State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for June 17, 1997


7                               STATE OF FLORIDA
9                           Meeting of June 17, 1997 
10                             The Senate Chamber 
11                                The Capitol 
12                            Tallahassee, Florida 
13                                  9:30 a.m.  
19                               Reported by:
20                               RAY D. CONVERY
21                               Court Reporter


1           P R O C E E D I N G S
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Please go ahead and call the 
3           roll.  You can note Justice Kogan asked to be excused 
4           and was excused today, he can't be here today, and Mr. 
5           Butterworth is in Washington and asked to be excused, 
6           and he's excused. 
7                  SECRETARY BLANTON:  Alfonso.
8                  COMMISSIONER ALFONSO:  Here.
9                  SECRETARY BLANTON:  Anthony.
10                COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Here.
11                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Argiz.  
12                Barkdull.
13                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Here.
14                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Barnett.
15                COMMISSIONER BARNETT:  Here.
16                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Brochin.
17                COMMISSIONER BROCHIN:  Here.
18                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Connor.
19                COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Here.
20                SECRETARY BLANTON: Corr.
21                COMMISSIONER CORR:  Here.
22                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Crenshaw.  
23                Evans.
24                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Here.
25                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Evans-Jones.

1                COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  Here.
2                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Ford-Coates.
3                COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Here.
4                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Friedin.
5                COMMISSIONER FRIEDIN:  Here.
6                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Hawkes.
7                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Here.
8                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Henderson.
9                COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  Here.
10                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Jennings.
11                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Here.
12                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Langley.
13                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Here.
14                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Lowndes.
15                COMMISSIONER LOWNDES:  Here.
16                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Marshall.
17                COMMISSIONER MARSHALL:  Here.
18                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Mathis.
19                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Here.
20                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Mills.
21                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Here.
22                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Morsani.
23                COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Here.
24                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Nabors.
25                COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Here.

1                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Planas.
2                COMMISSIONER PLANAS:  Here.
3                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Riley.
4                COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Here.
5                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Rundle.
6                COMMISSIONER RUNDLE:  Here.
7                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Scott.
8                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Here.
9                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Smith.
10                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Here.
11                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Sullivan.  
12                Sundberg.
13                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Here.
14                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Thompson.
15                COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Here.
16                SECRETARY BLANTON:  West.
17                COMMISSIONER WEST:  Here.
18                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Wetherington.  
19                Zack.
20                COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Here.
21                SECRETARY BLANTON:  Chairman Douglass.
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Here.  
23                Has anybody that didn't answer the roll come in?  
24           Over here, Commissioner Crenshaw is here.  The 
25           Secretary announced you were always late.  

1                In order to proceed at this time I'd like to call 
2           on Father David P. McCreanor, pastor of the St. Louis 
3           Catholic Church in Tallahassee, to come forward and if 
4           you would give the prayer, Father?  He's known to his 
5           parishioners as Father Dave.  
6                FATHER McCREANOR:  Thank you, sir. 
7                THE CHAIRMAN:  Everybody please rise.  
8                FATHER McCREANOR:  Almighty God, we thank you for 
9           the freedom we enjoy in our nation and state.  We 
10           thank you for this gathering today that seeks to 
11           assure and preserve the God-given freedoms for the 
12           citizens of Florida into the 21st century.  The men 
13           and women who have accepted the responsibility of 
14           making constitutional recommendations come in need of 
15           a higher power than the human mind to help them in the 
16           decision-making process.  We call on you today, 
17           Almighty God, to provide that power in all the 
18           proceedings of this Commission, anoint each person 
19           here with the spirit of wisdom, knowledge, 
20           understanding and judgment.  Grant them the vision to 
21           deal with the issues that affect the ever-changing 
22           needs of this fast growing state.  May the decisions 
23           of this committee both preserve and enhance the 
24           quality of life we now enjoy.  
25                We give you thanks, Almighty God, for the wisdom 

1           of those inspired to call for a Constitution Revision 
2           Commission to meet every 20 years and for all those 
3           who served in the past and for those present today.    
4                We ask your special blessing on Dexter Douglass, 
5           who chairs this Commission, and all the Commission 
6           members with their families.  Keep them safe during 
7           the year ahead and protect them with your love.  
8           Amen. 
9                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  
10                Would Commissioner Crenshaw please come forward 
11           and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?  
12                (The Pledge of Allegiance.)
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Crenshaw, if you will 
14           remain there or walk around front, the Secretary will 
15           administer the oath to you so that you can be 
16           officially a member of this Commission.
17                You can do it wherever you want to.  
18                THE SECRETARY:  We're getting a Bible.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  And we're going to use the Bible 
20           in this instance.
21                THE SECRETARY:  Raise your right hand.  
22                (Commissioner Crenshaw sworn.)
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  
24                Welcome, Commissioner Crenshaw.  First let me 
25           thank Father McCreanor for being with us this morning, 

1           and then let me thank the Commissioner -- where did 
2           she go -- Commissioner Jennings for the wonderful 
3           dinner we all had last evening, and we certainly all 
4           enjoyed the pleasure of the reception and getting to 
5           see each other.  I enjoyed seeing you there.  
6                What we're going to do today is partially 
7           ceremonial.  We'll have the -- part of the program 
8           this afternoon will be Governor Reubin Askew 
9           addressing the group, and he will do that after our 
10           noon recess, and this morning we're very fortunate to 
11           have with us Professor Robert F. Williams, a 
12           distinguished professor of law at Rutgers University 
13           of Law in Camden, New Jersey.  
14                Professor Williams received his law degree from 
15           the University of Florida and he served as a 
16           legislative assistant to the Legislature during the 
17           1967 Constitution Revision Commission.  
18                Professor Williams is known nationally and 
19           throughout the country as one of, if not the foremost 
20           authority from his writings in state constitutional 
21           law.  We're pleased to welcome this native son of 
22           Florida back to the Sunshine State and to address this 
23           Commission.  
24                Professor Williams, if you would come forward, 
25           please, we would be delighted to hear your remarks, 

1           sir.  
2                Professor Williams?  
3                PROFESSOR WILLIAMS:  Thank you very much, 
4           Chairman Douglass, Commissioners.  I think you could 
5           have heard me anyway.  I'm deeply honored to be 
6           invited to come here and talk to you.  It's a terrific 
7           opportunity for me to return to my home state, to my 
8           home Capitol building, even though I got started as 
9           many of you did in the old Capitol building and the 
10           Holland Building and those places.  I've had a chance 
11           to see friends and classmates and mentors and a whole 
12           range of people that I remember since I've been here 
13           the last 24 hours or so.  
14                And I want to say at the outset, I envy you.  20 
15           years ago when I was involved with the '78 Commission 
16           essentially as a lobbyist, and 30 years ago when I was 
17           involved with the Legislature as it worked with the 
18           product prepared by that Constitution Revision 
19           Commission, I sort of dreamed that maybe this year I'd 
20           be sitting out there where you are now, and if I'd 
21           worked hard and continued my career here, I thought I 
22           might have had that opportunity, but instead I took a 
23           different route.  I'm one of the three or four people 
24           who have moved from Florida to New Jersey and reversed 
25           the flow of the usual migration, and I've been -- 

1           spent the last 18 years studying and teaching and 
2           writing about state constitutions.  
3                Why would I do such a thing?  It's because of 
4           what I learned here in Florida, the ideas I got from 
5           the people you know and have heard about in '67, '68 
6           and '78, and I'm still pursuing those ideas and I hope 
7           to continue to do it, but I would like to just say 
8           that -- I want to make an early application here.  
9           Some of you will be appointing authorities in 2017, 
10           and I would like to have a chance to sit out there, 
11           and I'm still a dues-paying member of the Florida Bar 
12           and I'm going to keep paying those dues for the next 
13           20 years, and in 2017 I'm going to be practicing law 
14           in the state of Florida and I hope you'll remember me.
15                1997 is actually a very big year for state 
16           constitutions in this country, as some of you know, 
17           and, of course, the main reason why it's a big year is 
18           because this Commission is sitting, but you're sharing 
19           your enterprise with a number of people around the 
20           country.  As some of you know, New York voters will 
21           vote in November on whether to call a full-blown 
22           constitutional convention in that state.  California 
23           just completed a constitution revision commission 
24           which has filed its report.  New Mexico recently, in 
25           the last year or two, completed a constitution 

1           revision commission.  It's the 100th anniversary of 
2           the Delaware state constitution.  It's the 50th 
3           anniversary of our New Jersey constitution, my home 
4           state now.  Montana is celebrating its 25th 
5           anniversary.  So there's a fair amount of activity 
6           going on around the country with respect to state 
7           constitutions, and I hope that you will try to get in 
8           touch with those people and stay in touch with them, 
9           because, as unique as Florida's Constitution is and 
10           the problems and potential of Florida are, you do 
11           share a number of things in common, I think, with 
12           others working on state constitutions in this country.
13                So this morning I want to see if I can paint a 
14           picture for you of your place in the broad national 
15           context of state constitution-making and also link 
16           what you're doing to the deep historical roots of this 
17           enterprise of state constitution-making.  Then I want 
18           to talk a little bit about the unique and special 
19           characteristics of state constitutions, and then 
20           finally reflect on the processes of state 
21           constitutional revision in the 1990s.  
22                Now, I'm not going to make any substantive 
23           recommendations to you.  I'm sure you're glad of 
24           that.  I think everybody's full of ideas already and 
25           expect you to have your whole agenda formed in your 

1           mind, and I don't think you should do that.  
2                I'm a little hesitant because I think opening 
3           speeches to constitutional conventions or 
4           constitutional commissions are kind of like graduation 
5           speeches where the next day nobody remembers what was 
6           said, but I know that you know graduation speakers 
7           always say that.  They always say, "I know you're not 
8           going to remember what I said.  I don't remember what 
9           the graduation speaker said at my graduation," but 
10           then they go on and talk to you anyway and try to be 
11           the one speaker who's different, and that's what I'm 
12           going to try to do.  I hope I'll be able to succeed 
13           with you, if you'll bear with me.  
14                You're taking your place or you took your place 
15           yesterday as the next step in a, what's now a 221-year 
16           history of state constitution-making.  It began in 
17           1776, in wartime.  Our New Jersey state constitution 
18           was adopted on January -- on July, excuse me, July 2, 
19           1776, an interesting date it seems to me, during 
20           wartime.
21                The state constitutions of that period were the 
22           domestic political language of the revolution.  That 
23           was what the debates were about:  How should we 
24           structure our governments, now that we've declared 
25           independence?  Even while we're still fighting a war 

1           for independence, who should participate in our 
2           governments?  What should our institutions look like?  
3           What kind of rights guarantees should be in these 
4           constitutions?  This was the topic of debate during 
5           that ten years while we fought the war, won the war 
6           and struggled trying to get a federal constitutional 
7           convention together.  
8                So the roots of this Commission reach deeply into 
9           that history, directly to James Madison, Ben Franklin, 
10           John Jay, all men in those days, of course, white men, 
11           who learned about constitution-making working on state 
12           constitutions a decade before they got famous and 
13           worked on the federal Constitution.  
14                These roots are not only deep but they're wide.  
15           They spread all across the United States to all the 
16           states which have adopted and revised state 
17           constitutions, and they also -- these roots also 
18           spread around the world to federal systems all around 
19           the world.  There are 18 or 20 systems that use sub- 
20           national component units, or states, the way we do.  
21           Most countries don't, of course.  It's too 
22           inefficient, it's too much trouble, but -- so you're 
23           now engaged in an enterprise that is being worked on 
24           in South Africa as they draft the provincial 
25           constitutions there, the equivalent of state 

1           constitutions.  The former East German states, called 
2           lander, have just finished a process of revising their 
3           sub-national constitutions, most of them with the help 
4           of constitutional commissions, by the way.  So the now 
5           reunified Germany is made up of component units, each 
6           of which have state constitutions.  
7                These processes are also going on in Russia.  
8           Brazil the last decade completed this process of 
9           revising, and I think actually we have a lot to learn 
10           from each other even around the world, not just in 
11           other states in the United States.  
12                This sub-national or state constitution-making in 
13           a federal system is experimental.  You've heard states 
14           referred to as the laboratories of federalism, the 
15           laboratories of experiment, and since the beginning of 
16           our country we have recognized state constitution- 
17           making as experimental, trial and error, and even as 
18           early as 1778, the famous Tom Paine -- he's famous 
19           because he advocated independence from England, but he 
20           was also a very important state constitutional thinker 
21           and architect in Pennsylvania.  He applauded, in 1778 
22           he applauded the happy opportunity, quote, "happy 
23           opportunity of trying a variety in order to discover 
24           the best.  By diversifying the several constitutions, 
25           we shall see which states flourish the best, and out 

1           of the many posterity may choose a model," close 
2           quote.
3                So down through this 221 years, this tradition of 
4           experimentation has come to us.  We've had hundreds of 
5           state constitutional conventions in this country and 
6           state constitutional commissions, thousands of state 
7           constitutional amendments, about 150 separate state 
8           constitutions; and from the beginning those 
9           experiments in the 13 original states served as models 
10           for the federal constitutional convention.  
11                Actually, if you ever got so bored that you 
12           wanted to sit down and read the debates of the federal 
13           constitutional convention, you'd see that a lot of 
14           what those debates were about was whether we should 
15           follow the New York model or the Massachusetts model.  
16           Nobody wanted to follow the Pennsylvania model and 
17           nobody wanted to follow the New Jersey model.  It's 
18           very interesting, and it's no accident that literally 
19           the first line of the Federalist Papers addressed to 
20           the people who were worried about this new federal 
21           Constitution said, "New Yorkers, don't worry, this new 
22           federal Constitution, it really looks a lot like the 
23           New York state constitution."  It might be the second 
24           line of the Federalist Papers, but it's right up 
25           front.

1                After the federal Constitution was adopted, the 
2           state constitutional convention continued on its own 
3           course, different from the developments in federal 
4           constitutional law, and through this period of time, 
5           of course, state constitutions were both cursed and 
6           praised, but there's one thing that's clear about this 
7           process of evolution of state constitutions and 
8           experimentation.  It gave a chance for voices to be 
9           heard in constitution-making, voices that were never 
10           heard in the federal constitutional process.  
11                The 55 white men who drafted the federal 
12           Constitution were not a diverse group.  State 
13           constitution-making, though, has heard the voices of 
14           women, African-Americans, native Americans, Latino 
15           people.  All kinds of people in our country have had a 
16           chance to be involved in one level or another with 
17           state constitution-making, and of course that's 
18           continued in this Commission today.  
19                And states still continue to be the laboratories 
20           of experiment in the federal system.  States continue 
21           to copy ideas one from the other or to reject ideas 
22           that have been tried in other states and haven't 
23           worked, and, of course, the federal government 
24           continues to look to the states for models to emulate.
25                One only has to look at the current debates over 

1           line item veto in Washington.  That was invented in 
2           the states.  Balanced budget, that was invented in the 
3           states.  Term limits, invented in the states.  
4           Victims' rights provisions in constitutions, invented 
5           in the states, just to name a few of the current ideas 
6           that are circulating in Washington as proposed federal 
7           constitutional amendments, and you're the direct 
8           descendants of this two decades of experimentation.  
9                Now, these experiments, these processes that 
10           we've seen unfold over two centuries -- did I say two 
11           decades -- two centuries, have had two sorts of kinds 
12           of experimentation.  One has been with the content or 
13           the substance of the state constitutions, and that I'm 
14           not going to talk about.  What should be in there, 
15           what kinds of institutions, what kinds of rights, 
16           that's not -- I'm very interested in that, but it's 
17           not my interest with you here today.  
18                The other kinds of experiments, though, on the 
19           other hand, have been procedural or process-oriented 
20           experiments.  Throughout these two centuries the 
21           debate has focused on, well, how can you change the 
22           state Constitution?  Should you be able to change the 
23           state Constitution?  How easy should it be?  How often 
24           should you do it?  So the question that's asked by one 
25           group is, how stable should the state Constitution be?  

1           And asking the question that way suggests an answer, 
2           but the other way to ask that same question is, how 
3           rigid should a state constitution be?  And asking the 
4           question that way seems to suggest a different sort of 
5           way of looking at the state Constitution.
6                One of them is, keep it the way it is.  
7           Stability's important.  The other one is that if it's 
8           rigid, it can block our progress, and of course we've 
9           seen that in many states, including Florida before 
10           1968 and even today, possibly.  
11                The first state constitutions didn't provide for 
12           their own amendment and revision, and the New Jersey 
13           Constitution of this July 2, 1776, which is the date 
14           we all like to talk about in New Jersey, you can 
15           imagine, beat the Declaration of Independence by two 
16           days -- that constitution amazingly said, "Look, if we 
17           settle with the British, we settle this current 
18           controversy," as it was called, "this constitution 
19           will be null and void," okay.  It didn't say anything 
20           about, "What if we lose?" because they knew what would 
21           happen.  They'd be hanged as traitors, but it also 
22           didn't say anything about what would happen if we won.
23                So we did win the Revolution, and in New Jersey 
24           we were stuck for 80 years with a constitution that 
25           nobody knew how to change.  Finally, after a lot of 

1           debate, people realized the Legislature could pass a 
2           bill calling for a state constitutional convention, so 
3           we did have a convention in 1844.  
4                But this whole process question about how you 
5           revise or modernize a state constitution has bothered 
6           Americans since the beginning, and it still bothers 
7           us.  I suspect it bothers you somewhat, how much 
8           change, how quickly, these kinds of things.  
9                So we began in -- our New Jersey state 
10           constitution was drafted by the state legislature, if 
11           you could call it that.  It was really a revolutionary 
12           congress.  It really didn't have the attributes of 
13           higher law that we think of for a constitution now.  
14           Pretty quickly, though, Delaware, Pennsylvania 
15           invented the constitutional convention.  It's one of 
16           America's great contributions to the constitutional 
17           learning of the world, and this was refined in 
18           Massachusetts in 1780 where they had both an elected 
19           convention and they submitted their product to the 
20           voters, literally to the voters, who adopted it.  They 
21           had voted down a constitution in 1778, during wartime, 
22           partly because it came from the state legislature and 
23           not from an elected convention.  
24                So that was one model, the elected convention 
25           with submission to the voters for ratification.  

1                Pretty quickly we developed the limited 
2           constitutional convention.  The limited constitutional 
3           convention is a terrific creative response to the 
4           forces of status quo.  It's a way of saying there are 
5           certain things that are too politically difficult to 
6           tackle, so let's just take them off the table and 
7           let's work on some other things, okay, that we would 
8           have never gotten -- we'd still have the 1776 
9           constitution in New Jersey if we hadn't had the 
10           ability to have a limited constitutional 
11           convention which protected the equal representation 
12           for counties in the Senate prior to one-person/ 
13           one-vote.  That was a very important thing, and 
14           frustrated change.  
15                About 120 years ago we saw the advent of the 
16           constitutional commission, originally limited 
17           constitutional commissions, like, say, the Article V 
18           Task Force here.  I would say that was a limited 
19           constitutional commission, focused on one topic.  
20                Utah fairly recently has invented the continuous 
21           revision mechanism and has a permanent commission.  
22           Alaska's considering that now, but in Florida in 1968, 
23           we invented something new under the sun, the 
24           appointed, automatic Constitution Revision Commission 
25           which has direct access to the ballot, access to the 

1           ballot.  
2                This Commission that you're on today is the 
3           culmination of this process of trial and error of 
4           trying to deal with the question of whether the state 
5           Constitution should be immutable or mutable, 
6           changeable or static, and this automatic idea, for 
7           many years I thought this was the idea of Chesterfield 
8           Smith or Sandy D'Alemberte or somebody like that, and 
9           as some of you know, there's another guy who had the 
10           idea first, and it was Thomas Jefferson.  
11                Jefferson thought that the Constitution should 
12           reflect the views of the living generation, quote, "so 
13           the Constitution can be handed on with periodical 
14           repairs from generation to generation," close quote.  
15                Now, Jefferson hated the 1776 Virginia 
16           constitution, so he of course wanted periodic revision 
17           of it.  So I think in some ways your answer to the 
18           question, should the Constitution be stable, draws on 
19           what you think of the current Constitution, obviously. 
20           So I guess you can trace your roots directly to Thomas 
21           Jefferson, which I think is probably a buoying 
22           feeling, depending on what you think about Jefferson. 
23                On the other hand, he basically would probably 
24           call you repair people, repairing the Constitution to 
25           pass it on to the next generation.  The alternative to 

1           this was John Locke.  John Locke drafted -- having no 
2           problems of limited ego, did a draft constitution for 
3           the Carolinas that provided it would stay in effect 
4           forever, an amazing sort of idea.  It was never 
5           adopted.
6                Anyway, like New York, about 15 states now have 
7           this automatic vote on whether to have a 
8           constitutional convention or not, but you're quite 
9           unique in this Commission that you have now.  It's -- 
10           interestingly it has not been copied by any other 
11           state in 30 years.  The experiment, I take it, is 
12           still under way.  The final results aren't completely 
13           in, it seems to me, but this process has certainly 
14           stood the test of time in Florida. 
15                If I remember correctly, there was an amendment 
16           on the ballot to abolish the Commission, and that was 
17           voted down.  The Commission has been emulated -- is 
18           that wrong?  I knew I should have checked that, but 
19           maybe it was proposed and it wasn't put on the ballot.  
20           I forget, but if you remember, after '78, there was 
21           some agitation to get rid of this animal.  
22                The Tax and Budget Reform Commission emulates 
23           this process, it seems to me, and has worked all right 
24           depending on how you look at its product, I guess.  
25                So all through this process we see changes in 
_									22

1           state constitutions both with respect to what they 
2           contain and changes with respect to the processes by 
3           which they will be updated or changed.  
4                The Englishman James Bryce came to the United 
5           States and observed American governmental institutions 
6           and commented in the 1880s that the American state 
7           constitutions are a gold mine of instruction for the 
8           natural history of Democratic communities.  An 
9           American 40 years later, James Dealy, said that one 
10           might almost say that the romance, the poetry, and 
11           even the drama of American politics are deeply 
12           embedded in the many state constitutions.  
13                So I think whether you like natural history or 
14           whether you like romance and poetry, there's something 
15           in the state constitutional tradition for you; and 
16           certainly looking into the Florida state Constitution 
17           you can see both poetry and romance and natural 
18           history, and some other things, of course.  
19                So this Commission is the latest gadget, it seems 
20           to me, the latest invention in the technology of state 
21           constitutional change.  It operates to shift the 
22           burden of inertia, to shift the burden of political 
23           inertia away from the status quo toward the 
24           possibility of change.  It's an alternative to a 
25           constitu have to 
_                                                                        23

1           vote whether they want a convention at all, as we'll 
2           see in New York later this year, but I think you 
3           really should consider yourself -- now that you're 
4           appointed and sworn in, you should consider yourself a 
5           constitutional convention because you will now operate 
6           from here forward with all of the attributes of a 
7           constitutional convention in the traditional sense, 
8           except that you don't have an elective constituency, 
9           and maybe that's a good thing.  For a lot of you, it's 
10           probably a relief, but each one of you, as I see it, 
11           now slightly from afar, have a statewide constituency, 
12           which in other respects is I guess only shared by the 
13           Governor, the Cabinet members and the United States 
14           Senators from Florida.  
15                And I believe what we've learned about the way 
16           constitutional conventions operate can inform us about 
17           how you're likely to operate and how possibly you 
18           would take the your responsibilities.  
19                The 1978 Constitution Revision Commission, to my 
20           way of thinking, was the most open, deliberative and 
21           well-documented process of state constitutional 
22           revision country, and that even 
23           took place before the Internet, e-mail, most kinds of 
24           video and all these sorts of things, and I don't think 
25           today we see it as the failure that we once saw it.  


1                I remember that crushing feeling that next 
2           morning.  Some people remember the feeling of elation, 
3           I'm sure, when that package was voted down, and as you 
4           know now, that kind of set the agenda for this next 
5           generation of state constitution-making and ultimately 
6           was not a failure at all.  
7                This Commission promises to be even more open and 
8           more interactive from the things I've heard now with 
9           the technology that we have, and I think, frankly, you 
10           may have to be more interactive with the public if you 
11           want to be successful.  I'll talk about that in a 
12           couple of minutes, but you've got this terrific 
13           groundwork laid already by the Collins Center on 
14           Public Policy, the Article V Task Force, the 
15           Constitution Revision Commission Steering Committee, 
16           the Florida Bar, probably some others, all kinds of 
17           people have offered their assistance to you, and I 
18           think yo in other states are 
19           watching this.  People are very curious about this 
20           process.  
21                Even when I came here, people asked me, is it 
22           true, are we unique?  Yes, you are.  And for that 
23           reason people are very, very interested in how this 
24           process is going to work, and it remains to be seen 
25           whether the state of Florida will become one of Tom 


1           Paine's states that flourish the best or whether the 
2           experiment ultimately will fail; but I think we're in 
3           kind of a crisis of state constitutional change in 
4           this country now, and so it's more important than ever 
5           that this experiment serve to teach people around the 
6           country, because yours is an unlimited Commission.  I 
7           think that's good and bad.  
8                I mean, you have an open mandate, but it means 
9           you'll have to focus, you'll have to set priorities, 
10           you'll probably have to limit yourselves.  This is 
11           part of the mandate to you from the generation of 
12           1968.
13                Once you're appointed, you set the agenda for 
14           what yoThe public climate is as 
15           follows, I think, once again from afar from Florida, 
16           but I was just in Miami last month for two days, so 
17           maybe that counts. 
18                The public is generally unaware of the state 
19           Constitution.  There was a survey ten years ago that 
20           indicated over half of the public didn't even know 
21           that they had a state Constitution, and I think about 
22           half the lawyers don't know there's a state 
23           Constitution.  The judges know, but even sophisticated 
24           professionals are not very conversant with the state 
25           Constitution in any level of detail.  


1                So I think you have a dual task.  One is to 
2           thoroughly educate yourselves about the state 
3           Constitution and its processes of change, and then to 
4           help educate the public about this.  
5                Well, what are these state constitutions we're 
6           talking about?  They're -- because they're called 
7           constitutions, people think, well, they must be like 
8           the federal Constitution.  They're little federal 
9           constitutions.  They're clones of the federal 
10           Constitu not.  
11                American state constitutions occupy a unique 
12           place in the legal and political technology of our 
13           constitutional federal system.  They're unique in 
14           their origin, they're unique in their function, and 
15           they're unique in their hierarchical place in the 
16           pecking order of our legal system.  They're chameleon- 
17           like, oddly enough.  They -- within the state, there's 
18           the supreme law of the state.  They're constitutional 
19           documents.  They take precedence over all other forms 
20           of state law.  At the same time they're subservient.  
21           They're lesser forms of law.  They give away to any 
22           contrary federal law, even federal common law.  Even 
23           federal administrative regulations, if they're valid, 
24           trump the state Constitution.  So it's a funny kind of 
25           animal.  


1                They also include things ranging all the way from 
2           what we think of as the great ordinances of 
3           constitutions, the due process and equal protection 
4           requirements and separation of powers, they range from 
5           that all the way to including trivial, lesser kinds of 
6           constitut, and 
7           for this a lot of people have poked fun at state 
8           constitutions as not really being constitutions.  
9                My own view is they really are constitutions but 
10           they're different from the federal Constitution, and 
11           people have to understand that and accept that.  
12                Well, how are they different?  Let's look at this 
13           uniqueness for a minute.  They're different in their 
14           legal and political function, okay, and you heard 
15           yesterday from Chesterfield Smith this basic notion 
16           that, in contrast to the federal Constitution, which 
17           enumerates delegated powers and then has the Bill of 
18           Rights as kind of an afterthought or really a deal to 
19           get the federal Constitution adopted, the state 
20           constitutions by contrast limit otherwise plenary or 
21           residual power that the states never gave away to the 
22           federal government, so that you don't have to find 
23           something in the legislative article that authorizes 
24           the Legislature to pass a divorce law, a law about 
25           wills, a criminal statute.  That's within the reserved 


1           plenary power of the state Legislature, unlimited 
2	 state Constitution and by the federal 
3           Constitution.  
4                Now, this is slightly overstated.  If you look 
5           carefully at any state constitution, you'll go, no, 
6           that isn't right or it's not 100 percent right, 
7           because there are enumerations of power in the state 
8           Constitution, for example, to the Supreme Court.  The 
9           Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules of 
10           practice and procedure.  It has the power to regulate 
11           the Bar, okay.  That's a grant of authority.  The Game 
12           and Fish Commission has the legislative and executive 
13           power to regulate hunting and fishing.  These are the 
14           grants of power, these are enumerations of power.  
15                Sometimes you'll see an enumeration of power to 
16           overcome a judicial decision interpreting the state 
17           Constitution to prohibit some exercise of power.  The 
18           way to overcome that is to grant the power, but 
19           interestingly, almost all of these things, lo and 
20           behold, transform themselves from grants of power to 
21           limits on the Legislature, okay.  
22                The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate 
23           rules of practice and procedure limits the 
24           Legislature.  The authority of the Game and Fresh 
25           Water Fish Commission limits the Legislature.  The 


1	last I looked, the way to figure out if you can hunt 
2           on Sunday is to look at the regs of the Commission, 
3           not the statutes.  So that operates as a limit on the 
4           Legislature.  
5                If these constitutions have a different function, 
6           if they work differently, I wonder if they look 
7           different?  Yes, they do.  They are longer.  They have 
8           a different form.  They're layered.  They reflect this 
9           natural -- mine of natural history of democratic 
10           communities and poetry and all that stuff.  They have 
11           specific limits in them.  
12                If you look at your legislative article, for 
13           example, it's filled with procedural restrictions on 
14           the Legislature.  If the United States Constitution 
15           had the Florida legislative article, we wouldn't have 
16           had the shenanigans over the last month about the 
17           unrelated government shutdown rider being attached to 
18           a disaster relief bill, but they don't have it.  
19           They've got this slim, brief, thought-to-be-model 
20           Constitution, and it's so cool because it's short.  
21           Well, I'm not so sure it's better in that respect.  
22                The detailed finance and tax article, local 
23           government article, education article, all of these 
24           deal with matters that are uniquely within the 
25           reserved powers of the states.  You don't have to have 

1           them at all.  You don't need a finance and tax 
2           article.  You don't need an authorization to the 
3           Legislature to levy taxes or borrow money.  I'm not 
4           sure how comfortable all of us would feel without 
5           those articles, no offense.  
6                People believe in the states that those are 
7           things that should not be left exclusively to the 
8           Legislature.  So we have this ballooning -- those 
9           weren't in the original state constitutions.  They 
10           grew up over the years, and so we have this expanding 
11           state Constitution that ends up to be pretty long, and 
12           every time you want to do something within those 
13           areas, you've got to make an exception.  It makes it 
14           longer, okay.  So it doesn't meet this vision of what 
15           a real constitution should look like when people think 
16           about that in an one-dimensional way, modeling on the 
17           United States Constitution.  
18                Well, if they work differently and they look 
19           differently, maybe there had be a different way to 
20           change them, and of course there is, as you know and 
21           as we've discussed.  This -- and so the text of the 
22           state Constitution is much more volatile, fluid than 
23           the federal Constitution.  The federal Constitution's 
24           essentially unchangeable with some few exceptions.  
25           That's not true at all for the state Constitution, 

1           yielding a slight paradox.  These are thought to be 
2           constitutional documents, protecting rights, yet they 
3           can be changed by a majority vote.  
4                In any event, these constitutions are tools of 
5           lawmaking.  They're instruments of government, and 
6           it's clear that state constitutional revision does 
7           take -- none of you need to be told this, but state 
8           constitutional revision does take place within the 
9           larger mechanisms of state politics, and I think we 
10           have to be aware of that.  The state constitutions are 
11           political.  State constitutional revision is 
12           political, and that's fine. 
13                Just a few more points about what I think is the 
14           current climate for state constitutional change.  I 
15           don't think it's a pretty picture, frankly.  Public 
16           discontent with government is what I think is one of 
17           the things that fuels the initiative movement.  It's 
18           thought to be independent of government.  The problem 
19           with it, as everybody pointed out, it doesn't have the 
20           deliberative compromise potential that the regular 
21           institutions of government have.  
22                There's a political scientist called Gerald 
23           Benjamin who was research director for the New York 
24           Constitution Revision Commission that laid the 
25           groundwork for this vote coming up in November on 

1           whether they should have a constitutional convention 
2           or not.  He identified this paradox that we have in 
3           current government discussion now, quote, "The public 
4           wants big change in government but has rejected the 
5           most thoughtful and deliberative methods of achieving 
6           such change."  They've rejected the calls for 
7           constitutional conventions in Illinois in 1990,  
8           essentially all of the states that have had these 
9           automatic calls.  
10                You -- in Florida, you -- we get to jump over 
11           that hurdle, okay, but the question really, I think, 
12           is quite clearly whether you as a Commission can 
13           operate in a way that will convince the public that 
14           you are independent of the regular processes of 
15           government.  I think the Commission has the potential 
16           to do that.  This Gerry Benjamin says again, quote, 
17           "to channel the public discontent now targeted at 
18           state government, we need a method of constitutional 
19           revision independent of existing government 
20           institutions," close quote, and I wonder if this 
21           Commission may be such an instrument.  It is 
22           independent of regular government institutions, and it 
23           does have that potential, I think.  You're going to 
24           need to consider testing the waters for potential 
25           change possibly before you reach your final 

1           conclusions.
2                The public hearing process may help in that 
3           respect, but I think there are lessons to be learned 
4           from the initiative process that probably some polling 
5           -- there's a thing called the deliberative opinion 
6           poll which is supposed to model what the public would 
7           think about something if they were fully informed.  It 
8           sounds to me like a fancy focus group, I'm not sure.  
9           Focus groups may be useful, I don't know.  The 
10           interactive process, a two-way flow of information 
11           that would merge this direct democracy instinct for 
12           independence from regular government institutions with 
13           the deliberative consensus-building process that you 
14           have available to you.  Obviously it's very important 
15           to try to gauge opposition or status quo instincts 
16           ahead of time.  
17                A massive study of seven constitutional 
18           conventions concluded, quote, "Just as the delegates 
19           and political activists in each state tend to break 
20           down ultimately into reformers and supporters of the 
21           status quo, so the electorate divides in a similar 
22           fashion.  In sort, constitutional revision potentially 
23           polarizes state communities or the attentive portions 
24           of them along predictable lines, change and reform --" 
25           blah, blah, blah.  I won't read the whole thing.  

1                So I think -- just to close -- I think I'm going 
2           to meet my deadline.  I try to do that.  
3                I think there are a list of things that you're 
4           going to have to try to think about doing, and it's 
5           nice to just be able to give this free advice and go 
6           back to my law school, but I hope you'll think about 
7           some of these things.
8                You've heard some of them already from some of 
9           the speakers, but I think your most important job is 
10           to try to keep an open mind for now.  Give yourself 
11           time to come to understand this state Constitution.  A 
12           lot of you know a lot about it already, I know that, 
13           but you may not have thought about it in every 
14           possible way.  
15                Try to assess how the Florida Constitution really 
16           touches the lives of Florida people, where it touches 
17           those lives and how, and where it touches government 
18           and how, because obviously much of what goes on in 
19           government is not dependent on the state 
20           Constitution.  Maybe if there are problems there, they 
21           don't need to be remedied using the state 
22           Constitution, but until you really fully get a picture 
23           of at what places the government and the people touch 
24           the state Constitution, I don't think you can tell 
25           what, if anything, needs to be done.  

1                I think you've got to give yourself time to come 
2           together as a collegial body.  This is a different 
3           institution from the Legislature.  It's a different 
4           institution from a City Commission or anything like 
5           that.  I think with but two exceptions, all of you are 
6           freshmen in this.  I think it's two, with two 
7           exceptions.  And you may have done a lot of things in 
8           politics, but you haven't done this before, and it's 
9           different.  This body will develop a collective 
10           personality, group dynamics and all of that, different 
11           from other political bodies.  You don't have to run 
12           for reelection, obviously, you don't need me to tell 
13           you that.  You didn't run for this body.  You didn't 
14           have to run a campaign to get here, at least an 
15           election campaign.  
16                What I'm really suggesting is that you try to 
17           transform yourself into Commissioners from what you 
18           were the day before yesterday and what you'll go back 
19           to as this process continues.  That's partly why I 
20           think the Chairman asked you to from now on call 
21           everybody Commissioner, not Chief Justice or President 
22           or whatever.  It's -- it seems like a surface tactic, 
23           but it actually has some potential to bring you 
24           together in a different way.  
25                Try if you can to distance yourself somewhat from 

1           your current regular constituency.  You do have this 
2           statewide constituency now, and if you can, distance 
3           yourself from your appointing authority, at least in 
4           some respects, and I think you need to do this not 
5           only to make the inside job work, to -- not only to be 
6           able to work together over the next almost-year in 
7           this process, and I think it's going to go beyond the 
8           next year if you think about the election campaign, if 
9           you suggest any changes; but you need to have this 
10           independence to work inside this chamber together and 
11           also to present an independent face to the public, 
12           because I think in 1978, the -- one of the -- there 
13           are a lot of reasons, there's been at lot of analysis 
14           as to why those recommendations went down, including 
15           some them were bad ideas probably, but that -- I think 
16           it was the beginning really of this negativism about 
17           government.  1978 was the year of Proposition 13, and 
18           I think it's just gotten worse.  
19                I think people are not willing to trust what 
20           people tell them, government officials tell them all 
21           the time; and if you can begin to take on the identity 
22           of independent Commissioners rather than government 
23           officials and government as usual, I think you'll have 
24           a better chance of convincing the public to do what 
25           you want them to do.  

1                You know, if you don't feel like statespeople 
2           right now, you don't feel that, wait a little bit, 
3           hang on.  The studies show that a high percentage of 
4           you will become statespeople, will rise above the 
5           direct constituent kind of things, not all of you, but 
6           some of you, okay.  So try to wait, seek consensus, 
7           build on the combined strength of this body.  
8                Maybe you don't need a whole lot of ideas.  Maybe 
9           you only need a couple of good ideas that everybody 
10           can pull behind.  If you combine the clout in this 
11           room together with that of your appointing 
12           authorities, I'll bet you could do anything you think 
13           the state needs, but if you instead spread yourself 
14           out, if you are beguiled by the unlimited nature of 
15           your mandate, you may end up accomplishing nothing.  
16                A couple more technical points.  There's general 
17           agreement about this idea.  I heard it in our 
18           conversations at the reception last night.  There's 
19           general agreement that the state Constitution should 
20           be limited to fundamentals and not legislative 
21           detail.  Of course, your fundamentals might be my 
22           legislative detail, or when I was representing clients 
23           in front of the Commission in '78, my fundamental 
24           ideas were told to me to be legislative detail.  So 
25           it's not an easy dichotomy, but it's one that most 

1           people agree on.  So most people that speak to 
2           constitutional conventions and commissions say, stick 
3           to fundamentals, keep it short, and I don't think 
4           that's exactly the right way to go.  
5                Use some words if you need them.  Brevity isn't 
6           any sort of special virtue, it seems to me.  Of 
7           course, you don't want to load up the Constitution 
8           with rigid detail, but putting something in the state 
9           Constitution at the one time elevates it to the 
10           highest legal position in the state and it also puts 
11           it beyond change by ordinary legal processes, and you 
12           know these things, and that is good sometimes and it's 
13           bad sometimes, right, taking something out of the 
14           normal processes of legal change, and what studies 
15           have shown are that the good things are usually 
16           anticipated; the good that you get from putting 
17           something in the state Constitution you usually can 
18           imagine.  The bad things are usually unanticipated.  
19           There are things you couldn't imagine or you couldn't 
20           predict, hard as you thought about it.  So the 
21           unanticipated negative consequences of putting 
22           something in the state Constitution really ought to be 
23           considered.  
24                You might want to consider developing something 
25           called -- this is my cutesy idea -- some sort of a 

1           constitutionalization impact statement to try to force 
2           yourself to think beyond the pros and cons of the 
3           policy that you're, you know, discussing, but also to 
4           think of it, if it's a good idea, do you need it in 
5           the Constitution?  You might, but what are the costs 
6           and benefits of that? 
7                You need to work on some of these technical 
8           questions:  Will a provision be self-executing, will a 
9           court enforce it without implementing legislation?  If 
10           a court won't, why are you putting it in the 
11           Constitution?  Maybe it sounds good, maybe it's a good 
12           idea, but you've got to worry about the problem of 
13           negative implication.  The expression of one thing 
14           sometimes is read as a limit on others.  So people put 
15           into state constitutions that widows of veterans got a 
16           tax exemption.  It sounds like a good idea.  They 
17           found out later, the courts told them the Legislature 
18           can't pass a statute giving widowers of veterans a tax 
19           exemption when our society changed, okay.  What seemed 
20           like a good idea turned into a limit on the 
21           Legislature.
22                Putting things in the state Constitution 
23           delegates a lot of decisionmaking to the judiciary 
24           often.  You don't always have to do that.  We just 
25           amended our constitution in New Jersey, one of these 

1           local government mandate protections, and the people 
2           didn't want the court adjudicating that.  So the 
3           commission was created and the decisions of the 
4           commission are non-justiciable, they're not reviewable 
5           by the courts, but by and large when you put something 
6           in the state Constitution, you delegate a decision 
7           about it to the courts.  
8                Some people would say, what's wrong with that?  
9           But others might say, well, gee, I don't know if I 
10           want to do that.  You need to think about it ahead of 
11           time.  
12                What about Sunset provisions?  Sunset provisions 
13           could be used in state constitutions.  Do you think 
14           it's a good idea?  Well, let's try it for a 
15           generation.  Let the next generation muster a majority 
16           to keep it.  That's a possibility.  The Sunshine 
17           amendment adopted here showed us another mechanism.  
18           Parts of that went into effect but they could be 
19           changed by statute.  How could do you that?  Because 
20           it says so in the amendment, okay.  So that's an 
21           interesting mechanism, it seems to me.  
22                In any event, the real question is, is the loss 
23           of flexibility worth it?  Try to develop ideas for 
24           assessing these impacts as you debate, you know, what 
25           will the state be like in the next generation.  

1                I've heard some current debate about changing the 
2           public housing laws around the country, and almost all 
3           of that debate is state constitutions won't let us do 
4           it.  There's an idea to go to more mixed income 
5           housing and some privatization and, oh, the state 
6           constitutions were amended 100 years ago to say the 
7           state can't lend its credit to private corporations 
8           and all that sort of thing.  So you need to think out, 
9           do we have things in the state Constitution that limit 
10           what we ought to be doing for citizens?  
11                Techniques for presenting the recommendations to 
12           the public, we saw in '78 that the separation of 
13           questions on the ballot didn't necessarily protect the 
14           non-controversial provisions.  People just voted 
15           against all of them.  Maybe all of them were 
16           controversial.  I don't think they all were, but 
17           anyway, if you can manage your unlimited mandate 
18           carefully and wisely, pull together, give yourself 
19           time to develop this identity as really a 
20           constitutional convention, I think you'll be 
21           successful.
22                Most people who give these kind of speeches say 
23           you've got to try to provide for the next 100 years.  
24           In Florida, you don't have to do that.  You can kind 
25           of guess till the next generation, there will be 

1           another Commission, and remember, I want to be on it.  
2           For better or for worse, you don't really have to try 
3           to make a Constitution for the next 100 years, but I 
4           think if you do a good job people will remember you 
5           for 100 years.  
6                I want to just leave you with the words of 
7           Governor Alfred Driscoll of New Jersey as he opened 
8           the 1947 constitutional convention in New Jersey -- 
9           which we still have that constitution 50 years later, 
10           and everybody says don't change it -- he said, "The 
11           rights --" quote, "The rights you exercise in this 
12           convention were won in 1776 and protected in memorable 
13           struggles through the years.  May you be blessed with 
14           clearness of vision, soundness of purpose and 
15           successful accomplishment to the end that citizens of 
16           this state 100 years hence will repeat your names with 
17           pride and call you devout and wise and just." 
18                Yours, ladies and gentlemen, is the opportunity 
19           of a century.  Now, I know once again a couple of you 
20           have had more than one chance to serve in this body, 
21           but most of you won't get that chance.  This is your 
22           shot, and most people say that this kind of experience 
23           is their most meaningful public -- piece of public 
24           service in their career.  So I hope you'll be able to 
25           leave an enduring legacy.  

1                I think you're privileged.  I wish you the best 
2           of luck, and I'll see you in 2017.  
3                Thank you very much.  
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much, Professor 
5           Williams.
6                We're going to take -- not right this moment, 
7           before we do -- we're going to take a short recess, 
8           but I'd like to recognize a couple of people in the 
9           gallery, with your permission.  
10                First, the president-elect of the Florida Bar, 
11           Mr. Bloomberg, is up here.  I'd like to thank him for 
12           the work the Bar did on the Bar Journal that y'all 
13           received which had various issues that were 
14           discussed.  He tells me they will have another issue 
15           at some time if we need it.  
16                I would also like to recognize -- thank you very 
17           much for being here, sir.  
18                I'd like to recognize someone that's been around 
19           me for a long time and take a personal moment to 
20           recognize Janice Piotrowski who sits up here.  She's 
21           been my assistant for 39 years this month, and anybody 
22           that can last that long with me certainly has to be 
23           noticed.  My wife has lasted almost 42 years.  The 
24           remarkable thing is that they put up with me that 
25           length of time, but I'm very happy to introduce Janice 

1           to you.  
2                We're going to take a recess for -- well, let's 
3           come back at ten minutes till, but before that, I'd 
4           like to point out the lawyer for the Speaker wanted to 
5           pass out some substitute amendments on the rules which 
6           we will take up shortly.  They have not been passed 
7           out.  I think he indicated that one of the members 
8           wanted to pass that out, and I would suggest to that 
9           member, if there is one, that they can put it on the 
10           desks or give it to the secretary and she will place 
11           it on the desks.  
12                The proper way to do this, I guess, of anything 
13           for those that are listening, is any items that you 
14           want distributed to the Commission while it's in 
15           session should go to the Secretary and not to -- 
16           directly to the floor.  That's not to restrict 
17           anybody, because any member, obviously, that wants 
18           anything distributed can have that done.  On the other 
19           hand, people who are not officially with the 
20           Commission do not do that.  They take it to the 
21           secretary.  
22                Without -- with everybody's permission, I'll 
23           entertain a motion that we take a recess until 10:50.  
24                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  So moved. 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  There's a motion.  

1                Anything that is distributed will have the 
2           Commissioner's name on it and number for the secretary 
3           to distribute it.  
4                There was a motion that we recess until 10:50. 
5                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I move we do recess at 
6           this time until 10:50, Mr. Chairman.
7                THE CHAIRMAN:  All in favor say aye.   
8                (Chorus of ayes.)
9                THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed, like sign?  
10                (Recess.)           
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  The Commission will please come to 
12           order. 
13                THE SECRETARY:  There is a quorum present, Mr. 
14           Chairman.
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We will proceed at 
16           this time to call on Commissioner Barkdull, who was a 
17           member of the Steering Committee, which consisted of 
18           Speaker Webster, Senator Scott, myself, Commissioner 
19           Barkdull and General Butterworth.  
20                The attempt was made to, primarily by 
21           Commissioner Barkdull, to come up with rules that 
22           followed pretty much the '78 and '68 pattern with some 
23           changes, and I think he's made even other changes that 
24           have probably been -- or if they haven't been, he can 
25           now discuss them with us.  I would like to call on 

1           Judge Barkdull for the purpose of presenting proposed 
2           rules.  
3                Judge Barkdull?
4                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
5           members of the Commission.  
6                So far we have operated without any rules, and we 
7           need to get some rules for several reasons, primarily 
8           to get us organized, and secondly, to have the 
9           authority for the Chair to employ people and to 
10           arrange for them to be paid and also to arrange that 
11           the Commissioners here can be reimbursed their 
12           expenses in connection with this meeting, because 
13           until such time as we get formally organized, we'll 
14           have a problem with the Comptroller.  
15                What I'm going to recommend is this procedure, 
16           and the reason for it is to try to give everybody on 
17           the Commission an opportunity to address these rules, 
18           and I have seen -- had laid on my desk but I've not 
19           had an opportunity to read it, what purports to be a 
20           substitute amendment to be offered by some 
21           Commissioner which would address, I'm sure, the entire 
22           rules as it looked to me like it was a substitute of 
23           the entire package.  
24                I propose to offer a motion that we adopt these 
25           rules that are before you that have the date of June 

1           the 12th on them, except Rule 5, and also that the 
2           provision that provides for two-thirds amendment of 
3           the rules be delayed until the conclusion of the next 
4           meeting, at which time the rules will be under 
5           consideration and can be amended by a majority vote, 
6           if that's the procedure that is the will of the 
7           Commission.  That leaves alive the opportunity for any 
8           change in the proposed rules by a simple majority vote 
9           through the next meeting, which will include all the 
10           provisions of the present rules as well as what will 
11           be submitted as a redraft of Rule 5.  
12                I think that all of us recognize that Rule 5 has 
13           got some problems with it, and I'm not talking about 
14           the numerical numbers as much as the grouping and many 
15           other parts of it, and I think for proper 
16           consideration of the Commission of Rule 5, a proposal 
17           has got to be redrafted and be submitted.  
18                So it is the intention and would be the hope 
19           that, if it's the Commission's will, to adopt these 
20           rules today subject to the situation that Rule 5 is 
21           not included and the effect of the provision that 
22           calls for two-thirds for amendment would be delayed 
23           until the conclusion of a regular scheduled meeting 
24           called for the purpose of considering rules, which 
25           will probably be our next meeting. 

1                And also we would request, assuming that the 
2           motion passes, that all members of the Commission send 
3           to the Commission any proposed changes that you want 
4           in the rules so that they can be disseminated back to 
5           every member of the Commission and they will have an 
6           opportunity to see them before you come back to the 
7           meeting and don't have a packet dropped on your desk 
8           at the last moment to try to analyze, and we will try 
9           to help with all of the suggestions that are received 
10           by having the staff correlate them as to what rule 
11           they might be applicable to and send them out to you.  
12                It's not to limit what anybody can do when they 
13           come here, but it's to -- as a courtesy to your fellow 
14           Commissioners to give them an opportunity to see what 
15           you would suggest as a form of an amendment.  
16                Now, with that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I would 
17           like to move that we adopt the proposed rules except 
18           Rule 5, subject to being amended at a scheduled 
19           meeting by a majority vote, notwithstanding the two- 
20           thirds rule which I request be delayed until the 
21           conclusion of the next meeting. 
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Discussion?  
23                Commissioner Langley?
24                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
25                I wish Commissioner Barkdull -- I've got to get 

1           used to that, Judge -- but I wish that you would 
2           enlarge upon that to use this time we have today to 
3           discuss some of the members' problems with the present 
4           rules and with the hope that if we reach some 
5           consensus here today, though it not be formal, that 
6           perhaps we can give some enlightenment to whomever is 
7           drafting those rules to come back with a re-draft that 
8           will have -- there are a lot -- in discussions around 
9           the floor, there are a lot of changes that I don't 
10           think we have a single vote in opposition.  A lot of 
11           them I think were inadvertent, i.e., not adopting 
12           Robert's Rules of Order.  I think we need some basis 
13           upon which to proceed.  I don't know if that was 
14           inadvertent or what, but I don't think anybody 
15           disagrees that we should have that in a rule.  
16                I don't think anybody disagrees that the showing 
17           of three hands in this body should entitle us to a 
18           record vote.  There are several things.  I don't think 
19           that anybody disagrees that -- well, that's part of 
20           Article V, but in the draft -- the majority vote's 
21           been changed in that draft until the final product.
22                I wish that we could go over some of these things 
23           and have a general discussion today and perhaps, as a 
24           result of that, have a consensus from which you could 
25           come back with a set of rules that may well be totally 

1           uncontroversial.
2                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Langley, I 
3           think that's a very good suggestion, and I think we 
4           should utilize the time.  
5                I've got to say to you, when I read the final 
6           draft and saw that Robert's Rules was dropped out of 
7           it, I was surprised myself.  I went back last night 
8           and I found out it appears that, in using the Senate 
9           rules, it appeared that the Senate rules had dropped 
10           out Robert's Rules and that's the way I assume that's 
11           what happened here, because the last people that 
12           looked at this were to compare the rules to a Senate 
13           draft, and that's the only explanation that I can 
14           give, because I didn't realize until I got up here and 
15           looked at the last set that Robert's Rules had been 
16           dropped, and that's the best explanation that I can 
17           get for it, and that's my guess.  Commissioner Scott 
18           could maybe enlighten me on that. 
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Langley, could the Chair ask 
20           you a question?  
21                Is it your suggestion that Commissioner Barkdull 
22           just refer to the rules -- everybody has them before 
23           them -- and then if there's any discussion on a 
24           particular rule that we have that?  Is that what 
25           you're suggesting?

1                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, I think we should 
2           stay in the open process.  I know that one of the 
3           Commissioners is going to offer a general amendment, 
4           and that, I think, will throw these issues open before 
5           the Commission, and I think that's a good way to get 
6           to it, frankly, and again, I -- Mr. Chairman, I see no 
7           acrimony here.  It's a bunch of people that really 
8           want to do something for their state, and I think we 
9           can reach an accord without any great hassle about it.
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Jennings? 
11                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Mr. Chairman and 
12           Commissioners, we had discussed this sort of 
13           informally a minute ago.  Perhaps, Commissioner 
14           Barkdull, we could just go through them one by one, 
15           and we've got some time and I think all of us are 
16           concerned.  These are the rules we're going to have to 
17           live with for a year or so, and of course a number of 
18           our members aren't quite as familiar with them as 
19           maybe some of the legislative members, especially the 
20           Senators, because these are more like the Senate rules 
21           than anybody else's, and as we go through each one, 
22           then perhaps, Mr. Chairman, there would be 
23           Commissioners who would be interested in just asking a 
24           question, discussing.  Some may not actually be as 
25           clear as to what the intent of the rule is, and we 

1           just have some general discussion before we even 
2           accept any proposed amendments.  It might make us all 
3           feel a little more comfortable about where we're 
4           headed.
5                Do you feel comfortable in doing that? 
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  I feel very comfortable with that. 
7                And then any motions or amendments would be 
8           directed after we went through the rules.  
9                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  And perhaps we've got 
10           some time.  I see we're not scheduled for lunch until 
11           about 12:30, so we do that, and maybe we break for 
12           lunch and we continue to talk, and then we come back, 
13           and we might be in a posture at that point to feel 
14           comfortable to move forward with either substantive 
15           amendments or knowing which ones we want to delay for 
16           a later time.
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  I would suggest that Commissioner 
18           Barkdull withdraw his motion and proceed to discuss 
19           the rules as we called on him to do, and then 
20           everybody note in there as he goes -- Commissioner 
21           Scott, did you have -- did you seek to rise?
22                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, what I was 
23           going to say, to try to get this started maybe, with 
24           Rule 1, there's two, three things that many of -- I 
25           think most all of us feel that we might want to 

1           clarify and just, you know, sort of -- I don't know 
2           that we've got to go through every single subdivision 
3           and say does anybody have a problem, but if -- you 
4           know, we could start either with Rule 1 or wherever 
5           and try that.  
6                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, with the suggestion 
7           from the Chair, I'm happy to withdraw the motion.  
8                I would suggest, following up on Commissioner 
9           Scott's point and Commissioner Jennings' point, that 
10           we take up part 1, which starts with Rule 1, and if 
11           there is some comment on the floor about any part of 
12           that, I think it would be in order then, if that -- 
13           and we'll be discussing it really as a committee of 
14           the whole, which is fine.
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  Very well.
16                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, Mr. Chairman, I 
17           learned not to volunteer when I was in the service, 
18           but let me just say that, regarding Rule 1, there are 
19           two or three things that we think probably we need to 
20           clarify.  For example --
21                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Mr. Chair, before we get 
22           into that, could I ask just one question for 
23           clarification?
24                THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.  The procedure is to 
25           ask the person on the floor if he will yield.

1                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Commissioner Scott, will 
2           you please yield to me on a question of procedure and 
3           timing? 
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  And also speak into the mike.
5                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  And speak into the mike, 
6           okay.  No, I'm not familiar with this process.
7                THE CHAIRMAN:  You will be in a few meetings.
8                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Commissioner, I'd just like 
9           to know when it would be appropriate to offer the 
10           substitute amendment on the proposed rules that have 
11           been drafted basically with issues involving opening 
12           up this process and making sure that the Commissioners 
13           are empowered and that it's a fair proceeding, and I 
14           would just like to know from you when it would be 
15           appropriate to offer that substitute amendment.
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  It would be appropriate -- now 
17           that there's no motion before the house, it would be 
18           appropriate to offer it after this discussion and 
19           somebody makes a motion, then it would be appropriate 
20           to offer whatever.  So I think that Senator -- excuse 
21           me -- Commissioner Scott had the floor, was going to 
22           discuss Rule 1, and we were going to go down the rules 
23           that way before we made any motions.
24                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Thank you. 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  Senator -- Commissioner Scott, I'm 

1           going to learn to remember that, too, so -- 
2                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I'm having a little trouble 
3           with "Mr. Chairman," too. 
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  So do others, not all of them 
5           members of this Commission.
6                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Okay.  Let me just say, for 
7           example, for some reason in one of the drafts we have 
8           just cause for excused absence.  It might have come 
9           from the 20 years ago when they were worried that 
10           maybe people wouldn't come, and we don't really think 
11           that we need to have "for just cause."  If a 
12           Commissioner needs to be excused, you know, he needs 
13           to let the Chairman know and we'll operate.  That's 
14           one.  
15                Then a 72-hour notice provision --
16                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Excuse me, Commissioner.  
17           Are we on Rule 1?
18                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Right.  1.17 and 1.18 were 
19           the two relating to the excused absence, and then 
20           there's a couple of suggestions.  I'm not sure that 
21           they're -- in 1.23, for example, to add a 72-hour 
22           notice provision for the agenda, excluding Saturdays 
23           and Sundays for the Commission, and that there's -- 
24                THE CHAIRMAN:  A question, Commissioner Scott.  
25           You're on part 3 of Rule 1, is that correct, on page 5 

1           of my draft --  
2                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I was going by the numbers 
3           of 1.23.
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  Is that correct?  
5                Okay.  If everybody will turn to page 5, and 1.17 
6           is part 3 of Rule 1, which presently reads, "Unless 
7           excused for just cause."  What you're suggesting is 
8           that we eliminate the language, "for just cause," in 
9           1.17, is that right?  
10                All right.  And then you moved to 1.18 and said 
11           that one was already all right, I believe.  
12                What was your next one?
13                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, we have 1.23, which 
14           relates to open meetings, and I think this point has 
15           been picked -- or at some it's appropriate to add the 
16           72-hour -- you know, the notice provision.
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  Is the notice provision in the 
18           rule somewhere else?   
19                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.  Yes, it is.
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  When you get to that one, I guess 
21           we can take it up, but, Commissioner Langley -- are 
22           you through with number 1, Commissioner Scott?  
23                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Yes, and I would yield.
24                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay, you yield.
25                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, on 1.18, 

1           which you passed over as all right, I take it, too, 
2           that the proposal there says that the Commission shall 
3           excuse any member upon a request in writing from that 
4           member.  In other words, if I could not make the 
5           meeting because I had a trial or a death in the 
6           family, I would write to you and say, "Mr. Chairman, 
7           please be advised I'll not be able to attend the 
8           meeting of July 31st," and at that time you shall, not 
9           you may?
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  Right.  "The Commission Chair 
11           shall excuse any member from attendance at any 
12           Commission meeting and such excused absence shall be 
13           noted in the Journal," you would add that -- 
14                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Upon written request, yes.
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  And "request in writing" -- 
16                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  And "shall --"
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  "Shall" and "request in writing." 
18                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  And that would be on Rule 1.18. 
20                Any objection to that from anyone?  If there are 
21           any objections, stand up and give them.  
22                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chair?
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Sundberg?  
24                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  It seems to me that's 
25           incongruous to have a written request for an act that 

1           must be performed.  If it's not going to require any 
2           action on the part of the Chair, just change it to a 
3           notice that simply says within so many days, a 
4           Commissioner who will not be able to attend shall 
5           notify the Chair.
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, let me say that one of the 
7           reasons that that excuse thing was in there in '78, as 
8           I recall, is because we didn't want to do that.  We 
9           wanted everybody to feel that they had to attend 
10           unless they had some real reason, and I'm certainly 
11           willing to assure you that if I'm exercising any 
12           prerogatives, that any reason you give other than, "I 
13           just don't want to show up," would be agreeable.  I 
14           think that's -- I'm not too concerned with this at 
15           this point.  
16                If we have people who just don't show up, then 
17           maybe we should keep it a little more mandatory.
18                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman, I'm not 
19           speaking to the substance of the motion.  I'm simply 
20           saying that I think what the people who spoke to this 
21           are suggesting is simply a notice requirement as 
22           opposed to seeking permission, or it just seems to me 
23           it doesn't make sense to require a written request for 
24           something that the Chair must do.  No, I'm not saying 
25           I'm in favor of that position, but if we're going to 

1           do it, let's clean it up where it says you simply 
2           notify the Chair.
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  What is -- does someone else have 
4           a comment on that?  Do you follow what he was talking 
5           about, Commissioner Langley?  Does that cause you any 
6           problems?
7                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  It's a tempest in a 
8           teapot, because there's no -- nothing happens if 
9           you're not here.  I mean, there's no punitive measures 
10           whatsoever.  So I don't know that it really matters at 
11           all.  It's just that, to try to let the Chairman know 
12           that you're not going to have a quorum or that, you 
13           know, who's going to be absent from a certain 
14           committee, at least that way -- whether it be a notice 
15           or the written request, at least there'd be some 
16           notice for the administration that there might be a 
17           problem.
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, then, would you agree with 
19           Commissioner Sundberg that we just say that on 
20           absences, when any member is going to be absent for 
21           any reason, he shall give written -- he or she shall 
22           give written notice to the Chair prior to the meeting?
23                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  My Commissioner to my left 
24           says why "written?"  Why not just "notify?"  I mean, 
25           you know, it was maybe the last minute and so, why not 

1           just --
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't have any objection to 
3           that.  If you're not here, you're not here.  I agree 
4           with that.  So do you want to just leave it out, or 
5           just have in the rules that every Commissioner should 
6           make every effort to attend the meetings?
7                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That would be agreeable.
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Any objections to that?            
9                Commissioner Connor?
10                COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  Mr. Chairman, I would just 
11           make an observation about the need for a technical 
12           amendment of Rule 1.1.  I think we have miscited the 
13           authority of the Governor to appoint the chair, and I 
14           think that should be Article IX, Section 2(b), as in 
15           bravo, rather than 2(a).
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  Why don't we just say Section 2?  
17           Is that agreeable?
18                COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  That's fine.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  You're absolutely right, however.  
20           I thank you for noting that.  
21                We're just saying, at Rule 1.1, I was appointed 
22           by the Governor pursuant to Section 2 instead of 
23           2(a).  Is that agreeable?  All right.  
24                Anybody else?  We're on Rule 1 at this point.  
25                Commissioner Hawkes?

1                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
2                I was curious as to, in Rule 1.17, I think 
3           there's another place in the rules as well, the 
4           language that required the disclosure of a conflict as 
5           provided in Section 286.012, Florida Statutes.  It was 
6           in the previous draft of the rules.  It is consistent 
7           with what other public entities do, and I was 
8           wondering why that language was taken out of this 
9           draft and whether or not we -- to maintain as much 
10           public confidence as possible, if we maintain that 
11           language, it would seem as though we would assist the 
12           public in having confidence in what we do, and I was 
13           just wondering the reason why it was stricken in this 
14           provision or this draft. 
15                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It was because the 
16           correlation with the Senate was dropped out.
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, does anybody object to 
18           including that?  Then let's include it, because I 
19           think it's very appropriate that we do.  
20                Does everybody understand the proposed -- or what 
21           he was talking about is that we have a provision in 
22           there that refers to the statute, that it did in the 
23           draft before, which is the conflict of interest 
24           statute, which makes it applicable to us, which means 
25           if you have a conflict of interest, you're supposed to 

1           reveal it. 
2                Any objections to that?  
3                If not, anything else on Rule 1?  
4                Commissioner Morsani?  
5                COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  Mr. Chairman, my concern 
6           is I agree with what's gone on previously, but the 
7           other parts of 1, the 1.12, 1.13, 1.19 and the 20, 21 
8           and 22, I must say I object to and I would hope they 
9           wouldn't be in there.  I don't think that -- we don't 
10           want to manage your business and we don't want to -- 
11           that's not why we're here is to micromanage what goes 
12           on, and I really object to those other provisions.  I 
13           think the others here I certainly endorse.
14                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Will you yield for a 
15           question?
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Scott asks you to 
17           yield.  
18                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Commissioner, let me be sure 
19           that we understand what you're saying.  Your concern 
20           was as to this proposed substitute changes that would 
21           change that authority to employ the executive director 
22           and so forth, in other words, you were supporting the 
23           rule as it's set up that the chairman would elect -- 
24           when you said you were opposed to the rule, I just 
25           wanted to clarify that it was that you were opposed to 

1           a change in the rule that would affect the way the 
2           chairman conducted his business.  Is that correct?
3                COMMISSIONER MORSANI:  That's correct.
4                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Thank you.
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  Let me suggest this and we might 
6           move along a little quicker.  Let's take each one of 
7           these, for example, Rule 1.1, and Commissioner 
8           Barkdull, you moved that, and let's take a vote and 
9           see how many people agree with Rule 1.1 as changed. 
10                All in favor say aye.  
11                (Chorus of ayes.)          
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed, like sign?  
13                Proceed.  
14                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  All right.  I move the 
15           adoption of 1.2.
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  We haven't adopted 1.1.
17                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I thought you just did.
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Oh, I thought you had to make a 
19           motion.
20                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, you all were a 
21           little ahead of me and took a vote, and I didn't argue 
22           with it.
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Barkdull moves that 
24           we adopt the provisions of Rule 1.1 as amended, 
25           correcting the section referenced in the rule.  

1                Commissioner Thompson?
2                COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Mr. Chairman, what do you 
3           mean by adopting?  Do you mean adopting as in adopting 
4           rules that we're going to have to live by from now on, 
5           or -- I mean, we -- first of all, some of these things 
6           are not in writing before us.  
7                My thought is that we probably ought to adopt 
8           something that's in writing before us today, and I 
9           liked his first motion, even though he withdrew it 
10           temporarily, I was hoping we'd get back to that 
11           eventually, and if somebody else has something in 
12           writing or really specific at that point that we want 
13           to do, we might do it, but by leaving the second part 
14           of his motion standing and hopefully adopting that, we 
15           could come back at the next meeting and by a simple 
16           majority adopt these detailed matters.  
17                I think we need to study on these things a little 
18           bit, as they say where I come from.  You know, we've 
19           had some of these things to study on, but I think it 
20           would be best for all concerned if we took a little 
21           bit more time to do that and not -- I mean, if you 
22           want to go through every rule and every detail today, 
23           it's going to take a while.
24                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I think, obviously, Rule 1.1 
25           as amended, I don't think anybody objects to that.  

1           It's just a recitation of the fact, and I was just 
2           trying to get that off the table.  
3                COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  But wouldn't we adopt 
4           that when we adopt -- on the question of whether we 
5           adopt rules or not?
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  That's true.  
7                Okay.  Let's go ahead like we started, unless 
8           somebody wants to make a motion to the contrary.  
9                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, we've got to get 
10           rid of the motion that was just passed, then.
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  We didn't pass it.
12                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Okay, if that's the 
13           ruling of the Chair.  
14                THE CHAIRMAN:  The Chair rules we didn't pass 
15           it.  That's what Commissioner Thompson told me.  
16                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, now, as I 
17           understand it then, we're back to the Chair's 
18           direction.  There are no motions on the floor?
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  Correct. 
20                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We go through these 
21           items and we listen to any comment by a member of the 
22           Commission that they may want to address to a 
23           particular section. 
24                Now, does anybody else, then, if that's the 
25           procedure we're following, have any other suggestions 

1           as to Rule 1?  
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley or --
3                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I think it's the same.  
4           And this is an important thing for the Commissioners 
5           individually, and that is in -- let me find the right 
6           one now.  I lost it -- in Rule 1.19, and the argument 
7           against this, of course, is that it's not up to the 
8           Commissioners to micromanage the Commission, but there 
9           is in our Commission budget some $200,000 that's 
10           designated to hire consultants.  
11                Now, we have here on our Commission the Chief 
12           Justice, the President of the Senate, two former 
13           Presidents of the Senate, two former Speakers of the 
14           House.  We have the entire legislative staff and the 
15           court system behind us, so to speak.  Why do we need 
16           more consultants?  I mean, we've been -- we can hear 
17           this out our ears.  
18                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Langley, I 
19           agree with you, and I don't see that in 1.9.  
20                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, what it has in 1 
21           point -- 1.19, sir --
22                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  1.19.
23                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, sir.  It has the 
24           unbridled authority of the Chair to go hire anybody he 
25           wants to hire, and I don't think -- Mr. Douglass is 

1           not known as a flaming liberal, and I don't think he's 
2           going to go out and spend a lot of our money, but I do 
3           think that we have the responsibility as Commissioners 
4           to see that these funds are not wasted and that we 
5           should have some approval before outlandish 
6           expenditures are undertaken.  
7                The language is, "No member of the Commission 
8           shall incur any obligation payable from Commission 
9           funds without the prior written approval of the 
10           Chair."
11                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Right.  What do you want 
12           to add to that, Commissioner?
13                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That no expenditure for 
14           consultants or other contracts in excess of $5,000 
15           will be incurred without the consensus of the body.  
16                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Would that include 
17           employment of our executive director or personnel that 
18           he would have to pay?  
19                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  No, sir, it would -- I 
20           think the amendment proposed actually excludes 
21           payroll. 
22                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, that was the first 
23           thing that came to my mind.  I haven't seen a 
24           proposal, so I don't know.  
25                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  But, again, we're just 

1           broaching ideas, and think that is a matter of content.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Will you yield to Commissioner 
3           Sundberg?
4                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  And this is really a 
5           point of order.  I'm really not sure what posture 
6           we're in, and I thought I understood after James 
7           Harold's comments that we were simply going to discuss 
8           these.  
9                Are we going to get in a debate posture, 
10           because --
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  We'll get into a debate posture 
12           after lunch.  
13                What we were thinking about doing and offered to 
14           do here is to go through the rules without motions and 
15           get everybody's comments or objections noted, and then 
16           we can come back after lunch and the speeches after 
17           lunch and we can go back to the rules and then motions 
18           would be in order.
19                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  So we're not -- those who 
20           may not agree with these comments that are made are 
21           not to debate those comments at this point, is that 
22           correct? 
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, you can certainly state your 
24           opinion.  I don't consider it debate.  I think that, 
25           obviously, we will be able to debate these items 

1           later.  I think what we were trying to do now is just 
2           isolate the objections, because I've been led to 
3           believe that most of the rules are acceptable to 90 
4           percent of the Commission.
5                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Okay, thank you.  Thank 
6           you, Mr. Langley.  
7                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Anything else on -- 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Something on this, Commissioner 
9           Connor, on this particular rule, Rule 1?  
10                COMMISSIONER CONNOR:  On Rule 1, yes, sir.  
11                If I may, Mr. Chairman, Rule 1.5, there has been 
12           a suggestion, and I think that the suggestion may be 
13           well taken, that appeals from a ruling of the Chair 
14           would be decided by a majority vote of the entire 
15           Commission rather than the Chair's ruling being 
16           totally dispositive.  That may be something we want to 
17           give consideration.
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  I have absolutely no objection to 
19           that.  If there's a ruling of the Chair and the 
20           majority votes to overrule it, then as chairman, I 
21           expect to follow that, whether it was in the rules or 
22           not. 
23                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Anything else on 1?  
24                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Mr. Chairman?
25                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Commissioner Hawkes. 

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Hawkes.  
2                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Thank you, Commissioner.  
3                I was concerned about Rule 1.23, the notice 
4           requirements, and I did want to say that I don't think 
5           that we should adopt any rule today that does not 
6           spell out clearly what kind of notice we're going to 
7           give the public, and I don't think it ought to be one 
8           of those things that we can come back and fix later.  
9           I think it ought to be something that we start off on 
10           the right foot with, and if it is taken up someplace 
11           else -- I think it mentions 24 hours someplace else.  
12           I'm not sure if 24 hours is enough notice.  
13                I think it would be nice if we could give the 
14           public enough time to participate in the issues that 
15           they are concerned with.  Maybe they're really 
16           compelled to become involved in Cabinet reform but 
17           they don't care much about what they do with Article 
18           V.  So if we're going to discuss Cabinet reform and 
19           they want to be there and they want to participate, 
20           and if we gave them some kind of notice, like three 
21           days, they would be able to more readily participate, 
22           and I would really hope that anything we do today 
23           addresses the notice of both the meeting that's going 
24           to occur and also the proposed agenda that will be 
25           taken up at that meeting. 

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner West?
2                COMMISSIONER WEST:  Thank you.  First of all, I'm 
3           very nervous to say anything because I feel humbled to 
4           be in a meeting with so many distinguished people.  
5                I just -- just in looking over the rules, I just 
6           came up with two basic concepts.  Number one is that 
7           I think the members of the Commission would feel very 
8           comfortable if the powers of the Commission were 
9           spread out over the Commission in a very general way, 
10           and secondly that we want to do something that's going 
11           to increase the public confidence.  If the end result 
12           is going to be something that's going to be on the 
13           ballot -- I mean, when I go back to Orlando, you know, 
14           people that know I'm on this Commission are going to 
15           wonder whether or not they really had an opportunity 
16           to have some input.  So when Commissioner Hawkes talks 
17           about, you know, a sufficient period of time to be 
18           able to let the public be involved, I really think 
19           that's the high road.  
20                I think that we need to carefully consider all 
21           these things.  I feel very uneasy when they say, okay, 
22           does anybody have any other objections to it, to Rule 
23           1.  Does that preclude us from -- after lunch from 
24           addressing any others? 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  Absolutely not.

1                COMMISSIONER WEST:  Okay.  So really, again, 
2           nervousness notwithstanding, I just think that we need 
3           to make sure that whatever we do is going to be a 
4           mechanism that will increase public confidence, make 
5           sure that the public feels that they've had an 
6           opportunity to have input in this, and I think that 
7           all of us would feel very comfortable going back to 
8           our respective homes and telling our people that -- or 
9           our people telling us, thank you for the opportunity 
10           that you gave me.
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I think what we're 
12           trying to do, though, is keep this on the track of the 
13           specific rules at this point and discuss them.  
14                From what I understand, the ideas of notice and 
15           everything are included in other rules.  We haven't 
16           gotten there yet.  The basic statement is that all 
17           proceedings and records of the Commission shall be 
18           open to the public, and I think that's as far as it 
19           goes there, but further on there are notice 
20           requirements which we can deal with. 
21                Commissioner Nabors?  
22                COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Mr. Chairman, let me make 
23           sure that my mind's straight.  I want to -- I heard 
24           Commissioner Thompson, and it seems to me that what 
25           we're doing today is going through and getting a 

1           general consensus of some changes that may be needed 
2           to be made.  As long as at the end of the day we 
3           preserve the right that whatever we adopt today, that 
4           at the next meeting we have a -- by the same majority 
5           have the right to make specific amendments, then we 
6           can come back at the next meeting with specific 
7           amendments relevant to the rules, and maybe between 
8           now and then the people that worked on the rules can 
9           incorporate some of those that are obvious so that the 
10           draft we're dealing will have those changes made, but 
11           I think if we try to get into a debate today or if we 
12           try to get into some kind of a -- without specific 
13           language in front of us, there could be 
14           miscommunication.  As long as we recognize that if 
15           adopt these exact rules today, under some kind of 
16           motion they can be amended by a majority rule next 
17           time, that we always have the ability then to draft 
18           specific language and know what we're voting on.  
19                So I think that the observation of Commissioner 
20           Thompson was wise and we ought to keep that in mind, 
21           that we're not doing anything in concrete today if we 
22           do it within the context of getting the sentiment of 
23           the body and then coming back with a majority vote and 
24           then cleaning them up at our first meeting.
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  So we don't get too 

1           far afield, what we're really doing here is asking for 
2           people to express their known objections to the rules 
3           that have been distributed as we go down them, Rule 1, 
4           and then we'll go to Rule 2.  There will be no votes. 
5                This afternoon we'll be in a better position to 
6           move forward and perhaps take votes, and then the idea 
7           of whether or not it takes a majority vote to amend 
8           them at the next meeting will be one of the items that 
9           will be considered.  
10                So what I would like to do is to proceed and get 
11           the objections, specific objections at least stated 
12           before us now before we go to lunch on -- as far as we 
13           can go, and not get bogged down on the general rules 
14           at this point, if that's possible, and I'll proceed 
15           with that in mind.  
16                Are there any other notations anyone wants to 
17           make to specific rules in Rule 1?  
18                Commissioner Evans?
19                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Mr. Chairman, I particularly 
20           liked what you said yesterday in your comments, that 
21           you don't even want the appearance of anyone running 
22           this Commission other than the Commissioners, and in 
23           light of that commitment on your part, I have a 
24           concern with Rule 1.3 as it's presented on the June 
25           12th proposal, and I particularly like Commissioner 

1           Mathis's proposal, the wording there, in that in this 
2           case the Commissioners themselves with plenty of 
3           advance notice would be able to make the committee 
4           assignments rather than having any one person having 
5           that power vested. 
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Your objection is 
7           noted.
8                Any other objections to -- in Rule 1? 
9                Commissioner Mathis?
10                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Commissioner, what I'd like 
11           to do is just -- in order to save time, just to 
12           propose that everyone take note of the proposed 
13           objections on the proposed rules changes chart, and 
14           that way I wouldn't -- no one would have to restate 
15           them, if they cared not to, and we would -- I think 
16           that would be clear, but I think there are objections 
17           to Rule 1 that are included on the proposed rules 
18           changes that I'd like to put before the body, and it's 
19           clearly in writing before them today.
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Commissioner Mathis, we 
21           will consider those your objections, and I don't want 
22           to cut anybody else off from objections which that 
23           might do.  So we will proceed.  If anybody has any 
24           objections -- that would save you from having to get 
25           up every time and object, of course.  

1                Are there any other objections to Rule 1, 
2           specific objections as to specific rules?  
3                Yes, sir, Commissioner West.
4                COMMISSIONER WEST:  I know I wasn't too specific 
5           last time and I apologize, but I have some concern 
6           with 1.20, 1.21 and 1.22, mainly because of what was 
7           previously said about this being -- you know, the 
8           power being vested in the Commission as opposed to the 
9           Chair, understanding your commitment to having this be 
10           a very open process, that as opposed to the executive 
11           director works at the pleasure of the Chair, he would 
12           work at the pleasure of this entire Commission, the 
13           same thing with the Commission staff in those three 
14           sections, 1.20, 1.21 and 1.22.
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  
16                Any other objections to Rule 1 that anybody wants 
17           to note?  
18                If not, we'll move to Rule 2.  
19                Commissioner Barkdull? 
20                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I don't think a 
21           motion is in order under the --
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  No motion.  Just keep going.  
23                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Has anybody got any 
24           comment on Rule 2? 
25               THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Byrne. 

1               COMMISSIONER RILEY:  Mr. Chairman, my question is 
2           I'd like some definition or some explanation from the 
3           Steering Committee exactly what the purpose of 
4           miscellaneous and what might be the catchall for that.
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  It sounds like a financial 
6           statement, doesn't it, Mr. Morsani, the one I give to 
7           the banks?  
8                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  This was an addition -- 
9           this was an addition that was added when we were 
10           correlating these rules with the Senate rules.  
11                Well, there is a miscellaneous article in the 
12           Constitution.
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  I thought that's what it was, it 
14           was the miscellaneous article.  These trace the 
15           articles.
16                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The substantive 
17           committees generally trace the articles of the 
18           Constitution.  They're not quite in numerical order.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  And there is a miscellaneous 
20           article, which I think that was the purpose of that. 
21                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's Article X of the 
22           Constitution.
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley?  
24                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, if you 
25           please, doesn't the following language, "additional 

1           standing committees may be named by the Chair," 
2           doesn't that cover that? 
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  I think it covers it.  The 
4           miscellaneous there, though, was intended to track the 
5           Constitution, which has an article, and then there are 
6           committees for each article, and then the issue of 
7           additional committees would be another issue, I think.
8                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman?
9                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Scott.
10                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I think the suggestion is 
11           maybe we don't really need to have a committee with 
12           that title, but if you're going to have it, then 
13           Commissioner Langley wants to be chairman of it 
14           because he could take up anything he wanted.  
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley, we may have 
16           to elect the chairman of that one by the whole body.  
17           Everybody may want it.  
18                No, actually it really applies only to the 
19           constitutional provision is my understanding of the 
20           rule.
21                Commissioner Mills?
22                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, we had a lot 
23           of discussion yesterday of initiatives, and that's 
24           under Article XI.  Since you were tracking articles, I 
25           was wondering if you had planned putting those issues 

1           somewhere else.  I mean, we have nothing under -- we 
2           have all ten articles tracked and we have no Article 
3           XI committee. 
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't know.  Let's visit that at 
5           lunch.  I don't know what it means.  We'll find out. 
6                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Do you want to include a 
7           sub -- if you want a substantive committee that's on 
8           amendments, I have no problem with that.  
9                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, you had 
10           tracked the Articles I through X, and that's why X is 
11           miscellaneous because X is miscellaneous. 
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  Right.
13                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  And there is an Article XI, 
14           which includes, if you wanted to amend this 
15           Commission, amend initiatives, amend conventions, that 
16           if you want a jurisdiction to track articles, then you 
17           would have --
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Your suggestion is we add No. XI, 
19           Article XI -- 
20                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Yes.
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  -- which includes those items.  I 
22           think that's well taken.  
23                Any other objections to any other parts of Rule 
24           2, other than Ms. Mathis has noted in her written 
25           documents? 

1                Commissioner Hawkes?  
2                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  I would like to 
3           specifically comment on one of Commissioner Mathis's 
4           objections.  You know, again, in one of the notice 
5           provisions it says -- uses the term "if possible."  I 
6           think our rules ought to take out terms like "if 
7           possible."  There's no definition of what defines 
8           "possible" or what doesn't define "possible," and --
9                THE CHAIRMAN:  What rule was that?
10                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  That's 2.15. 
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  Proceed.
12                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  And also I am kind of fond 
13           of Commissioner Mathis's 2.17 proposal where basically 
14           it requires a majority of the Commission to approve 
15           the rules and administrations calendar, and again, 
16           maybe because I was a minority member of the 
17           Legislature, I remember times where my bill might rest 
18           on a part of the calendar that we were never going to 
19           get to even if we did go to two o'clock in the 
20           morning, and this basically, again, I think, does two 
21           things:  one, it restores the Commissioners' 
22           confidence that if their proposal has some other 
23           interest amongst the Commission and it doesn't have 
24           interest with the rules and administrations committee 
25           agenda, that they can at least vote and bring it up 

1           that way; and I think it restores some confidence in 
2           the public that there isn't gamesmanship that says 
3           that you're on the calendar but you can't be brought 
4           up.  There is a mechanism to bring it up, and it makes 
5           the Commission act more as a collegiate body and 
6           allows every Commissioner to fully participate, which 
7           obviously the Chair has expressed and --
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't think these rules give the 
9           rules committee the authority to keep anything from 
10           being considered.  They're not like the Legislature.  
11           We're not going to have the system you had in the 
12           Legislature where the rules committee says exactly 
13           what you can vote on.  We're only here like two days 
14           at a time and this sort of thing.  I think -- it's not 
15           my understanding of the rules that the rules committee 
16           can control anything other than setting the agenda of 
17           those that are before it.
18                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  Then if that's the case, it 
19           would be easy to adopt this amendment and restore the 
20           public confidence and no Commissioner would ever feel 
21           that his proposal was sitting on the special order 
22           calendar and was never going to get to --
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  We don't have a special order 
24           calendar under these rules, Commissioner Hawkes, not a 
25           special order calendar.  It's a misunderstanding of 

1           this function to think -- to compare it to that type 
2           of legislative process.  I think Mr. Langley 
3           understands that and others that have served in the 
4           Legislature.
5                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  We have an order of 
6           business that makes reference to the special order.  
7           We have --
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley?
9                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I think the confusion, Mr. 
10           Chairman, is on page 17 at the top of the page, Item 8 
11           in the order of business does refer to special orders 
12           as determined by the rules and administration 
13           committee.  So, you know, having been in this 
14           environment, that assumes that there would be a 
15           special order, and what we're saying here is that if 
16           that committee comes out with a special order, that by 
17           a majority vote the body could add to that special 
18           order just by a majority vote on the floor.  
19           Otherwise, you -- I know in the Legislature, if you 
20           get a bill on the general calendar, we call it the 
21           graveyard because, you know, that's where it dies.  If 
22           you can't make special order, you're out of the 
23           picture.  
24                So this would enable, again, the majority of the 
25           Commission, which is what we're all about, to make 

1           that decision whether or not a bill should be heard.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't think we have a general 
3           order calendar on proposals, though.  
4                Commissioner Mills?
5                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Would Commissioner Barkdull 
6           yield for a question on this?   
7                My understanding is that this Commission acts 
8           almost as a committee of the whole and that all 
9           committees are advisory in nature, and that every 
10           proposal ends up being considered by the whole 
11           Commission, which makes -- these committees tend to be 
12           -- to facilitate the hearing process and the 
13           amendatory process of what is an incredibly weak 
14           committee structure and an incredibly strong 
15           Commission.  And so the question is, is the Commission 
16           strong, is the Commission able to do the will of the 
17           Commission, and the majority of the Commission?  It 
18           seems to me it's very clear that these committees are 
19           simply to facilitate the consideration, bring it to 
20           the floor of the Commission.  The majority of the 
21           Commission can do anything it wants to.  I mean, 
22           that's the weakest -- I mean, I think maybe 
23           Commissioner Barkdull or someone might clarify that, 
24           but it appears to me that -- yes, I remember the 
25           special order calendar.  I even remember James Harold 

1           kept me off it a couple of times, but -- I mean, there 
2           is no special order calendar that says, in the rule 
3           that I saw, that the committee shall transmit and 
4           shall be on the calendar, and whatever would be done 
5           here was simply ordering it, is that correct?  
6                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  The whole import of these 
7           rules were to keep a majority vote available up until 
8           the final adoption of a proposal, if any, that would 
9           be submitted.
10                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  But it's clear that these 
11           committees cannot stop the proposal.  
12                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's correct.
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  They have to report out favorable 
14           or unfavorable.  
15                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  They may come without a 
16           recommendation, but yet it still -- 
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  And if they don't report, then the 
18           rules provide they come out anyway.  
19                Commissioner Hawkes again.  
20                COMMISSIONER HAWKES:  If I understood the Chair 
21           correctly in some of your introductory remarks, I 
22           believe in 1978 they had 600 proposals, perhaps.  You 
23           know, there is -- we may end up with 200, we may end 
24           up with 1,600.  No one knows how many proposals will 
25           actually be before this Commission.  

1                What this talks about is the daily order of 
2           business, and we get to a daily order of business 
3           called special orders where this Commission's going to 
4           have an opportunity to vote on those proposals.  Do 
5           you favor that proposal?  Are you opposed to that 
6           proposal?  Do you think it needs an amendment?  
7                There has to be some mechanism to set up an 
8           order.  Which proposal do we take up first, one, two, 
9           three, four? 
10                It seems clear from these rules -- and maybe I 
11           have misunderstood them, in which case, that's fine, 
12           but the rules and administration committee sets that 
13           order, which proposal comes first, which proposal 
14           comes second.  If they do that and there's 600 
15           proposals and you're number 600 and we're up here for 
16           two days, you're not going to be heard.  If the next 
17           time you come up you're still resting at the bottom, 
18           you're still not going to -- and that may be fine.  
19           The Commission may feel very comfortable with that 
20           because that proposal is not the most critical and one 
21           that the Commission as a whole feels that we ought to 
22           take up and consider.  
23                All this amendment proposes is a mechanism where, 
24           if a majority of this Commission thinks we ought to 
25           take up a proposal and consider it, it allows us to do 

1           that and doesn't prevent us from being able to do that 
2           because the rule, itself, states that we need a 
3           two-thirds vote to overcome the daily order of 
4           business.
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  Let me say one thing here.  I 
6           think everybody has a misconception about how this 
7           Commission operated in '78 and probably will this 
8           time.  
9                We provided and have provided that the general 
10           public at public hearings could offer proposals, and 
11           we agreed that we would consider all proposals offered 
12           by the public, and the way we did that is we came back 
13           after public hearings -- and I can't remember whether 
14           it was after a series or all of them -- and we had a 
15           list of proposals that were kept by the staff, and 
16           there were reported to be 600, and what happened was 
17           we had I think a two-day meeting at which time all 
18           proposals presented by the public were presented one 
19           by one to the Commission, and it took ten votes for 
20           them to remain as proposals to be considered by the 
21           Commission.  And I think after that one day -- I think 
22           it maybe even took less than one day.  Out of those 
23           600, there were like -- including those offered by 
24           Commissioners as well, some on the same subject -- 200 
25           proposals, and that was the actual number of proposals 

1           that were on the table.  
2                The committees heard and considered all 200 of 
3           those, not 600, and it covered everything, and then 
4           the committees either reported them back favorably, 
5           unfavorably or in some instances made not a committee 
6           substitute but a simple thing like that, and then you 
7           had the opportunity on the committee to have a 
8           majority reporting it favorable and a minority 
9           reporting it unfavorable, and that was before the 
10           Commission when it came out, and if the committees did 
11           not act on them within the period of time that was set 
12           by the Commission, they were brought back to the 
13           calendar anyway without any recommendation, so that 
14           the Commission ultimately considered every proposal 
15           that was brought before it by the public and by the 
16           Commissioners.  
17                Now, it seems, when you read this, that you're 
18           thinking in terms that we're going to have debate on 
19           600 proposals, and that's not going to happen, nor in 
20           practicality would it happen.  Many of the public 
21           proposals become proposals of the Commissioners, and 
22           you try to combine those and you get rid of them that 
23           way, but that's the reason that everybody may be 
24           concerned to some extent.  
25                I don't recall a single time that any item with 

1           this same rule was kept from consideration by the 
2           Commission, and I don't think it will be this time, 
3           regardless of which type rule we adopt, but I note 
4           your objection and I'm sure Commissioner Barkdull and 
5           other members of the committee can deal with that.  
6                Any others?  Yes, sir, Commissioner Zack.
7                COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Mr. Chairman, the way the 
8           committee's structured, when you have a question like 
9           reapportionment, which deals with all three branches, 
10           how is that going to be handled within the committee 
11           structure?  Will the three different committees deal 
12           with it or will there be one committee that will be 
13           assigned the subject?
14                THE CHAIRMAN:  My recollection is 
15           reapportionment is under the legislative committee.
16                COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Thank you.  
17                Also, why was privacy stricken as one of the 
18           issues to be considered by the committee?
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  It's in Article I.  
20                COMMISSIONER ZACK:  And that's why it was 
21           stricken from the ethics and election?
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  It's in Article I.  
23                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It's in Article I.
24                COMMISSIONER ZACK:  Thank you.  
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Henderson?  

1                COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  On that issue on 2.1 on 
2           the standing committees, I really like the explanation 
3           that we ought to track the committees to the existing 
4           articles within the Constitution, and in that note 
5           just a couple of items.  
6                You've created a separate committee for bonding 
7           and investments, and yet that all generally falls 
8           within the finance and taxation article, and I want to 
9           know if the Chairman felt there was some need for 
10           singling that out, and the other -- I'll tell you, I 
11           enjoy the term "miscellaneous," but I think that that 
12           really not only embraces that article but Article II, 
13           which is general provisions, and maybe that might be a 
14           better term for linking those two articles together.
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  Maybe it would be a better term 
16           just to name the two articles.  Would you agree?
17                COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  If you track one for 
18           each article, that would be fine with me.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  And just group those two together.
20                COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  That's right.
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't have any problem with 
22           that.  That's the easiest way to do it.  
23                On the issue of the finance and taxation and 
24           bonding, my recollection is in '78 they decided to do 
25           that because they're not the same.  It turned out -- 

1           and I can tell you from experience that I never ever 
2           knew anything about bonding and investments and I 
3           never, listening to all the debate and everything 
4           else, thought I knew anything about it when we 
5           finished.  With finance and taxation, we all know 
6           something about that.  So I think they were separated 
7           because of the technical nature of the bonding and 
8           investments, and I believe Commissioner Crenshaw might 
9           be an expert in that area.  
10                And they are -- while they're in the same 
11           article, they're really not related as it comes to the 
12           issue of changing them, and that's why the '78 
13           Commission did that, and I thought it worked very well 
14           because you didn't -- you had a specific committee 
15           that dealt with the bonding and those issues which 
16           were made up primarily of people in the Commission 
17           that knew that subject, and, on the other hand, the 
18           finance and taxation committee went across the board 
19           and you had a more general representation on that 
20           committee.  I think that's the reason for that.  It's 
21           a good question, though.  
22                Commissioner Ford-Coates?
23                COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, in that 
24           same vein, just to clarify, the committee on ethics 
25           and elections is actually a combination of two  

1           articles also, is it not, Article II on ethics and 
2           Article VI on elections, so they don't actually 
3           mirror?  There are a few exceptions?
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  I think that's true.  
5                I don't see anything wrong with labeling these on 
6           the articles, and maybe with the exception of finance 
7           and taxation and bonding, which I really think should 
8           be separate.  We can work on that.  Those are good 
9           points.
10                Any other objections?  
11                If not, move to Rule 3.  Rule 3.3 is the one I 
12           was talking about about the public proposals.  
13                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Does anybody have any 
14           specific comment on Rule 3?
15                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman --
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  We'll move to Rule 4 -- excuse me, 
17           Commissioner Langley.
18                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.  Mr. Chairman, you 
19           and I spoke a little while ago on the floor about 
20           3.35, concerning differentiating between those 
21           proposals that are received in public hearing by the 
22           public and those which are initiated by Commissioners, 
23           and I think we need to reach some consensus on whether 
24           or not a Commissioner who has a proposal again has to 
25           get ten co-introducers, so to speak, before that can 

1           be heard.  If that was the intent of the rule, it was 
2           stricken.  It was in and then it was out, then it was 
3           in.  So I don't know which -- where you're going, but 
4           I don't know -- the way that you described it happened 
5           in '78 doesn't seem that bad, but if a Commissioner, 
6           after listening to the public, has his own initiative 
7           -- his own proposal that he would like to propose, it 
8           seems like that ought to be a privilege of that 
9           Commissioner.
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't recall that being in the 
11           '78 rules. 
12                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  It wasn't.
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  Is there any reason to put it in 
14           these?
15                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  No, Commissioner Langley 
16           is absolutely right.  It would take ten -- nine co- 
17           introducers, and that was not -- should not be the 
18           intent.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  No, that should be deleted, you're 
20           right, Commissioner.
21                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Each Commissioner can 
22           make a proposal and it gets full consideration.
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  I can assure you in '78 the 
24           Commissioners made single proposals that were heard on 
25           the floor, but you're right, though.  That should be 

1           struck, that provision, and the other left intact.  
2                Any other suggestions or objections?  
3                If not, we'll move to Rule 4 which we've had some 
4           discussion on already.  Any further comments on Rule 
5           4?
6                If not, we'll move to Rule 5. 
7                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We skipped Rule 5, 
8           unless -- 
9                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley?  
10                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Understanding that some of 
11           the major things will be decided later, Mr. Chairman, 
12           I think we ought to go ahead and discuss it so that -- 
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  Is it the will of the Commission 
14           we discuss Rule 5, which I think is appropriate, too?  
15           I agree with you.  
16                Commissioner Barkdull, would you --
17                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Let me say that the 
18           overall intent of Rule 5 is that everything will 
19           operate by majority vote until we get to final 
20           passage, and then it will be whatever super-majority 
21           that this Commission decides they want to put in.  
22           Those of us -- 
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Now, that's assuming -- now, 
24           there's some of them here may want a majority, and we 
25           don't want to -- 

1                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I said whatever majority 
2           that they pick.
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  You said super-majority, and 
4           that's a Freudian slip, but that's okay. 
5                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  One of the problems that 
6           we recognized, Sunday afternoon particularly, at 
7           least, is the grouping, and I don't think any of us 
8           are satisfied with the language that's in the present 
9           rule as far as grouping is concerned, and that becomes 
10           very, very important at the end of the process.  
11           Assuming that there are proposals that get the 
12           requisite vote to be considered and sent to the 
13           Secretary of State, the grouping becomes very 
14           important, and I, and I think other members and the 
15           people that work on these rules, would welcome 
16           anything you want to suggest, and it may be premature 
17           at this time to try to set grouping at the end of this 
18           process.  
19                You may want to consider leaving the method of 
20           grouping open until you get towards the conclusion of 
21           the deliberations and see what's been passed and then 
22           consider what you may want to talk about in the way of 
23           grouping, but I frankly think that it would be better 
24           if we deferred the method of grouping until we got to 
25           see what we were going to group.  

1                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman?
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Sundberg.
3                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Is it clear, though, 
4           Commissioner Barkdull, that as now stated in the 
5           version that we are considering, that it permits 
6           grouping to take place on a majority vote as opposed 
7           to some super-majority? 
8                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I think that -- 
9                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  It was not clear to me 
10           from --
11                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Well, I think probably 
12           the reason that's not clear is that the Commission -- 
13           the subcommittee did not intend to recommend any vote 
14           on final passage of a proposal to go on a ballot,  
15           that that's got to come from the wisdom of this body, 
16           and -- as to what that will be.  
17                Now, of course, the three-fifths is one of the 
18           requirements of the Legislature.  As you all know, I'm 
19           sure, that this was a big contention in the last 
20           Revision Commission as to what the vote would be, and 
21           it was the consensus of the Steering Committee to make 
22           no recommendation before this Commission but to leave 
23           it up to the wisdom of the Commission when they adopt 
24           these rules as to what vote will be necessary to send 
25           a proposal to the Secretary of State and have it go on 

1           the ballot.
2                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  But when you say what 
3           majority to send it to the Secretary of State, do you 
4           include within that statement the grouping issue as to 
5           how it will be sent?  
6                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  No, sir.  No, sir.
7                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  So that these rules as 
8           currently --
9                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  As drafted, they give the 
10           style and drafting committee the authority to group, 
11           and that's the point that I think we should really 
12           think about until we see what you want to group, and I 
13           have a lot of hesitation to at this point recommend 
14           that the style and drafting committee have the power 
15           to group.
16                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Precisely my point, Mr. 
17           Barkdull. 
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Sundberg, I think 
19           we're -- he's trying to divide this into two 
20           questions, I think, and which you have.  Number one, 
21           do we agree on the final vote that it will take to put 
22           it on the ballot, whatever it is?  And we need to 
23           consider that, whether we do it at this meeting or 
24           some other meeting.  
25                And the other is, before we vote on the final 

1           vote, what do we vote on, and do we determine that by 
2           a majority vote, in other words, approving or 
3           rejecting or amending the style and drafting report, 
4           or do we require the same majority for that as we do 
5           for putting it on the ballot?  That's the two 
6           questions, is that correct?  
7                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Absolutely, and it goes 
8           back to Commissioner Jennings' observations yesterday 
9           that we keep single issues separated, because once you 
10           start grouping, then that presents the opportunity for 
11           logrolling, about which several of the speakers 
12           yesterday commented.  
13                So I think it is very important that we address 
14           it at that stage as well as when it finally gets to 
15           the ballot. 
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  I understand your suggestion, if 
17           that's what it is, is that we have the same majority 
18           vote for the passage of a particular change or a 
19           proposal for changing the Constitution that we have 
20           for the final vote when we vote to put it on the 
21           ballot.  Is that my understanding of what your --
22                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Without debating this 
23           issue now, yes, that would be precisely my point, Mr. 
24           Chairman.
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  I thought I got that.  

1                Okay.  Does anybody have any misunderstanding of 
2           the two issues that he poses, or is that clear?
3                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  I don't think it's clear 
4           to anybody -- pardon me, if I may be recognized -- but 
5           I don't think anybody understands it.  I thought I did 
6           until Commissioner Sundberg spoke, and then, as I 
7           understand it, it is -- and I don't think there's any 
8           disagreement on this, but a proposal is passed by 
9           majority vote and is sent to styling and drafting.  
10           Styling and drafting somehow mix it up with something 
11           else and bring it back.  At that time there should be 
12           only a majority required to unscramble those eggs and 
13           put them back, but the final product, when finally 
14           accepted by a majority vote, would have to be approved 
15           by whatever majority or super-majority that this 
16           Commission decides.  
17                Are we on the same page?
18                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Not at all. 
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  Just a minute.  He is, I think, 
20           because if you reach that point where you've got a 
21           majority vote on a proposal and then you could have a 
22           super-majority vote that that proposal is going on the 
23           ballot, you still -- they've been voted on 
24           separately.  You still may need to -- and I don't know 
25           that you would -- actually combine two others in order 

1           to have a sensible vote, and this does occur, and I 
2           think that's what he's concerned with, that you may, 
3           and if so, should you have the same majority as the 
4           final vote on that point?  Is that correct, 
5           Commissioner Sundberg?
6               COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  That is correct, and I'm 
7           not suggesting just how it unscrambles, but what I am 
8           suggesting is that grouping is just as important as 
9           the final product, Senator Langley, because you can 
10           get the logrolling --
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley, please.  
12                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Pardon me, Commissioner.  
13           He'll always be Senator Langley to me.  He was a 
14           Senator when I was a small boy, see, so I have --
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  It's beginning to show.
16                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  But that, as I say, if 
17           you believe logrolling is evil, and I think most 
18           people here do, it permits logrolling at that level 
19           which would, it seems to me, defeat the two-thirds.  
20                I'm not sure just how we get there, but that's 
21           the principle I would advocate. 
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Scott, maybe you can 
23           straighten us out.  
24                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I don't think Commissioner 
25           Sundberg was ever a small boy, he's so tall there, but 

1           let me just say something.  We discussed this -- if I 
2           might just take one minute -- I was going to do this 
3           at some point -- to explain to all of you 
4           Commissioners the great pains that the Steering 
5           Committee took not to be presumptuous, and this being 
6           identified as a major issue, and that's why there is 
7           not a specific recommendation.  I think several of us 
8           prefer some kind of extraordinary majority, perhaps 
9           three-fifths, to finally place things on the ballot; 
10           but other than that, Judge Barkdull -- Commissioner 
11           Barkdull, what he has said from the beginning, let's 
12           don't do number 5 because of the concern about the 
13           style and drafting committee and the grouping issue.  
14                What I think is that, just like we do with other 
15           constitutional amendments, not that the Legislature 
16           should be the guide, but that's probably the only body 
17           that has acted on them, that you can amend them by a 
18           majority vote or separate them or divide the question, 
19           if they group three or four and you only want one or 
20           perhaps two, until the final vote, but then if you 
21           have at the extraordinary vote -- let's just say if 
22           that becomes what y'all want to do, then to get the 
23           three-fifths vote you may or may not have to group two 
24           items that maybe are related, and I can think of some 
25           that might be legitimately related, that might -- in 

1           order to get enough votes.  But the point is the 
2           process I think will sort that out and the system will 
3           sort that out.  
4                As this is drafted, which again let me say, Judge 
5           Barkdull said let's don't act on it.  So that's not 
6           like that's a proposal that's being pushed here.  We 
7           just -- you know, we need to sort out what sort of 
8           majority for final passage and whether we want perhaps 
9           some super-majority to divide questions or not, but I 
10           would suggest that we don't.  Perhaps when we think 
11           about it, we're going to come down and say we want a 
12           majority vote to set to the amend -- amend whatever it 
13           is and then go about it that way, and so -- but again, 
14           I want to tell you that in this and many other 
15           matters, including proposals -- several of the 
16           Commissioners asked me in the last day or so, well, 
17           what are the issues and what did the Steering 
18           Committee think were the issues, and we took great 
19           pains to not say this is the agenda, these are the 
20           issues and so forth.  
21                So that's what we're all about, and while I'm 
22           talking here, what Commissioner Mills says is also 
23           very true.  I think I viewed and most of us viewed 
24           this as basically like a committee of the whole.  In 
25           other words, we're not into trying to have committees 

1           kill and keep things from being heard, and should that 
2           ever become a problem, I'll be the first one to join 
3           with anyone who has those concerns in making sure that 
4           doesn't happen.  
5                So on this point I do think we need some 
6           clarifying.  We might want to wait and see what kind 
7           of proposals there are before we finalize the 
8           extraordinary, if there is to be an extraordinary 
9           vote, but otherwise -- and one other comment, while 
10           I'm at it, so I can then sit down.  
11               I do think, regardless if we adopt some rules 
12           today, which I would urge us to think about over lunch 
13           what Commissioner Hawkes said about the notice issue. 
14           That's simple.  We can put in there, because that 
15           would affect our meetings that might occur in the near 
16           future, in the next couple of months.  So we might 
17           consider that.  
18                I hadn't found it -- James Harold and I were 
19           looking for it -- where it's as clear perhaps asin the 
20           proposal that Commissioner Mathis has to set out that 
21           would be a 72-hour notice with the agenda. 
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.  
23                I would like to point out before we leave this 
24           that there are reasons other than logrolling to 
25           combine these issues.  For example, in finance and 

1           taxation, we may vote separately on several different 
2           things that have to go into the same vote, and so 
3           they're not all on that basis, and I think that's what 
4           Commissioner Langley was thinking about when he said 
5           that as well.  
6                Commissioner Nabors?  
7                COMMISSIONER NABORS:  I'd just like to say I 
8           think that the wisdom that on the original motion on 
9           the second 5 to delay that is sound, I mean, in the 
10           sense that we're all new to this process.  We're 
11           getting to know each other.  We're going to go through 
12           a public hearing process.  We'll have a better feel 
13           for the types of proposals that are going to arise up 
14           and really Article V deals with the issue of how we're 
15           going to make our final decision, which is in a sense 
16           what we adopted initially, and I have mixed feelings 
17           about how I feel about majority versus extraordinary.  
18           I'd like to be thoughtful about that because I think 
19           that issue, in terms of how we're going to deal with 
20           that issue, how we're going to group, is going to 
21           determine the success of what we do, and a lot of 
22           those decisions may be driven by the number of 
23           proposals we have on the table that we think are 
24           serious.  
25               So I really think that the wisdom -- I think it's 

1           helpful to talk about this Rule 5, but I think the 
2           wisdom of delaying that after the rules are adopted so 
3           we all have a better feel for what we're doing and 
4           what the public sees as the problems is a very wise 
5           one. 
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  That suggestion is 
7           that we take all these suggestions on Rule 5 and Rule 
8           -- we'll go ahead with the other rules and perhaps 
9           adopt them or some form of them and leave Rule 5 out 
10           of the motion for adoption today and take it up at our 
11           subsequent meeting, noticed for that purpose.  Is that 
12           the sense of what you said?  
13                COMMISSIONER NABORS:  Well, except that I'm not 
14           sure in my view, though, we're talking about perhaps 
15           taking action today and then amending the rules at the 
16           first meeting.  We may want to delay Article V to 
17           another meeting after the public hearing process is 
18           concluded.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  That would remain to be seen, and 
20           we can handle that if that comes up.  So we can move 
21           to -- if we accept that suggestion, we'll move to our 
22           Rule 6. 
23                If no comments on Rule 6, we'll move to Rule 7.  
24                No comments on Rule 7?  
25                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  You've got Senator 

1           Langley.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Oh, excuse me.  Commissioner 
3           Langley?
4                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
5           and again in Commissioner Mathis's amendment, proposed 
6           amendment, you'll see that there is language there to 
7           ensure that every Commissioner's amendment, if 
8           properly filed with the secretary, would be heard.  
9           Again, this may be some paranoia hanging over from 
10           being in the minority of the Legislature for a long 
11           time, but it seems the method operandi was to get all 
12           the friendly amendments, those sponsored, recognized, 
13           and get them on the bill and then move the question, 
14           and you're left there with a whole lot of unacted-upon 
15           amendments that were on the desk. 
16                I think in a body this small that we should have 
17           no problem letting every amendment be heard that is 
18           proposed by a Commissioner.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  I think under these rules that it 
20           would be anyway.  
21                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Well, if we adopt Robert's 
22           Rules of Order, they do -- there is in there the 
23           motion for the previous question which cuts off all 
24           further debate, et cetera.
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  We originally had that deleted.  

1           It's deleted in these rules, and Robert's Rules only 
2           controls where there's nothing in the rules.  
3                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  All right.  But there's 
4           nothing in here to protect the amendments filed.  
5           That's all I'm seeking here, regardless of the 
6           previous question issue.  There's nothing in here that 
7           would prevent you moving on as far as I know. 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't think that's right.  When 
9           I read them I didn't get that out of it.  
10                Commissioner Scott, am I right?
11                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  I think the -- first of all, 
12           I think that's one of the reasons that Robert's Rules 
13           of Order is not specifically set forth in the Senate 
14           rules, where we have gone to Mason's Manual and other 
15           type things, and one of the reasons is the Senate -- 
16           in all deference to my colleagues who served in the 
17           House, I would strongly suggest that we do not get 
18           into the some of the House rules such as previous 
19           questions and tabling and whatever, I mean, because we 
20           felt ourselves in the Senate smaller and able to 
21           deliberate in not have 120 members, so -- and this 
22           body being close to that size, I would think that 
23           Senator Langley makes a good point, that we don't want 
24           to have previous questions moved so that we cut off 
25           people have a chance to make amendments which is -- 

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, I think that -- I thought it 
2           was in the rules at one time that the previous 
3           question was not allowed, motions to move previous 
4           questions were not proper motions.  If not, I would 
5           think that should be in there.
6                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  That's in there, I think, 
7           somewhere.
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Was that removed from one of the 
9           drafts?  
10                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  It was in the Senate rules 
11           originally, and it --
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, I think it got out.  
13                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We'll put it in. 
14               THE CHAIRMAN:  I agree, Commissioner Langley, 
15           that's correct, because, you're right, we operated in 
16           '78 that way, too.  Anybody who had an amendment got 
17           it heard.  They might have got it voted down 36 to one 
18           or something, but they got it heard.
19                Commissioner Sundberg?
20                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  Mr. Chairman, a question 
21           to Commissioner Langley.  
22                Commissioner, were you suggesting something along 
23           the lines of the language in the proposal the addition 
24           that was added to 7.1 in this that says, "All 
25           amendments properly filed should be heard and the 

1           sponsor given opportunity"?
2                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes.
3                COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG:  I would ask that the 
4           subcommittee who's doing the drafting to determine 
5           however -- whether that conflicts with 7.4, which has 
6           to do with germanity.  I don't know how they relate 
7           one to the other. 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, germanity wouldn't preclude 
9           it from being considered, it would preclude it from 
10           being considered on that motion.  I think you have to 
11           make rulings on germanity.  If somebody offers an 
12           amendment to a tax measure to abolish the death 
13           penalty, that's not germane, and I think that's the 
14           purpose of the germanity.  I don't see any conflict.  
15           I didn't suggest anybody do that.  
16                How about -- 
17                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Mr. Chairman?
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  -- anything further on Rule 7 
19           we're on?  Commissioner Smith?
20                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  I just have a question.  
21           Notwithstanding germanity, if in fact this is adopted, 
22           does that preclude the -- a super-majority of the 
23           Commission from being able to cut off -- in other 
24           words, one person can offer 100 amendments and the 
25           other 36 can't do anything about it?  I just want to 

1           know if that's what we're doing, and if so, I just 
2           want to know that that's what I'm doing.
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  We have a way to prevent that, of 
4           course.  I think we can shut off debates with two- 
5           thirds votes and a lot of other things that could 
6           occur, particularly if we have Robert's Rules, but the 
7           other thing we can do, if we have somebody that did 
8           that, we can have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove them and 
9           tie them in the back room.  I don't think anybody's 
10           going to involved here in filibusters or cloture type 
11           things, and if they are, I'd be very surprised; but 
12           there are ways to prevent the abuse of the process, I 
13           think, and there's inherent power of the Chair in that 
14           regard, regardless of what the rules say could occur, 
15           when there's a true abuse, but I doubt very seriously 
16           if we couldn't get the vote of the Commission to stop 
17           that kind of shenanigans, and I would certainly hope 
18           that we don't have to put up with that sort of thing.  
19                Any further on Rule 7?  
20                How about Rule 8?  Rule 8.6 sort of handles one 
21           of the questions that came up earlier, all questions 
22           relating to priority business shall be decided without 
23           debate.  If somebody doesn't like the order of 
24           business, they can move to change it, and if there's 
25           no debate and you get a majority vote, then it's 

1           changed.  
2                Rule 9?  
3                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That's the Robert's Rules.
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  Correct.  That -- Robert's Rules, 
5           where are we going to put that in or are we?  What did 
6           we decide to do?  
7                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  If you determine to put 
8           it in, we'll probably put it in back up under the 
9           rules and calendar or the control by the Chair.
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  Rule 9, good old 
11           miscellaneous.  Okay.  Note on Rule 9, on the 
12           alternates who are very important to this process,  
13           they'll have the same privileges as Commissioners but 
14           shall not have voting privileges.  In other words, 
15           they can debate and enter into the considerations and 
16           serve on the committees.  That's basically what 
17           happened in '78, and it worked very well.  In fact, 
18           some of the contributions made by the alternates were 
19           significant in those debates.  
20                Commissioner Jennings?  
21                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Mr. Chairman, it's not 
22           specific.  I think it's understood that the alternate 
23           is much like a jury alternate that does not take place 
24           -- take a voting stance until a member has to leave.  
25           Do we need to clarify that, that the alternates -- for 

1           example, if we were at some posture and we were 
2           missing two or three Commissioners --
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  They can only take a place to vote 
4           under the Constitution if somebody dies or leaves 
5           office --
6                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Okay.
7                THE CHAIRMAN:  -- technically, and I guess the 
8           reason the Speaker didn't appoint an alternate is he 
9           wanted to leave the option open, if one of his 
10           appointees met some misfortune and had to leave, that 
11           he would appoint someone as opposed to having already 
12           appointed someone, and I think -- I know you and the 
13           appointing authority from the Governor expect the 
14           alternates to -- that they appointed to step right in 
15           and have the benefit of the full discussions that have 
16           gone on is the purpose for it, and so I don't think 
17           you need to clarify --
18                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  The Constitution -- I 
19           realize it was that in the Constitution and that's as 
20           clear as we need to make it.
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  That's right, because the 
22           alternates are not provided for in the Constitution 
23           but they are provided for by rule, and they work very 
24           well, as a matter of fact.  
25                Commissioner Smith?

1                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Mr. Chairman, the Governor 
2           has two alternates that he has appointed.  If one 
3           vacancy occurs, which alternate takes the seat? 
4                THE CHAIRMAN:  I'll ask the Governor after we 
5           adjourn.  I don't know.  I would think that that would 
6           be up to him as the appointing authority.
7                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  No problem. 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  I want to tell y'all -- and if 
9           y'all don't know this, my friend Commissioner Jennings 
10           knows this -- making these appointments was a very, 
11           very difficult thing for us, for everybody that had to 
12           make them, and I think the Governor had something like 
13           well over 200 applications for the 15 seats you hold.  
14           He had many applications for -- to be designated to 
15           the seat I hold, and I understand there were some 
16           others that would have liked this that weren't on the 
17           Governor's list, but in any event, it was hard to do, 
18           and I know that -- I do know, very sincerely know that 
19           Commissioner Jennings had a very difficult time 
20           leaving off some greatly qualified people, as did the 
21           Governor, and she felt the ones that are here are the 
22           ones that are qualified and should be here, as did the 
23           Governor, and I'm going to tell you the story and then 
24           we're going to break for lunch.  
25                The old story that I believe was first attributed 

1           to John Martin, who was a noted governor that made 
2           Fuller Warren look quiet and Sidney Cates look like a 
3           liberal.  John Martin said that, when you made an 
4           appointment, you created one ingrate and 100 enemies 
5           for every single one you made.  So it's a very 
6           difficult process, and all of these different people 
7           have sincerely made an effort to appoint you to serve 
8           with great decorum.  
9                We'll adjourn for lunch upon motion, and lunch is 
10           provided today in the Senate --
11                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  What time do you want to 
12           reconvene, Mr. Chairman?  
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  Reconvene at -- what is it? 
14                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  1:15? 
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  No.  I've lost my agenda. 
16                THE SECRETARY:  1:45. 
17                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  I move we recess until 
18           the hour of 1:30. 
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  All in favor say aye.   
20                (Chorus of ayes.)
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  All opposed, no?  
22                Carried.
23                (Lunch recess.)
24                THE SECRETARY:  A quorum is present, Mr. 
25           Chairman.

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  At this time on our schedule we're 
2           going to hear first from Steve Uhlfelder, who was the 
3           executive director of the 1978 Commission.  Mr. 
4           Uhlfelder is currently serving on the Board of Regents 
5           and is the vice-chairman, and is considered one of the 
6           more active and I guess you could call him progressive 
7           -- some people do, others call him obstreperous -- but 
8           nobody calls him anything other than very brilliant in 
9           government and in management of such things as the 
10           Board of Regents, and Steve has been here since his 
11           leaving law school.  He was president of the student 
12           body at the University of Florida when he took on 
13           President O'Connell, who still remembers him fondly 
14           from back in those days, and Steve has done many 
15           things of public service, including being a partner in 
16           Holland & Knight here in Tallahassee.  He's, I think, 
17           the manager of this office now, is that right?  That 
18           means that he now has great power that he wields here 
19           in Tallahassee.  
20                I'm speaking fondly of Steve and not -- don't 
21           mean to detract from his great abilities and the many 
22           things that he's accomplished, and he's here to speak 
23           to us briefly and to introduce Governor Askew, who I'm 
24           sure will come into the chamber promptly as Steve 
25           finishes his introduction.  

1                Steve Uhlfelder, would you please come forward to 
2           the well?  
3                MR. UHLFELDER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
4                Commissioners, congratulations on being appointed 
5           to this august body.  It's going to be one of the  
6           greatest honors in your life.  As executive director, 
7           I had the opportunity to serve with several of your 
8           Commissioners, including the Chair, who I think will 
9           be a very good Chair, very fair, very open-minded.  
10                I also would like to comment on the executive 
11           director, Billy Buzzett, who's got my job, and he'll 
12           do a lot better job than I did.  He's bright, he's 
13           able, he's a very decent human being, and I think 
14           you'll be very satisfied with the work of Billy.  In 
15           fact, Billy and the Steering Committee have done a 
16           great job for you by getting you -- helping you get 
17           prepared for this responsibility. 
18                We didn't have that opportunity.  We just hit the 
19           ground running and we did it, I thought, fairly well, 
20           but we didn't have the background that you have as a 
21           result of the Steering Committee that was selected by 
22           your Chair along with members of the Senate, House, 
23           and the Attorney General.  
24                There's a great deal that you will be able to 
25           learn from the work of the Constitution Revision 

1           Commission of 1978, and I hope you will use their 
2           experience.  While none of the 87 proposals and eight 
3           ballot items passed in 1978, since that time close to 
4           50 percent of them have found their way into statute 
5           or in the Constitution.  
6                I believe that you have a copy of the Law Review 
7           article I wrote about that, and I will not go through 
8           those issues that did pass.  
9                In 1978 we had a very challenging agenda because 
10           there was an atmosphere and feeling that government 
11           needed to change and the Commission could be a 
12           proponent of many of these changes.  In fact, it was 
13           right after the Bicentennial, and there was a great 
14           optimism about government.  
15                I'm not sure the atmosphere and the circumstances 
16           are the same in 1997, particularly as we look ahead at 
17           the new millenium.  This is a more cautious and 
18           conservative era, and I think you should take that 
19           into account as you approach your job.  
20                More and more Floridians believe that government 
21           and its institutions do not or should not play a 
22           significant role in their lives.  Today we live in a 
23           state that is much larger than it was in '78, nine 
24           million in '78, 14.5 million today.  It makes your 
25           work more difficult because it makes it more difficult 

1           to communicate with those citizens who will be voting 
2           on your product.  When you finish your work product, 
3           you will need to promote it, and one of the things 
4           that we did not have in '78 was the money to promote 
5           our product.  In fact, we had $10,000 we were able to 
6           raise, because you have to raise it from private 
7           sources, and the opposition had over several hundred 
8           thousand dollars because at the time the Cabinet 
9           officers wanted to protect their jobs and went out and 
10           raised some money from those people that they 
11           regulated and we weren't able to compete.  
12                I would say, if you take on a tough issue, you 
13           better be prepared to back it up with the money on 
14           television, radio and newspaper in order to be able to 
15           effectively sell your product, and I think as you 
16           proceed you need to continually think about that, 
17           because when the Commission ended its work in May of 
18           '78, there was really no staff left.  Our funding 
19           ended.  The Commission really ended, and there was a 
20           work product out there that needed to be promoted.  
21                So keep in mind you need to set up a not-for- 
22           profit, get funding from the Legislature or whatever 
23           to get that information out there.  
24                In 1978, because of the extensive revisions that 
25           were being proposed, some competition arose between 

1           the Legislature and the Commission.  In fact, two 
2           years after the Commission completed its work, the 
3           Legislature in 1980 proposed the abolition of the 
4           Constitution Revision Commission and placed that issue 
5           on the ballot.  Fortunately for you, that did not 
6           pass.
7                I think that it is important that the Commission 
8           remains on good terms with the Legislature.  I think 
9           you're very fortunate that you have two senators, the 
10           President of the Senate and two past presidents of the 
11           Senate to keep up communications with the Senate.  I 
12           think you need to work even more diligently with the 
13           House since you do not have House members on this 
14           Commission, and I think one thing to remember is that 
15           in '68, the document passed.  It had to go to the 
16           Legislature.  In '78 the document didn't have to go to 
17           the Legislature and it didn't pass.  This competition 
18           you can't underestimate, particularly if you're 
19           meeting in their chambers, particularly if you're 
20           meeting at the same time as they are.  
21                One thing that's different between '78 and '98 
22           was that in '78 the Legislature adjourned in April.  
23           This year the Legislature will be adjourning in May, 
24           the same time you finish your work.  So I suggest you 
25           get your work done early and not compete with the 

1           Legislature, or meet outside Tallahassee when they're 
2           meeting.  I know that's going to be difficult for some 
3           of you, but it's important to think about how this 
4           plays out and you deal with those kind of issues.  
5                I think over the past day and a half you've heard 
6           from many people and you've heard many suggestions 
7           made to you.  During the '78 Commission proceedings, I 
8           thought we had some of the best debates, some of the 
9           best prepared speakers I've ever heard, Chairman Sandy 
10           D'Alemberte, Governor Leroy Collins, Representative 
11           Don Reed, former Attorney General Jimmy Kines, Senate 
12           President Jack Matthews, just to name a few, along 
13           with Chairman Dexter Douglass and Judge Thomas 
14           Barkdull.  
15                You have many people of similar stature in your 
16           Commission, and I would suggest that you will have 
17           similar discourse and debate, and even if things don't 
18           pass and don't get on the ballot, it's important to 
19           debate things, flesh things out, let the public hear, 
20           let the press write about it.  It's important to have 
21           your issues debated, but when you get down to making a 
22           decision on what to put on the ballot, I would suggest 
23           that you be very cautious and use a .22 as opposed to 
24           a shotgun approach the way we sometimes looked at 
25           things in the legislative or constitutional revision 

1           process in '78.  
2                I suggest that if you're going to do that, you 
3           need to have an extraordinary vote.  We did not do 
4           that '78, and I think if we had done that in '78, we 
5           would have been more successful.  We would have had 
6           less issues on the ballot and we would have had the 
7           opportunity to pass more issues.  
8                I will not go into lengthy detail about the 
9           issues you should consider.  You've heard that from 
10           others.  Many people have suggested you need to change 
11           the citizens' initiative process, and I agree with 
12           that.  I think it was a mistake to put it in the 
13           Constitution.  Getting it out is going to be a whole 
14           different matter, and I think one of the ways you deal 
15           with that is possibly providing for a statutory 
16           initiative which has the same threshhold as 
17           constitutional initiative, and raise the threshhold 
18           for constitutional initiative.
19                One area of the Constitution which I think you 
20           should be careful in changing is the right to 
21           privacy.  United States Supreme Court Justice William 
22           Brennan stated, "State constitutions are the font of 
23           individual liberties, for and without it the full 
24           realization of our liberties cannot be guaranteed."  
25           We live in an era of increased technology, 

1           computerization, massive information-gathering about 
2           the citizens of our state.  We must constantly, 
3           vigilantly protect the right to privacy.  Esteemed 
4           U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis emphasized, 
5           "The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive 
6           of rights and the right most valuable to civilized 
7           man."  I urge you to proceed with caution when 
8           examining the right to privacy, something that was 
9           proposed by the 1978 Commission.  
10                I wish you best of luck in your 
11           responsibilities.  I know that you'll undertake your 
12           task with great care and caution.  I congratulate you 
13           and thank you.  
14                Well, I'm supposed to introduce Governor Askew, 
15           but Governor Askew's not here.  So I guess we wait. 
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, if you want to go ahead and 
17           introduce him, then when he comes in, we'll just let 
18           him speak, and we'll pick -- he won't know what you 
19           said.  You can say whatever you want to say.  You can 
20           point out that he never was an early riser.  
21                MR. UHLFELDER:  It's two o'clock, but he's a 
22           tenured professor now, so -- 
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, that's true, and my 
24           recollection of college, which was long ago, was that 
25           the only time that the professor was on time was when 

1           I was late, and I presume y'all had the same 
2           experience, but why don't you go ahead and give his 
3           introduction, and if he shows up -- 
4                MR. UHLFELDER:  Well, since he's not here, he was 
5           a terrible governor.  
6                It's been -- it was an honor to work for Governor 
7           Askew, and I got to know Governor Askew when I was 
8           running for president of the student body of the 
9           University of Florida and two young senators -- one 
10           was running for the Senate, Lawton Chiles, and one was 
11           running for Governor, Reubin Askew, and Steve Zack and 
12           I and Don Middlebrooks who was going to be a federal 
13           judge in Miami, met them on campus one day, and they 
14           were really nice to us, so we said, yeah, we'll put 
15           this organization together for you, and they were in 
16           fourth place, and back then we didn't look at polls, 
17           we weren't smart politicians, but we endorsed them and 
18           we became friends with them and they always listened 
19           to us as students, and I later went to work for him 
20           and worked in his office as counsel and worked with 
21           him in the Department of Community Affairs.  
22                But I can think of no finer person to address you 
23           than Governor Askew.  He helped establish the agenda 
24           for the Constitution Revision Commission in 1977 and 
25           '78, one that he -- he tried to persuade the people of 

1           Florida that we needed to change the way we do things 
2           in the executive branch, something I'm sure you will 
3           address. 
4                He's a former prosecuting attorney, state 
5           legislator, former chairman of two federal 
6           commissions, a United States ambassador and a member 
7           of the President's Cabinet.  He's one of the few 
8           people in our state who has served in every level of 
9           American government.  
10                Governor Askew's public service began as an 
11           assistant county solicitor, which led to his election 
12           to the Florida House of Representatives, and he 
13           subsequently served for 12 years in the Florida 
14           Senate.
15                He was elected Governor and gained recognition as 
16           a practical and progressive reformer, a man of great 
17           integrity and strong conviction who believes fervently 
18           in the need to make government better for the people 
19           of this great state.  
20                Governor Askew set the agenda for constitution 
21           revision, but because of casino gambling being placed 
22           on the ballot, he wasn't able to pay any attention to 
23           constitution revision and help us pass those issues.  
24           One Commissioner once commented, having that on the 
25           ballot without Governor Askew's help was like having a 

1           heavy plane flying without a pilot, and that's what 
2           really as much as anything affected the work product 
3           of the '78 Commission was the fact that he got 
4           diverted on casino gambling.  
5                And think about his foresight.  He said that 
6           casino gambling would destroy the state and it was not 
7           necessary.  The people in Miami Beach, in that area, 
8           said the only way to restore Miami Beach was to have 
9           casino gambling.  Look at Miami Beach today.  Look at 
10           what he projected as a Governor and was able to stop 
11           casino gambling and changed what south Florida would 
12           look like today.  
13                The Askew years as Governor were characterized as 
14           years of achievement, reform and great success for 
15           Florida.  Because of his outstanding record as 
16           Governor, Harvard University recognized him as one of 
17           the ten greatest governors in American history.  
18                It's my great privilege and honor to introduce 
19           Governor Askew.  Hopefully he'll be here soon.  
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, Steve, I'll guarantee you 
21           the Governor won't make nearly as good a speech as you 
22           did an introduction.  That was an outstanding 
23           introduction and we all thoroughly enjoyed it, and 
24           under the circumstances, you're to be commended. 
25                I suggest you go be seated and we'll see if he 

1           shows up, and if you'd like, you might go out and call 
2           out at Westminster Oaks and see if he's on his way.
3               MR. UHLFELDER:  Well, this is what he did to us in 
4           the '78 Commission work product.
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  Right.  That's true.
6               You know, this is one of those moments that you 
7           don't think's going to happen but did, and we 
8           certainly hope nothing happened to him on the way.  
9                Before we do resume, I might add a couple of 
10           parenthetical things to that.  I've known Governor 
11           Askew since we were young men in college, and he went 
12           to FSU after he returned from his military service 
13           right after World War II, in which he was a 
14           paratrooper.  A lot of people didn't know that, but -- 
15           and FSU at that time had just become co-ed, and those 
16           of us at the University of Florida did not have great 
17           respect for the male population here.  We dearly loved 
18           the female population because that's where we got all 
19           our dates and they all came down there on weekends and 
20           we all came up here, but I met Reubin on one of my 
21           hitchhiking rides up through Mayo and various places 
22           which I learned well, up here to visit my sister, who 
23           went to school here, and so we got to be pretty good 
24           friends while he was here, and he came down to law 
25           school at the University of Florida.  He'd been 

1           president of the student body there, and he 
2           immediately announced to the assembled old hands who 
3           -- I was a year ahead of him law school and we were 
4           sort of involved with Jimmy Kines and Worley Brown and 
5           a few of the Lawton Chiles types that -- we were sort 
6           of running the political atmosphere of things there 
7           then, and he announced to us that he wanted to be 
8           president of the student body in summer school at the 
9           University of Florida so he could, you know, win the 
10           daily double.  He would have been president of the 
11           student body at Florida and at here. 
12                And so we announced to him that we had already 
13           thought that we had a candidate who had attended 
14           Florida for four years and that was better qualified.  
15           So Reubin did not heed us and he ran and he lost, and 
16           by a close vote, I might add, and, oh, when he was 
17           Governor, which was what, 25 years later, I went to 
18           see him about a matter in which I had great interest 
19           to one of my clients, and he was always very gracious 
20           to me, and, of course, Donna Lou and my wife were 
21           friends in college as well.  And I went in and I said, 
22           "Governor, it's my pleasure to see you, sir, and I'm 
23           here to talk to you about doing something for a client 
24           of mine," and he looked at me across the table and he 
25           says, "You remember when you defeated me for president 

1           of the student body, don't you?"  And I said, "Oh, no, 
2           I don't, I don't remember that at all.  I thought it 
3           was Jimmy Kines."  And he said, "Well, you're going to 
4           get to ask me to do something for you, and I'm going 
5           to get to pay you back."  So I said, "Let me ask you 
6           for something I really don't want this time and I'll 
7           come back later."  
8                But the point is that he has a long memory, and I 
9           wish he didn't sometimes, but we -- he got that out of 
10           the way and then we were back on an even keel.  
11                I could tell other stories that -- while we're 
12           waiting here.  I could call on a couple of people in 
13           the audience to tell stories, but I was hoping he'd 
14           show up, but since he hasn't, I guess we'll get on 
15           with the business at hand and ask Commissioner 
16           Barkdull to return to his previous position at the 
17           podium.  
18                Does anybody object to us proceeding without the 
19           Governor?  If he does come in, we will accommodate 
20           him.  Also, welcome in the back back there, I believe 
21           we have a senator over there that --
22                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Senator Grant. 
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  I thought I'd let you introduce 
24           him.
25                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Oh, well, he's just kind 

1           of wandering through.  Senator John Grant from Tampa, 
2           chairman of our Senate Education Committee.
3                THE CHAIRMAN:  Let's give him a good hand.  Thank 
4           you, John.
5                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  And hiding under the 
6           pictures over there is former president Pat Thomas, 
7           Senator Pat Thomas. 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Former president.  
9                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Former president, right.  
10           He's watching over you. 
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, he's been a friend of mine 
12           for longer than we admit as well.  Delighted to have 
13           you here, Pat.  
14                As most of you may not know, Pat has overcome a 
15           very severe cancer bout and has returned to full 
16           action.  He's even growing his hair back.  We had a 
17           lot of fun with him when he lost that hair, but you 
18           look great, Pat, and we're delighted you're here.  
19                Somebody told me that Governor Askew was here? 
20                Somebody told me wrong, I guess.  Well --
21                COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Senator Thomas could make 
22           a speech.  
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Pat, would you like to make a 
24           speech in place of Governor Askew?
25               SENATOR THOMAS:  As unaccustomed as I am, I guess 

1           I could.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Proceed, Commissioner 
3           Barkdull.  
4                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, I believe 
5           under the guidelines that we had this morning, it's 
6           now in order for me to make the motion that I made 
7           originally and then withdrew, that we adopt the rules 
8           as proposed and on your desk, the rules that bear the 
9           date June 12th version, with the understanding that 
10           Rule 5 will not be considered and with the 
11           understanding that the two-thirds provision to amend 
12           the rules will be deferred in application until such 
13           time as we meet and further consider these rules and 
14           which any changes may be made by a majority vote. 
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  You've heard the 
16           motion that's been made by Commissioner Barkdull.  
17           Commissioner Smith, you were on your way up there.
18                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Yes, and so that there's a 
19           clear understanding, we also intend later to deal with 
20           the notice requirement as well?  
21                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Yes, sir.  I intend to 
22           offer that at the proper time.
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  Let me ask -- it's my 
24           understanding -- and I made some notes -- that 
25           Commissioner Langley had some amendments that would 

1           have been appropriate, and they've been handed to me, 
2           Commissioner.  Would you like to rise and offer the 
3           amendments that you have?  
4                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Mr. Chairman, thank you.   
5                I am on notice that Ms. Mathis is about to offer 
6           a substitute, if you want to do this before or after 
7           that. 
8                THE CHAIRMAN:  Now that you have the floor, go 
9           ahead, and then we'll have Governor Askew.  
10                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Okay.  This is just really 
11           a technical amendment which we, I think, all agreed 
12           this morning concerning the notice provisions 
13           regardless of the other rule conflicts we may have, 
14           that we would adopt these notice provisions.  
15           Basically it says that the notices will be published 
16           no less than five days prior to any Commission 
17           meeting, and it has -- it's actually a series, I 
18           think, of three amendments that accomplish that by 
19           striking some contrary provisions also. 
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  So these would all be 
21           addressed to that subject? 
22                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, sir, all to the 
23           notice provisions.
24                THE CHAIRMAN:  And your amendment then would be 
25           an amendment to Rule 1.11 on page 4, line 2 -- 

1                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Right.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  -- after the word "calendar," 
3           insert, "public hearing and meeting notices of the 
4           Commission"? 
5                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Right.
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  On page 4, line 10, after the 
7           period, insert, "Such notices shall be published no 
8           less than five days prior to the Commission meetings," 
9           is that correct?  
10                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That's right, sir, and on 
11           amendment to Rule 2.15, it strikes that linage in 
12           there that talks about a contrary notice period.
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  Which is on page 12, lines 9 
14           through 14, delete the entire rule?
15               COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Yes, sir.
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  Is that correct?  
17                You've heard the amendment that's been proposed.  
18           We'll debate the amendment.  
19                Is there any debate on the amendment?  
20                If not, we'll vote on the amendment.  We'll have 
21           a voice vote, and if anybody calls for a division of 
22           the house, we will have a roll call.  Is that 
23           agreeable? 
24                All right.  Commissioner Scott? 
25                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Yes.  We just had a 

1           discussion about why we had talked about 72 hours, but 
2           that excluded Saturdays and Sundays, so they just made 
3           it five days, which would include Saturdays and 
4           Sundays, and I might say that I think this is one that 
5           we do need to go ahead and adopt and, in conversation 
6           with Commissioner -- 
7                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  All those in favor of 
8           the amendment signify by saying aye.  
9                (Chorus of ayes.)
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  Opposed, like sign?  
11                The amendment carries.  Back to the motion.  
12           Commissioner Mathis? 
13                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes, Commissioner Douglass.  
14           I wanted to offer a substitute amendment.  of the 
15           amended rule change of the 21 proposed amendments that 
16           we discussed this morning, we dropped three that dealt 
17           with Article V and there were ten that had the general 
18           consent of the body, and I've outlined those on this 
19           amended rule change chart that's been distributed to 
20           all of the members.  
21                In addition to that we've added 9.3 that was not 
22           on the original chart, that reflected this body's 
23           desire to allow an amendment of the rules at the next 
24           meeting by simple majority rather than the 
25           three-fifths vote as is outlined in the current 

1           rules.  
2                And so I'd like to offer this substitute 
3           amendment.  I did not have an opportunity to prepare a 
4           revision of the rule in full and -- but that I've been 
5           told is on its way. 
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  Actually, for the purposes of 
7           moving this -- and I don't want to cut anybody off 
8           yet.  We'll come back to this, but this will be an 
9           amendment, I think, to the motion as opposed to a 
10           substitute, so you're going to offer it as an 
11           amendment.  
12                And what I would like to do is to go ahead and 
13           hear from Governor Askew at this time, and in the 
14           meantime maybe you will have this in such form as we 
15           can compare it with our working document.  So if 
16           that's -- with unanimous consent, we will proceed to 
17           hear from the Honorable Reubin Askew who has been 
18           introduced, and other things, I might add, Governor.  
19                If you would come over here to the podium where 
20           the secretary is, we would be delighted to hear from 
21           you.
22                I hope by the time we've returned that we will 
23           have this in order to proceed, Commissioner Mathis.
24                GOVERNOR ASKEW:  Am I on? 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  You're on, Governor.

1                GOVERNOR ASKEW:  Thank you for the applause. 
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, let's give him some 
3           applause.  He got here.  I mean, you know, we've 
4           applauded you in absentia already.
5                GOVERNOR ASKEW:  I know that.  I told Steve I 
6           sure hated to miss that introduction.  
7                One of the things you learn quickly as Governor 
8           is that when you address the Legislature, when you get 
9           introduced from the door, you walk very fast because 
10           the applause has a way of dying, and you like to have 
11           it going while you're going.  So I've tried to pass 
12           that on to each of my predecessor -- my successors.  I 
13           didn't pass that on to my predecessor, who from my 
14           understanding was very kind to me and we've become 
15           very good friends and I appreciate his kind words.  
16                Your chairman asked me to visit with you, and I 
17           really don't have any prepared remarks, but I might 
18           like to share some thoughts with you.  
19                First of all, enjoy this.  You know, it's really 
20           an historical occasion and you may get tied up from 
21           time to time in the tension of the debate, but it's 
22           going to be a great experience for you, one that 
23           you'll always remember, and so my first advice to you 
24           is sort of sit back and relax and enjoy it.  
25                I had the opportunity, as some of the others 

1           who've spoken, to have been part of the Statutory 
2           Revision Commission.  We met in the old Senate chamber 
3           in November of 1966, and the procedure, of course, was 
4           different then because the Legislature was able to 
5           sanitize our product, which made it, I think, a great 
6           deal more palatable to the people, and the Legislature 
7           bought into it.  
8                One of the things here is that I wish I saw more 
9           members of the Legislature, you know, but be that as 
10           it may, I respect all the appointing authorities for 
11           whom they appointed, but obviously your product is 
12           only as good as you really have a consensus to 
13           publicly support it.  
14                Now, having said that, I notice that some of the 
15           speakers have talked only about maybe doing 
16           housekeeping things.  I'm not of that view.  Now, 
17           obviously, I recommended some recommendations to the 
18           '78 one and they took me at my word and passed it, and 
19           it was not -- it didn't go down -- it went down and 
20           didn't pass, but this only comes once every 20 years, 
21           and I think to approach it only from the standpoint of 
22           just housekeeping I think misses, in my opinion, what 
23           the framers of the '68 Constitution really meant.  
24                Now, of course, you have to always be mindful 
25           that ultimately your product has to be approved by the 

1           people, and that's no small part in terms of deciding 
2           what your product may be, but if, in fact, if the 
3           Constitution only needs a few housekeeping measures, 
4           then you won't lose anything if you strike out in a 
5           vote on some, and if they fail, why, you haven't done 
6           that much bad because it didn't need but housekeeping 
7           to begin with. 
8                This is an opportunity that under the 
9           Constitution is meant for you to review the 
10           Constitution and, if necessary, make some basic 
11           changes.  There were those who said the Constitution 
12           in '68 would never pass.  It did, and no one knows 
13           what your product is going to result in being except 
14           it will go directly to the people, and I hope that 
15           you'll get an awful lot of input.  
16                I particularly would say to those members, active 
17           members of the Legislature that it won't hurt to get 
18           some input from your colleagues because almost each 
19           one of you, each group of you here has the ability to 
20           defeat the product, and so if there isn't some type of 
21           consensus, then it may not go very far.  
22                But I think rather than talk about only making 
23           minor changes, or housekeeping, I think it has to do 
24           more with how much consensus can be developed on a 
25           proposal and how you place it on the ballot, and of 

1           course those are things that this Revision Commission 
2           will have to face up to.  
3                In thinking about what to say, I could throw out 
4           a lot of questions to you.  The framers of the 
5           Constitution in 1968, in setting the size of both 
6           houses of the Legislature, did so in the legal 
7           atmosphere that what we were still trying to do was 
8           jockey with counties, and therefore the population 
9           didn't always come out just right, and at that time, 
10           even though it was after Baker v. Carr, it was prior 
11           to Swan v. Adams, before we were reapportioned by the 
12           courts.  In order to give us the flexibility with the 
13           numbers to work with, we said that the Senate should 
14           be not less than 30 nor more than 40, and the House 
15           not less than 80, no more than 120.  
16                Now, obviously, the Legislature's never going to 
17           reduce its size.  I was a part of that body for 12 
18           years and I didn't have that inclination and I don't 
19           know that others will, but wherein are you supposed to 
20           look at the basic framework of the whole government if 
21           it isn't here?  You know, that's one of the first 
22           questions that pops up.  Is 40 and 120 realistic 
23           figures?  Should they be smaller?  Of course, the 
24           Legislature can statutorily change it, but it seems to 
25           me that 120 is a fairly large house.  I think the 

1           Senate's a pretty reasonable number, and with "eight 
2           is enough," you know, if you project it far enough 
3           ahead of time, you can make some real courageous 
4           statesmen eight years hence, and it would probably 
5           overwhelm the people that we reduced the size of 
6           government starting in the body that talks the most 
7           about it.  
8                And you might also think about shortening the 
9           size of the executive branch.  I've long felt that 
10           there were too many members of the executive branch.  
11           What we did back in the late '60s, we strengthened the 
12           legislative branch.  When I became part of it, it was 
13           a rather weak branch.  I don't see anybody here that 
14           was around at that time.  That's before we got Pat 
15           into politics.  It's before actually he was an active 
16           part of the scene, but it was -- the members of the 
17           Legislature were either -- had to be reliant upon 
18           lobbyists either from the executive branch of 
19           government -- and I was a lobbyist for eight years,  
20           some of you may remember that -- or from the private 
21           sector.  We didn't really have any information of our 
22           own, and the Legislature was intended to be the 
23           primary policy-making institution in our government, 
24           and yet it really wasn't equipped to do it.  
25                We would see the appropriations bill the night 

1           before it was supposed to pass.  It was sacrosanct to 
2           question it, and only a few knew what was in it, for 
3           the most part, and then when we passed it, the 
4           Governor had the line-item veto, and the then- 
5           existing Budget Commission, with adjustments, they 
6           finetuned it and we'd come back two years hence and 
7           then the question was moot.  And so I always had 
8           supported the elected Cabinet system up until that 
9           time, up until the Constitution -- they passed the 
10           Constitution of 1968, mainly because the Legislature 
11           was not able to exercise its full strength in the 
12           whole system of checks and balances.  It was, in 
13           effect, a weak body.  Of course, it was somewhat 
14           malapportioned, too.  It was the worst in the nation 
15           in terms of its representative view of the people.  
16                And so what I would ask you just to take a look 
17           at is that checks and balances have really made our 
18           government work.  Maybe during the Roman times you had 
19           maybe a little split between the general and the horse 
20           cavalry, but when you look at governments, no one was 
21           really founded like ours on separation of powers.  It 
22           works, and you have checks and balances, but the 
23           Legislature was a weak branch and was imbalanced, but 
24           you sufficiently diffused the executive maybe to 
25           mitigate it.

1                Now, that's no longer the question.  I mean, I 
2           don't know of anyone who thinks the Legislature's a 
3           weak branch, and I said one time that they had become 
4           so independent that they were the most independent 
5           since Parliament beheaded the king, but the fact of 
6           the matter is that the Legislature is supposed to be 
7           independent, it's supposed to be the primary 
8           policy-making branch of the government, and it has 
9           legitimate oversight.  
10                The question really becomes in the Legislature to 
11           what extent will they micromanage with the use of 
12           computer in their exercise the temptation, in their 
13           exercise of oversight?  But they're a strong branch.  
14                Our court system was really a mess, our trial 
15           court system.  We had some fine people in it at the 
16           time, and many of us worked on this for years, and 
17           finally, with the help of some of you, we passed in 
18           1972 a revision of the court system.  We really made 
19           the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court head of the 
20           judicial branch.  What we didn't do they declared for 
21           themselves in Chiles v. Askew to where they could do 
22           almost anything.  I agree with McDonald's dissent, you 
23           know, but the fact of the matter is the legislative 
24           branch is strong as it should be.  The judicial branch 
25           is strong as it should be.  The executive branch 

1           isn't, and if you wait for the Legislature to make any 
2           changes, with "eight's enough," those independent 
3           folks become much more attractive, and so we have -- a 
4           practical consideration is that, if our system is to 
5           work, is it going to be balanced, and why are we 
6           fearful of giving authority to the Governor when the 
7           Constitution starts off by saying the supreme power is 
8           in the Governor?  Well, it goes downhill after that, 
9           and I could see and supported it, when I felt it was a 
10           check on the Governor when you had a weak 
11           Legislature.  That's no longer the case.  
12                I would not ever want to see a legislative body 
13           go back the way it was when I got here by any means.  
14           One of the biggest reforms we got when I came to this 
15           chamber was to reform it to require a live quorum in a 
16           committee meeting.  And Dick's nodding his head.  He 
17           was here a long time, too.  
18                But you see, they still kept proxies.  My first 
19           bill I lost by the group -- Bart Knight in Blountstown 
20           telling me what a good bill it was and he'd vote for 
21           it, and then he voted six proxies against me.  That 
22           day is past.  That day is past, and so what I'd 
23           suggest to you, as long as you isolate it on the 
24           ballot, I wouldn't be fearful of taking a look at it. 
25                I'm not sure whether the people of Florida are 

1           quite ready to accept the entire abolition, which I 
2           still favor, or whether you can combine them, such as 
3           the proposal that Governor Collins and Dexter was 
4           involved in also in -- he's been around a long time, 
5           too, I might add -- in terms of combining the 
6           Secretary, the Comptroller and the Treasurer, and 
7           retaining the Attorney General, in effect, what you've 
8           got is a new version of the State Board of 
9           Administration.  But don't be so hesitant to exercise 
10           what's expected of you, because you, in effect, are an 
11           initiative by the people.  
12                Now, we have an initiative, but wherein is there 
13           an initiative of the people, itself, in a 
14           representative capacity such as you have that will go 
15           directly to the ballot?  It doesn't happen anymore 
16           except in a convention, and that's not likely.  
17                So I'd like to -- one of the things I want to 
18           leave you with is don't be hesitant to take a look at 
19           it.  It may be your feeling that it won't pass.  Maybe 
20           you don't want to change it, but you do not have an 
21           executive branch of government that can respond to the 
22           people on public policy as the Governor could with a 
23           singular voice.  
24                One of the things we found in the Legislature 
25           with my predecessor is, as much as we disagreed, we 

1           were diffuse and couldn't really get any public forum, 
2           and the Governor is still the one who has the forum 
3           and is the only one that, in effect, can challenge the 
4           people, and if you really want to have a Governor lead 
5           and not just respond to what the polls say, then, 
6           frankly, you need to give that Governor the authority 
7           of the office, and then I think you will find it 
8           better than it is now.  
9                Another provision that obviously you're going to 
10           be looking at that most people have talked about was 
11           the initiative process.  Times have changed greatly 
12           since we considered that, and I was a supporter of it, 
13           but you see that was before Buckley v. Valeo.  In 1976 
14           when the Supreme Court got through, in effect, with 
15           saying you couldn't limit expenditures except where 
16           there was a quid pro quo, such as in the presidential 
17           public finance program, overnight that changed.  I 
18           mean, we saw people trying to put casino gambling on 
19           the ballot, but they weren't getting very far, but 
20           when they knocked off by a subsequent case the 
21           limitation, then the key family in the state with one 
22           of the biggest hotels to profit -- at that time we're 
23           talking about Miami Beach and south Broward only -- 
24           put in three-quarters of a million dollars and then it 
25           became obvious -- put it on the ballot, and then it 

1           became obvious that if any group wants to and has 
2           enough money, you can get anything on the ballot.  
3           Let's put it this way: You can get the signatures for 
4           it.  Now, whether it will go through the remaining 
5           steps then becomes a question, but when we saw these 
6           professional signature-getters in California, for 
7           instance, where it's been made an industry, "Are you 
8           for casino gambling?  Absolutely not.  Good.  Sign 
9           here so you can vote against it."  And, "Are you for 
10           it?  Yes.  Good.  Sign here so you can vote against 
11           it."  And then, "Are you for it?  Yes.  Good.  Sign 
12           here, you'll get a chance to have it."  
13                So believe me when I tell you the citizen 
14           initiative that we thought of when this was put into 
15           the ballot has been somewhat altered.  
16                Now, the people deserve some type of retention of 
17           a viable program in it, and it was put in there mainly 
18           because of the lack of response from the Legislature 
19           in properly apportioning Florida's Legislature, so 
20           that what you wind up having is you wind up having 
21           stymied, and we said, "Well, if the people have the 
22           right to an initiative, that will never happened 
23           again."  That's true.  Well, I don't think it will 
24           happen again with the Constitution Revision Commission 
25           doing its job, but in looking at it, it's complex.  

1           We've made some subsequent changes that have helped 
2           it, but the question is, how can we have something 
3           left for the people and still not undermine 
4           representative government?  
5                Our government has functioned on the basis that 
6           we elect people and then we judge them.  If we don't 
7           like what they've done, we turn them out, but if you 
8           think you're going to be able to get considered 
9           thoughts in the initiative process, that may or may 
10           not work.  
11                It seems to me, in thinking about it -- many 
12           people have -- it seems to me that if we require that 
13           an election intervene -- and many times it will, 
14           depending upon when the -- when it was prepared for 
15           the ballot -- if there was some way that the 
16           Legislature would have a shot at it before it's 
17           decided and went to the ballot, then I would feel much 
18           more comfortable with it to ensure that if there is -- 
19           if it can be addressed in the Legislature, the 
20           Legislature's going to be the deliberative body that 
21           will make sense out of it.  Mechanically, I'm not sure 
22           how you put that all together but, Mr. Chairman and 
23           members of the Commission, I believe that the 
24           initiative is so important that it might well be 
25           worthy of special attention before this body in trying 

1           to get the collective view of everyone involved in it.
2                Now, I was a part of putting it on the ballot for 
3           the first time successfully, 210,000 signatures.  We 
4           were a somewhat smaller state then, and I want to tell 
5           you, when my people came to me and said, "Governor, 
6           the only way this is going to get on the ballot is if 
7           you spend the next four to five months at shopping 
8           centers throughout the state every weekend," I really 
9           thought, boy, all I had to do was just to put 
10           something in the paper and they could clip it out of 
11           the paper and they'd send it in.  It doesn't work that 
12           way. 
13                So putting something on a ballot is no easy task 
14           if it is really a citizen initiative.  
15                Now, as Governor, I had people helping me, but it 
16           wasn't the classic case we thought about at the time 
17           either, but it needs some consideration, thoughtful 
18           consideration of how mechanically we can still make it 
19           available and yet us not turn into another California, 
20           you know, where you just undermine all sense of 
21           representative government.  
22                And if you start relying only upon referendums 
23           and polls, then ultimately people can react to the 
24           emotion of the times rather than being deliberae, and 
25           that's why I would much rather put my confidence in 

1           the legislative body in terms of that consideration.  
2                In the judicial branch -- and this has been twice 
3           defeated -- you might also, in the initiative, 
4           lengthen the time where you can have a subsequent 
5           thing on the ballot after it's been defeated, and that 
6           is the merit selection on the part of -- and retention 
7           on the part of trial judges.  It is not a good system 
8           we have.  Now, we may think we're denied a chance to 
9           elect.  The fact of the matter is, H.T., in your 
10           county, how many names are on the ballot when they go 
11           to vote on circuit judges and county judges? 
12                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Too many.
13                GOVERNOR ASKEW:  Too many.  I lived in Dade 
14           County for seven years, enjoyed it, and I want to tell 
15           you, if anyone thinks that we furnished them an 
16           opportunity for them to exercise really good judgment, 
17           it just doesn't work that way, and people say, well, 
18           maybe there ought to be something more than, shall so- 
19           and-so be retained in office.  Maybe there should be a 
20           better system.  I'm not happy with that system in 
21           particular because it still forces the judge to raise 
22           money if he has a contested retention campaign, but I 
23           haven't seen one that was better.  And I hope that you 
24           will consider that trial judges need to be selected 
25           essentially upon merit, and our system has worked 

1           pretty well.  We had some kinks to begin with in it.  
2           Of course, I put it into existence for vacancies by 
3           executive order, and then we put it in the 
4           Constitution when we finally passed it.  
5                Now, these are some measures -- another 
6           incidental measure is, I wonder why the Legislature 
7           still -- would still be given the authority for 
8           impeachment for judges other than Supreme Court 
9           justices?  When we met in 1966, the Judicial 
10           Qualifications Commission was just coming into being, 
11           and I think with this last amendment, which I think 
12           was an excellent amendment, and it strengthened the 
13           whole process of discipline -- then it seems to me 
14           that the Supreme Court ought to have the ultimate 
15           authority to decide all discipline of everyone other 
16           than their body.
17                Now, we have a provision in it that some of you 
18           may or may not be familiar with -- it's not a 
19           well-known provision -- that if JQC makes a 
20           recommendation on a Supreme Court justice, then you 
21           pick out your seven senior justices throughout your 
22           circuits -- circuit courts and they become part of the 
23           Supreme Court, but it seems to me that the Supreme 
24           Court ought to have exclusive authority to discipline 
25           everyone up to them, and the Legislature, through 

1           impeachment, should have the exclusive authority to 
2           deal with the discipline of Supreme Court justices. 
3                Now, bear in mind you have both, and some of them 
4           say, well, it's a reserve and maybe it can -- you 
5           know, it doesn't hurt anything to have it.  I really 
6           think for clarity and accountability, I think it 
7           works better.  
8                A couple other points.  I'm not going to dwell on 
9           the whole question of our financial and tax 
10           structure.  Most of you are aware of it.  Anyone who 
11           is familiar with it knows that we have built ourselves 
12           into a corner by doing things we needed to attract 
13           people and now we've become a tax haven and we have so 
14           many people coming in becoming a part of Florida just 
15           like you and I am.  
16                But the interesting thing about Florida is we've 
17           become a state where almost everybody's from somewhere 
18           else.  In trying to coalesce on issues to ensure 
19           quality of life, even for those people coming, we're 
20           substantially limited.  You're aware of that.  My only 
21           point is I think you really ought to address it.  What 
22           you're willing to come out with, that's something 
23           different for state government, but one of the biggest 
24           problems you should face in terms of challenges is 
25           local government.  

1                We did a lot to begin with for local government.  
2           We freed them up somewhat in the '68 Constitution, but 
3           if devolution and all that may or may not mean is 
4           going to work, and if there is in fact human need at 
5           the tail end and we don't do it as we often think that 
6           we might be able to do it, then all we're doing, 
7           frankly, is just dropping it all on local government 
8           at a time when they're the least able to handle it, 
9           and I think it's now time for the state government to 
10           free up local governments and let them respond to 
11           their needs.  Let them be responsible.  
12                Of course, some of them would just as soon the 
13           state Legislature passed a tax for them and them not 
14           have to take the heat, but I believe that with a state 
15           as big as we are, projected to grow and grow and grow, 
16           700 a day, that we have to understand the challenge of 
17           state government and to really sit down and hear from 
18           Sam Bell, if he isn't speaking to you, the chairman of 
19           the State and Local Government Study Commission, or 
20           Lance de Haven Smith, who's the director, from some of 
21           them to be able to face up to it. 
22                If I had to pick out two issues that are most 
23           important of all, I would say the initiative provision 
24           and how you free up local government so they can 
25           respond essentially to meeting their own needs.  

1               And lastly, I would say that -- to repeat what I 
2           started with, and that is, don't be so hesitant that 
3           you perceive your role only as a housekeeping role.  
4           People who have initiatives individually, they're not 
5           timid.  And while I think you want to think about it 
6           in a realistic context, this is the only time every 20 
7           years that we can look fundamentally at some of the 
8           issues and to be able to see how we can adjust the -- 
9           recommend adjustments to the people, knowing that the 
10           greater chances are they will probably not come either 
11           through the initiative process or through the 
12           legislative process, and having done that, I think you 
13           will do a good job.  
14                I wish you well.  I think you would want to feel 
15           that your job doesn't stop with the passage of your 
16           product, your job will just begin, and that's 
17           essentially selling it.  That's why I think it's so 
18           important with -- that the legislative leadership in 
19           both aisles, to the extent they're willing, become -- 
20           may become a part of this.  
21                If there's any questions, Mr. Chairman, I'll be 
22           happy to entertain them.  I'm not seeking them.  I'm 
23           just saying, in case you do, if you want to ask me, I 
24           will stand by. 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  The floor's open to entertain any 

1           questions from -- or comments from the floor while the 
2           Governor's here.
3                GOVERNOR ASKEW:  Thank you very much for your 
4           attention.  
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  We'll get back to the 
6           business of the rules. 
7                Before I entertain any further motion, 
8           Commissioner Mathis has prepared a copy of her 
9           substitute motion and I understand has agreed to three 
10           changes in the substitute motion.  
11                First of all, in Rule 2.17, which relates to the 
12           special orders, she's agreed to change that from the 
13           way it's drafted in her draft, if you have it yet, and 
14           it's on page 16 of her current draft that's been 
15           handed out, at the top of the page, to read, "Special 
16           orders as determined by the rules and administration 
17           committee subject to a majority vote of the Commission 
18           on motion to change or revise the committee's 
19           determination."  In other words, it reverses the 
20           order.  It doesn't require the approval of the 
21           Commission, but it affords a majority vote to change 
22           the special order.  
23                And then on number 9.1, she's agreed to 
24           substitute, in place of Robert's Rules of Order, 
25           Mason's Rules, which are the rules which are used by 

1           the Senate, and the two things that the rules do, 
2           Mason's particularly, that we don't have to fool with 
3           under that -- if it's that thick, I'm not sure -- it's 
4           as thick as the other one -- but it doesn't allow for 
5           calling the question or motions to lay on the table in 
6           Mason's Rules.  Otherwise, they're the rules that are 
7           used quite effectively by the Senate.  
8                And then the third one is Rule 9.3, which I think 
9           we may not have any difference on this, but we wanted 
10           to make it clear that the question of the two-thirds 
11           vote needed to change the rules once they're adopted 
12           at the next meeting would remain intact; in other 
13           words, we're not voting to remove that requirement.   
14           We're voting to remove it from the requirement through 
15           the final adoption at the next meeting, and I think 
16           that was true. 
17                Do those three changes fairly state what's been 
18           agreed to, Commissioner Mathis? 
19                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes, Commissioner Douglass, 
20           they do reflect the changes I've agreed to.
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  And the other changes she 
22           has listed on a separate page, which I'm sure some of 
23           you have had an opportunity -- all of you have had an 
24           opportunity to look at them and study them over, and 
25           her substitute motion then is to basically adopt the 

1           rules for this meeting with the exception of number  
2           5, or do you want to leave number -- without the 
3           exception of number 5, just all of them?   Okay.  
4           Number 5 isn't in here.  It's left for consideration 
5           totally at the next meeting.  
6                These rules that you're offering now in your 
7           substitute motion would be subject to a final vote and 
8           possible amendment at the next meeting, is that 
9           correct?
10                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes, Chairman.
11                THE CHAIRMAN:  That's your motion?  
12                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  Yes.
13                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Now, I'll entertain.  
14           -- first of all, Commissioner Mills has been pacing.  
15           I want to call on him first.
16                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, this is an inquiry of 
17           the Chair just for clarification of where we are and 
18           where we might be going.  
19                We have before us a motion to adopt the rules as 
20           drafted, as amended by Senator Langley's motion, which 
21           was adopted unanimously. 
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Now we have a substitute motion.
23                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  We have a substitute motion 
24           which has 11 rules changes.  That is still before us 
25           at this time? 

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  The substitute motion with the 
2           three changes that I read are before us.  On the other 
3           hand, I want to point out, which I think has not been 
4           clearly understood, that if we did not pass the 
5           substitute motion and we did pass the original motion 
6           as amended, it would still be subject to amendments to 
7           accomplish this purpose at the next meeting.
8                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  So therefore what you're 
9           suggesting is a continuation of the consideration of 
10           the substitute motion would allow us to adopt rules, 
11           operate until the next meeting, consider these series 
12           of motions in a majority vote mode at this next 
13           meeting?
14                THE CHAIRMAN:  No, what would happen --
15                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, we have the substitute 
16           before us now.  We have to deal with the substitute.
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  If you voted to defeat the 
18           substitute motion, it would revert to the motion as 
19           amended by Commissioner Langley's motion, and 
20           therefore you would then vote on the rules as amended 
21           by the motion of Commissioner Langley.  That's my 
22           interpretation.
23                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Well, let me ask you this, 
24           then.  Maybe if Commissioner Scott would take the 
25           floor and yield to a question?

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, Senator Scott, please take 
2           the floor, but you don't have to yield if you don't 
3           want to.  
4                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Friendly only.  
5                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Okay, I'll make sure of 
6           that.
7                In discussions of the majority of folks here, 
8           there are a number of these that are really fairly 
9           non-controversial and I think a matter of consensus, 
10           but there was sort of a concern about seeing the 
11           actual wording and having an opportunity to actually 
12           look at those, and it seems like a deliberate way to 
13           approach that would be to say, these 11 items deserve 
14           consideration.  There ought to be actual wording and 
15           drafting to do that.  We ought to be in a posture to 
16           consider them without the debility of a two-thirds 
17           vote and that we ought to be able to consider all of 
18           these for a majority vote at the next meeting, which 
19           would be exactly in the same status we are now, and 
20           when we walk into the next meeting, we haven't done 
21           anything.  In other words, we are exactly where we 
22           are.  We haven't -- these rules haven't affected our 
23           process, but we will have been allowed to see the 
24           actual drafts; and I think that there is a consensus 
25           on most of these and not disagreement, but it isn't -- 

1           part of the process is -- problem is procedural, which 
2           -- Commissioner Jennings is nodding -- because we have 
3           a substitute motion that contains 11 parts, and if we 
4           really are to understand this, we have to talk about 
5           all 11 parts.  And since it is a substitute motion, as 
6           long as we're compelled to consider it, we can't get 
7           to the motion to have any rules.  Is that -- could you 
8           sort of augment that, Commissioner Scott? 
9                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Well, I guess what I thought 
10           we were doing was going ahead with the rules, 
11           recognizing and not further complicating.  The fact 
12           that we didn't perhaps -- we've taken a lot of good 
13           input today, the original draft, and we did changes 
14           and now we've got more changes, but rather than 
15           further making 11 more, even though some of them were 
16           discussed -- but I remember people saying, well, if I 
17           were going to debate that, I would say this or 
18           whatever -- that it seems -- and I would agree with 
19           Commissioner Mills that probably what we should do is 
20           take these, recognizing that many or most or maybe all 
21           of them are going to be acceptable, along with some 
22           others that the members that haven't had a chance to 
23           study them might come up with.  They were just -- I 
24           assume, something was just passed out on them, but we 
25           haven't had a chance to digest it or read it, so if 

1           it's -- you know, recognizing that most of these ideas 
2           are probably going to be okay, but rather than getting 
3           into amendments and separate -- we would have to 
4           separate them procedurally.  I think Senator -- 
5           Commissioner Jennings is right.
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  May I inquire?  
7                I interpret what both of you say that you are 
8           speaking -- seeking to have the substitute amendment 
9           defeated at this point, to recur then on the motion of 
10           Judge Barkdull as amended by Mr. Langley, which has 
11           already been done, and then, if we passed that motion, 
12           that entire product is available for consideration, 
13           including the matters in the substitute motion at our 
14           next meeting.  Is that what I'm hearing you say?  If 
15           it is, somebody please stand up and tell me.  
16                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  Mr. Chairman, there is the 
17           option to just withdraw the motion, and then we're in 
18           the same -- 
19                COMMISIONER BARKDULL:  Yeah, if she withdraws it.
20                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  -- we would be in exactly 
21           the same place. 
22                THE CHAIRMAN:  Right.  Certainly the Commissioner 
23           could withdraw her motion and offer it at the next 
24           meeting -- 
25                COMMISSIONER MILLS:  So it would avoid defeating 

1           it.
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  -- but nobody really wants to 
3           defeat anything today, if we can avoid it, but I think 
4           what they're urging you to do is withdraw it and 
5           introduce it at the next meeting, Commissioner Mathis.
6                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  And take their note -- take 
7           my fellow Commissioners' comments with particular 
8           care, but the fact that this process has to be open 
9           and fair and that all Commissioners be given the 
10           opportunity to have an impact here is more important 
11           than delaying this, and I think the rules as we have 
12           -- that is why I offered the substitute proposal on 
13           these rules, that it is in keeping with our 
14           constitutional authority as a Commission, and the 
15           constitutional authority does not rest in the Steering 
16           Committee, it does not rest in the Legislature, and it 
17           does not rest in prior commissions.  
18                While Commissioner Douglass has been very, very 
19           helpful in helping me through this process of 
20           understanding the procedures and has kept this process 
21           open, I think that it is a matter that we must clearly 
22           define to the public that the deliberations of this 
23           Commission will be open, and that is why I want to 
24           learn from the past but not be controlled by it, and I 
25           think it's better to ensure a fair and open process 

1           and to make that process clear in the rules, and it 
2           says here -- when I read Article XI of the 
3           Constitution, it says that this Commission will adopt 
4           the rules of procedure, and I don't want us to adopt a 
5           set of rules with only the thought of changing them 
6           later.  
7                If we cannot contemplate the rules that we are to 
8           adopt, maybe we should not adopt them at all, but I 
9           propose to you that we had the discussion this morning 
10           and the 11 points that I have charted for you on this 
11           amended rule change and that are in the proposed rules 
12           that you were handed is what we discussed.  And it's a 
13           matter of personal integrity.  We talked about the -- 
14           we've now amended 1.23 to talk about and add a five- 
15           day notice provision.  I think that's important for 
16           our next meeting, and I think that's important for 
17           every meeting that follows.  
18                I think there needs to be an affirmative 
19           statement in our rules that all amendments will be 
20           considered and heard, and I think that needs to be 
21           done now.  
22                And while I don't want to wear out my welcome or 
23           -- I must emphasize to you that I feel strongly about 
24           this ever since I first read these rules two weeks 
25           ago, and I have looked for a way to bring them before 

1           the body, and I've been afforded that opportunity and 
2           I appreciate it, but I know, as a minority, unless the 
3           rules protect you, you're in trouble.  And I have 
4           always -- I've been a minority for most of my life, 
5           and that's why I've been committed to making sure that 
6           the rules are clear, that the playing field is well- 
7           defined and that everyone is given an opportunity to 
8           participate, and I have found when -- whether you look 
9           at basketball or whether you look at civil rights or 
10           whether you look at the ability to -- our ability as 
11           citizens of Florida to compete globally, if the rules 
12           are clear and the playing field is clear and 
13           everyone's given the opportunity to participate, we 
14           can -- the process is raised to a higher level, and I 
15           want to go to a higher level than prior commissions, 
16           and I also know that I'm going to have to go home, and 
17           when I leave here I'll still be Sam Mathis's wife and 
18           I'll still be Jacinta Camille and Elliot's mom.  I'll 
19           be a lawyer, an entrepreneur, but I want to feel proud 
20           about what I did here, and I think these rules open up 
21           the process and also recognize that, as Governor 
22           Claude Kirk said, he'll still be called Governor, and 
23           hopefully what we have accomplished here will still be 
24           called open and fair. 
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Smith?

1                COMMISSIONER SMITH:  Thank you very much, Mr. 
2           Chair.  
3                I had originally risen for the purpose of 
4           respectfully requesting my good friend Commissioner 
5           Mathis to consider withdrawing at this time what I 
6           consider to be some good proposals in principle for 
7           consideration.  I come presuming that we're all acting 
8           in good faith.  I come presuming that we all want the 
9           process to be open.  I come presuming that we all have 
10           the best interests of the people of Florida at heart 
11           and, with that presumption, understanding that the 
12           critical issues that my good friend Commissioner 
13           Mathis is rightfully concerned about are not issues 
14           that directly affect what we need to do between now 
15           and the next meeting with regard to amendments.  
16                I was very happy that she brought up the issue of 
17           notice, as well as other Commissioners, because I 
18           think that's extremely important, but for the record 
19           and since we are on record, we have already 
20           incorporated the notice requirement for our next 
21           meeting.
22                I respect the fact that Commissioner Mathis does 
23           not desire to withdraw her substitute motion.  In the 
24           spirit of collegiality, I didn't want my first vote to 
25           be a vote no against something that someone feels so 

1           passionate about because ultimately at least four or 
2           five of the principles in the 11 items are things I 
3           embrace, but not having seen the language, being a 
4           lawyer, understanding the devil is in the details, I 
5           must vote procedurally to defeat the substitute motion 
6           even though there are items in the substitute motion 
7           in spirit and in context that I agree with.  
8                So with that having been said, I reluctantly 
9           prepare to cast my first official vote.
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Mathis? 
11                COMMISSIONER MATHIS:  I very much have high 
12           regard for Mr. Smith, and I appreciate this body's 
13           opportunity that they've afford me of bringing these 
14           proposals before the body, and I recognize that now 
15           may not be the time, and respectfully withdraw the 
16           substitute proposal. 
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, let me commend you.  I think 
18           that's an act of statesmanship and is an inspiration 
19           to the rest of us to work together.  I think we might 
20           hark back to what Ben Franklin said, and you just did, 
21           that I haven't met anybody but me that's always right, 
22           and that's not always the case, so -- and I think, 
23           too, you need to know that this will afford you a full 
24           opportunity to present these changes at the next 
25           meeting in such detail and in such manner as you 

1           desire, and any other Commissioner.  So that will keep 
2           our process open and we will be able to proceed to 
3           operate under the rules that we have until they are 
4           finally adopted or amended at the next meeting, which 
5           is what I understand the mission to be -- motion to 
6           be, and that the motion is that we adopt the rules as 
7           presented and amended by the amendments by 
8           Commissioner Langley, pending the right to amend them 
9           by majority vote at the next meeting, which will 
10           afford the opportunity for you to address that.  Is 
11           that clear to everyone?  
12                Commissioner Henderson?  
13                COMMISSIONER HENDERSON:  It's clear to me, but I 
14           want to ask a question and clarification.  We had had 
15           a discussion this morning concerning the standing 
16           committees and I know that we'll -- you'll have before 
17           us a request for our committee preference, and so, 
18           although there's not a prepared amendment, if there is 
19           a consensus for having -- beginning the process by 
20           having the committees track the articles with the 
21           exception that you noted previously on bonds and 
22           investments, and so we would have a committee on 
23           general provisions and miscellaneous and then also a 
24           committee on amendments.
25                THE CHAIRMAN:  I'll treat that as a proposed 

1           amendment and hear from Judge Barkdull.  
2                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  We'll accept it as an 
3           amendment.  I would urge all of you that got your 
4           committee preference forms, when you fill them out, 
5           just write in the ones that are not there that you 
6           want to serve on.
7               THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  Would you like to read 
8           out what they're now going to be so when they write 
9           them out, they're all on the same page?  
10                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Why don't we finish this, 
11           Mr. --
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We will write them out 
13           shortly after.  We'll go ahead and take the vote, and 
14           if we get this done, then we will write out those 
15           committees, because what I would really like to do is 
16           proceed with this and call for the vote at this time, 
17           unless there's further discussion.  
18                Commissioner Jones, you?  
19                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Evans.  
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  Evans, excuse me.
21                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  I'm Evants, not 
22           Evans-Jones.  
23                I have a question of clarification.  What we're 
24           going to be voting on is what is presented in the 
25           packet by Judge Barkdull that includes the appointment 

1           of committees by the Commission Chair, yet the next 
2           time we meet, we can change that rule as to who 
3           appoints the committees by a simple majority vote, is 
4           that correct? 
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  That's right.
6                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  So does that mean that you 
7           would delay action on appointing committees, or would 
8           committees be appointed and then, by majority vote, we 
9           could undo it?
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  What I plan to do, so there won't 
11           be any misunderstanding about this, and one of the 
12           reasons I wanted to do it is for everybody to have an 
13           opportunity to have their input as to what committees 
14           they want to be on, and then I will make appointments 
15           to the committees, and then if anybody is dissatisfied 
16           with their particular assignments, I'd like to hear 
17           from them and consider changing them, as chairman, but 
18           obviously, if the majority of this Commission is 
19           dissatisfied with the selections I make, you clearly 
20           could vote to overrule that.  So -- I don't think you 
21           will, but it's possible.  
22                I'm planning on and I've tried to make this 
23           abundantly clear, that these committees are going to 
24           reflect the makeup of this body and that they're going 
25           to try to utilize the expertise in areas where people 

1           have the most knowledge.  So if that's a concern, you 
2           still have the opportunity to do me in on that.  
3                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  I was just wanting to make 
4           the procedure clear.
5                THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, the procedure's clear that 
6           the result could be reversed if I do appoint the 
7           committees -- and I may not appoint the full 
8           committees.  I may just tell you the committees based 
9           on your preferences that I'm considering and I'd like 
10           to hear from you and then appoint you before then, but 
11           this would give us the opportunity to hit the ground 
12           running and not have to wait around for another month 
13           until we get going, and this would allow us to do 
14           that, because we're not going to have another meeting 
15           for another month, and it's time to move, I think, 
16           and so that's why I'm going to do it, assuming this 
17           passes.
18                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  And along the same line, the 
19           committee chair and vice-chair also could be undone by 
20           a simple majority?
21                THE CHAIRMAN:  You know, if a majority of this 
22           Commission doesn't like what I do in appointing the 
23           committees, so you'll feel better, I want to know it, 
24           because I do not want to be in the position of having 
25           appointed a chairman that the majority of this 

1           Commission doesn't want, and if I hear from you, 
2           you've got to -- you know, I hate the word "trust me," 
3           because it sounds like something I've heard before, 
4           but I can assure you, if that's the correct word, that 
5           any fears you have about who I appoint I hope I can 
6           allay when I do it. 
7                It's as important to me as chairman to have the 
8           best possible person as chairman of each committee and 
9           vice-chairman as we can have, and that's my goal, 
10           because I'm in the twilight of a mediocre career and 
11           I'd like to wind it up here with a great group like 
12           you all working together to consider and decide 
13           whether or not to change the Constitution.  
14                Maybe I've said enough and I ought to quit and I 
15           will, but if you -- 
16                COMMISSIONER EVANS:  Thank you, sir.
17                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Evans-Jones, who has 
18           great experience in the Legislature, has arisen.
19                COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES:  I just wanted to say, 
20           Mr. Chairman, that at first blush, in looking at this 
21           it sounded like it might be a good idea to elect the 
22           chairman and the vice-chairman, but when you think of 
23           the time frame that we're operating under, and we do 
24           want someone with expertise, and I'm sure that I have 
25           full confidence that you will appoint the people as 

1           chairman and vice-chairman who will serve us well. 
2                THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, ma'am.  
3                I might add, which chairmanship do you want?  
4           That's said in jest, but I do -- I value each one of 
5           you as really important members of this, nobody 
6           greater than others, but I do recognize, as you do, 
7           that there are some with prior experience and with 
8           experience in areas different from others, and that's 
9           what we're going to try to do.  
10                All right.  If there's no further discussion, the 
11           motion is to approve the rules as presented by 
12           Commissioner Barkdull as amended by the amendments by 
13           Commissioner Langley.  
14                All those in favor say aye.  
15                (Chorus of ayes.)
16                THE CHAIRMAN:  All opposed say no.  
17                The motion carries. 
18                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Thank you.
19                THE CHAIRMAN:  All right.  We have a little bit 
20           more business here. 
21                Commissioner Scott, I wonder if you would come up 
22           and let's discuss the schedule a little bit, if you 
23           would take the podium where -- and get that list.  
24           Does everybody have their schedule list, or can they 
25           get it before them, the tentative schedule list?  

1                Let me say that first of all, we have -- the 
2           public hearings for July 22nd and 23rd have been 
3           confirmed with the facilities where we're to have the 
4           public hearings and with hotels where we can stay.  
5           Those two are the only ones I think that are actually 
6           pretty much set and probably not subject to change.  
7           It's possible, after we get going here, that we will 
8           need to have a Commission meeting at some point either 
9           immediately before that on the Monday of that week, 
10           which would then afford the opportunity to come here, 
11           then to Panama City, then to Pensacola, or it might 
12           be even to have it on the way back, or it might be not 
13           to have it at all that week, but we are going to have 
14           that meeting in order to get to this rules question 
15           and others.  So I was going to suggest -- discuss this 
16           with Commissioner Scott.  
17                For example, one of the things that I see in here 
18           that he pointed out to me is, I don't think it's very 
19           appropriate to try to hold a public hearing, for 
20           example, in Fort Myers on the -- what is it, the 
21           Friday before Labor Day?  I think we would probably be 
22           -- first of all, the last time when I was on the 
23           Commission, I tried to go to Fort Myers and I couldn't 
24           get there from here.  I think I wound up in Orlando 
25           and rented a car and got lost on the way.  That's 

1           before they had any good roads, but they were through 
2           when I got there, but it's kind of difficult to get 
3           to, and that's a bad weekend.  Actually the 28th and 
4           29th fit that.  We don't have to worry about that too 
5           much at the moment, but I would suggest that we 
6           schedule the -- no meetings before that Labor Day 
7           holiday on that weekend.  If that's agreeable with 
8           everybody, we would make -- we would change that and 
9           set them at another time.  
10                The Tallahassee meeting we can set whenever we 
11           need a public hearing and we can have a public meeting 
12           here and a meeting of the Commission, either one- or 
13           two-day meetings, and -- so that's one that is subject 
14           to being changed to everybody's convenience.  
15                I would like to suggest that we have the hearings 
16           in Miami and in Fort Lauderdale in September, 
17           preferably around the 11th and 12th of September.  I 
18           think it's extremely important that we have a big 
19           turnout in those areas because they're the most 
20           populous areas we go into, and I think to set them 
21           August 20th and 21st, when that's when people are just 
22           beginning to get back to go to school, I suppose, that 
23           it's not too advisable, which would also mean that we 
24           would probably want to move the Palm Beach meeting and 
25           perhaps group it with Tampa, which is kind of far 

1           away, but it could -- still it's a possibility, or do 
2           Tampa and Fort Myers in the same grouping and then 
3           schedule Palm Beach at a separate time, if we need to, 
4           but we could really do Orlando, Palm Beach, Daytona 
5           Beach maybe in one set, if we need to.  
6                I want you to know, though, these things are 
7           tiring.  I can recall one in Jacksonville that started 
8           at 8:30 in the morning and went through till ten 
9           o'clock at night, and that was the only one we had 
10           like that, but they can do that, and by the time we 
11           started the next morning after we got everybody 
12           together and put back together, it was not the best 
13           public hearing we had the following morning. 
14                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  Mr. Chairman, I've learned 
15           not to mention this, since I got drafted here to be -- 
16           but one of the things that I would say is that, 
17           obviously the Tampa, Fort Myers, we -- I think there's 
18           a lot of people concerned about that.  The south 
19           Florida ones, we could probably do Miami, Fort 
20           Lauderdale and West Palm all in the same time in an 
21           afternoon or a two-day or two-and-a-half-day or 
22           something like that, and maybe no one -- these are 
23           busy people, all of you, and we know you're schedules, 
24           but the idea I suppose would be that we would at some 
25           point around the middle of September have concluded at 

1           least the first round of public hearings and then, you 
2           know, start our deliberations.  
3                So the north Florida ones, in discussing this 
4           before, we felt we need to get started because we 
5           don't -- we have a short time frame here of six 
6           months.  So we could maybe do those and get those 
7           done, and if Tallahassee -- I don't know, but maybe an 
8           idea might be to get a couple of people to run by 
9           everybody's schedule about the Tallahassee, because we 
10           definitely want, I would think, in view of our 
11           discussion, which is obviously a very open and -- make 
12           sure that that is set if the rules would be considered 
13           when everyone -- most everyone has a chance to, you 
14           know, to be there. 
15                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Scott, let me ask you 
16           if this is sort of an acceptable thing to all of you.  
17           If we go ahead with the Pensacola, Panama City, 
18           Jacksonville, Gainesville schedule, we conclude those, 
19           then that's the end of July, we don't have any more 
20           public hearings until the 1st of September, which 
21           would give everybody August -- unless we have 
22           Tallahassee -- which we could have wherever we could 
23           find was the most mutually convenient time, and then 
24           have the Commission meeting at the same time that 
25           we're going to schedule these rules, unless we're able 

1           to have it prior to the Pensacola-Panama City meeting.
2                What we can do, if it's agreeable, is just have 
3           those four agreed to today, and then we'll have the 
4           executive director and the staff try to work out 
5           another schedule, but I would like to really agree 
6           that we should go to Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West 
7           Palm Beach in September, and I don't have any problems 
8           with doing all three of them at one time.  
9                COMMISSIONER SCOTT:  How does that sound, to set 
10           the south Florida -- I mean, we've got quite a few.  
11           Does that sound okay with -- it's probably okay.  
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  And we can use Tallahassee as a 
13           wild card for another meeting, if we need it, and also 
14           maybe work one in on the Pensacola-Panama City one -- 
15           it's a month from now -- if we need that, and we'll 
16           just work toward that end and leave here with the 
17           understanding that we know we're all going to 
18           Pensacola and Panama City and to Jacksonville and 
19           Gainesville on those dates, and we -- you can make 
20           arrangements for that, and we may have a meeting of 
21           the Commission either the 21st or the 24th, or around 
22           sometime when we have the Tallahassee meeting in 
23           August.
24                Commissioner Ford-Coates?
25                COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Mr. Chairman, may I 

1           ask perhaps if we could make a decision in July then?  
2           I mean, I think it would be -- it's fine for the staff 
3           to give us a suggestion, but it would sure be nice to 
4           get these schedules finalized as soon as possible so 
5           that --
6                THE CHAIRMAN:  That's exactly what we're planning 
7           to do.
8                COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  Oh, I thought I heard 
9           you say August --
10                THE CHAIRMAN:  No, no.  
11                COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES:  -- for final action.
12                THE CHAIRMAN:  No.  We can probably do this in 
13           July is -- where I really want to do it is in July, 
14           get the rules finally adopted and get our public 
15           hearing schedule finalized.  
16                One thing -- and I need to mention this and speak 
17           to those who are in the Legislature.  I understand 
18           there's a possibility that there may be a special 
19           session sometime in September, sort of going like this 
20           at the moment.  Okay. 
21                If that comes up, we can accommodate to that, I'm 
22           sure, but that's certainly something that's being 
23           considered here and there, later in September, though, 
24           probably longer later. 
25                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Like later in the year.

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, probably -- that's right, 
2           but, you know, those things have a way of changing, 
3           don't they, Commissioner Jennings?
4                Okay.  We're going to leave it at that, then.  
5           Commissioner Scott, who is here, we're going to go 
6           with that.  We're going to go with these four meetings 
7           that are scheduled definitely to be held and, with 
8           Commissioner Ford-Coates' suggestion, we're going to 
9           try to have the Commission meeting in July to adopt 
10           these rules, perhaps the 21st or the 24th, and then 
11           we'll have it done and we can cover it all in one trip 
12           to north Florida for those of you from south Florida.
13                Okay.  He reminded me, if we swap them and go to 
14           Panama City first, which is a 100-mile drive, and then 
15           100 miles further to Pensacola, and then it's 200 
16           miles back, so -- but we can handle it however we do. 
17                COMMISSIONER JENNINGS:  Can we get a bus?
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  True.  Is there any further 
19           discussion about these schedules?   
20                We will -- the staff, which is Mr. Buzzett and 
21           our other staff here, will work with you to keep you 
22           informed and to get these things set where everybody 
23           can get there. 
24                Now, Mr. Buzzett, I want you to tell them about 
25           the things that they need to fill out here today, like 

1           we need the information, they need it very much for 
2           your travel, your Social Security number and various 
3           other things.  So I'll let him tell you what we have 
4           to have.  
5                Just a moment.  I have Mr. Anthony -- 
6           Commissioner Anthony is -- 
7                COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  Mr. Chairman, just for 
8           consideration, as we find the sites for meetings, even 
9           if we can have a subcommittee to go into rural 
10           communities of Florida, not the entire Commission, 
11           perhaps that would again provide more access to 
12           people.  I'm very sensitive because I'm from a -- I'm 
13           a little country boy from Palm Beach County, and it's 
14           rural Palm Beach County, and I'd like places like 
15           Quincy -- can I get your vote, James Harold?  That's 
16           why I'm calling it Quincy.  
17                COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:  Gretna's where --
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Gretna.  We'd have to go to 
19           Gretna.  
20                We'll certainly consider that.
21                COMMISSIONER ANTHONY:  If you could consider 
22           that -- 
23                THE CHAIRMAN:  I do want you to know, though, 
24           that Commissioner Smith wanted me to point out that 
25           when somebody said he was a poor old country boy, to 

1           grab your wallet.  So we don't accept that, but 
2           certainly that's a matter to be considered which we'll 
3           take up.  Thank you very much.  
4                Now Mr. Buzzett.  
5                MR. BUZZETT:  Just very briefly, there's two 
6           documents on your desk.  One has to do with the 
7           committee preference form, which I think y'all have 
8           discussed before, and once you fill those out, if you 
9           make sure that you also put your name on there so that 
10           we'll be able to tell; and the second thing had to do 
11           with travel, and just to facilitate travel, for those 
12           of y'all who have never traveled with the State, they 
13           have a somewhat bureaucratic method to fill out your 
14           travel vouchers.  We'd prefer to fill them out for 
15           you, and we'd like just to have them on file, and 
16           you've got those vouchers sitting in your -- to be 
17           presigned and we can fill them out for you.  
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  Commissioner Langley? 
19                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  That presumes then I'll 
20           never face a false filing of a -- signing a false 
21           travel report because you're filling it out?   
22                MR. BUZZETT:  Well, we'd fill them out and then 
23           provide them to you for final review before they're 
24           submitted.  
25                COMMISSIONER LANGLEY:  Okay.

1                THE CHAIRMAN:  If you really get in trouble, 
2           we'll plead temporary insanity and we'll make it.  
3                Okay.  Before we adjourn, let me say that I 
4           thoroughly appreciate this group and I look forward to 
5           working with you, and I think we started in a way that 
6           will allow us to be the collegial body we'll become, 
7           and I think you'll find, when we start traveling 
8           together, that we're going to have a lot of different 
9           acquaintances with each other than we started with, 
10           and I think we all should look forward to it with 
11           great anticipation and I'm certainly honored to be 
12           your chairman of a group of this kind, and I think 
13           we'll all do very well in doing our constitutional 
14           duty.  
15                Judge -- Commissioner Barkdull.  
16                COMMISSIONER BARKDULL:  Mr. Chairman, I do now 
17           move that we do adjourn.
18                THE CHAIRMAN:  All in favor say aye.  
19                (Chorus of ayes.)
20                THE CHAIRMAN:  Adjourned.  
21                (Concluded at 3:10 p.m.) 

1                         C E R T I F I C A T E
3      COUNTY OF LEON     )
4                I, RAY D. CONVERY, Court Reporter at Tallahassee, 
5      Florida, do hereby certify as follows:
6                THAT I correctly reported in shorthand the 
7      foregoing proceedings at the time and place stated in the 
8      caption hereof;
9                THAT I later reduced the shorthand notes to 
10      typewriting, or under my supervision, and that the 
11      foregoing pages 2 through 179 represent a true, correct, 
12      and complete transcript of said proceedings;
13                And I further certify that I am not of kin or 
14      counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the regular 
15      employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in 
16      anywise interested in the result of said case.
17                Dated this 30th day of June, 1997.
20                               __________________________
21                               RAY D. CONVERY
22                               Court Reporter