        bill into law because that requires people to think about

         23        it and consider it and evaluate it and receive public

         24        input.

         25             The other thing about a legislative chamber, of


          1        course, is that there is legislative leadership, and this

          2        chamber is full of former legislative leadership, and

          3        obviously people's leadership skills are going to affect

          4        in part how powerful they are.  But I would submit to you

          5        that any Speaker of the House or President of the Senate

          6        is extremely powerful.  And I think the other chamber, as

          7        a check and balance on that, protects the public.

          8             I guess when I was in the House we passed maybe 400

          9        bills a year that would come out, and some of those

         10        obviously are technical and of no real controversy, and

         11        some are fairly insignificant of no real controversy.  But

         12        the most amazing part, when I look back, is every once in

         13        a while we would pass a boondoggle, something that all of

         14        our constituents will start to call and we would get all

         15        kinds of letters and we couldn't wait until the chance to

         16        come up here and fix what we did.  But the amazing thing

         17        is that happened really very seldom.  And I think that's

         18        proof in the pudding, we didn't make a lot of mistakes

         19        that upset the people of the state of Florida in a broad

         20        sense.

         21             Maybe we didn't do some of the things that

         22        Commissioner Zack mentioned that some people would like to

         23        see done, but I would submit that it wasn't a big outpour

         24        when we got back.

         25             When the Legislature has failed to act, perhaps the


          1        net ban is an example of that, the people take it into

          2        their own hands and they do in fact -- so I would ask you

          3        to leave the current system in place; it is a vibrant

          4        system; it is a dynamic system.  And I thinks the system

          5        has worked well for the state of Florida with 14 million

          6        people and very complex and diverse issues.  Thank you.

          7        And I would be happy to answer questions.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Are you asking him to yield, or

          9        are you rising as a proponent?

         10             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Opponent.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Opponent.

         12             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You have the floor.

         14             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         15        Folks, I won't be long, but I either have the advantage or

         16        disadvantage of having served up here 18 years in either

         17        the House or the Senate, and that does make us some sort

         18        of experts, if you please, in this action.

         19             You know, they say there is two things you don't want

         20        to watch being made, one is sausage and the other is law,

         21        because of what goes into it.  But what we have has worked

         22        very well.  And I'd like to speak to some of the arguments

         23        of the proponents of this bill.  As far as accountability,

         24        I can't imagine how you can perceive that one house with

         25        less representatives can be more accountable than two


          1        houses, and one of those houses serving much smaller

          2        districts than the other and having more exposure to their

          3        people because they have a smaller district.

          4             And as far as hiding the ball, it is a whole lot

          5        easier for one person to hide a ball or a secret than it

          6        is for two, Mr. Commissioner.

          7             And again if you speak to efficiency, as Senator

          8        Scott alluded to briefly, the most efficient government is

          9        a dictatorship, and so if we really want to contract this,

         10        we ought to just give it all to the Governor or give it

         11        all to the Cabinet and hope they behave well and treat us

         12        well.

         13             When you look at what the Legislature, both houses,

         14        spends compared to the 40-plus billion dollars the State

         15        spends, it is a small cost of having a representative

         16        government.

         17             What bothers me most about one house, I came here in

         18        '72 as one of 27 Republicans in a House of 120.  The

         19        speaker then was not a benevolent dictator, he was a

         20        ruthless dictator.  And I will never forget now, my good

         21        friend, Carl Logden, making the statement, All of these

         22        Republicans ought to be on the back row in straight-back

         23        chairs.  That's what he thought of it.  And the

         24        concentration of power to me is the biggest evil in

         25        government when a few people, the Speaker of the House,


          1        whether it be the President of the Senate, and a few of

          2        his lieutenants can control this whole process, that is an

          3        evil.

          4             Fortunately, there is competition between the House

          5        and the Senate.  There is always competition between the

          6        President and the Speaker.  They all want to be the hero,

          7        and you know that's -- if you're not an egomaniac, you

          8        don't have any business in politics anyway, because we all

          9        are.  As I used to say, there are 119 egomaniacs and me

         10        down there.

         11             But really this is a healthy thing that we have this.

         12        And it is a healthy thing that both houses do come from

         13        different perspectives.  A house is elected or not every

         14        two years and the Senate every four.  But how many times,

         15        if you want to pick up one of the Senate journals, have we

         16        in the Senate had to amend House bills and vice versa,

         17        Commissioner Mills, where we made obvious mistakes here,

         18        send it down there, a good staff analyst down there shows

         19        that we did make a mistake, they correct it and send it

         20        back?  Who is going to correct the unicameral?  Well, you

         21        say the Governor will veto it.  I don't know if you have

         22        ever handled vetoes but that is a mess because your law is

         23        held in abeyance until it can be handled, it is just a

         24        mess.  This is a very healthy working system and it should

         25        be.


          1             We get -- I have seen battles in the Senate here and

          2        in the House where in the heat of the battle you make a

          3        lot of votes because you want to win, whatever winning is.

          4        We used to say we would be in one of the rooms discussing

          5        something and somebody would say, What was it last year

          6        that we were all uptight about?  We don't even remember.

          7        But at the time it was live or die to win that particular

          8        issue.  And then when it cools off you say, Golly, what

          9        was all that about?  And that really doesn't make any

         10        sense.

         11             And something else, I plead guilty to not going to

         12        all of the public hearings.  My good friend Frank went to

         13        all of them.  Did anyone ask for this?

         14             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Yes.

         15             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I never heard it besides you,

         16        Commissioner Evans.

         17             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  It was a public proposal,

         18        if I might answer that.  We had ten commissioners here

         19        vote for it as well.  So I don't know where you were.

         20             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Where was it proposed?

         21             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  It was proposed -- it was

         22        in Tampa, I think.  I'm not even sure where.

         23             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I was at that one.

         24             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Well, it was at one that

         25        you didn't attend.  And it is in the book and you can look


          1        it up, but they did propose it and Commissioner Sundberg

          2        and I sponsored it and we did have the ten votes.  So it

          3        is legitimately here.

          4             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  It's legitimately here but I

          5        certainly haven't heard a public outcry for it.  I think

          6        people want more access to the Legislatures, this is going

          7        to give them less.  The cooling-off period, the

          8        counterbalancing, the separation of the powers, the

          9        competition, it's a healthy system.  We don't always pass

         10        what we want to pass up here.  You don't always get what

         11        you want to get.  But we have sure saved the people of the

         12        state of Florida a lot of agony by having two houses.

         13             So I represent to you, it's not a good thing for the

         14        people.  It may be efficient, but efficiency isn't always

         15        the best.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Morsani as an

         17        opponent.

         18             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I rise with great trepidation

         19        because of the people that have proposed this because I

         20        have very, very mixed feelings, and I like to be

         21        efficient.  And all the things, and for the arguments --

         22        and I think of the people that have -- that are

         23        proponents, and I have a great deal of respect and

         24        admiration for all of you.

         25             But I would like to maybe make an argument from a


          1        different point of view as I have thought about the

          2        subject and as I've listened to the debate.  First of all,

          3        I did think that our good friend Mr. Langley, finally we

          4        found out that confession is good for the soul.  It is

          5        good to know the egos that are here.  And we appreciate

          6        your candor about why you came here in the first place,

          7        Commissioner Scott, and all.  So we appreciate that

          8        knowledge and I think that's valuable for us in our

          9        deliberations.

         10             (Laughter.)

         11             COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  I talk about the little signs

         12        on the desk.  I have one on the back of my desk that says,

         13        Insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting

         14        different results.  So sometimes you think about what we

         15        are doing here or think about our two legislative bodies,

         16        we are kind of doing that to a degree.  However, things

         17        have changed dramatically.  I think the people, and with

         18        all due respect to you, former Congressmen, and there are

         19        Senators and Legislators here, in times gone by -- and I

         20        happen to be a resident now of Florida for only 41

         21        years -- but when the pork choppers were ruling this

         22        state, I mean, think about the terrible, I mean the

         23        legislation we got prior to the one man, one vote in 1970,

         24        it was really a terrible thing on this state.

         25             So we have made tremendous progress in the last 20


          1        years.  It has changed dramatically the mix of the people

          2        that come here representing the people of this state.

          3             As Mr. Langley said, and I wrote down the

          4        vindictiveness of leadership of this Legislature in years

          5        gone by was absolutely disgusting.  Everyone should have

          6        been fired.  If they worked for you, you would have fired

          7        them for everything.  And it was a terrible blight on the

          8        citizens of this state, just the leadership in the House

          9        and Senate in years gone by.

         10             That's dramatically changed in the last 20 years.

         11        Yes, I wish we could energize the people of our state with

         12        a different view all the time.  We can't do that in a

         13        short time frame.  Something of this magnitude has to have

         14        a long time fuse on it to get a consensus.  And that's how

         15        legislation is made.  You know, we look in Washington, and

         16        even here, what is the purpose of the executive branch?

         17        The purpose of the executive branch is to raise ideas,

         18        propose ideas, then it is up to the Legislature -- it's

         19        not working this way, by the way, but that is how it is

         20        supposed to work -- but then the Legislature body is

         21        supposed to debate and organize and then bring a bill

         22        to -- for approval.

         23             So we want to energize the people on something of

         24        this magnitude, being of this Constitutional Revision

         25        Commission.  And I have always tried to be a visionary in


          1        business and for this nation and been involved in many

          2        aspects of international trade.  I was one of the first

          3        people in China, you-all don't know that, but I had a

          4        trading company in Beijing when it was communist and you

          5        couldn't go there, but some of us did because it was the

          6        right thing do.  It was the right thing to do to look

          7        forward.

          8             And I've tried to be a visionary and I want to be a

          9        visionary for legislation.  But I don't think that this is

         10        truly in the best interests of our citizenry.  I think the

         11        quality of people that we have representing the people of

         12        this state today, we are so fortunate, by and large we are

         13        so fortunate, it is entirely different than the rest of

         14        the nation.

         15             We have the opportunity, that's what I've said about

         16        Florida, that's what I say about the city that I am

         17        privileged to live in Tampa, that we have the opportunity

         18        to be in a state where any person can make their mark,

         19        they can create things, they can be dynamic, they can make

         20        change.  And I think we can make change for the good of

         21        our people with the system we have with the kinds of

         22        people that we elect to come here.

         23             So with all due respect to my dear friend,

         24        Ms. Evans-Jones, I don't think that this is the right time

         25        or the right place to make this kind of change on behalf


          1        of the 14 million citizens of our state.  Thank you.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Anthony --

          3             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  -- as an opponent.

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

          6        rise in opposition.  And those of you that know me, know

          7        that I am not afraid of change.  I see myself in a lot of

          8        ways as a change agent for our state, bringing in a

          9        consciousness to public policy that I don't think existed

         10        in years past.

         11             I think that the existing system that we have really

         12        provides an opportunity for Floridians to have

         13        representation that really reflects their feelings and

         14        concerns back at home.  And I think that a unicameral

         15        legislation would not present the inclusive opportunity

         16        and the opportunity to be heard by people who represent

         17        them that this system does.

         18             I thought about this as soon as I read about it, and

         19        I did hear from the public hearing, the proposal that was

         20        brought forward.  And what came to mind was that there

         21        truly is a growing cynicism in our state and in our nation

         22        about elected officials.  There is a growing cynicism in

         23        our nation about public policy figures, period.  There is

         24        a growing cynicism about those of us now who are appointed

         25        to this Constitution Revision Commission.


          1             As you all have recognized, those of you that are

          2        private sector individuals and now on this Constitution

          3        Revision Commission, you are no longer one of them, you

          4        are one of those people on that Constitution Revision

          5        Commission who we don't trust now.

          6             So you are getting a feeling now, as Constitution

          7        Revision Commission members, of the perspective that

          8        one -- our nation's people have of elected government

          9        officials.  I stand before you and tell you that I trust

         10        the people that we elect.  I truly believe that they have

         11        in their mind what is best for our nation and our state.

         12        And I think that we do have in mind what is best for our

         13        nation and for our state.

         14             This representative democracy provides a checks and

         15        balance's system that I truly think we need in this state.

         16        I think it provides an opportunity for us to go to the

         17        House members and propose something.  And if it's not good

         18        public policy, there is this checks-and-balance

         19        organization of the Senate that will have that discussion

         20        that would tug back and forth at that policy and move it

         21        forward if it is good policy.

         22             I think a unicameral Legislature is dangerous in our

         23        state and it is not good as we approach the year 2000 and

         24        the new millennium.

         25             Leadership, is it leadership to move this forward?


          1        Is it visionary for us to move this forward?  That's a

          2        word that I am very committed to, leadership and

          3        decision-making.  I think that if we truly are leaders,

          4        and we truly have a vision for this state, let's make a

          5        decision here and not move public policy forward that

          6        truly we are not committed to.

          7             One speaker that I heard last week, Dr. Warren

          8        Bennice (phonetic), from the University of Southern

          9        California, said that a true leader has a POV, and that's

         10        a point of view.  And they will fight hard for that point

         11        of view.  And Commissioner Evans-Jones has a strong point

         12        of view about this, and so do many of us.

         13             My point of view is, and I feel strongly about it,

         14        that we should make a decision.  We have heard from the

         15        public.  We have gone around this state and had public

         16        hearings.  Let us now take and be leaders and show our

         17        point of view on this legislation and oppose it here this

         18        morning.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Wetherington.  And

         20        then I'll get Commissioner Barkdull and then Commissioner

         21        Mills and then Commissioner Mathis, in that order.  If I

         22        get out of order, call me again.  Commissioner

         23        Wetherington as an opponent.

         24             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         25        The framers of the United States Constitution were very


          1        wise concerning the exercise of governmental power.  They

          2        were familiar with leading political theory in the west.

          3        They were knowledgeable concerning the writings of Locke,

          4        Duso, and Montesquieu.  They were very practical people

          5        and they produced a document that even today we revere as

          6        embodying enormous wisdom including a practical

          7        understanding of the nature of people and of the nature of

          8        the power.

          9             When they adopted the United States Constitution, a

         10        very important principle concerning the distribution and

         11        exercise of power, it was a principle that they adopted

         12        from Montesquieu and that was the principle of separation

         13        of powers.  And they were aware of what could happen with

         14        the arbitrary exercise of power because they lived through

         15        it and we fought a revolution concerning what they viewed

         16        as the arbitrary exercise of power.  Their wisdom embodied

         17        the concept that we would have the House and Senate.

         18             By and large, I think the House and the Senate have

         19        worked out very well over the years.  I have heard no

         20        suggestions that we should not have a House and a Senate.

         21        And I think that the wisdom that they reflected with

         22        respect to the United States Constitution did reflect the

         23        wisdom of the ages and I think it's been borne out.  And I

         24        haven't seen anything that suggested that this wisdom has

         25        now been obscured or transcended.  Therefore, I think with


          1        great respect to the proposer, that we should keep the

          2        system that we have.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Barkdull

          4        is next as an opponent.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

          6        members of the commission.  I will be brief.  I want to

          7        point out, number one, I've never been privileged to be a

          8        member of the Legislature but I have had the opportunity

          9        to observe it for a number of years.  And I want to call

         10        your attention to the fact that in the last 20 years as

         11        Commissioner Morsani has mentioned, this Legislature, as

         12        one branch of government here in Florida, has received

         13        national recognition as one of the most outstanding

         14        legislatures in the state, in all the states.  And I don't

         15        think there is any reason to tamper with one of the three

         16        branches of government.

         17             Now I realize that this was brought up at the public

         18        hearings, but it certainly was not a major factor at the

         19        public hearings.  It was mentioned at several of them, it

         20        did receive ten votes on this floor, and it has received

         21        committee consideration, and it's receiving considerable

         22        consideration this morning.  And I think that we should

         23        not defer because we think this needs more massaging.  I

         24        think we need to get on with the business of this

         25        commission.  You can see how long this debate has taken


          1        this time.  If we pass it because we think it ought to get

          2        more consideration, it is going to come back here and take

          3        a lot longer.

          4             I want to close with only one thought.  There were

          5        times when I was up here as a -- representing clients, and

          6        I didn't get what I wanted.  I would have liked to have

          7        had one house.  But I was up here one time when I saw a

          8        body in this two-bodied branch of government be stampeded.

          9        And if it wasn't for the other body, we would have closed

         10        the schools in the state of Florida because that

         11        overwhelmingly passed in one of these houses, and it took

         12        a lot of courage in the other house to stop it and I think

         13        we should not tamper with that system.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills as an

         15        opponent.

         16             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, the first thing I

         17        wanted to say as an opponent is that with my respect for

         18        Commissioner Jennings and the members of this commission,

         19        while I am personally convinced, and I'll tell you why I'm

         20        convinced I'm going to vote against it, if the other

         21        people on this commission are not convinced, I trust that

         22        if they are not convinced yet, that would be fine.  I hope

         23        that those of us that believe it is a bad idea can be able

         24        to convince you later.  I respect your point of view if

         25        you are not yet convinced.  But let me tell you why I am


          1        convinced.

          2             There are several principles we have talked about

          3        that should be in the Constitution, and one of which is to

          4        limit what government can do to citizens.  I think it is

          5        an indisputable fact that a unicameral Legislature will do

          6        more.  And I'm not sure it will be better.  A bicameral

          7        Legislature is inherently limiting.  Another principle is

          8        the centralization of power and we always remember the

          9        quote, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

         10             Having been a former presiding officer, along with

         11        several of the others here, there is an enormous

         12        centralization in the power of the presiding officer.

         13        There are many times that I wished there had not been

         14        another presiding officer, with all due respect to

         15        Mr. Vogt who is on the wall.  And there were probably

         16        several times he wished that I wasn't on the other side of

         17        the hall.  But what happened was a reasoned debate between

         18        varying points of view and I think it is indisputable that

         19        Mr. Scott is right, that a unicameral Legislature will

         20        pass more legislation.

         21             The other principle I think is interesting is

         22        stability.  We, in our Constitution, need to provide

         23        stability for our citizens.  I truly believe a change in

         24        leadership and a position this important, and I don't know

         25        how often it would change and perhaps Commissioner Evans


          1        can inform us of that, but if it changes every two, four,

          2        or whatever years, I can guarantee you, you will have more

          3        of a swing in policy than you would with a bicameral

          4        Legislature simply because you have a division of

          5        leadership in the legislative area.

          6             And as has been said, the issue of turkeys, you would

          7        have -- the press is correctly reported, we have lots of

          8        bridges, lots of festivals, lots of art centers that the

          9        public may not have needed, but we would had have more.

         10        We would have more if it weren't for the conference

         11        committee and we would have had more if it weren't for the

         12        other body.  And that's what we always refer to the Senate

         13        as, the other body.

         14             So I think that when you look back at why we are

         15        here, constitutionally, there is a set of principles.  And

         16        that is, protect the citizen from government, limit the

         17        centralization of power and to make sure that policy is

         18        well reasoned and after having said all that, and endorsed

         19        those principles, I think this is a well reasoned body.

         20        And if you are not convinced, vote for this and give us

         21        time to convince you.  Because I think those principles

         22        are fundamental to what should be in the Constitution.

         23             And not that we have the best system in the world, I

         24        certainly don't want to be quoted as saying dictatorship

         25        is the best system in the world, Mr. Scott, but I know


          1        that was in context.  But that a bicameral Legislature

          2        here has worked, doesn't mean I have always been satisfied

          3        with the result, but this state is in pretty good shape as

          4        we go around this state.  This state is well run, well

          5        governed, whether it is Republican leadership or

          6        Democratic leadership, and we don't have much to be upset

          7        about with this particular organizational principle.  But

          8        I intend to vote against it.  But if you are not

          9        convinced, vote for it and let us convince you.

         10             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Yield for a question.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans, as an

         12        opponent.  Are you through?  Excuse me.

         13             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I'll yield for a question.

         14             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  A couple of comments were made

         15        that I have a question about and not necessarily by you,

         16        but one opponent said there is no reason to tamper with

         17        one of the three branches of government and I know that

         18        yesterday we did indeed tamper with one of the three

         19        branches of government in a very significant way and the

         20        battle cry of the proponents yesterday was let the people

         21        decide.

         22             So my question is, why is the battle cry let the

         23        people decide appropriate to a major change in the

         24        judicial branch but it is not appropriate to a major

         25        change in the legislative branch?  We're talking major


          1        changes not just the -- it can be applied to everything

          2        that comes before us but major changes as we had

          3        yesterday.

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, I'll be glad to try to

          5        address the question.  But I would say it seems to me it

          6        depends.  We are here for major change and if you believe

          7        this is a major change, this is a good thing.  But I

          8        forgot one -- our principle --

          9             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Let the people decide question.

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Let the people decide.  You let

         11        the people decide.  If your only organizing principle in

         12        being here is let the people decide, then you would never

         13        vote against any of them.  If you are here -- we all

         14        wanted to be on this commission, and I respect the members

         15        of this commission as much or more than anybody or any

         16        group I've been involved in, you're here for your

         17        judgment.  If your judgment is a bad idea, vote against

         18        it.  If your judgment is it's a good idea, vote for it.

         19        But one other principle I have forgotten, that is elected

         20        officials.  Now, I've heard a lot of you be concerned

         21        about the number of elected officials.  And I think it is

         22        indisputable, but this proposal reduces the number of

         23        elected officials.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Opponents?  To close -- wait a

         25        minute.  Excuse me, Commissioner Mathis.


          1             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Well, I don't know how to do

          2        this.  Do I ask -- since I am a proponent, do I ask for a

          3        yield of the question to make a couple of points?

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, I'll tell you what we are

          5        going to do.  We are going the bend the rules and let you

          6        speak on the closing along with the closer.  Because I

          7        think you should not unless somebody raises a point of

          8        order, the way we have been doing it.  I am going to quit

          9        that.  But you go ahead and have your say.

         10             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  When the rules of the game are

         11        clear and everybody plays by those same rules, all people

         12        can survive and thrive.  When African-Americans weren't

         13        allowed to play basketball, you had a very different

         14        sport.  As soon as African-Americans were allowed to play

         15        on the court, according to the rules that applied to

         16        everyone else, they survived and thrived.

         17             And what I see here are two different courts and two

         18        simultaneous games.  And I think that gives a lot of

         19        hiding the ball, makes a lot of things unclear.  I have

         20        seen them let one house in the Legislature pass something,

         21        knowing that it is going to the other house, and the other

         22        house will take care of it.  And that is political

         23        gamesmanship, it is not governance for the state of

         24        Florida.

         25             There is an accountability with a unicameral


          1        Legislature that is not there with the bicameral

          2        Legislature and I think a unicameral Legislature would be

          3        more diverse and more inclusive.  The Founding Fathers

          4        where the reasoning was good, was just that.  They were

          5        Founding Fathers.  They didn't address the issue of

          6        slavery.  They didn't address the issue of women

          7        participating in government.  But what we have found here,

          8        that as we are allowed more diversity, we gain ideas and

          9        strength and governance that is good for our state.

         10             So I would say that the unicameral Legislature would

         11        be better.  It would have one game on one court and the

         12        rules would be much clearer.  The accountability that we

         13        are looking at and the issues of separation of powers, I

         14        think a lot of that is addressed between the three

         15        branches of government, both the Legislature and executive

         16        and judicial.  But I think the Legislature tends to

         17        believe that they are a law unto themselves.  And with the

         18        two houses they tend to hide things that they are doing.

         19        And I also realize, and what I have heard from throughout

         20        the state, is that we are dealing with a lot of issues

         21        because the Legislature could not deal with them

         22        thoroughly.

         23             So I stand here as a proponent of the unicameral

         24        Legislature and would say, let's keep the ball on one

         25        court so that we can move forward and focus on the issues

                     DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS (904) 488-9675


          1        and not political gamesmanship.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Anthony.

          3             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  I rise for a question.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do you yield for Commission

          5        Anthony?

          6             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes.

          7             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Commissioner Mathis, with your

          8        concern of inclusion and diversity, do you think electing

          9        a smaller number of elected officials for a unicameral

         10        Legislature will provide for the diversity of all of the

         11        citizens in Florida?

         12             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes, I do.  I do not think that

         13        the diversity of our elected officials is based on the

         14        number of elected officials.  You have overlapping

         15        districts in a number of districts throughout the state

         16        with both the Senate and the House.  I think if those

         17        districts were clearly drawn by the apportionment

         18        commission, or whatever body is looking at drawing those,

         19        with a mind to the diversity of the state, that a smaller

         20        number of legislators could, in fact, be much more

         21        diverse, much more responsive than the bicameral

         22        Legislators.

         23             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  So, you are saying that our

         24        state has come that far that we would look beyond some of

         25        the things that you're concerned about to elected


          1        diversity that we need in our state?

          2             COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I think that -- I think that

          3        our state will go further in the future with a unicameral

          4        Legislature, yes.

          5             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Thank you.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Mills.

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Could I ask him a question?

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes.

          9             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commission Anthony, I just

         10        wanted to clarify where you are coming from.  Would it

         11        be -- it's your judgment that the result of this is, this

         12        lower number, there would be fewer African-Americans that

         13        would be likely to be elected to Legislature; is that

         14        correct?

         15             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Candidly, I'm very concerned

         16        about African-American representation.  But more so,

         17        diversity generally.  Our state is a very diverse state,

         18        Hispanics, women, minorities, north Florida, south

         19        Florida, people from Kentucky now are in the Senate, you

         20        name it.

         21             (Laughter.)

         22             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  You know, that's to strengthen

         23        the vitality of our state.  And I think that's what we

         24        really -- one of the benefits of our Legislature.  And I

         25        want to keep that vitality that people can come from


          1        Kentucky and become President of the Senate.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Do you yield to Commissioner

          3        Smith?  Yes, he does.

          4             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes, I do.

          5             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Obviously, you know, you have

          6        tweaked my interest with that concern.  Let me ask you

          7        this, do you believe that while a smaller number of

          8        legislators may result in a smaller number of minorities,

          9        it still could end up with the same percentage or larger

         10        percentage, which still gives you the type of

         11        representation you need.

         12             So, in other words, you could have 2 -- 4 out of 40,

         13        which is 10 percent, or 2 out of 20, which is still

         14        10 percent.  Do you concede that that is still a

         15        possibility to have the same percentage or even a higher

         16        percentage with a smaller number?

         17             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yeah, I stand before you

         18        saying that diversity to me is just not about the numbers

         19        and not about just racial issues, it is gender issues, it

         20        is the diversity of our state, the fact that north Florida

         21        Floridians are concerned, and their concerns are different

         22        than south Florida Floridians, central Florida, I mean,

         23        there is so many opportunities for environmental concerns

         24        to be addressed, economic concerns to be addressed.  And I

         25        truly think that the more voices, and the more opportunity


          1        that you have to have people to participate in the system,

          2        the more opportunity that you have for real policy that

          3        reflects our state.

          4             And if you want to have a few people that may not

          5        have the true concerns of the citizens broad enough to

          6        really reflect the public policy that reflects the state,

          7        I think you should support the unicameral.  But if you

          8        want the voices of Florida, the voices of the people of

          9        Florida, to grab the microphone and have more opportunity

         10        to talk and to be heard, you need more people.  And that's

         11        what the bicameral legislative process provides.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Are we still on opponents?

         13             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Question of Commissioner

         14        Anthony.

         15             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  That is not my proposal,

         16        you-all know that?

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I understand but you have the

         18        floor and he is asking you to yield.  Do you yield?

         19             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes, I will yield.

         20             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  The trick by which we do this

         21        is ask you a question by saying, Commissioner Anthony

         22        would you believe that?

         23             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Okay.

         24             (Laughter.)

         25             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  What has happened in the


          1        two-house Legislature -- I hate to call it the lower

          2        house, but that's what we call it, the lower house, the

          3        House of Representatives becomes a training ground because

          4        there are more minorities there, they are like 17 to 20

          5        over there, and there are more females over there.  They

          6        become the training ground for those people to later

          7        become Senators.

          8             At one time here we counted and there were only five

          9        or six Senators who had not been in the House of

         10        Representatives.  So by keeping these two houses and the

         11        larger house, you enable those people to come in, run in a

         12        smaller district at much less expense and get the

         13        experience and either move up in leadership there, or come

         14        into the Senate where they are even more powerful, if you

         15        want to say that, because they are in a less of a numbered

         16        body.  So that is always, sir, would you believe,

         17        Commissioner Anthony, as a good training ground for higher

         18        office and that office may also be a statewide office,

         19        would it not, Mr. Anthony?

         20             (Laughter.)

         21             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Yes.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Direct that question to

         23        Commissioner Jennings.

         24             COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Let me say that I believe that

         25        I believe that I agree with you on that fact.  But, you


          1        know, I don't really want this to really focus on just the

          2        diversity issue, it really is not.  That is one element of

          3        it.

          4             The stronger element of it is the principle that each

          5        Floridian should have someone that they can go to to

          6        provide input to.  And I could say to you that there is a

          7        difference.  And when you come up here to Tallahassee, I'm

          8        not one that comes up here often, and don't care to come

          9        up here often.  But when I do come, I have a couple of

         10        people that I can go to to carry the water for my

         11        community.

         12             And I don't think that trying to get less people and

         13        less voices in our government system is the answer to

         14        creating public policy that reflects the needs of our

         15        state.  Let's not do something that sort of makes the

         16        citizens feel as if we are taking something away from

         17        them, and that is to elect people who could speak on their

         18        behalf.  The closer you are, the more that you, the more

         19        people that feel as if they have a voice in our

         20        government.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Thompson.

         22             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Mr. Chairman, I did not ask

         23        to speak as an opponent.  And if that time has passed, so

         24        be it.  But if not --

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I'm kind of letting this go


          1        freestyle here.  I have already done that for the other

          2        side.

          3             COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  I just want to take a minute.

          4        I do chair the legislative committee for us here with our

          5        commission and I wanted to kind of give you a feel for the

          6        way I feel about this.  And I guess the bottom line is

          7        that, first of all, I agree with the proponents that this

          8        is something that we ought to talk about and talk about in

          9        detail, and I'm glad that we are doing that.

         10             As a matter of fact, I don't remember any legislative

         11        debate that I have ever witnessed that was this good.  I

         12        will just have to say it that way.  I think everybody

         13        studied the materials that have been available to them and

         14        they have sincerely tried to come up with the best idea.

         15        And I want to tell you, one of the things I have been

         16        doing is sitting here listening.  And Commissioner Morsani

         17        a lot of times on one of our committees will say, I'd like

         18        to hear what Commissioner Thompson has to say.  And I

         19        really appreciate that.  What he doesn't realize is I'm

         20        really listening to him in the same way.

         21             Somebody that has not been in elected office,

         22        somebody that's not been in the Legislature, because I was

         23        in there 12 years, and I am certainly biased to some

         24        extent, and I hope I always give you that disclaimer.

         25        Mr. Brochin said the last time that this issue came up


          1        that he would like to hear from some of us that have been

          2        in the Legislature.  And he has done some reading, and he

          3        made up his mind now, and I wished he hadn't because I did

          4        some reading too and I found out that Nebraska has got

          5        about the same number of people as Jacksonville I think.

          6        Let's see, it's less than 2 million.  So does Orange

          7        County have over 2 million people?  Not quite.  Well that

          8        gives you a feel.

          9             We have been talking about diversity here just a

         10        little bit.  What kind of diversity do you figure Nebraska

         11        has got, Commissioner Barton?  You may know a lot more

         12        about that than I do but I bet it doesn't have the same

         13        mix that we have in our state and how fortunate we are

         14        because of that.  And people want to come here and they

         15        want to live out their lives here, and that is a wonderful

         16        thing.  But there are a lot of people here, and that

         17        changes.  When I first ran for the Legislature, each house

         18        member represented 46,000 people.  Now it took me six

         19        counties to catch up with that many people and by the time

         20        I was out, it took eight counties in north Florida to get

         21        up to that many people.  And now I think it takes ten or

         22        eleven.

         23             So when you are talking about having just one house

         24        and you're going to have 80 members, or whatever you are

         25        going to have, you are really limiting the access of


          1        people that are not going to have another member of the

          2        Legislature they can contact.  But they also are not going

          3        to have a lower house that is going to be close to the

          4        people.

          5             What is the reason for having two houses?  Well, it

          6        is no longer that one house represents people on a

          7        geographical or political basis and one on population, it

          8        is all based on population.  But Chief Justice Warren, in

          9        that opinion that had to do with the one man/one vote

         10        concept, said that this doesn't indicate to anybody,

         11        doesn't mean to indicate that anybody that is for that

         12        bicameral legislation or legislators is wrong.  There is

         13        nothing wrong with that system.  There are reasons for

         14        that system.  They can be and he enumerated some of them.

         15        But a couple I remember, two that we have in Florida.  One

         16        is the length of times of your term.  In Florida, of

         17        course, we have two-year terms in the House and four-year

         18        terms in the Senate.

         19             And if you read some of the other literature and

         20        political essays on the subject, they will tell you the

         21        reason for that is to protect against the whimsical

         22        majority.  Now, Commissioner Barkdull talked about the

         23        whimsical majority and some of these other members and

         24        former members talked about the problem that you have when

         25        something is real popular and the people have real access


          1        to somebody and it could range all the way from the death

          2        penalty to integration, segregation, school systems.

          3             I mean, when the Legislature meets up here and does

          4        something, folks, it is real.  It is not just like us

          5        talking about maybe the public is going to accept or

          6        reject what we recommend.  It becomes very real.  And so

          7        there needs to be some checks and balances.

          8             Now, you also have in Florida something that I think

          9        is going to impact our system.  I believe I perceive it

         10        doing that already.  And we talked in our executive

         11        committee about that yesterday and that is eight is

         12        enough.  When you walk into the door of wherever you work

         13        tomorrow, you just think about whether or not you are

         14        going to have to quit what you are doing in five or six

         15        years.  And for any legislator in Florida that's been

         16        there for a few years now, they have got to be thinking

         17        about what they are going to be doing.

         18             You get in the House of Representatives people who

         19        are, like I was, four and a half years out of law school,

         20        as country as you can get, and still get a legal

         21        education.  As -- didn't know where Miami was.  I walked

         22        into the Florida Legislature knowing a lot about my

         23        people -- by the time I was elected, they made sure of

         24        that.  But it took me a few years.  And I'll be honest

         25        with you, it took me a few years to learn what was going


          1        on in government, what was going on in this huge and

          2        dynamic and growing state.

          3             And over a period of time, I learned that well

          4        enough, and it probably took about seven or eight years to

          5        be able to then make my way into the leadership and to

          6        really impact some decisions.

          7             If you have every member of a unicameral body now in

          8        Florida that's going to be out in eight years, I don't

          9        know where you are going to get these fresh approaches,

         10        and that's just been mentioned, whether it is minorities

         11        or whether it is anybody, there is a lot to learn.

         12             I have seen people come to the Florida Legislature

         13        from former members of the Board of Regents, from all

         14        kinds of other local offices, big counties, small

         15        counties, but there is a lot to learn about this state.

         16        8,000 miles of coastline, the population is always within

         17        10 miles of that coast.  What is the structure of the

         18        water management district, what about the basins within

         19        the water management district.  I mean, this is complex

         20        information and you have got a lot to learn about it.

         21             The other thing that I think that makes it very risky

         22        for us to recommend this as a change to our public is

         23        something that I think is going on in our system and

         24        impacting our system at the present time also, and these

         25        are changes from when I was there, and that is the


          1        influence of the almighty dollar in campaigns in this

          2        state.  And I'm telling you, if something isn't done about

          3        that, it is going to get worse and worse and worse until

          4        we all get embarrassed by it.

          5             But what's happening now is that the political

          6        parties are coming to the legislators to help raise money

          7        for the political parties who then go back and give money

          8        to individual races so that the right team can be elected.

          9        And I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a

         10        Republican, that's too much influence for the Legislature

         11        that I know and love.  And if you single out one group of

         12        people and have a unicameral body, with this kind of

         13        influence where the members themselves are only going to

         14        have eight-year tenures, then who is going to be running

         15        the legislature?  Who is going to be running the business

         16        of the people of our state?

         17             I submit to you that it is going to be the influences

         18        of people that you never knew or were able to vote on.

         19             And so for those reasons, I don't recommend this as a

         20        risk.  I think there is too much, as far as our precious,

         21        natural resources, in the balance of what's going to

         22        happen in the next two decades in Florida.  I think there

         23        is too much in the nature of the economy that we are going

         24        to have to provide for the people that are moving to

         25        Florida everyday.  It is down from when Commissioner Mills


          1        and I were here, from 1,000 a day to about 800 a day,

          2        moving to Florida to live out the rest of their lives.  I

          3        stopped at a truck stop around Gainesville not long ago,

          4        went in, these guys have got Chicago jackets on, they have

          5        got a U-Haul truck out there.  They are coming here to

          6        live.  They are getting out of where they are and they are

          7        coming here to live.

          8             And if we don't have a good, strong vibrant economy

          9        and a good, clean government and structure of government

         10        that allows for that, then I think we will have taken a

         11        risk that we don't need to take.  We know what we have

         12        now.  I think campaign finance reform is coming, I hope it

         13        is.  It is going to be probably a little later than

         14        sooner; that will help us some.  But we know what we have

         15        now.  It is a good checks-and balances'-system.  And I

         16        submit to you, for those reasons, as chairman of your

         17        committee on the Legislature, and just generally

         18        otherwise, I recommend to you that we do not vote

         19        favorably on this proposal.  Thank you.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.

         21             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I am continually impressed and

         22        amazed at both the quality of the information that I get

         23        and the fact that I think we listen to the people that

         24        spoke to us when we opened in June and the Governors that

         25        came and the past Representatives that came that said, get


          1        out of the box, break your paradigm, don't be afraid to

          2        look at things, don't be afraid to stand out and take a

          3        chance.  I also know that quantity is not quality, except

          4        perhaps where chocolate is concerned, more is not better.

          5             However, as a person from the Panhandle, as a

          6        minority of the female gender, in addition to being a

          7        Democrat in Okaloosa County, the idea of reducing the

          8        number of representatives that I have in Tallahassee

          9        bothers me, and therefore I have to, after listening to

         10        excellent debate and being very impressed and being

         11        swayed, I have to speak against this.  I think in this

         12        case, the more representation that I have in Tallahassee,

         13        as a person who has not been on this floor before, as a

         14        person who only goes to the offices and asks for votes,

         15        and as a person that is not of the legal persuasion or

         16        having been elected, I am much more comfortable with more.

         17        I am very comfortable with the system that I see, that has

         18        the two houses, that has the Senate that balances with the

         19        House.

         20             And I see a balance there that in a unicameral

         21        Legislature is lost and then you are dependent upon other

         22        types of balances in the other parts of the government and

         23        that concerns me.  I don't think as we look towards the 20

         24        years coming that we are asked to look for, in our debate

         25        and in our proposals to the public, that we are better


          1        served by less people representing us in Tallahassee.  And

          2        so therefore, I unfortunately -- and I apologize to

          3        Commissioner Sundberg and Evans-Jones, but I would have to

          4        speak against this.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith, do you have

          6        another question?

          7             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  No, I want to make a one-minute

          8        statement.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Very well.

         10             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I can't wait to hear what those

         11        who are opponents of this have to say when the issue of --

         12        comes before us about the Cabinet and about how more is

         13        better and how we need these checks and balances.  And I

         14        have taken the role, and I can't wait to hear that debate.

         15        That's number one.

         16             Number two, with regard to this issue, those of us

         17        here who are not in the legislative process, we have got a

         18        little bit of a warped view because amongst us are the

         19        legislators now and before who are the best and the

         20        brightest.  I have been up here and I can tell you that

         21        this is not representative of all of the legislators.

         22             (Laughter.)

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You mean this body?

         24             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  No, those who serve with us who

         25        are now legislators or who have been legislators, this is


          1        not a fair representation.  So those who are talking about

          2        just how wonderful all these legislators are, I beg to

          3        differ.

          4             Secondly, I am not surprised, and this is not

          5        personal, this is -- we are dealing with issues that those

          6        of you who serve and have served think it is a wonderful

          7        idea and give it a great report card.  That is not

          8        surprising at all.  I would suggest to you that the report

          9        card would not be quite as good in terms of what the

         10        Legislature, as it presently exists, has done over the

         11        last 10 or 20 years if the public -- those of us who have

         12        not been involved in the process -- were grading the

         13        report card.  I ask you to vote yes.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Alfonso,

         15        you are a proponent, I believe?  You were the other day.

         16        Have you changed your mind?

         17             COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  That's correct, I'm still a

         18        proponent.  I have been listening to all of this as well

         19        and it is a very difficult issue.  And I'm really torn.  I

         20        am a proponent and am wanting to move forward with this.

         21        I don't think the issue is one of size.  And I am not

         22        afraid of smaller government, unlike some folks here.

         23             I think the issue is one of quality.  And quality of

         24        debate.  And if you feel that the quality of the debate

         25        and the efficiency of the knowledge of the people knowing


          1        exactly who will be debating their issues for them and the

          2        clarity, I know there is a lot of people in this state

          3        that don't know who represents them up here, is it a

          4        Representative, is it a Senator?  Is that street in my

          5        district or is it the other street?

          6             This is now a chance, one time, to have clarity of

          7        representation for the people.  Now having said that, I'm

          8        a proponent to go to the next level.  But I think the

          9        quality of the debate is an issue that is an important

         10        issue here to me, to me anyway.  And I speak as a

         11        proponent at this time.  And I think it is something that

         12        we really need to continue the debate on.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Ready to vote?

         14        Another one?  Okay.  I've been letting all of the

         15        opponents get up with the proponents.  Now this is going

         16        to be the last one, if we can make it.  This is getting

         17        long in the day.

         18             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  To close.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones.

         20             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         21        I want to thank everybody for their participation today.

         22        I think it's been very, very interesting.  I do want to

         23        answer a few questions that have been raised here.  You

         24        are saying that really you think you'd have a bicameral

         25        Legislature, and I'm saying you really don't.  What you


          1        have is a conference committee which is a unicameral

          2        Legislature.  You really only have about six or eight

          3        people participating instead of many people.  And frankly,

          4        the people who make the decisions on all the most

          5        important issues are your power brokers, of course.  And

          6        the rest of the people might as well go home and forget

          7        it, it is really silly for them to even be here.

          8             If you have a one-house Legislature, everybody

          9        participates.  The spotlight is on everybody.  There is

         10        nowhere to hide.  People will know who their

         11        Representative is.  They will know whether they are good

         12        in debate.  They will know how they feel about the issues.

         13        They don't know that now.  People are so confused with

         14        this process.  And I think that if you have, say, 120

         15        people debating all of the issues together in the same

         16        room, you are going to come out with a better consensus

         17        than you do with six people making the big decisions for

         18        this state.

         19             I ask you to think about this, the system is broken,

         20        it is a big mess.  Those of you who have been here

         21        certainly know it.  I can understand why any lobbyist

         22        would be opposed to a unicameral Legislature.  And the

         23        reason is, because it would be much more difficult to hide

         24        things than when the spotlight is on just a group of

         25        people, period, and you don't have the football going back


          1        and forth and being hidden.

          2             I want you to consider that the people keep saying,

          3        let's reduce the cost of government, let's reduce the

          4        number of elected officials, and this would certainly do

          5        this.  This would give us an opportunity to be accountable

          6        to the public, to give them an opportunity.  They will

          7        never have another chance.  And I think it is extremely

          8        important that we put this on the ballot and that we let

          9        the people determine, yes, we can do better than we have

         10        been doing, and let's give us an opportunity to

         11        participate in an open -- and really in the sunshine.  And

         12        I'd like to yield to Commissioner Sundberg to finish

         13        closing.

         14             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Thank you, Commissioner

         15        Evans-Jones.  Mr. Chairman --

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Wait a minute.  Are you yielding

         17        for a question, or are we going to have a double close?

         18             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  We are going to have a double

         19        close.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I am going to allow that,

         21        but we're going to have to limit this or we we're going to

         22        be here all day.  Go ahead, Commissioner Sundberg.

         23             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         24        Three points.  Lest those of us here who are not so

         25        familiar with it think that this is an idea that was


          1        original with the state of Nebraska, it is not of course.

          2        It goes back to those barons that Senator Jennings spoke

          3        about at Runnymede who got the concession from the king

          4        and out of that arose the parliamentary system that we

          5        have in the United Kingdom today and it has served them

          6        rather well.  It is a unicameral system for legislation.

          7             Next, we hear that we don't -- you know, why are we

          8        tampering with this?  The hackneyed phrase that's used

          9        time and again in government is, if it's not broke, don't

         10        fix it.  Well, I suggest to you that if this system is

         11        working so well and is so well embraced by the people, why

         12        is there this profound apathy and cynicism amongst the

         13        people today with respect to the way their government is

         14        operating?  I suggest to you that that reflects that

         15        something is amiss.

         16             Lastly, as Commissioner Thompson says to you, there

         17        is some risk in doing this.  I suggest to you that

         18        democracy is always a very risky business, but it serves

         19        us well to pay attention to the people and to our

         20        democracy and I urge that you support this proposal.

         21        Thank you.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay, are we ready to vote?  Then

         23        prepare to vote.  Unlock the machine.

         24             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Announce the vote.


          1             READING CLERK:  Fourteen yeas and 19 nays,

          2        Mr. Chairman.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So it fails.  All right.  We will

          4        move on to the next subject.  Where are we on the special

          5        order, Commissioner Barkdull?  Are we back to --

          6             (Off-the-record comment by Commissioner Barkdull.)

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Are we back now where we

          8        can consider 70?  Seventy of course is the one we've had

          9        great difficulty getting to finality on here.

         10             We are now handing you a packet or a little sheet

         11        here, scorecard, road map, that will show you where we

         12        think we are at the moment and then Commissioner Mills

         13        will give us an expert explanation of where we are and we

         14        will proceed to this issue and perhaps get to finality on

         15        the vote.  And I'm going to wait until -- everybody got

         16        it?  All right.  Now, if you will listen to Commissioner

         17        Mills.

         18             (Gavel.)

         19             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I believe --

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Just a minute.  The

         21        reason we had so much trouble with this is yesterday

         22        afternoon we had no order for a while and we got off track

         23        and we've had a hard time understanding this.  I want to

         24        ask everybody to please, if you can, wait and have your

         25        remonstrances and whatever you are going to have about the


          1        last vote until after we recess.

          2             Now Commissioner Mills is going to make an effort to

          3        explain where we are and let's see if we can't deal with

          4        this a little more orderly than we did yesterday.

          5        Commisisoner Mills.

          6             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I truly believe

          7        this is a fairly straightforward question that we can get

          8        to a vote relatively quickly on the ultimate matter.  Our

          9        extremely knowledgeable Secretary has put this together

         10        and passed this out to you.  And to explain what happened

         11        yesterday, you had an amendment introduced by Commissioner

         12        Planas.  And what has now happened is there are two

         13        amendments that Commissioner Hawkes offered yesterday

         14        which we have corrected the record to show, are amendments

         15        to the original proposal.

         16             Senator Scott introduced an amendment to which

         17        Commissioner Planas introduced a substitute.  That was the

         18        number of 500,000 for 400,000.  That amendment passed.

         19        So, for consideration purposes, I suspect the easiest

         20        thing to do to sharpen the issue might be -- I know there

         21        is -- will be a motion offered to reconsider the motion by

         22        which Commissioner Planas' substitute for $500,000 passed.

         23        If we take that up and dispose of it one way or the other,

         24        then we would be back on my substitute, which is

         25        noncontroversial, and then on the bill and people can vote


          1        it up or down.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  As I understand it, we have the

          3        motion to reconsider the Planas -- is this what you are

          4        saying, if we have a motion to reconsider the Planas

          5        amendment and we vote it up or down it becomes a part of

          6        what?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It becomes a part of the main

          8        bill.  It changes the number 200,000 to 500,000, which is

          9        where it is now because his passed.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  So, in any event, we

         11        need to vote first on whether or not we are going to vote

         12        again on that.  And there has been a motion to reconsider.

         13        Wait a minute.  Commissioner Sullivan, I want to hear from

         14        him.  He hasn't been in the debate yet.  We are going to

         15        get to him.

         16             COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN:  The one question is, in the

         17        Planas amendment, is a residence a requirement still in

         18        this or not in this?

         19             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  No, the residency is out.

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  In other words, looking at this

         21        sheet, we are down on No. 4, right?  Is that where we are?

         22             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So if you vote to reconsider,

         24        then we are going to vote on whether or not it is 500,000

         25        or 200,000; it is that simple enough; is that correct?


          1             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It is that simple.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All those in favor of

          3        reconsidering and proceeding to a vote on this say aye.

          4        Opposed?

          5             (Verbal vote taken.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We will vote then.

          7             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Mr. Chairman.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Planas, it is your

          9        amendment I think.

         10             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Can we get everybody that is

         11        out there in the rest rooms and everybody voting here?

         12        All of a sudden we have got an empty chamber, sir.

         13             SECRETARY BLANTON:  Quorum call.  Quorum call.  All

         14        commissioners indicate your presence.  All commissioners

         15        indicate your presence.  Quorum call.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Thirty-one members

         17        present.  We will come to order.  Lock the machine.

         18        Thirty-one members present.  We have a quorum.  And if

         19        everybody will be seated, Commissioner Planas is first.

         20        He has the floor.

         21             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Mr. Chairman, I just want to

         22        explain exactly what we are voting on.  A no vote will

         23        keep the $500,000 limit.  A no vote will keep the 500,000.

         24             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Marshall.


          1             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  I rise to speak to that, too,

          2        if I may.  I believe the $500,000 limit is unreasonable.

          3        It seems to me that $200,000 is an amount of money, which

          4        invested in a residence, provides an adequate place to

          5        live.  In this discussion yesterday I noted the absence of

          6        many, very much discussion at least, about the victims,

          7        those who are left holding the bag when bankruptcy is

          8        declared.

          9             And it seems to me that we ought to give

         10        consideration to those, not necessarily the mechanics

         11        among us who might be able to afford to lose 6-, 8-, or

         12        $10,000 but the small merchants up and down Main Street

         13        who sold clothing and food and tires and batteries and so

         14        on to people.  And they deserve to be considered.  I fail

         15        to see why $200,000 is not enough for, to be protected

         16        against creditors from people that go into bankruptcy.

         17        And I believe you should consider seriously limiting the

         18        figure to that, to that $200,000 figure, thank you.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So you speak then for voting for

         20        reconsideration.  Because if you vote against it, it would

         21        maintain the $500,000.

         22             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  I do speak in favor of

         23        reconsideration, yes, sir.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now Commissioner Sullivan.

         25             COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN:  I too feel that a $200,000


          1        limit is an adequate amount.  I think that if we are

          2        serious about this kind of issue in our state and we want

          3        to send a message to people about their responsibilities

          4        to pay their debts and their obligations to their fellow

          5        businesspeople and entities in the state that we need to

          6        send that message.

          7             There is, obviously, concerns about what to do with

          8        people that have had judgments against them in tort or

          9        whatever and maybe we could do with that in another place,

         10        Commissioner Langley.  And that would take great vision

         11        and courage as well, I know that.  But I really think it

         12        is important that we get this across in the state that

         13        people that come to this state know that come here to do

         14        commerce and ring up debts that they are going to have an

         15        obligation.

         16             And I do not think -- we have heard testimony on

         17        this -- if you look at $200,000, it affects about

         18        four-tenths of 1 percent of the population, but it

         19        eliminates some of the injustices that do go on that a lot

         20        of people in this room have had to deal with so long.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I'm going to come to

         22        a close, Commissioner Planas, because if you will wait, we

         23        have some others that want to speak.  Commissioner

         24        Langley, you raised your hand; do you still want to speak?

         25             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I had a question or I could do


          1        it briefly in comment.  We keep almost exclusively using

          2        the word "bankruptcy" here.  These are not necessarily

          3        bankruptcies.  You may have a hardworking, honest couple

          4        who are doing their best, they are paying their light

          5        bill, and their home mortgage and their Outback bill and

          6        all the other bills they have, but out of the blue their

          7        teenage son turns the car over and breaks his football

          8        buddy's neck on the way to practice and this couple has a

          9        $5 million judgment against them.  They are not bad

         10        people, there are not defrauding customers -- creditors.

         11        They are going about their life just like all of us do and

         12        all of a sudden they are faced with a huge judgment

         13        against them.

         14             And today -- I have a friend who 10 years ago moved

         15        out in the country and bought 40 acres of nice wooded

         16        property and built a house.  And that house probably when

         17        he built it with the 40 acres, it was worth $250,000,

         18        today there is exclusive subdivisions on three sides of

         19        his 40 acres, and his land alone is worth over $1 million,

         20        but that's home, that's where he lives, that's where he

         21        has raised his kids, that's where he goes and comes from

         22        work, that's home.  You're going to take it for some

         23        judgment creditor because his teenage son wrecked his car

         24        or what have you.

         25             Why do we just -- why do we just want to single


          1        out -- this isn't going to help your little merchants,

          2        Commissioner Marshall.  The 200,000 -- I hope nobody owes

          3        their clothing store that much or the gas station.  I hope

          4        nobody has run up that kind of credit.  So let's protect

          5        the homesteads.  And the homesteads, and Senator Scott,

          6        the poor guy isn't here, if you have ever run down to the

          7        Gold Coast where Senator Scott lives, there are no houses

          8        there you can touch for half a million dollars, but it's

          9        home and that's what homestead is about.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Connor.

         11             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  I'd like to inquire of

         12        Commissioner Sullivan if he will yield for a question.

         13        You mentioned the harm that befalls creditors by virtue of

         14        the immunization of the homestead from levy.  Isn't it

         15        true that most creditors do not extend credit in reliance

         16        on the homestead being security for the debt?

         17             COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN:  I'm not extending credit,

         18        except at Outback.  But I think that's correct,

         19        Commissioner Connor.  I think the issue, though, it

         20        centers more on people that feel very comfortable coming

         21        to our state and leaving people holding enormous amounts

         22        of money that they generally owe that money to.  And I

         23        think that's a wrong message to send.  I am opposed to

         24        residency requirements on this issue but I do not feel

         25        that a $200,000 limit is -- would cause any controversy


          1        like Commissioner Zack pointed out yesterday in this

          2        debate where he thought 1 million.  I think the average

          3        citizen in this state understands the magnitude of what

          4        $200,000 is, and it is a large sum of money.

          5             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have

          6        a couple of other inquiries, if I may.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead.

          8             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Would it be fair to say that,

          9        to the extent that a creditor who wishes to secure the

         10        extension of credit desires to use the homestead as a

         11        basis for security, that that can be done?

         12             COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN:  I think in this particular

         13        proposal, I do not see that the homestead will become the

         14        security unless somebody is in a bank and they have got an

         15        enormous amount of equity in a home and they are trying to

         16        borrow money against that to get into business or for

         17        whatever purpose.  But I do not think that in general the

         18        creditors would be looking at a homestead with a $200,000

         19        cap on it as a major security for credit.

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Finally, if I may,

         21        Mr. Chairman, what would befall -- strike that.  What

         22        would be the impact on people who have built up an equity

         23        in their home, Floridians who have lived in Florida for

         24        goodness only knows how long, what would be the impact on

         25        Floridians who have built up equity in their homes, in


          1        terms of their -- of the exposure of their homestead to

          2        levy for debts which were involuntarily incurred, such as,

          3        for example, their teenager is involved in an accident?

          4             And I had a case in which a physician in this

          5        community's son or child ran a stop sign, it caused a

          6        terrible injury to another child, and I represented that

          7        child who was injured and we were unable to levy on the

          8        physician's home, even though it was of quite substantial

          9        value.  But what would happen to the equity that had been

         10        built up by Floridians who have lived in their homes for

         11        many years, who have faithfully paid the mortgage payment

         12        or who are operating under the assumption that that

         13        homestead equity is what would assure them of a home and a

         14        place of shelter and a place of safety for the future,

         15        regardless of whatever misfortunes might befall them from

         16        an economic standpoint?

         17             COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN:  Obviously, that will be a

         18        tragedy financially under the current statutes and the

         19        current system if we made this change.  I would hope that

         20        judgments would start looking at things like people's

         21        ability with insurance, et cetera, and people maybe taking

         22        a more cautious approach to what they have, in terms of

         23        insurance to cover those kinds of misfortunes in their

         24        lives.  I certainly do not want to see cases where these

         25        kinds of things happen and people lose their homesteads,


          1        and I would love to see a way to address that with this

          2        issue.  And I don't know how to do that though.

          3             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Lowndes.

          4             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Thank you.  You know, I think

          5        you have got to deal with this on the basis we are talking

          6        about taking people's homes away from them and it is hard

          7        for me to justify the proposition of taking some fella's

          8        home away from him who loves it as much if he has a

          9        $300,000 home as if he has a $200,000.  I think what you

         10        are really doing in a way is adopting a very populous

         11        theory that it is okay to punish the people who have done

         12        well in the world but it is not okay to punish the people

         13        who haven't.

         14             One of the things which occurs to me is, I have made

         15        a lot of business decisions over the years in reliance on

         16        the fact that I can take certain risks without risking my

         17        home.  In all likelihood, I wouldn't have taken those

         18        risks if I knew that I was risking my home.  And I think

         19        that general philosophy helps the economy of this state.

         20        I think as many people who have come to this state to hide

         21        their assets, there are an awful lot of people that have

         22        come to the state to bring capital to the state because

         23        they know that the capital is protected in the state.  My

         24        sense about the matter is that if you -- the $500,000 is

         25        better than the $200,000, but as a practical matter, what


          1        you are really doing is you are, you know, punishing the

          2        people who have been successful.  And it seems to me that

          3        we are headed the wrong way.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let me see if I understand your

          5        position.  On this particular matter, on reconsideration,

          6        you are going to vote no because you are going for

          7        500,000.  But when we get to the main motion, you are

          8        going to vote no because you are against it?

          9             COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  That's right.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I understand.  Now, who

         11        else wants to be heard on this motion to reconsider?

         12        Commissioner Mills.

         13             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Just briefly to those last two

         14        points, the issue Commissioner Connor raised, who will be

         15        affected.  Under the $500,000, it's four-tenths of

         16        1 percent will be even related to the issue.  And in terms

         17        of your conversation about liability based on tort, if I

         18        am killed by a drunk driver and my wife hires you to

         19        represent her and you get her a verdict that will take

         20        care of her for the rest of her life, I want you to be

         21        able to levy on somebody that has a $2 million house.  And

         22        if you don't pass this, you won't be able to do that.

         23             And with regards to the issue -- a $200,000 house you

         24        can count on.  I mean, all the people in this state that

         25        are concerned about their investments, they can know that


          1        that $200,000 house is protected.  Those 4 percent that

          2        are beyond that, they may be protected by Senator Scott in

          3        the Senate within the next few years when they raise the

          4        amount, but how about the mechanics and how about the

          5        people that Commissioner Marshall talked about who have

          6        worked hard and played by the rules and are owed money?

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So, you are against or for it?

          8             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I am for the motion to

          9        reconsider --

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let's do this, if we can.  I

         11        don't want to cut you off, but Commissioner Planas can

         12        close on the motion to reconsider and we can come back on

         13        the main motion.  We are getting now to debating the main

         14        motion.  And the only thing that's really before you is

         15        the $500,000 versus $200,000.  And if that's what you want

         16        to speak to, fine.  If not, let's wait until we get to the

         17        motion.

         18             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I have a question.  On the

         19        200,000 or the 500,000, is it equity that the homeowner

         20        has or is it the value of the property?

         21             No, there is a difference between the equity and the

         22        value of the property.  For example, if a homeowner has a

         23        $200,000 home with a $180,000 mortgage, he has $20,000 of

         24        equity.  I read -- well the question still is, is it

         25        equity that we are protecting at 200 or 500, or is it the


          1        value of the home?  I read it in the original proposal to

          2        be equity, which would be a far different issue in terms

          3        of value.  Because most -- a lot of homeowners don't have

          4        the equity but the home may be valued at more than

          5        200,000.  I think it is worthy of clarification.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Can anybody answer his question?

          7        Okay.  Commission Langley.

          8             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  The Constitution says "value."

          9        Now the would-be judgment of creditors say, Yeah, but if

         10        they didn't have that much equity, we wouldn't go after

         11        it.  Well, you know, that's trusting somebody who's after

         12        you.  So I don't know whether you want to do that or not.

         13        But it says "value."  So if you had a $600,000 home and

         14        owed 400,000 on it, you are not exempt.  You know, there

         15        is no protection there regardless of the lack of equity.

         16        So they could take what you have and you still owe the

         17        money on the mortgage by the way.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Freidin, do you want

         19        to give a stab at that?

         20             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  No, I want to ask a question.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner Brochin,

         22        did he answer your question?

         23             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  No, I don't think so.  I

         24        understood the distinction.  I just don't know what the

         25        amendment we are voting on is talking about.  I know what


          1        it says currently in the Constitution.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Go back to the

          3        original motion which uses the word, the amount of value,

          4        I think; isn't that correct?

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of order.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Yes, sir.

          7             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This is not on the motion to

          8        reconsider the amount.  This goes to the bill itself.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You mean the debate you are

         10        talking about?

         11             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I'll rule any

         13        discussions out of order other than the issue on

         14        reconsideration.  The rules chairman is correct and that

         15        is whether or not you want the 500,000 or leave it at

         16        200,000 as it is -- beg your pardon?

         17             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  All of this makes a

         18        difference.

         19             (Off-the-record comment.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We are at five.  If you vote no,

         21        it will stay at five.  If you vote yes, then it will go

         22        back for reconsideration.  And then if you vote it down,

         23        we will be back to 200,000, all right?  Now everybody know

         24        what, do you have to have -- do you have another question,

         25        Commissioner Fredin?


          1             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I have a question, yes, sir.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You have the floor.

          3             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Mr. Mills, as the proponent of

          4        this proposal, this relates to the issue of 200,000 versus

          5        500,000.  As a practical matter, I'm trying to figure out

          6        how this would work.  If I had a judgment against me for

          7        $1 million, and let's say it was 500,000, and my

          8        understanding is if I owned a home that was worth

          9        $600,000, somebody could foreclose on my home, force me to

         10        sell my home and they would take the 100 -- the extra, the

         11        $100,000 over and above the limit; is that correct?

         12             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  That's my understanding.

         13             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  What happens to that other

         14        $500,000 in cash that I have gotten out of the sale of the

         15        home?

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I don't want to interrupt you,

         17        but this goes directly to the point of order.  This is on

         18        the main motion.  We are here solely on the issue of

         19        reconsidering an amendment to the main motion and we will

         20        discuss that when we get to the main motion.

         21             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  With all due respect,

         22        Mr. Chair, we have -- in order to know whether we want to

         23        vote to reconsider, I think we have to understand what

         24        this whole thing does.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You know, we are going to debate


          1        that for another hour.  I have ruled on the point of order

          2        that any discussion other than on the motion to reconsider

          3        is out of order.  And that question is out of order at

          4        this point.  And we will now, let's proceed to vote on

          5        whether or not we reconsider.  We still have some other

          6        debate on that if we vote to reconsider.  Commissioner

          7        Planas to close since it is his offer.

          8             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Commissioners, I'd like for you

          9        to go back in time when our parents bought a home and all

         10        of a sudden, you know, they bought a house that was worth,

         11        in Miami, 30 years ago, it was probably worth $75,000.

         12        During those 30 years they have been paying everything

         13        very good, they have very good credit and so forth.  And

         14        all of a sudden that house, because of inflation and so

         15        forth is valued at $400,000.  All of a sudden this -- my

         16        father -- my father had a business and he went out and got

         17        and started a business, he was doing good but all of a

         18        sudden inflation hit, business turned bad, and he had to

         19        close the business so he declared himself in bankruptcy.

         20             So now my mother has to, because of my father trying

         21        to do business, all of a sudden she is without a home

         22        because somebody said, Well, the law this time now will be

         23        $200,000.  So what happened if he would have died, he just

         24        died?  Then what's happened to the widows?  What happened

         25        to the elderly?  This is a true story now.


          1             My son was at Thanksgiving in Miami, and all of a

          2        sudden -- he is 20 years old, he goes to school here at

          3        Florida State -- and I was with him, and he came out with

          4        a bunch of things from Burdines store.  So I said, where

          5        did you buy these things?  He told me Burdines.  With what

          6        money?  I don't have a credit card for you or anything

          7        like that.  He said, No.  They went ahead in Burdines and

          8        they insisted of me opening an account because they said

          9        if I open an account at that time, I can buy as much

         10        merchandise for $500 with a 10 percent discount.  They

         11        were forcing a 20-year old kid to open an account because

         12        they were going to get an extra 10 percent.

         13             How many of you have received lately, because this

         14        looks like a check, I was discussing this with almost

         15        everybody, it looks like a check.  You got -- if you want

         16        to you can borrow up to -- it says Carlos Planas $150,000.

         17        It is a check and it is signed and everything, it looks

         18        good and it was from a mortgage company.  And they said,

         19        since you have equity in your home, now you are going to

         20        receive $150,000.

         21             Everyday in our lives, everyday in our lives, we are

         22        hit very hard for opening accounts, getting credit and so

         23        forth.  Let me tell you what's happened to the creditors,

         24        because it happened to me again last week, I was telling

         25        you that.  I have the opportunity when I open an account


          1        with somebody, I have the opportunity and all creditors

          2        have the opportunity of going out and saying, Okay, give

          3        me your personal guarantee, sign me a lien against your

          4        home, sign me a lien against your business, they have all

          5        the opportunities to recover all this money before they

          6        issue credit.

          7             Why are we going to jeopardize something that is so

          8        important to the livelihood of everybody here in the state

          9        of Florida?  Yes, I know, and know it is a tremendous

         10        impact that there is a lot of people coming from other

         11        states and coming down to south Florida so they can

         12        declare bankruptcy.  But I don't think we can go ahead and

         13        penalize the true residents of the state of Florida

         14        because that's happening, and we should leave this issue

         15        alone.

         16             I recommend for you guys to keep the 500,000.  Thank

         17        you, Mr. Chairman.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Everybody be prepared

         19        to vote, let's vote.  This is the motion to reconsider.

         20             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine and announce the

         22        votes.

         23             READING CLERK:  Eleven yeas, 19 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The motion to

         25        reconsider fails.  We now, I think, go on this page.


          1             (Off-the-record comment.)

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, on your page, we're going to

          3        the substitute amendment by Commissioner Mills.  On

          4        Page 2, Lines 16 to 17, deletes language relating to the

          5        median value.  That's what's pending at the moment.

          6             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman?

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Barkdull.

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It's a housekeeping motion.

          9        I move that we extend the time for the session this

         10        morning until 12:30 or the conclusion of this matter,

         11        whichever becomes last and then we will back up the

         12        committee meetings one half hour except the committee on

         13        rules which is scheduled to meet at 5:00, that will stay

         14        at 5:00.  The rest of them will back up from 1:00 to 1:30.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Without objection, we

         16        will extend the time for 30 minutes and extend the time

         17        for the meeting of the committees 30 minutes later.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's not exactly the

         19        motion, if that's what the Chair wished.  The motion was

         20        until we conclude this matter or 12:30.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Until we conclude

         22        this matter which we are going to do by 12:30.  Okay.

         23        Commissioner Mills.

         24             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I think that at

         25        this point, this provision should be noncontroversial.


          1        This allows you to raise it above $500,000.  And at that

          2        point, I suspect we might as well just go ahead and vote

          3        on the bill and you can have -- I don't think -- I think

          4        we've had significant debate on it.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, we have got to vote on your

          6        amendment which leaves it up to what now?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  It accords the Legislature the

          8        authority to raise the figure which is now 500,000.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  But not lower it?

         10             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  But not lower it.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  All in favor of the

         12        substitute amendment say aye.  All opposed?

         13             (Verbal vote taken.)

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It carries.  Substitute amendment

         15        is adopted.

         16             All right.  Now we go, we have adopted already

         17        Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4.  We are now on the

         18        main motion as amended by these various amendments.  I

         19        don't know how anybody could read it at this point.  The

         20        issues of what we have been discussing, Commissioner

         21        Mills, it is your proposal.

         22             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Correct.  I think it has been

         23        thoroughly explained at this time.  And if there is some

         24        clarifications, I'd be glad to try to make them.  But it

         25        is now at $500,000 legislative discretion, which when this


          1        ultimately comes back before the commission, I'm not sure

          2        if it sends the right message.  I may end up voting

          3        against it myself.  But at this point, it seems to me, we

          4        ought to -- I will vote for it to keep the concept that we

          5        have been talking about alive which is to say we want to

          6        be responsible about how we deal with creditors.  And I

          7        would hope those people who endorse this amendment, having

          8        it now passed, would vote for this provision.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I want to correct one thing here

         10        that's been said many times in these debates, these -- you

         11        are supposed to vote on these not to keep them alive.  You

         12        are supposed to vote on these as to whether or not you

         13        think they ought to be in the Constitution.  Because when

         14        we get to the end, we are not going to sit around and redo

         15        this.  The style and drafting is going to have to spend a

         16        lot of time on everything you do and then you are going to

         17        come and start all over again.  That's not the purpose of

         18        the rules.

         19             And those that keep saying, Well, let's keep it alive

         20        and drag it out and then we will kill it, that's not the

         21        purpose of these rules.  And, Commissioner Mills, since I

         22        had planned to name you chairman of style and drafting,

         23        you should know that better than anybody in the room.  And

         24        I said "had planned."  I'm going to have to discuss it

         25        with you at lunch.


          1             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Does that mean I should vote no

          2        on this, Mr. Chairman?

          3             (Laughter.)

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I don't care how you vote on it,

          5        you vote your conscience on it but I'm tired of hearing

          6        this, Well, let's just put it up there and run it by as a

          7        trial balloon.  That is not the purpose of the rules.  You

          8        are supposed to vote yes or no on whether or not you want

          9        these submitted in the Constitution.  And then when we get

         10        to the end after the style and drafting, in their great

         11        form, we will know whether or not we are going to put it

         12        on the ballot at all or not.

         13             Now, Commissioner Freidin, I have cut you off and I

         14        apologize and you now have the floor.

         15             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Your apology is accepted,

         16        Mr. Chairman.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Thank you, ma'am.

         18             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Getting back to my question.

         19        Mr. Zack, did you need to --

         20             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Go ahead.

         21             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Be seated, Mr. Zack.

         22             (Laughter.)

         23             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Did you want to be excused,

         24        Mr. Zack?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I want to know if you would yield


          1        for a question.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  She hasn't said anything yet.

          3        Commissioner Zack, you are out of order.  You are going to

          4        get to say something before he asks you to yield,

          5        Commissioner Freidin.

          6             (Laughter.)

          7             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Here is my concern about all

          8        this, and I would like for somebody to please explain this

          9        to me.  I favor the concept of not allowing people who

         10        have a lot of money to come into this state, put a huge

         11        amount of money into their homestead and then be protected

         12        from creditors.  I think that is a great idea.  I want to

         13        make sure that what is happening here, or what this

         14        proposal does is that.

         15             My concern -- but I also have a counterveiling

         16        concern that I want everybody in this state who has saved,

         17        at least now we have decided it is $500,000, you know, I

         18        disagreed with that, but that's where we are right now.  I

         19        want to make sure that people who have worked hard to put

         20        their money into a homestead are protected to some extent.

         21             And I am not sure that the language here -- and I

         22        guess this is a question not a comment, because I would

         23        like the answer, is:  Does the language here protect the

         24        first now $500,000 that somebody has?  I'm concerned that

         25        under this proposal, there can be a forced sale and then


          1        the entire value of the homestead, not just anything over

          2        $500,000, gets taken.  That's my concern.  My question is,

          3        how does it work?

          4             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, it's my understanding, it

          5        protects the $500,000 in value.

          6             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Where does it say that?

          7             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, it says to the extent of

          8        now $500,000 in value if located outside the municipality.

          9        That was my understanding of the intent, that's my intent,

         10        if that's not what it does, then I'll be glad to change

         11        it.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I have got Commissioner Zack over

         13        here that I had to chastise.  I will un-chastise him and

         14        recognize him.

         15             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Well, I knew Ms. Freidin's

         16        question and I ask you if this may solve the problem that

         17        Ms. Freidin has addressed, and that has been addressed by

         18        a number of proponents as well as Mr. Sullivan who said he

         19        just didn't know how to solve the problem, I think we have

         20        been focusing on the wrong part of this proposal.  If

         21        everybody would turn in the proposal, which is Proposal

         22        No. 70 as you know, and look at the fact that there are

         23        two paragraphs in this proposal, Paragraph D and Paragraph

         24        E.  All we have been talking about is Paragraph D.  And D

         25        is an amount.  The amount, I suggest, is an irrelevant


          1        amount based on the concern that is expressed by

          2        Ms. Freidin and was expressed by Commissioner Sullivan and

          3        a number of other people.

          4             And the concern is a very valid concern and is one

          5        that I think troubles every person in this chamber because

          6        I can't imagine anyone in this chamber who would feel

          7        comfortable with someone who came into the state of

          8        Florida with a $10 million judgment against them for

          9        killing their next-door neighbor and putting all of that

         10        money into a house and having that money protected and

         11        that innocent family of that next-door neighbor being

         12        unable to collect.  That is something that offends our

         13        sense of fairness and logic, and I doubt that there is

         14        anyone in this room who would not be offended by that

         15        scenario.

         16             What you would have if we passed E and did not have

         17        any value, number set to D, is the following scenario, as

         18        Commissioner Lowndes had talked about, a person in a

         19        2 million house, or $5 million house, or

         20        Commissioner Planas' example of a person in Miami whose,

         21        because of inflation, house had gone up and just happened

         22        to live on the water and the price had gone up.  We have

         23        seen that, I have seen $30,000 houses in 1960 be worth

         24        over $1 million.

         25             So the number is not the concern, the fact is that


          1        when people honestly and legitimately buy a homestead, as

          2        suggested by Commissioner Lowndes, and live in that

          3        homestead, raise their children in that homestead, make

          4        their business decisions based on the protection of that

          5        homestead, that homestead, regardless of the amount,

          6        should be protected.

          7             But what should not be allowed to occur is that

          8        somebody who has a homestead and has a situation like

          9        Commissioner Connor has mentioned, all of a sudden sells

         10        their business and decides that they are going to put the

         11        $2 million that previously could have been attached to

         12        satisfy a judgment, as Mr. Connor described, all of a

         13        sudden into their house, only to defraud creditors, that

         14        should not be allowed.

         15             And frankly, if we pass E alone, all the concerns,

         16        the rightful concerns of people here to avoid an abuse and

         17        manipulation of our judicial system will be accomplished

         18        on the one hand.  And on the other hand, you protect the

         19        homesteads of people who have lived in them, have worked

         20        for them, have relied on them, and have reason to have

         21        those homesteads protected.  So I'm suggesting that this

         22        is one of the rare opportunities that actually we can do

         23        what everybody in this chamber believes should be done.

         24             (Off-the-record comment.)

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, your microphone is off.


          1             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's when I do my best work.

          2        Would we bifurcate D and E as a substitute amendment and

          3        be able to, in effect, pass E and then vote down D?  How

          4        would we proceed if we wished to do that, Mr. Chairman?

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think I ruled that out of

          6        order.

          7             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Pardon me?  It's a parliamentary

          8        inquiry solely.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  If you are going to do anything,

         10        you prepare an amendment in writing and lay it on the

         11        table, otherwise we're going to --

         12             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We will be back in a moment,

         13        Mr. Chairman.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I hope you do better

         15        than we've been doing.  All right.  Who wants to debate?

         16             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Yield to a question.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans.  Commissioner

         18        Brochin, I see you.

         19             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Question of Commissioner Zack, I

         20        need you.  Commissioner Zack, on this issue of defrauding

         21        creditors, how does that play into the current status of

         22        the law that you can plan bankruptcy proceedings?  You are

         23        allowed to plan without necessarily being fraudulent?  How

         24        does this interplay with your language?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer, but


          1        what it will say, after we get through drafting it, is

          2        that if it's done with the --

          3             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of order.  Point of

          4        order.  There is nothing before the body at this time on

          5        this subject.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Until there is an

          7        amendment, that's not a proper inquiry.

          8             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  I mean, it is already there --

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Not what you are talking about

         10        because he is fixing to file an amendment that is going to

         11        change it.  Then that will be a proper inquiry to make at

         12        that point.

         13             COMMISSIONER EVANS:  I see it written in mine.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is out of order.  Commissioner

         15        Brochin.

         16             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I'm not sure if this is a

         17        question or a debate.  And the reason I'm not sure is the

         18        reason I tried to get at earlier, trying to distinguish

         19        between equity and value.  If, as I understand it, we are

         20        voting based on the value of the property, this is a very

         21        bad idea.  The value of the property should be, in my

         22        opinion, irrelevant to what you are trying to get at here.

         23        And what you are trying to get at is people who take

         24        equity and load it into their house to high numbers to

         25        protect themselves from creditors executing on their home.


          1             The counterveiling policy is to not throw anybody out

          2        of their home.  So what you try to do with the $500 equity

          3        limit is to say if you put $500,000 in the home, that will

          4        be protected, and it won't be executed upon, or 200,000,

          5        which would have also been an appropriate level.  But if

          6        you are talking about the value of the home, it is

          7        irrelevant.

          8             I'll give you an example.  If you own a million

          9        dollars home that is valued at $1 million, but you only

         10        have $100,000 of equity; that is you owe $900,000 to the

         11        mortgagee, under this proposal, you could execute on the

         12        home.  $900,000 would go to the creditor -- the mortgagee,

         13        and $100,000 would go to pay off the would-be creditor and

         14        you have not really protected that homestead.

         15             So I'm assuming, because no one is correcting me,

         16        that we are voting on the value of the property.  And

         17        such, this is a very bad idea and I'm going to vote

         18        against it.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think you are correct.  If

         20        everybody would read the actual thing here, I think we

         21        might eliminate some of the confusion.  The pertinent

         22        portion of this says that a homestead to the extent of now

         23        $500,000 in value is exempt from forced sale.  And then it

         24        comes down and says the Legislature may, by general law,

         25        raise the value limitation of the homestead exemption


          1        granted in Paragraph A1 based on changes in the median

          2        just value of the Florida homestead properties for

          3        purposes -- and that was taken out.  For purpose of this

          4        section, the value of the homestead property is the just

          5        value as reflected in the records of the county property

          6        appraiser.

          7             Then the next paragraph, E, the one which he is

          8        seeking to eliminate, if he ever gets it here, it says the

          9        homestead exemption in this section does not apply to any

         10        property to the extent that it is acquired or improved or

         11        its equity value increased with the intent to defraud

         12        creditors.  The Legislature may, by general law, implement

         13        this section.

         14             So your question, Commissioner Brochin, is it does

         15        relate to value.  And the issue of whether or not you can

         16        go ahead, even if it's otherwise, would be this fraud

         17        provision that's in the -- that the Legislature could

         18        provide.

         19             So it does relate to the value of the property.  And

         20        the question that everybody has asked, if you read this,

         21        says if you have a $500,000 appraised value on the

         22        property rolls, they can levy on it regardless.  They may

         23        not get much out of it, but they can levy on it.  If you

         24        create it by equity in the manner you described, if you

         25        did it by fraud, the Legislature could provide you could


          1        take that.

          2             And that's the way it reads now and I think the

          3        sponsor will agree that that's the proper interpretation

          4        as it exists.

          5             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I think that's

          6        correct.  But my understanding, if I understand your

          7        question, it now becomes really only relevant above

          8        $500,000, but it is relevant.  And I think, after having

          9        done this for two days, this really was not my entire

         10        purpose of serving on the Constitution Revision

         11        Commission, as a footnote.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You ought to be able to get a

         13        loan now.

         14             (Laughter.)

         15             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  I'm not sure.  I think if

         16        placing the term "equity" in there solves the problem

         17        above $500,000, then let's do that.  But I think -- I

         18        understand below 500,000 there is no problem.  If you now

         19        have a million-dollar home, everybody in here raise their

         20        hands -- no.  If you have a million-dollar home, you will

         21        be at risk to the extent that your equity was at risk

         22        above that $500,000 amount or -- so --

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Nabors.

         24             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me ask the sponsor a

         25        question.  I think if you follow this through, you have


          1        got to use the concept equity, not value.  As soon as you

          2        start putting in a dollar amount, let's give an example.

          3        If you own a house that's worth $500,000 free and clear,

          4        own a house that's worth $500,000 with a $400,000

          5        mortgage, if you use value, both of those are protected.

          6        But you protect 500,000 of your assets and only protect

          7        100,000 of mine.  So you've got to use equity if you are

          8        going to do that.

          9             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Commissioner Nabors is right as

         10        he always is.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So what he is saying if I come

         12        down here from New York and put $2 million cash into a

         13        home, where does that leave it?  Then I could be levied on

         14        it?

         15             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  You could be levied on

         16        1.5 million --

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What if I come down here and put

         18        $2 million in a mortgage on it?

         19             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  The point is that currently the

         20        homestead is protected in value -- the homestead is

         21        protected as a homestead.  So now, we're trying to protect

         22        some of the homestead but not all of it.  So it has to be

         23        equity.  We can't worry about what someone from New York

         24        would do.

         25             But the problem is, you are treating people unequally


          1        in terms of the equal protection because you would have a

          2        situation where one individual, if it is a $400,000 house,

          3        could be protected to $400,000 and another one to $10,000.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think that's what Commissioner

          5        Mills agrees with you.

          6             COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the

          7        commission for this taking this long.  It was certainly

          8        not my intention that we would spend half as long on this

          9        as we did on a unicameral Legislature.  I guess if we

         10        introduce the term "equity," it at least does what I think

         11        the intention of those who support this have in mind,

         12        which if Commissioner Brochin wants to introduce that, I

         13        would certainly accept that as a friendly amendment.  It

         14        then puts us on the proposal as a whole and you cannot

         15        vote it up or down.

         16             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  I know we don't call

         17        questions, but I have a feeling from listening and

         18        watching and those that have left and haven't come back,

         19        that everybody is really ready to weigh in on whether or

         20        not they want to mess with the homestead exception at all.

         21        And that may be what we wind up voting on here,

         22        Commissioner Mills.  And so if everybody is ready to vote.

         23        Commissioner Connor has a question.

         24             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, I have a point of inquiry

         25        of the Chair.  We have a proposed amendment that I think


          1        will assuage the concerns of a number of folks that have

          2        been expressed thus far.  I'm not sure what the status of

          3        it is or how it would be affected --

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Do you have your

          5        amendment?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It is being put on the desk any

          7        moment now.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will stand down

          9        until we get the amendment or stand up.

         10             (Pause.)

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Come to order.  Commissioner Zack

         12        has an amendment on the table now which you need to

         13        consider -- first of all, let me apologize to Commissioner

         14        Zack.  I didn't know he had an amendment that did what it

         15        does.  I thought he was just fine-tuning it.  But he has

         16        an amendment which goes to the heart of this issue.  So I

         17        think all of us better consider this because his amendment

         18        eliminates most of what we just did.

         19             (Pause.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have it now.  Commissioner

         21        Zack, you are recognized to explain your amendment that

         22        you are moving.

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  First of all, we will let -- I

         25        think we can actually read this one.  This one is typed.


          1        I am going to ask the clerk to read the amendment if you

          2        can.  I think what he says is strike everything but what

          3        he has amended.

          4             READING CLERK:  By Commissioners Connor and Zack.  On

          5        Page 1, Line 23, through Page 2, Line 24, delete those

          6        lines and insert a lengthy amendment, Mr. Chairman.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Go ahead and read it.  Just read

          8        the paragraph.  He deleted all of that and added this

          9        amendment for Paragraph 3.  This will become new paragraph

         10        3, or revised Paragraph 3.  All of the rest of it will

         11        remain the same as it is in the present Constitution.

         12             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, let us get

         13        copies of this one.

         14             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  They are being passed out.  I

         15        can't pass them out any quicker.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Everything is gone.  It's just as

         17        it was, there are no limits.  It's just as it was.  There

         18        are no changes whatsoever in the existing homestead law --

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well he has got to read it.

         20             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  -- with the following exception.

         21             READING CLERK:  Paragraph 3, the homestead exemption

         22        in this section does not apply to any property to the

         23        extent that it is acquired with the intent to defraud

         24        creditors.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, you are recognized,


          1        Commissioner Zack, to explain what you are proposing.

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  What that does is leave the

          3        present homestead law intact with the following language

          4        as the only change, which is No. 3, which you see on

          5        Page 2, Lines 5 through 7.  And what has happened,

          6        frankly, this amendment is necessary because of a number

          7        of cases that have come out of the Florida Supreme Court

          8        that basically say that, no matter what the reason, if the

          9        money is ultimately put into the homestead, it is

         10        protected.

         11             What you can have, of course, I'll take Mr. Connor's

         12        example because I think it is a good example, that you

         13        have a physician whose son or member of the family rolls

         14        over a car, passenger is hurt or a quadriplegic which you

         15        can say has a potential of $10,000,00 plus verdict.  And

         16        that physician lives in a million-dollar house and has

         17        lived in that house for a dozen years.  That house would

         18        be protected.

         19             However, if he or she has $5 million in stocks, today

         20        they could sell those stocks and buy a new homestead for

         21        $6 million and the whole amount would be protected.  That

         22        wasn't the intent of the homestead laws.  It wasn't

         23        intended to be able to shield and manipulate the justice

         24        system.  What this will do is allow people who buy houses

         25        and pay for houses and live in houses, regardless of the


          1        amount, so that everyone is treated equally, they are

          2        protected.  But anybody who tries to gain the system,

          3        defraud the system, abuse the system by using their

          4        homestead to shield otherwise underprotected assets, will

          5        not be allowed to do it.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  And you move then the

          7        adoption of the amendment?  Commissioner Planas.

          8             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Question.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Question from Commissioner

         10        Planas.

         11             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  If I have a business and --

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Turn the mike on.

         13             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  If I have a business and all of

         14        a sudden I have good equity in my homestead and I borrow

         15        400,000 against it, just to continue my business, and all

         16        of a sudden about six months later, the business fails and

         17        I go bankrupt, would that be considered fraud?

         18             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  It wouldn't under my

         19        understanding of the proposal because you had no intent to

         20        defraud.  You are validly borrowing monies which you had

         21        an equity position in your house to do.  You had no

         22        pending lawsuit against you and there is no reason to

         23        assume there was any intent to defraud.

         24             COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  And I will not have to prove

         25        such a thing?


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Commissioner

          2        Wetherington.

          3             COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON:  Just testing your intent

          4        here.  The concept I think is a good one, but let's say

          5        that I am paying a mortgage on my house, I have a

          6        business, things get bad.  I have a choice to make.  The

          7        choice would be whether I continue to pay my house

          8        payments and keep my house up, improvements on my house,

          9        or whether I pay off business creditors.  I elect to keep

         10        paying on my house, to keep trying to make my mortgage

         11        payments instead of paying my business creditors.

         12             The business creditors come in and they say that's a

         13        fraud on them because I knew that I had some business

         14        problems out here that they might sue me on.  Instead of

         15        taking the money and paying it over to them, I took the

         16        money and I put it in my house and therefore they want to

         17        come and say I've committed a fraud.  Would that

         18        constitute a fraud within the meaning of your proposal?

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I was very concerned about that

         20        specific question.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Hawkes and I

         21        chatted about that and that's why the words "delay" and

         22        "hinder" were stricken and intent to defraud was used

         23        exclusively.  And under my understanding, is there would

         24        be no intent to defraud paying a normal house payment,

         25        which you have paid over all the years, I suggest to you


          1        there could be no intent to defraud under that scenario.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack, didn't you

          3        also insert that it is acquired with intent to defraud?

          4        In other words, at the time you acquired it, you would

          5        have the intent to defraud?

          6             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  That's correct.  That is an

          7        additional protection.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  Commissioner Freidin.

          9             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We added the word "intent" to

         10        defraud as opposed to defraud.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Correct.  Commissioner Freidin.

         12             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  I wanted to ask a question

         13        with regard to your use of the word "acquired."  Supposing

         14        that there was a judgment against a homeowner, the home is

         15        valued and there is an equity of $200,000.  There is a

         16        lawsuit -- let's say we haven't gotten to the judgment

         17        stage yet -- there is a lawsuit against that homeowner and

         18        the owner of the home says, I have a lawsuit coming.  I am

         19        going to build a new million-dollar wing on my home, I'm

         20        going to sell all of my stocks.  So my concern is with the

         21        word "acquired," should it not be "enhanced" or something

         22        of that nature?  I don't how you would do it, but that is

         23        my question.

         24             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I will yield to Commissioner

         25        Hawkes.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Hawkes.

          2             COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  I think "acquired" covers your

          3        situation.  I mean, let's use an example that might be a

          4        little more realistic for many Floridians, maybe I have

          5        $10,000 worth of stocks and I see that someone is going to

          6        file a lawsuit against me and I want to shield my 10,000.

          7        I take that 10,000 out of what would be attachable by my

          8        creditor and I put it toward my house.

          9             I think that what the amendment says is to any

         10        property to the extent that it is acquired.  So I think

         11        that I have acquired equity in that property to the extent

         12        of $10,000.  If I have another $50,000 worth of equity in

         13        the property, that's mine, that's legitimate.  The 10,000

         14        is what I intended to defraud my legitimate creditor with

         15        and the 10,000, I believe, would be attachable but not the

         16        50,000 that I had prior to moving equity into the home.

         17             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Would it not be okay then to

         18        substitute the word "equity" for "property" on the same

         19        line?

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Zack, you are being

         21        questioned.

         22             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I think that's appropriate to

         23        amend the property to equity.

         24             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  You have equity in the

         25        property.  Maybe it should say any equity in the property


          1        to the extent --

          2             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  See if it would resolve your

          3        concerns.  If the amendment would read as follows, The

          4        homestead exception in this section does not apply to any

          5        property to the extent that it is acquired or improved or

          6        its equity value increased with the intend to defraud

          7        creditors.

          8             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  That totally satisfies my

          9        concern.

         10             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Point of order.  Not the

         11        matter before the body.  There's no substitute on the

         12        desk, no amendment on the desk.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Your point is well taken.  If

         14        you're going to make a substitute, somebody better make

         15        it.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Would Mr. Connor agree to

         17        substitute on that basis?

         18             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  To the extent that it is

         19        acquired or improved?

         20             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Commissioner Kogan has the exact

         21        language in front of him.  Could you read it?

         22             COMMISSIONER FREIDIN:  Could you read it again?

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is an amendment to the

         24        amendment.  We are starting back right where we were

         25        yesterday afternoon.  The only reason this has got to be


          1        the most vexatious thing we've dealt with is it involves

          2        money.  I think everything else that involved concepts,

          3        we've done very well.  Commissioner Scott.

          4             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Parliamentary inquiry here.  I'm

          5        afraid that what we are doing here is it's lunch time and

          6        we are going to starve ourselves out of house and home.

          7        Have you heard that saying?

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  I think this, if -- I'm almost

          9        tempted to appoint a select committee.  But I don't know

         10        who I could select to rewrite this.  I could take

         11        Commissioner Freidin and Commissioner Brochin, I could

         12        take ten of you, you-all go in a room and write this.  We

         13        can't write it on the floor.  If you are going to have the

         14        amendments and things, they have to be on the table.

         15        Commissioner.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We have had the advantage of

         17        having it done.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Is it on the table?

         19        Do you have somebody moving an amendment to the amendment?

         20             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  May I respond to Commissioner's

         21        Zack's --

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, first of all, has anybody

         23        moved the amendment to the amendment?  Are you going to

         24        move it, Commissioner Zack?

         25             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Yes, I move it.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, wait a minute.  It is moved.

          2        Would you please read the amendment to the amendment?

          3             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Zack on Page 2, Line

          4        6, after "acquired" insert "or improved or its equity

          5        value increased."

          6             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  If I may.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Now, Commissioner Zack, it is his

          8        amendment to his amendment.  Do you yield to Commissioner

          9        Connor?  Commissioner Conner.

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Earlier Commissioner Zack had

         11        asked me if I would accept that amendment, and the answer

         12        is no, for this simple reason, Mr. Chairman.  I don't have

         13        any difficulty with saying, to the extent it is acquired

         14        for improved, indeed I would suggest that the way you

         15        enhance the equity or value of your property is through

         16        improvement.  So I'm not -- I don't oppose the notion that

         17        we would say the homestead exception in the section does

         18        not apply to any property to the extent that it is

         19        acquired or improved with the intent to defraud creditors.

         20             I think that gets to the concern that has been raised

         21        by Commissioner Freidin.  It puts us in the position that,

         22        A, we seek to protect the homestead, but we do not seek to

         23        protect or shield those who either acquire a homestead or

         24        improve the homestead with the intent of defrauding

         25        creditors.  I think we then balance the interests that are


          1        intentioned in this regard.

          2             But I would suggest that to include that additional

          3        language is confusing.  And frankly one of the role of our

          4        courts is to adjust the equities of the people who are

          5        contending about these issues.  I think acquire or improve

          6        is very clear, and I think the courts would not have

          7        difficulty --

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  So you oppose the amendment to

          9        the amendment?

         10             COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Yes, sir.

         11             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I think his point is very well

         12        taken.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Well, it may be, all right then.

         14        All in favor -- then you can vote this down and file

         15        another one.

         16             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I will withdraw the amendment to

         17        the amendment and substitute the language described by

         18        Mr. Connor.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have to have another

         20        amendment.

         21             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I withdraw the previous one after

         22        listening to Mr. Connor's persuasive argument.  Rules

         23        Chairman, give me a point of order.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  He can ask for a waiver of

         25        the rules and withdraw the amendment without objection.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, the amendment

          2        is withdrawn.  And now you are filing another amendment.

          3        It's on the table.

          4             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  We're just deleting.

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  But it is on the table.  Would

          6        you let us read it in accordance with the rules?  If you

          7        can read the writing.

          8             READING CLERK:  By Commissioner Connor, on Page 2,

          9        Line 6, after "acquired" insert "or improved."

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  That's the amendment,

         11        you have heard it, the amendment to the amendment.  And

         12        Commissioner Nabors, you wanted to speak on that.

         13        Commissioner Nabors.

         14             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I have two quick questions.

         15        Mr. Zack, would you believe that there is a lot of us that

         16        feel that we have a limited number of proposals we can put

         17        in front of the people and the lesser the number, the

         18        better, would you believe that?

         19             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Absolutely.  I have said so.

         20             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  And then maybe this would even

         21        make David Letterman's top 10 list, would you believe

         22        that?

         23             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I've heard a lot of top 10 lists,

         24        you have to tell me which one.

         25             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Let me ask you a question.  We


          1        all read the same books as lawyers.  Would you believe it

          2        is my view that if you had, in fact, a fraudulent

          3        conveyance, to defraud creditors of homestead, that that

          4        could be set aside as a fraudulent conveyance because you

          5        would look at the intent of the person conveying the

          6        property?

          7             COMMISSIONER ZACK:  I used to believe that, but you

          8        have to read the current case law on that.  And the

          9        current case law very much leaves that question in doubt

         10        and allows people to manipulate the system, which is the

         11        reason for this amendment.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Anybody else want to

         13        be heard on the amendment to the amendment, which has now

         14        been read and?  Reread.  All right.  Are you ready to vote

         15        on the amendment?  All in favor of the amendment say aye.

         16        All opposed, no.

         17             (Verbal vote taken.)

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  We will vote.  This

         19        is the amendment to the amendment, which is this last

         20        language.  Unlock the machine, we are going to vote.

         21             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Everybody voted?  Announce the

         23        vote.

         24             READING CLERK:  23 ayes, 7 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Now we go to the real


          1        amendment which goes to the issue of what the final vote

          2        is here and that is the part that he offered originally,

          3        that the homestead exemption in this section does not

          4        apply to any property to the extent that it is acquired or

          5        improved with the intent to defraud creditors.  We are

          6        voting on that amendment which replaces all of the other

          7        things that were on there, the 500,000 and all those

          8        things we spent the time on.  So that's what we are on at

          9        the moment.  And Commissioner Brochin is the first one up,

         10        Commissioner Langley second one up. Commissioner Corr,

         11        you're third.

         12             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I'm speaking against this

         13        proposal for three reasons.  One is Florida has a long

         14        tradition of protecting homestead homes and now you have

         15        eliminated any floor whatsoever in terms of somebody's

         16        home being taken away even if there is an intent to

         17        defraud.  You've struck the 500,000, you've now struck the

         18        200,000 and you are going to put homeowners in a position

         19        where they could be subjected to litigation on the issue

         20        of whether or not there was an attempt to defraud

         21        creditors which is circumstantial in almost all cases and

         22        would subject homeowners no matter what the equity in the

         23        home is to the home being taken.

         24             Number two, I object to this because I think it opens

         25        up an extraordinary amount of litigation and although my


          1        partners back home may crucify me for this, I think

          2        opening more litigation on this particular issue that goes

          3        against our long-standing history here in Florida of

          4        making a home sacrosanct is just the wrong thing to do.

          5             And the third reason is what Commissioner Nabors

          6        alluded to and I just don't believe this is a hands-on

          7        priority for our Constitution to write intent issues on

          8        fraud into the Constitution of the state.  There are

          9        fraudulent conveyance statutes.  There are bankruptcy

         10        statutes that deal with this.  Creditors are not left

         11        totally holding the bag in fraudulent issues.  What they

         12        are left with and the problem is, is when they stick

         13        equity and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars

         14        into a home, notwithstanding an intent to defraud, that's

         15        what you should try to get at and that's what we started

         16        to get at.  But now you've gone full circle and totally

         17        removed any floor whatsoever to taking somebody's home --

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You are against the amendment.  I

         19        want you to understand, we are solely on the amendment.

         20        We are not on the concept at this point.  We're on the

         21        amendment.

         22             COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  I understood that the

         23        amendment that Commissioner Zack offered struck everything

         24        and only exempted it if there was an intent to defraud.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.  But then once we


          1        take that vote, then we have to vote on whether we want to

          2        do it at all.  Commissioner Langley.

          3             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  You-all really look at this

          4        amendment.  You know, to be honest, I'm not going to vote

          5        for this bill for several reasons.  But if you look at

          6        this amendment, you just threw every little mom and pop,

          7        every homeowner in this state in the court against the big

          8        law firms that represent all the major credit cards and

          9        all the banks and everybody else, because as soon as

         10        they've a judgment, and I don't care if it's $53.83, they

         11        can go in and say that's defrauding because, you know, he

         12        sold his 1984 Ford last week and he paid $1,000 on his

         13        mortgage and therefore he has defrauded us.

         14             And it is not fair to force the little people of this

         15        state, Commissioner Planas, into court against big law

         16        firms where they are going to have to go hire lawyers and

         17        defend themselves or lose their home.  This is the worst

         18        we could possibly do the people of this state.  There is

         19        defense to this.  There is no way that these poor

         20        people -- I had a situation similar to Commissioner

         21        Planas', when my son was a junior over at the University

         22        of Florida, he turned 21 years of age and City Bank sent

         23        him a credit card for $5,000 with a limit.  Man, that's

         24        great.  He didn't ask dad for anything for awhile there,

         25        you know.


          1             And the next thing I heard, unfortunately he was a

          2        junior, and I got sued.  They forgot the junior on the

          3        card, I got sued by City Bank for $5,500.  I said, I've

          4        never had a City Bank card.  Well, it turned out, it was

          5        Junior's.  But they got a judgment against Junior.  I

          6        wasn't going to pay it for him.  Let him learn that's not

          7        real money, that's plastic.

          8             So he learned that that wasn't real money and he had

          9        a judgment against him.  But then under this deal, had he

         10        a home, they could come back if they renewed their

         11        judgment 21 years later and take his home and he has got

         12        to go in and prove something.  This is a bad idea.  First

         13        thought about it, I thought was that it was a great

         14        idea --

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We have got to stick to what's on

         16        the floor.  Wait a minute.  What's on the floor before we

         17        get -- I loved your debate, it was great, but it goes to

         18        the whole issue, it doesn't go just to the amendment.  If

         19        the amendment is adopted, some people may change their

         20        minds and others.  So we are going to vote first on the

         21        amendment, then we are going to vote on the whole thing

         22        where you can do that again.

         23             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, his amendment

         24        removed all of the dollar amount exemptions.

         25             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's correct.


          1             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  So what I'm talking about,

          2        that amendment takes all our little moms and pops from any

          3        exemptions and puts them directly confronting the big

          4        credit --

          5             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  And you are going to vote no on

          6        the amendment?  You urge us to vote no on the amendment?

          7             COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Scott.

          9             COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Me too.  And two examples.  One

         10        is the one Commissioner Planas gave, business not doing

         11        well, try to help your business, take out a loan on your

         12        home.  You've thereby done something and perhaps -- and at

         13        least they can put it at issue that you defrauded your

         14        creditor.  And I just -- I just think that -- I agree with

         15        Commissioner Brochin, that there is enough to do.

         16             And I also agree with Commissioner Nabors that to put

         17        this on it will be at best confusing.  I think we even

         18        have some confusion in here.  And especially to say

         19        acquired or improved, I mean, it is just not a good idea.

         20             And I forgot the other example, but it was equally as

         21        bad as somebody trying to take -- oh, taxes.  It is

         22        deductible if you have a home loan, right.  So if somebody

         23        tells you about that and you go out it so happens at the

         24        same time somebody has an accident or you have a business

         25        not doing well, they say, Well, you tried to defraud


          1        creditors because you took out more of a loan on your home

          2        or whatever because it's deductible.  I just don't like

          3        this one or the other one.

          4             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Riley.

          5             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  A question, Mr. Chairman.  As I

          6        understand it, if we were to pass the present amendment,

          7        it would supplant then the original Proposal 70.  And if

          8        we do not pass, it then we go to Proposal 70 and vote on

          9        that.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  That's exactly right.

         11             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  I would certainly encourage us

         12        to get to it and let's vote.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Okay.  All right.  If anybody

         14        just feels like they have got to talk on this amendment,

         15        let's do the amendment.  And then if it is voted down,

         16        then we can vote.  If it's voted up then we can debate.

         17        All in favor of the amendment, open the machine and let's

         18        vote.  All in favor of the amendment, cast your vote.

         19             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

         20             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Lock the machine.  Announce the

         21        vote.

         22             READING CLERK:  Five yeas, 24 nays, Mr. Chairman.

         23             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  The amendment fails.

         24        Now we are back on the original, as amended, amended,

         25        amended one.  We're back to the $500,000, Commissioner


          1        Mills' proposal as amended.  Now if anybody wants to

          2        debate whether or not we adopt that, we will debate it.

          3        Hearing no debate, I then open the machines and let's

          4        vote.

          5             (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Announce the vote.

          7             READING CLERK:  Seven yeas, 24 nays, Mr. Chairman.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  The proposal fails.  We will now

          9        move on and eat lunch as I understand it.

         10             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  No, sir.  Wait a minute.

         11        Wait a minute.

         12             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  We can't leave without

         13        Commissioner Barkdull telling us something.

         14             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We have got some people that

         15        want to withdraw some items.  And for the purpose of

         16        housekeeping, we need to get it done.

         17             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Let's get it done.

         18             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I want to withdraw

         19        Proposition 19, this related to gubernatorial suspensions.

         20        The staff has convinced me it is a bad idea and I'm asking

         21        to withdraw it.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

         23        withdrawn.

         24             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The next one I wanted to

         25        withdraw is No. 156, which is a duplicate of No. 153 which


          1        is on the calendar.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

          3        withdrawn.

          4             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  There are others that want to

          5        withdraw.

          6             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Evans-Jones.

          7             COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  I'd like to withdraw

          8        Proposal 20, it is pertaining to taxation of public

          9        property leased to a private entity.  We have another bill

         10        that we prefer.  So I would just like to withdraw this.

         11             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

         12        withdrawn.  Commissioner Ford-Coates.

         13             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  I'd like to withdraw

         14        Proposal 78.

         15             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What is that?

         16             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Term limits, congressional

         17        term limits.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection -- hasn't that

         19        been reported out of committee?

         20             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  No, we temporarily passed

         21        it last session.  It was reported out of committee and we

         22        temporarily passed it because I said I had some concerns

         23        and I might want to withdraw it.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Did it have a favorable committee

         25        recommendation?


          1             COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Yes, it did.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  What's the status of that

          3        Mr. Rules Chairman?  You have a favorable recommendation

          4        out of committee.

          5             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It's still just a waiver of

          6        the rules and it can be withdrawn without objection.

          7             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Two-thirds vote?

          8             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes.

          9             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  Without objection, it

         10        will be withdrawn.  It is withdrawn.  Commissioner Nabors?

         11             COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I'd like to withdraw Proposal

         12        65 which I understand is the same as Proposal 96.

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  It is an identical proposal and

         14        you are withdrawing one of them.  Without objection, it is

         15        withdrawn.  Commissioner Marshall.

         16             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Mr. Chairman, with the

         17        concurrence of Commissioners Riley and Connor, I would

         18        like to withdraw Proposal 131 because it relates closely

         19        to Proposal 79 that was approved yesterday.  If you are

         20        satisfied that we accomplished our mission, I request it's

         21        withdrawn.

         22             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

         23        withdrawn.  What is 131?  Tell us what it is, what is it?

         24             COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Providing the rights of

         25        electoral participation.


          1             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Ballot access.

          2             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  But you say it is covered by the

          3        one that we did.  All right.  It is withdrawn without

          4        objection.  All right.  Is there any more?  You have

          5        another one.  Commissioner Riley.

          6             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, I have two that

          7        were public proposals that have not been filed.

          8             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  You can't withdraw them if they

          9        haven't been filed.

         10             COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Well last time there was one, so

         11        no problem.

         12             (Off-the-record comment.)

         13             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  They are withdrawn without

         14        objection.  State the numbers.  They are not numbered.

         15        They're withdrawn.

         16             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  They got a preliminary

         17        number.

         18             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Commissioner Smith.

         19             COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'd

         20        like to withdraw Proposal 142, which is ballot access.

         21        And the reason for that is that committee substitute

         22        Proposal 79, which came out favorably, recommended

         23        favorably from ethics and election, is identical to my

         24        proposal, save one paragraph about fees.  So we will get

         25        the same thing accomplished.


          1             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

          2        withdrawn.  Commissioner Sundberg.

          3             COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to

          4        withdraw Proposal 73, it relates to initiatives and

          5        requires that the 8 percent signature requirement be

          6        obtained in all congressional districts rather than

          7        one-half.  That is identical to one -- to Proposal 130

          8        sponsored by Commissioner Barkdull.  And so I will

          9        withdraw mine in favor of his.

         10             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  Without objection, it is

         11        withdrawn.  Any more?  All right.  I am planning to, in

         12        spite of what has occurred here, appoint Commissioner

         13        Mills chairman of style and drafting.  He is on probation

         14        though.  All right.  Commissioner Barkdull.

         15             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I want to remind people again

         16        that the Article V is still scheduled to meet and they

         17        want that meeting to be at 4:00 and not be pushed to 4:30,

         18        so it will remain at 4:00, Room 301.

         19             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  I want to remind

         20        you-all we're having the cocktail party so finish up and

         21        come on over and get a drink.

         22             COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Now I move that we recess

         23        until 8:30 tomorrow morning, 8:30.

         24             CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS:  All right.  All in favor say aye.

         25        We are recessed.


          1             (Session recessed at 12:45 p.m., to be continued on

          2        December 12, 1997, at 8:30 a.m.)

























          1                             CERTIFICATE


          3   STATE OF FLORIDA:

          4   COUNTY OF LEON:

                        WE, JULIE L. DOHERTY, KRISTEN L. BENTLEY and
          6   MONA L. WHIDDON, court Reporters, certify that we were
              authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing
          7   proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete
              record of our stenographic notes.

          9             DATED this ______ day of ____________, 1997.


         12                      JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR


         14                      _________________________________
                                 KRISTEN L. BENTLEY

         17                      MONA L. WHIDDON
                                 COURT REPORTERS
         18                      Division of Administrative Hearings
                                 The DeSoto Building
         19                      1230 Apalachee Parkway
                                 Tallahassee, Florida  32399-3060
         20                      (904) 488-9675  Suncom 278-9675
                                 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847