State Seal Calendar

Meeting Proceedings for July 21, 1997










10 Meeting of July 21, 1997

11 The Senate Chamber

12 The Capitol

13 Tallahassee, Florida

14 10:00 a.m.






20 Reported by:


22 Court Reporter





1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 THE CHAIRMAN: The Commission will please come to

3 order.

4 I would like to call on Dr. R. B. Holmes, Jr.,

5 from the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in

6 Tallahassee, who is a well-known person in our

7 community here and works very strongly to obtain a lot

8 of things for our people, and Reverend Holmes, we're

9 honored to have you give the invocation. If you would

10 come up here to the podium? Thank you, sir.

11 REVEREND HOLMES: Shall we pray?

12 Our God and our Father, we do pause to thank thee

13 for this day and allowing us to come here. We do pray

14 for divine power, insight and wisdom as these great

15 community leaders who come to revisit, revise and

16 strengthen this great, great Constitution. Heavenly

17 Father, give them the strength, give them the input

18 and give them the guidance to do a great and marvelous

19 job for generations to come. In the strong name of

20 our Savior we pray, amen.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Morsani is going to

22 lead us this morning in the Pledge of Allegiance to

23 the flag.

24 Mr. Morsani? Everybody please rise.

25 (Pledge of Allegiance)


1 THE CHAIRMAN: This morning we're going to call

2 the roll, and I'd like to ask the secretary to do

3 that, please.

4 MS. BLANTON: Alfonso.


6 MS. BLANTON: Anthony.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: He will be late or probably will

8 not make the meeting. He called and had a situation

9 arise that involved his son that he felt compelled to

10 be present in Tampa.

11 MS. BLANTON: Argiz.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: He also announced this morning

13 that he was having difficulty with his transportation.

14 MS. BLANTON: Barkdull.


16 MS. BLANTON: Barnett.


18 MS. BLANTON: Brochin.


20 MS. BLANTON: Butterworth.


22 MS. BLANTON: Connor.


24 MS. BLANTON: Corr.



1 MS. BLANTON: Crenshaw.


3 MS. BLANTON: Evans.


5 MS. BLANTON: Evans-Jones.


7 MS. BLANTON: Ford-Coates.


9 MS. BLANTON: Friedin.


11 MS. BLANTON: Hawkes.


13 MS. BLANTON: Henderson.


15 MS. BLANTON: Jennings.


17 MS. BLANTON: Kogan.


19 MS. BLANTON: Langley.


21 MS. BLANTON: Lowndes.


23 MS. BLANTON: Marshall.


25 MS. BLANTON: Mathis.



2 MS. BLANTON: Mills.


4 MS. BLANTON: Morsani.


6 MS. BLANTON: Nabors.


8 MS. BLANTON: Planas.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: He announced that he could not be

10 at this meeting or at the public hearings, he's out of

11 the country.

12 MS. BLANTON: Riley.


14 MS. BLANTON: Rundle.


16 MS. BLANTON: Scott.


18 MS. BLANTON: Smith.


20 MS. BLANTON: Sullivan.

21 Sundberg.


23 MS. BLANTON: Thompson.


25 MS. BLANTON: West.


1 Wetherington.


3 MS. BLANTON: Zack.


5 MS. BLANTON: Chairman Douglass.


7 At our last meeting we adopted the rules of

8 procedure, except to the extent that Rule 9.3 does not

9 apply to require an extraordinary vote for amendment

10 of rules until after this meeting today. Therefore,

11 as we move along, we can offer other amendments.

12 I'd like to call on Commissioner Barkdull, the

13 chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, to

14 make a presentation regarding Rule 5.

15 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

16 Members, you may remember at the last meeting we

17 deferred any consideration of Rule 5 until today.

18 Rule 5 as proposed by the Rules Committee is on your

19 desk, and I want to be sure that you have the copy

20 that has two pages, and on the second page --

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I understand that's

22 amendment 2 in your packet?

23 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That's correct. It's

24 identified amendment 2, it may show by Commissioner

25 Mills on it or by me. There was some redrafting early


1 this morning as to who would be the introducer.

2 The one that you want to be sure that you have is

3 at the end of paragraph 2 there's a statement, "The

4 Style and Drafting Committee may recommend amendments

5 to proposals and may recommend a grouping of any

6 related proposals." That's the one that I have on the

7 desk for consideration by the body at this time.

8 These are white papers, they're not in a packet that

9 was mailed out. They should be on your desk in the

10 packet, there are two pages of them that says

11 amendment 2.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: The one I have says that it is

13 amendment 2 and it says Commissioner Mills, and it's

14 carrying over from the last meeting which we deferred

15 until today. Then also in that, in a blue sheet, is

16 Commissioner Mills -- no, that's another matter.

17 There is another amendment to it, but that has not --

18 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That has not been offered

19 yet. I can ask the secretary to read this amendment,

20 it might be helpful to everybody, and while she's

21 reading it, we can be sure we get it in front of us.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: I usually interrupt and say you

23 don't have to read it, but I am going to let you read

24 this one since everybody may not have had an

25 opportunity to read it.


1 MS. BLANTON: All of amendment 2, or just the

2 amendment to it?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment -- not the amendment

4 to it. The original amendment 2 is -- instead of

5 Mills, is Barkdull.


7 THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary is going to read

8 this. Normally we will not read amendments if

9 everybody has had them long enough to have a full

10 grasp of them. I think everybody is familiar with

11 this, so we will proceed.

12 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Let me first make one

13 comment, Mr. Chairman. I see people looking through

14 their stapled packet. You're not going to find this

15 in there. This is a two-page that was put in your

16 packet this morning, it should be on the top of it.

17 I'm going to ask staff to see if they did get it

18 distributed. Is it in there now?

19 THE CHAIRMAN: It's in my packet.

20 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: On the white pages, and

21 it shows by Mills.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's let the secretary read it,

23 and you may proceed, Madam Secretary, amendment 2 is

24 labeled, "By Commissioner Barkdull, the following

25 amendment."


1 MS. BLANTON: On page 15, line 22, insert, 5.1,

2 taking the yeas and nays, "The Commission Chair shall

3 declare the outcome of all votes, but if three

4 commissioners immediately question a vote by a show of

5 hands the Chair shall take the vote. When the vote is

6 completely recorded the Commission Chair shall

7 announce the result to the Commission and the

8 secretary shall enter the result in the journal."

9 5.2, change of vote, "After the voting but prior

10 to announcement of the result of a roll call, a member

11 may vote or change his or her vote and such vote shall

12 be recorded in the journal. After the vote has been

13 announced a member, with unanimous consent of those

14 present, may change his or her vote on the measure and

15 such vote shall be recorded in the journal, except

16 that no such change of vote shall be valid where such

17 vote would alter the final outcome."

18 5.3, casting vote for another, "No member shall

19 cast a vote for another member, nor shall any member

20 not a member cast a vote for a member."

21 5.4, adoption of proposals and submission to the

22 Secretary of State, 1., "A proposal that has been

23 placed on the calendar pursuant to Rule 2.17 or 2.14

24 and in accordance with the special order established

25 by the Rules and Administration Committee, shall


1 require a majority vote of the Commission for further

2 consideration of the proposal and for a commitment of

3 the proposal to the Style and Drafting Committee."

4 2., "The Style and Drafting Committee shall

5 review all proposals receiving approval of a majority

6 of the Commission and shall prepare recommended ballot

7 language. The Style and Drafting Committee may

8 recommend amendments to proposals and may recommend a

9 grouping of any related proposals."

10 3., "A proposal on consideration after having

11 been disposed by the Style and Drafting Committee may

12 be amended or grouped by a vote of at least 22 members

13 of the Commission."

14 4., "Final adoption of a proposal shall require a

15 vote of at least 22 members of the Commission."

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Barkdull to open.


18 Commissioners, this permits proposals only to

19 ultimately reach a vote of the people by 22

20 affirmative votes of this Commission, which is just a

21 little less than three-fifths, which is the number

22 required by each house of the Legislature to put a

23 joint resolution on a ballot for consideration by the

24 public.

25 This is a crucial change from the vote that was


1 necessary in the D'Alemberte Commission, which was a

2 simple majority. And as you have heard from some of

3 the speakers who spoke to us in the organizational

4 meeting, there are those that indicated that they had

5 20 years ago thought that that's the way it ought to

6 be. They now recommended, and I particularly remember

7 Mr. Uhlfelder saying he changed his position and

8 thought that we ought to have something above a simple

9 majority.

10 I think that certainly where there's only one of

11 us in this body that was elected to serve here, the

12 rest of us were appointed, and I think that we should

13 at least attempt to have a vote that is similar to

14 that necessary in the Legislature where the people are

15 presented by elected individuals that they sent there,

16 knowing that they would be possessed of the authority

17 to put proposed changes on the Constitution, but that

18 would be a limitation, that they would need at least a

19 three-fifth vote, and I think that us adopting a

20 similar level at which we would put something before

21 the public is going to be essential to the success of

22 this body, and it will also temper maybe some of our

23 zeal to too far left or right or wherever, to where we

24 have to get a consensus of this group, so that if we

25 get a consensus it will take 22 votes affirmatively to


1 put something out, and when we go out to the public

2 after next May 5th, we will have a more cohesive group

3 to sell the package, and I urge the adoption of this

4 rule.

5 I want to point out, which has been of concern to

6 some members, that the Style and Drafting Committee

7 when they come back they can only recommend grouping.

8 In other words, if Commissioner Scott and Commissioner

9 Smith have two proposals and they go to the Style and

10 Drafting Committee and they recommend that the Smith

11 and Scott proposals be grouped for consideration by

12 the public on the ballot, that grouping would not

13 stand unless this body voted 22 votes that there would

14 be such a grouping.

15 If the Smith proposal and the Scott proposal have

16 continued to receive 22 votes and they do not receive

17 22 votes for grouping, they will go on the ballot as

18 separate proposals, and then in final passage it will

19 take 22 votes to pass a proposal and it will take 22

20 votes to amend it, so that up until the time a

21 proposal goes through the Style and Drafting Committee

22 and comes back, a proposal until it is submitted to

23 Style and Drafting can be amended by a simple majority

24 of this body, but once it comes back from Style and

25 Drafting, to further amend it will take 22 votes, to


1 group it will take 22 votes, and so in final passage

2 it will take 22 votes.

3 And if -- I'm repeating myself, but if Style and

4 Drafting's recommendation for grouping does not get 22

5 votes, Commissioner Scott's proposal and Commissioner

6 Smith's proposal are going to stand on their own and

7 will go to the people that way.

8 I'll be happy to answer any other questions in an

9 attempt to explain.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Langley?


12 Commissioner Barkdull, there seems to be one scenario

13 that's not covered by this that bothers me a little

14 bit, and maybe this dialogue will clear that up in the

15 record.

16 We can only act at this time on proposals coming

17 back from Style and Drafting or, as written, it would

18 take 22 votes? For instance, if the Scott/Smith

19 proposals that were grouped by Style and Drafting

20 doesn't get 22 votes, then that's history, but suppose

21 Mr. Scott wants to move to have his proposal linked

22 with Senator Jennings' proposal in a new proposal?

23 Why, on the floor of this Commission, should we not be

24 able by majority vote to do that, let Style and

25 Drafting then work on that concept and bring it back


1 for a 22-vote proposal?

2 In other words, I don't think at any time we

3 really represent a complete cadre of this state. I

4 mean, we've got everything here you can imagine, and I

5 think a majority of this Commission ought to be able

6 to do anything we want to do, except for the super

7 majority vote on final passage.

8 But the scenario, again, not covered is, Mr.

9 Scott would be forbidden to say, I want to be lumped

10 with Senator Jennings' proposal, if that gets the

11 majority vote, and I think it would take some

12 massaging at that time to go back to Drafting and come

13 back with that proposal linked together. Again, then

14 it would revert back to the rule as you have it that

15 says it would still take 22 votes.

16 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: In other words, you would

17 recommit, in your example, the Scott and the Jennings

18 proposals back to the Rules Committee by a simple

19 majority vote for their consideration?


21 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I don't see that that

22 would be out of order.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Wouldn't that be the case now?

24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That's what I say, I

25 don't see that that would be out of order under this


1 rule.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Under this rule that would be my

3 interpretation, Commissioner Langley, that if somebody

4 made a motion to recommit it to Style and Drafting, it

5 would be recommitted on a majority vote.

6 I have a question. Do we take up each proposal

7 first, get 22 votes and then go back for grouping, is

8 that the way we do it?

9 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: No. The way it reads is

10 that Style and Drafting, when they are considering the

11 proposals that have received a majority vote and been

12 sent to them, would consider any proposed structural

13 amendments, and they could also consider any grouping

14 and recommend a grouping or recommend any amendments

15 back to here, but it would be subject on final passage

16 of 22 votes.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any further questions,

18 Commissioner Langley?

19 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: No, sir, I don't think it

20 covers it as written, but again, the dialogue has said

21 that's what we're going to do, so that's fine. I

22 don't think, as written, that a majority of this

23 Commission has a right to recommend to Style and

24 Drafting how to bring it back, but we can do that. I

25 can move that we recommit proposals 15 and 13 to Style


1 and Drafting with instructions to bring it back to

2 Drafting, and I suppose the majority would cover it,

3 but I don't think we ought to be held to the super

4 majority for that concept to at least go back to Style

5 and Drafting.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be my interpretation in

7 the absence of somebody overruling it, if that's

8 satisfactory to answer your question. I think it's

9 an excellent question and I'm glad you raised it

10 because we need to clarify that.

11 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I think with the

12 clarification I would urge the adoption of the rule as

13 set forth.

14 I believe there's an amendment on the desk.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment on the

16 desk. Go ahead with the amendment.

17 MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Mills offers the

18 following amendment to amendment 1. On page 22, line

19 18 --

20 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Excuse me, ma'am, I think

21 it is Commissioner Nabors' amendment.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: It's Commissioner Nabors, and

23 we're going to recognize him here after you read it.

24 MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Nabors offers the

25 following amendment to amendment 2. On page 2, line


1 21, insert, "Notwithstanding Rule 9.3, Rule 5.4 may be

2 amended by a majority vote of the Commission until the

3 adjournment of the first Commission meeting after the

4 conclusion of the Commission's public hearing cycle

5 ending September 12, 1997."

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Nabors?

7 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Members of the Commission,

8 what I'm trying to do here is to keep in play this

9 Rule 5.4 as to how it works. I really think that this

10 is a critical rule, we need to be thoughtful on it,

11 and there's no need to preclude a change in this rule

12 by majority vote at this time. I think it would be

13 helpful to go through the public hearings and see what

14 baskets of issues we're dealing with.

15 What this amendments says is at the close of

16 public hearings, at the next Commission meeting we

17 would have the right to revisit this rule by majority

18 vote rather than what the Rule 9.3, which is three-

19 fifths. It gives us another opportunity to look at

20 this, if in our deliberations and in our hearings,

21 public hearings in the next couple of months, we feel

22 like we've made a mistake, we can correct that by

23 majority vote, and I would urge you to adopt it.

24 I don't think it hurts anything. We've

25 published for the world to see what our best thinking


1 is now, and it gives us another opportunity to revisit

2 it at the first Commission meeting if we subsequently

3 find out we've straddled ourselves in some manner.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Commissioner Barkdull?

5 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, as chairman

6 of the Rules Committee, Mr. Nabors and I discussed

7 this and I would consider this a friendly amendment

8 and urge the passage of it.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else want to be heard on

10 this?

11 You understand what this amendment does. It just

12 delays determining whether we have 22 votes or not

13 until September the 12th. Everything else would be

14 subject only to be amended by two-thirds vote. Is

15 everybody clear on that?

16 If there's no further discussion, we will vote on

17 Commissioner Nabors' amendment.

18 All in favor say aye.

19 (Chorus of ayes.)

20 Opposed like sign.

21 Chairman votes no.

22 We will revert now to the motion as amended.

23 MS. BLANTON: That's correct.

24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Move adoption, Mr.

25 Chairman.


1 THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussion in favor of the

2 motion?

3 Any discussion opposing the motion?

4 All those in favor, please say aye.

5 (Chorus of ayes.)

6 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed, like sign. The

7 motion carries. The Chairman votes aye. I don't have

8 to do that, I just thought we ought to go ahead and do

9 it. I don't want to keep coming back up.

10 All right, I believe we have another amendment,

11 two other amendments, one in your packet which you

12 have there by Commissioner Mathis, which is amendment

13 1.

14 Commissioner Mathis, do you want the clerk to

15 read all that, or shall we dispense with the reading?

16 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: There's a summary of

17 amendment 1 that was included in the packet that was

18 mailed that I think would give a summary of each of

19 the proposed amendments if the Chair thinks that

20 that's a good idea to read them.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Without objection we'll waive the

22 reading of the amendment, and Commissioner Mathis, I

23 think I'll just recognize you to read that summary as

24 part of your presentation, or treat it however you

25 like. I think most people have had it, but you may


1 read it or explain it or do whatever you like.

2 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: Fellow Commissioners and

3 the Chair, I am proposing a list of amendments to the

4 rules. We discussed most of these amendments at our

5 last Commission meeting, so I'll be brief, but the

6 amendment to Rule 1.1 basically just corrects a

7 technical reference and that wasn't discussed at our

8 last meeting.

9 Also, the amendment to Rule 1.5, it specifies

10 that an appeal on a question of order can be decided

11 by a majority vote. Basically it just clarifies what

12 that rule -- how that rule should be applied.

13 And let me deviate here. All of these amendments

14 are really offered in a spirit of keeping our assembly

15 and our consideration of the various proposals to the

16 Constitution open and that all proposals be heard and

17 that everyone be allowed the opportunity to present

18 their proposals before this body for full

19 consideration.

20 Under Rule 1, .11 requires a five-day notice of

21 items that are included on the agenda for the

22 Commission meetings, and it recognizes, also, that

23 during the session, while we're in session, that

24 notice of items to be placed on the agenda can be done

25 by announcement in our chambers, and that will give


1 adequate notice as to what items are being considered,

2 and this also keeps our meetings open and those who

3 have concerns about specific issues will be given

4 prior notice and -- notice that we will be considering

5 these matters in full, and I think that keeps the

6 public informed and people don't have to guess at what

7 we will be considering.

8 Rule 1.16, it basically deletes the requirement

9 for a Sergeant-at-Arms to execute process. I think

10 that under -- I don't think that the Commission has

11 the authority to execute process.

12 Under 1.17 and 1.18, it provides that the

13 Commissioners may note their absences by giving

14 written notice to the Chair. It deletes any

15 requirement for a request for permission, and the

16 amendment also notes that those excused absences will

17 be noted in the journal.

18 On Rule 1.12, it changes the name of the

19 Miscellaneous Committee to the General Provisions

20 Committee. This amendment wasn't brought before the

21 body before, but it was recommended by the

22 Constitution Revision Commission staff, to clarify.

23 It is a listing of the various committees and it lines

24 up more with the actual Constitution, and the general

25 provisions considers those items that are not


1 specifically listed.

2 Under 2.7, it provides that the special order

3 calendar given by the Rules and Administration

4 Committee could be amended by a majority vote.

5 Currently there's a two-thirds vote required, and this

6 would allow a majority of the Commission to decide if

7 they want to hear a matter out of the order that it's

8 originally proposed on the special calendar, and we

9 did discuss that at the last meeting.

10 3.35, it deletes the requirement that in order

11 for a Commissioner to present a proposal, that they

12 have to have 10 affirmative votes. This amendment

13 allows for any Commissioner to bring a proposal before

14 this body, and we have all sacrificed both personally

15 and professionally to be here and I think that this is

16 an opportunity for any Commissioner to bring a

17 proposal and let it be heard and let it be discussed

18 fully by this body.

19 The amendment to 3.4 provides that filed

20 proposals -- originally, and I'm not sure that I

21 really fully comprehend this, but originally the

22 rules, it seemed to be that the rules read that in

23 order for a proposal to be heard that it had to be

24 properly drafted, and this proposal basically

25 clarifies that a Commissioner can submit a proposal


1 and we're not required to submit that proposal in any

2 particular form, but rather the staff will then put

3 the proposal in its proper form to be presented to

4 this body.

5 Also, the amendment to 9.1 prescribes that

6 Robert's Rules of Order will govern this procedure,

7 govern our proceedings. I think this is a more widely

8 understood rules of procedure. I know that Mason's

9 governs legislative procedure, but I think with

10 private citizens making up a majority of this body and

11 Robert's Rules of Order being a more standardized

12 rules of procedure, that it would be conducive to us

13 moving forward to use Robert's Rules of Order as the

14 secondary source for rules of procedure.

15 I would take any questions anyone may have.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: There are two amendments to this

17 amendment on the desk. Would you read them? I

18 believe they're by Commissioner Mills, but go ahead

19 and read them, please, they're very short.

20 MS. BLANTON: Amendment 1 to amendment 1,

21 Commissioner Mills offers the following amendment. On

22 page 12, lines 5 through 6, strike "The special order

23 may be amended by a majority vote of the Commission."

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed on amendment 1.

25 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, this simply


1 places the special order calendar with the same

2 dignity that is treated in the House and Senate and

3 virtually every parliamentary body. I think again

4 it's worth pointing out that the procedures under

5 which this Commission has been established are far

6 more open and accessible in terms of getting the floor

7 even than the wonderful and open processes of the

8 House and Senate, that being because every, initially

9 every proposal will ultimately come to the floor.

10 So the issue with special order is simply the

11 order in which it will be heard, and because of the

12 large number and openness for which we're going to be

13 credited, this simply allows us to bring some order

14 out of initial anarchy.

15 No one has to worry about any proposal they're

16 concerned about being heard; it will be heard. By

17 allowing a special order to have some higher dignity

18 then we will rely on our good Rules Committee with

19 Justice Barkdull and Mr. Langley and others to make

20 sure we have a fair order for hearing.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any discussion?

22 Commissioner Langley?

23 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Since we had that

24 amendment at the last meeting I find I've been

25 appointed to this illustrious Rules Committee, but it


1 doesn't change my mind whatsoever on that amendment.

2 Maybe the very reason you stated, Commissioner Mills,

3 that the House and the Senate do it now, is the reason

4 we ought not do it, because it concentrates power, and

5 this Commission doesn't need concentrated power.

6 If everything, again, if everything is going to

7 be heard as you promised, then there shouldn't be any

8 problem, but I think the majority of the Commission

9 ought to decide the priority of these things and how

10 we take them up. And again, as long as it comes here

11 in acceptable form on the special order calendar,

12 nobody is going to move amend it. So it's just a

13 matter of whether a majority of this Commission should

14 run the Commission or whether a select few should make

15 these decisions, and I'm one of those alleged select

16 few in this case, but it doesn't change my mind about

17 the principle.

18 COMMISSIONER MILLS: First, I trust Commissioner

19 Langley. I think that what this does is simply assure

20 us that we have the opportunity to hear it. We

21 shouldn't spend days arguing the order in which we

22 hear special orders. Those that have been around

23 special order calendars realize it simply provides us

24 a means of doing business.

25 This is not a policy-setting issue. I think that


1 the Rules Committee as appointed looks extremely fair

2 and equitable. I'm not on it, I trust it.

3 It seems to me that we would be well served to

4 use a special order process, because I think it does

5 work well in the House and Senate and other

6 deliberative bodies because it allows debate to

7 proceed in an orderly fashion. That's really all this

8 does. This is not substantive.

9 And by the way, there are a ton of motions if

10 we're concerned about the majority being able to

11 exercise its will at a given time on a given matter,

12 and I'll be glad to talk about those. If you want to

13 take something off, you refer it to committee. If you

14 want to kill it, kill it. If you want to amend it,

15 amend it. I mean, the majority can do whatever it

16 wants to.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?

18 All in favor of the amendment, say aye.

19 (Chorus of ayes.)

20 Opposed.

21 (Chorus of nays.)

22 Take a roll call. Our electrical process isn't

23 quite ready yet, but we're going to get it. We get to

24 hear our secretary call our names.

25 Incidentally, Commissioner Argiz came in and is


1 here, we're glad you made it.

2 MS. BLANTON: Alfonso.


4 MS. BLANTON: Anthony is not here.

5 Argiz.


7 MS. BLANTON: Barkdull.


9 MS. BLANTON: Barnett.


11 MS. BLANTON: Brochin.


13 MS. BLANTON: Butterworth.


15 MS. BLANTON: Connor.


17 MS. BLANTON: Corr.


19 MS. BLANTON: Crenshaw.


21 MS. BLANTON: Evans.


23 MS. BLANTON: Evans-Jones.


25 MS. BLANTON: Ford-Coates.



2 MS. BLANTON: Friedin.


4 MS. BLANTON: Hawkes.


6 MS. BLANTON: Henderson.


8 MS. BLANTON: Jennings.


10 MS. BLANTON: Kogan.


12 MS. BLANTON: Langley.


14 MS. BLANTON: Lowndes.


16 MS. BLANTON: Marshall.


18 MS. BLANTON: Mathis.


20 MS. BLANTON: Mills.


22 MS. BLANTON: Morsani.


24 MS. BLANTON: Nabors.



1 MS. BLANTON: Planas.

2 Riley.


4 MS. BLANTON: Rundle.


6 MS. BLANTON: Scott.


8 MS. BLANTON: Smith.


10 MS. BLANTON: Sullivan is not here.

11 Sundberg.


13 MS. BLANTON: Thompson.


15 MS. BLANTON: West, not here.

16 Wetherington.


18 MS. BLANTON: Zack.


20 MS. BLANTON: Chairman Douglass.


22 When the secretary is ready to announce the

23 vote, when you're ready, announce.

24 MS. BLANTON: 16 yeas, 17 nays.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: So the amendment fails by one


1 vote.

2 Amendment 2.

3 MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Mills offers the

4 following amendment to amendment 1. On page 22, line

5 18, through page 23, line 2, strike all of said lines

6 and insert, "It shall be the duty of the Commission

7 Chair or the presiding officer to interpret all

8 rules."

9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Try something even less

10 controversial.

11 This replaces the Robert's Rule designation with

12 a designation of the secondary source by the Chair.

13 The Chair has announced the intention to use Mason's,

14 which was the suggestion of our secretary. It was

15 announced that both the House and the Senate use

16 Mason's Manual, since that didn't seem to work last

17 time with two-thirds vote, but it is interesting to

18 note that the creation of Mason's Manual included Joe

19 Brown and John Phelps, Clerks of the House and Senate.

20 So this simply would allow the Chair to designate

21 the secondary source.

22 I would point out that the reason this makes

23 sense is parliamentary bodies across the country have

24 used Mason's Manual for some years now. It was upon

25 consideration of different types of secondary sources


1 that Mason's was chosen.

2 Another secondary source is Jefferson's Manual

3 which we used to use in the House. I had a copy of

4 Jefferson's Manual, and Commissioner Thompson and I

5 were talking about it. It was in my desk for 10 years

6 and I touched it twice.

7 This is not to suggest to you that the secondary

8 source is not something that you're going to be

9 looking up every day. The primary source is the rules

10 that you have in front of you, and you're well-served

11 to have a secondary source that has been thought out

12 by individuals in parliamentary bodies.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Scott?

14 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I would like to speak in

15 favor of the motion. What's happened over the years,

16 Robert's Rules of Order that we all had back in

17 college or wherever with our clubs is more suited to

18 sororities, fraternities, non-profit organizations.

19 In a deliberative body like this, and what's involved

20 in it, I think it was like 1989 in connection with the

21 National Conference of State Legislators, a revised

22 Mason's. So to give the Chair the discretion on

23 this, which is really the way it is, I think in the

24 Senate and the House that's what they use, but it's a

25 lot more -- and if you can't vote for it for any other


1 reason, it's what our secretary of the Senate and the

2 secretary of our body here is used to working with.

3 So I would hope that we would adopt this.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Connor?

5 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Question of Commissioner

6 Mills.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mills, you yield to

8 him, I'm sure?

9 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Mills, would your

10 amendment eliminate the right of appeal by any member

11 from the ruling of the Chair?

12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I would ask Mr. Barkdull to

13 take the floor, because as I recall that's covered in

14 a separate rule.

15 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: The separate ruling

16 would not prevent an appeal of the Chair.


18 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Evans-Jones?

19 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: I have a question. Do

20 we need to insert -- I'm not sure what Mason's Rules

21 say, but do we need to say anything that, "shall be

22 the duty of the Commission Chair based on Mason's

23 Rules," or does he just automatically have that

24 privilege in Mason's Rules to make all decisions?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mills?


1 COMMISSIONER MILLS: This is only a secondary

2 source. In other words, the rules are the primary

3 source, and they prevail.


5 using, I think Commissioner Mathis was saying that use

6 Robert's Rules as a secondary source, but we would not

7 need that same thing, Mason's Rules as a secondary

8 source?

9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well, I ask the Chair, what

10 this does is put these rules in the same posture as

11 they are, for example, in the Senate, which means that

12 the Chair can designate. I think the Chair has

13 indicated that the Chair and the secretary designate

14 Mason's as the secondary source. This doesn't

15 designate a source. If you'd like to designate a

16 source, I think that would be considered a friendly

17 amendment.

18 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: I would like to do

19 that.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: There has been an amendment

21 offered to the amendment by Commissioner Evans-Jones,

22 which would refer to Mason's.

23 MS. BLANTON: It would have to be a substitute

24 amendment.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary informs me it has to


1 be a substitute amendment. Tell us what it would be.

2 You'll have to write it out, I think.

3 Why don't we take a short recess while she does

4 that and just stay in place. If you need to step out

5 you can.

6 The Senate rules -- before we leave, Commissioner

7 Jennings -- don't have any reference, it's the same as

8 this proposed rule was, wasn't it, or anything, just

9 what's in the proposed rule?


11 (Brief recess.)

12 THE CHAIRMAN: While we're waiting, I will call

13 this back to order for just a moment. I was going to

14 discuss this a little earlier; if we do it now we

15 won't have to do it later. If everybody would please

16 return to their seats?

17 I just wanted to tell you that in the interim

18 period from our last meeting we've done quite a few

19 things. We visited the editorial boards in various

20 places, in Pensacola, Panama City and Ft. Walton

21 Beach, in preparation for this upcoming public hearing

22 round, and we were accompanied by Judy Burn-Riley,

23 Commissioner Riley, to the wonderful Ft. Walton Beach.

24 We also met with the editorial boards of the St.

25 Petersburg Times, the Tampa Tribune and the Orlando


1 Sentinel.

2 Mr. Alfonso, Commissioner Alfonso, went with us

3 to the Tampa Tribune, and we had very productive

4 meetings and interesting meetings, and the Pensacola

5 and Panama City and the Ft. Walton Beach papers have

6 very much advertised our upcoming public hearings and

7 there will be public notices in those papers today.

8 Your executive secretary also made arrangements

9 for the television stations in those areas to have

10 public service announcements about the public

11 hearings, and they're set to go over there. We will

12 try to do this everywhere. Whenever we go, either Mr.

13 Buzzett or myself, to an area to meet with the press,

14 we would like as many of you that are in the area to

15 go with us as can go. I think it's very productive

16 when we're there together and we can deal with their

17 questions.

18 The meetings were very much enjoyable to me, and

19 also pretty well eye-opening, I think, as to the fact

20 that most of the items that we've been talking about

21 that are issues are issues with them and I think we

22 will hear from time to time from all of them.

23 If the amendment is ready, I would ask the

24 secretary -- is it ready?

25 MS. BLANTON: It's being copied.


1 THE CHAIRMAN: They're making copies.

2 That took care of all my housekeeping. As you

3 all know, we're going to leave this afternoon and go

4 to Panama City, and I hope you all have reservations

5 at the motel where we're staying. I think you were

6 advised to do that by the staff some time ago, and

7 we're having a reception there tonight that's being

8 given by the Chamber of Commerce and then we kick off

9 our first public hearing there tomorrow morning.

10 If you don't have a room as you were directed to

11 do, you might speak to somebody about where you might

12 be able to get one, and I think there are some other

13 motels in the vicinity. This one happens to be

14 located very directly from where the functions will

15 be, and that's why it was chosen. I don't know if

16 they have rooms left there or not, somebody told me

17 they didn't, and if they don't, then you need to speak

18 to either Suellen Cone, who is the administrative

19 assistant, or Mr. Buzzett or Lynn Imhof, who is his

20 assistant, and they'll assist you in whatever way can

21 be.

22 As you know, we're going to go on the bus for

23 those of you new, and I think it will be a very

24 convenient way, because when we get there we'll have

25 transportation in Pensacola. For example, the night


1 before, you all have invitations to a cocktail party,

2 and it says heavy hors d'oeuvres, and I presume that

3 means we don't have to buy supper.

4 But the transportation there can be by bus, which

5 will afford you the opportunity to have a designated

6 driver when we come back, so I think that will be very

7 helpful.

8 Those of you that want to leave the bus in

9 Pensacola and fly back to wherever you're going,

10 that's available to you, too. So we believe the bus

11 will turn out to be a pretty good deal. It's not

12 going to cost a whole lot.

13 And we are going to have some outsiders with us.

14 For example, there are at least two members of the St.

15 Petersburg Times staff that made early reservations.

16 We're taking the press on a first come, first served,

17 so you will have the opportunity to ride with that

18 lion of Florida journalism, Martin Dyckman, who I

19 think we all look forward to visiting with Martin, and

20 also Peter Wallsten, and then the Tampa Tribune

21 capitol correspondent spoke to me about going.

22 So I think we'll have a full bus of Commissioners

23 and others who will advise us what we're doing wrong

24 from time to time.

25 Now, do we have it yet?


1 Okay, the meeting will come to order and I will

2 call on the proponent, Commissioner Evans-Jones.


4 Chairman.

5 I would like to offer the following substitute

6 amendment. On page 22, line 18, through page 23, line

7 2, strike all of said lines and insert, "Mason's

8 Manual of Legislative Procedure shall govern the

9 Commission and any committees established pursuant to

10 those rules in all cases which they are applicable and

11 in which they are not in conflict with the rules of

12 this Commission, except that seconds of motions shall

13 not be necessary. It shall be the duty of the

14 Commission Chair or the presiding officer to interpret

15 all rules subject to appeal by any members."

16 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Would you like to

17 discuss it further, your substitute motion?


19 simply wanted to be sure that we had the Mason's Rule

20 as our secondary.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody want to speak on this?

22 Commissioner Mathis, are you a proponent or an

23 opponent?


25 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if you're against it you're


1 an opponent, if you're for it, you're a proponent.

2 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I know that, but what I'm

3 going to propose is that -- I'm proposing that since

4 Robert's Rules of Order is a more clearly and widely

5 understood set of rules that govern procedural issues

6 and that Mason's is a set of rules that governs

7 legislative processes, that those rules -- I used to

8 work for John -- the Clerk of the House and John

9 Phelps and I don't understand Mason's Rules and I'm

10 sure that there are those who do, but I'm not even

11 sure if the majority of the state legislators clearly

12 understand Mason's -- all of Mason's Rules.

13 So my thought is to propose that we use Robert's

14 Rules of Order. This is not a legislative body. I

15 think the Constitution provision clearly contemplates

16 a group of citizens coming together to consider

17 revisions to the Constitution, so we shouldn't feel

18 bound by legislative -- to follow legislative process,

19 but I do understand that legislative rules may help us

20 in considering the matters that will come before us.

21 So I would like to propose that we first use

22 Robert's Rules of Order as a secondary source.

23 Robert's Rules does not deal with legislative issues.

24 Robert's Rules is used by Chamber of Commerces, major

25 hospital boards in this country and a number of our


1 country's institutions in Florida and outside of

2 Florida. So I do think that it would be helpful.

3 But I'd like to propose a third source on those

4 issues not dealt with in Robert's that are clearly

5 legislative in matter, that we use Mason's as a

6 guiding proposal, and I'd like to make that proposal

7 to the body.

8 MS. BLANTON: We have before us a substitute

9 amendment which we really need to address.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: The secretary informs me, which I

11 understood to be the case, that we can't amend this.

12 We need to go forward with the substitute motion, and

13 the amendatory process does not apply.

14 MS. BLANTON: We could amend the substitute

15 amendment, but she would need to draft it. You can

16 amend the substitute, but that's it.

17 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I am going to support the

18 Evans-Jones amendment, but I will vote to support the

19 Mathis amendment as proposed to first go to Robert's

20 Rules of Order as the secondary source and then to

21 Mason's.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: The substitute amendment would

23 eliminate that. If you vote for this substitute

24 amendment, then you have eliminated the Mathis, as you

25 call it, proposal that's before us. That's what it's


1 substituted for.


3 THE CHAIRMAN: Don't be too lost. You should

4 vote against this, and if you vote for it, it

5 eliminates the issue as it relates to your amendment

6 on that point.

7 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I would vote against it,

8 then, in that I do think that we need to use Robert's

9 Rules of Order, a more clearly understood source, for

10 the rules first, then go to Mason's to deal with

11 legislative issues as a third source.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good.

13 Commissioner Ford-Coates?


15 to support the amendment. I discussed this issue with

16 a registered parliamentarian recently, asked her the

17 difference between Mason's and Robert's, explained our

18 process, and she gave me the advice that Mason's is

19 obviously the best one to use, that's why it has been

20 developed for legislative bodies.

21 I would respectfully disagree with Commissioner

22 Mathis. I think we are in a way legislating in the

23 way that the proposals will come through and be voted

24 on by the body. No, we are not a legislature, but the

25 way the process will work is similar. So I strongly


1 support the amendment.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?

3 If not, we will proceed to vote.

4 All in favor of Commissioner Evans-Jones'

5 substitute amendment, which you've heard, all those in

6 favor say aye.

7 (Chorus of ayes.)

8 Opposed.

9 (Chorus of nays.)

10 The motion carries.

11 You can proceed now with the amendment -- that's

12 now the substitute amendment -- we're back on

13 amendment 1 as amended.

14 Any further discussion?

15 Commissioner Mathis, this is your motion, you

16 have the opportunity to close if you like.

17 Any further discussion?

18 If not, we will proceed to vote on the amendment

19 1 as amended.

20 Commissioner Barkdull?

21 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I want to

22 be sure that everybody understands that we're now

23 voting on the Mathis as amended by the Mills'

24 amendment, which the Rules Committee considers now a

25 friendly amendment.


1 THE CHAIRMAN: So we have two amendments to it,

2 is that correct?

3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Yes. One of them failed,

4 one of them passed, and we still like the Mathis

5 proposal as amended.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: As amended.

7 Commissioner Smith?

8 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

9 Am I correct in understanding that the Rules

10 Committee considers all of the Mathis amendments,

11 which is this entire page, as amended by Commissioner

12 Mills, friendly and ready to vote?

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Just to make sure it's clear, the

14 Evans-Jones amendment passed. It's a part of this

15 now. As I understand, there's been no motion to

16 reconsider the vote on the amendment that was offered

17 by Commissioner Mills that was defeated 17 to 16. Is

18 that right?

19 Then we will proceed to vote on the Mathis

20 amendment as changed by the Evans-Jones substitute.

21 All in favor say aye.

22 (Chorus of ayes.)

23 All opposed?

24 The motion carries.

25 We have another amendment, I believe, that's


1 been filed this week that may not have been received

2 by everybody until just recently.

3 Everybody has it, I think. It's the very thick

4 one at the end, Amendment 3 by Commissioners Evans and

5 Hawkes. Who wants to go first?

6 Commissioner Evans?

7 COMMISSIONER EVANS: I'm going to address just

8 certain sections of that amendment, because many of

9 the sections are verbatim to the Mathis amendment.

10 Various citizens and citizens' groups have

11 expressed concerns on the openness of these

12 proceedings and the amendments that I am now proposing

13 address these various concerns, and I'm happy to

14 propose those amendments on their behalf. I will

15 address only those which are different from

16 Commissioner Mathis's as amended.

17 The first one is Rule 1.17. Rule 1.17, the new

18 language deletes the language, "for just cause," and

19 it also makes the rules consistent with other

20 governmental entities' ethical requirements for having

21 the Section 286.12 language in Section 1.17.

22 And along with 1.17, 1.18 is a companion. Again,

23 basically what I'm doing here is allowing the

24 Commissioners to be excused upon their request rather

25 than having a determination of just cause, and if the


1 Commissioner asks for an excused absence, excused

2 absence will be granted, basically because of the

3 various obligations otherwise that we have.

4 Rule 1.23 mirrors the provisions of Article 3,

5 Section 4(e), which applies to both houses of the

6 Legislature, and this also prohibits the holdings of

7 any meetings at locations of discriminatory admissions

8 practices.

9 Rule 2.13, I don't know if this is the right time

10 to bring this up or not, so you can tell me, but I

11 have today, I have submitted Amendment 7 to Amendment

12 3, which amends my own. So if you would like me to

13 speak to that now, I'm not sure of the procedure on

14 that, or I can wait until after I've gone through the

15 rest of the ones that I'm addressing.

16 I will go ahead and speak to it right now. Rule

17 2.13, in Amendment 3, what I was attempting to do was

18 to conform this amendment to the notice requirements

19 of having a five-day calendar date notice of the

20 agenda, and as I was reading last night the new

21 language, I realized that I might be talking about two

22 different days. I changed it to eight Commission

23 meeting days and the concerns were having the five

24 calendar days that we had passed previously. So Rule

25 2.13 and Amendment 7 to my amendment goes back and


1 addresses that issue, that we're really talking about

2 five calendar days' notice, so that if we have three

3 Commission meeting dates from the day a proposal is

4 received, that, in essence, could be five calendar

5 days or it could be a month, knowing that we don't

6 necessarily meet five days in a row or eight days in a

7 row. So the Amendment 7 addresses that nothing in

8 this rule shall conflict with the calendar day notice

9 requirements found elsewhere in these rules.

10 That was a concern that the citizens' contact

11 groups had made, too.

12 Rule 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 and 6.6 are merely grammatical

13 clarifications, not substantive changes.

14 Rule 7.1 provides greater public access to the

15 amendment process that protects the minority,

16 increases public confidence in the Commission process,

17 and it ensures all ideas have the opportunity to be

18 heard. I know a concern has been expressed that it

19 might hold up action if the Commission, for instance,

20 is meeting only one day or two days and at the end of

21 the second day we need an amendment we might not be

22 able to act on it.

23 However, Rule 9.3 addresses that if two-thirds of

24 the members want to waive the requirement on an as-

25 needed basis because the Commission is not meeting the


1 next day, then we can certainly take a vote on that

2 with two-thirds of the people agreeing. If only a few

3 people want to waive it, then perhaps it's not wise to

4 hasten a decision anyway.

5 And then the last one that I addressed that

6 Commissioner Mathis, it's different from Commissioner

7 Mathis's, is 8.3 and 8.5. Again, those are merely

8 grammatical, technical changes just to clarify.

9 Mr. Hawkes?

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of the

11 Commissioner? Commissioner Sundberg?

12 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Commissioner, would you

13 yield to a question with respect to your proposed

14 amendment to 1.17 and 1.18?


16 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: As I understand the

17 current posture of Amendment 1 offered by Commissioner

18 Mathis, it does away with excuses for absences and

19 substitutes simply a notification.


21 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Do you still propose your

22 amendment to those sections?

23 COMMISSIONER EVANS: Basically only in that it

24 addresses the ethical considerations and hers does not

25 the 2 point --


1 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: No, I have with respect

2 to -- you're offering an amendment, as I understand

3 it, you're offering an amendment to 1.17 --


5 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: -- and 1.18 that deals

6 with absences?


8 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: And it talks in terms of,

9 as I read your amendment, it talks in terms of excuses

10 and the like.

11 Now, it says that, of course, that requests for

12 an absence must be granted, but my point is, is that

13 consistent with the amendment that Commissioner Mathis

14 is already making to 1.17 and 1.18?

15 COMMISSIONER EVANS: That is consistent, right.

16 The only substantive difference is that hers does not,

17 in 1.17, because this deals with two different subject

18 matters, hers does not address the Florida Statute

19 286.012 requirement. Otherwise, there is not a

20 difference in the excused absences. Both say

21 basically the same thing. We notify and no one makes

22 a judgment as to whether we're excused or not.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

24 Commissioner Sundberg, does that answer your --

25 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Well, it's an answer. I


1 don't understand the answer.

2 It occurs to me, Commissioner, as I say, the

3 language, if you take a moment to look at Commissioner

4 Mathis's Amendment 1 at 1.17 and 1.18, really I think

5 significantly amends the language that you're

6 attempting to amend, I believe, respectfully.

7 COMMISSIONER EVANS: That's correct.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Evans-Jones?

9 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: I have a question for

10 Commissioner Evans.

11 Would it be simpler, Commissioner, since really

12 the difference is the conflict of interest, if you

13 just presented that part of the amendment?

14 COMMISSIONER EVANS: That's perfectly acceptable

15 to me.

16 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: To add the disclosure.

17 COMMISSIONER EVANS: Right, to add the

18 disclosure, because there is no difference --


20 COMMISSIONER EVANS: -- otherwise.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Connor?

22 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, in the

23 interest of addressing these matters separately and on

24 their individual merit, I would move that we sever or

25 separate the motion to amend into its component parts


1 by rule so that we can consider --

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Your motion would be that we

3 consider the amendment, the amendment that's been

4 offered to each separate rule, you mean like part 1 or

5 do you mean to go down each one of them?

6 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Well, my suggestion was

7 that we do it by rule number, but --

8 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be like part 1, part 2,

9 part 3.

10 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Yes, sir. I would not

11 object to a further separation if somebody deemed that

12 necessary, but I think in view of the passage of the

13 Mathis amendments, it may obviate some of the concerns

14 that have been raised by Commissioner Evans and it may

15 allow us to bring other issues to the floor for

16 consideration without having to vote up or down on the

17 whole package.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Everybody has heard his motion.

19 Anybody want to speak to that?

20 The motion is that we will consider each one by

21 rule number, which we would take part 1, then part 2,

22 then part 3, et cetera.

23 Commissioner Morsani?

24 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer

25 we vote up and down on the whole package of the


1 amendment and get it behind us one way or the other.

2 I think we're just splitting all this -- the hairs and

3 it's just not necessary. Let's vote up and down on

4 the amendment and then we'll go from there.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: You're against that motion?

6 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: I'm against that motion.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Hawkes?


9 I'm in support of the motion. I think this is

10 probably only five or six rules that are different

11 than what Commissioner Mathis has asked. Obviously,

12 all the rest of the rules we don't need to consider,

13 we don't need to discuss. Those issues have been

14 decided by the adoption of the Mathis amendment.

15 Like for instance on this one, Commissioner

16 Morsani, basically under Commissioner Mathis's

17 amendment you have to vote on every single issue that

18 comes before this body if you are present. Under

19 Commissioner Evans' proposal, if you have a conflict

20 of interest, for whatever reason, you declare the

21 conflict and then you don't vote, which is a procedure

22 that has been adopted in Florida to have as much

23 public confidence as possible. So therefore you would

24 not have to vote if you had a conflict under this

25 proposal, and that, I would submit, is a good idea to


1 help ensure public confidence and that's why I think

2 we ought to take these in pieces and consider them one

3 at a time, the five or six that are different.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Nabors?

5 COMMISSIONER NABORS: My concern with that is

6 that you can be dancing with a tarbaby in trying to

7 decide what a conflict is. I mean, I think the rule

8 ought to be that you vote on every proposal. If I

9 have a conflict, and my practice is predominantly

10 local government, for example, then I'm forbidden to

11 deal with local government, that's what bothers me

12 about this, is it seems to me that the rule is

13 written, basically says, as I understand it, that we

14 vote on every proposal, and the problem, if you start

15 putting in it is or is not a conflict we're all going

16 to have these difficulties where we decide, well, do

17 we have a conflict on this and how close do we have to

18 get to a particular proposal where there's a

19 conflict?

20 Proposals speak for themselves, and our

21 backgrounds speak for themselves, too. So I would be

22 opposed to this.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The motion that's

24 before us is to separate them into separate rules and

25 you heard the opposition to that with the suggestion


1 that we then vote on the whole thing.

2 Commissioner Barkdull?

3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to

4 be sure that the Commission understood that the Rules

5 Committee opposes this motion, or at least its

6 chairman does, and would suggest because of the late

7 notice of this packet that we vote it either up or

8 down.

9 For the Mathis proposals we had a lot of time for

10 everybody to see. I did not get the Evans proposal

11 until this morning when I walked in the office. I'm

12 not saying that it was not sent to my office, I wasn't

13 there, but I think we ought to take the package as it

14 was presented and vote it up or down.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mills, you were up.

16 COMMISSIONER MILLS: This is an inquiry to the

17 Chair. I'm trying to figure out our parliamentary

18 status.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: That's good.

20 COMMISSIONER MILLS: And I think we can do that.

21 There is a motion, but I'm not sure of whether that

22 motion, what effect that motion has, because there's

23 an amendment before the body, and I think that it's in

24 order to consider a vote up or down on that

25 amendment. So I'm not sure -- I will couch this as an


1 inquiry to the Chair or as a point of order, because I

2 don't know if you can do what you want to do by a

3 motion to separate. This is a complicated motion, in

4 other words. This is a motion to say I'm going to

5 vote separately, by section, the rules.

6 Now, my inquiry of the Chair is, can you do that,

7 or do you have to draw separate amendments?

8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think the correct rule is that

9 we would be proceeding ostensibly under the effort to

10 separate the question.

11 COMMISSIONER MILLS: So it's a motion to divide

12 the question?

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion to divide the question,

14 which would require that it be in writing and placed

15 on the desk as to what it is. If the sense of the

16 body is to go ahead and vote on this entire proposal

17 up or down, you would vote against this, as I

18 understand it. If that is not your intent, then you

19 would vote to separate the question.

20 Is that the Rules chairman's interpretation? How

21 about, Commissioner Scott, would that be your

22 interpretation, as well?


24 interpretation, Mr. Chairman.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you agree with that?


1 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Well, I don't know.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what the ruling is going to

3 be.

4 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: If the current motion is

5 defeated, then it would recur on the motion of

6 Commissioner Evans on the package, up or down.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, well, let's go ahead and

8 vote on Connor's motion.

9 Everybody in favor of Commissioner Connor's

10 motion, say aye.

11 (Chorus of ayes.)

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed?

13 (Chorus of nays.)

14 THE CHAIRMAN: The nos have it. It fails.

15 We revert now to the amendment offered by

16 Commissioner Evans and Hawkes.

17 Commissioner Mathis?

18 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: It's my recollection from

19 our consideration of the amendment that I offered at

20 our last meeting that we were afforded the opportunity

21 to discuss each proposed amendment, although we did

22 vote on them as total. I just wanted to make sure

23 that I understood that, will we go down each proposed

24 amendment, discuss that amendment and then vote on

25 them as a whole? Because I think that would help for


1 full consideration of the rules rather than jumping

2 around.

3 So if we took first Rule 1.17 and had our

4 discussion on that and then moved to the next rule,

5 that is similar to what we did when we considered the

6 amendment last time.

7 And I also wanted to speak in favor of the

8 amendment offered by Commissioner Evans. It is a more

9 technical amendment and more detailed amendment as

10 proposed by citizens of Florida who deal with this

11 process on a daily basis, but I do think it does move

12 us even further into a more open and a more understood

13 process.

14 And while I think with the disclosure of the

15 conflict of interest, while I'm not sure whether that

16 would prohibit a vote by a Commissioner, I would

17 surely want to know if a proposed Commissioner had a

18 specific interest in a particular issue before I voted

19 on that, and I would hope that that, at least

20 disclosure of the conflict would come out during the

21 discussion or be required to be disclosed during the

22 discussion.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. That's a discussion in

24 favor of the amendment. Now, do we have further

25 discussion on the amendment?



2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barkdull?

3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I rise as

4 an opponent of the amendment, and would like an

5 opportunity to speak.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there further from -- the

7 sponsor I think has another statement that she wishes

8 to make.

9 COMMISSIONER EVANS: I'm not certain exactly how

10 we stand, again. I know the comment was made that we

11 should not vote on this because it didn't come to our

12 desks until this morning, yet the precedent has

13 already been set this morning. I didn't, for example,

14 get Amendment 2 as proposed by Commissioner Mills that

15 we voted on until this morning, as well as Amendment 2

16 to Amendment 1 and Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.

17 There's been quite a bit of paperwork on my desk first

18 thing. It was not my understanding that that was the

19 rule at the beginning of the day.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: For your information, the Chair

21 has not ruled that this amendment will not be voted

22 on. In fact, it's now being discussed to be voted on

23 yes or no, and the discussion is whether or not to be

24 for the amendment or against it.

25 COMMISSIONER EVANS: The amendment as a whole?


1 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. That's the way it's

2 offered.

3 COMMISSIONER EVANS: Rather than section by

4 section.

5 If it would help any, basically I will withdraw

6 any of the sections that are duplicative of

7 Commissioner Mathis's. I mean, I realize a vote has

8 been taken that we have to do it as a whole, but

9 again, we had set precedents already that we were

10 doing section by sections earlier.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules you can't do

12 that. You can't withdraw sections of it. The whole

13 amendment is before the body and that's where it will

14 be, and it's either up or down at the moment. You're

15 for it or you're against it.

16 Any further discussion in favor?

17 Any further discussion opposing it?

18 Commissioner Barkdull?

19 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman and members

20 of the Commission, I rise to oppose this package

21 because there are several things in there that I think

22 are very harmful to the deliberative process. Many of

23 the things that are included in this amendment were

24 covered by the Mathis amendment.

25 I think that the most damaging thing to the


1 operation of this body will be the fact that you

2 cannot have any amendments during the course of debate

3 without a two-thirds vote of the Commission. That's

4 the impact of what the time limitations will occur,

5 and I can assure you with having to get a waiver of

6 the rules in order to offer an amendment during the

7 process of the debate will seriously limit the

8 consideration of the issues, and on that basis alone I

9 think this package ought to be voted down.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any further

11 discussion?

12 If not, we will proceed to vote.

13 All in favor of the Evans-Hawkes amendment as

14 offered, say aye.

15 (Chorus of ayes.)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed?

17 (Chorus of nays.)

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion fails, or the amendment

19 fails.

20 All right, what's our next -- do we have anything

21 else? Amendment 4 is on the desk.

22 Madam secretary, would you tell us what Amendment

23 4 is?

24 MS. BLANTON: I don't have it yet, but it's on

25 its way.


1 THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to have an Amendment

2 4.

3 Commissioner Hawkes, are you offering this

4 amendment?


6 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go ahead and

7 discuss it before we get it?

8 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: I can explain is very

9 briefly, Mr. Chair.

10 Basically what this amendment does is it's the

11 language that we talked about in Rule 1.17, and it

12 basically says that you vote on every issue unless you

13 have a conflict, which is in Florida statute; it

14 defines what conflict is, and it merely says that if

15 you have this conflict, you go ahead and declare that

16 you have a conflict and you don't vote, and that

17 enhances public confidence in what we do, puts this in

18 line with what every other commission and body in the

19 state of Florida does, and I would urge your favorable

20 consideration of the amendment. Thank you.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody want to speak for it?

22 Anybody want to speak against it?

23 I think we've had the discussion against it

24 already.

25 Do you want to go ahead and vote on it?


1 Read it, please.

2 MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Hawkes offers the

3 following amendment to the rules as amended. Rule

4 1.17 is amended to read, "1.17, Attendance in voting.

5 Unless a Commission member has submitted the written

6 notice provided in Rule 1.18, every Commission member

7 shall be with the Commission's chamber during its

8 sessions and shall vote on each question as provided

9 in Section 286.012, Florida Statutes."

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Butterworth?

11 COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH: Mr. Chair, just one --

12 just a personal inquiry, if I can?

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

14 COMMISSIONER BUTTERWORTH: In my role as Attorney

15 General and also sitting on the Cabinet I would

16 anticipate there will be some issues coming up that

17 will affect the Cabinet and that may affect the Office

18 of Attorney General. With this amendment, can I vote

19 or can I at least file a possible conflict and still

20 register a vote? Because I could conflict with

21 everything you do.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you inquiring of the Chair?

23 The Chair would rule you couldn't vote if this

24 amendment passes because the statute does not require

25 that.



2 statute, Mr. Chair, in many cases, I believe -- maybe

3 perhaps someone from the House or Senate can maybe

4 advise me as to what the rules are in the House and

5 Senate. I think their rules might be, you must vote,

6 but if you vote you can at least register the conflict

7 for the Journal. So if I'm voting on whether or not

8 you keep the Attorney General as an elected office, I

9 can vote yes or no and then put the conflict in the

10 Journal.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Hawkes?

12 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

13 I think that this amendment benefits the

14 membership two ways. One, it helps you define when

15 you have a conflict because the statute has some

16 language in there, there's some body of law that's

17 developed under it and it will help you define when,

18 in fact, you do have a conflict. It also provides you

19 protection, so that if you do vote on an issue where

20 you do not have a direct conflict under Florida law,

21 you have protection because we have a statute that we

22 go to that says, it's okay to vote in this situation

23 because it's not a direct economic benefit to you or

24 not to you, and I think it truly does enhance the work

25 product of this Commission. Some members have said


1 maybe it's a law already, and I don't know if it is or

2 not, but certainly if you put it in the rules it helps

3 governs our actions.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Mills?

5 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Commissioner Hawkes, do you

6 yield for a question?

7 Just to clarify a couple of examples, if someone

8 is in the Legislature they could vote on legislative

9 matters?

10 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: I think clearly they could,

11 yes.

12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: And if someone is a member

13 of the judiciary, they can vote on judicial issues?

14 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: I think the statute defines

15 "conflict" very narrowly. It just makes everybody

16 feel more comfortable when they're voting, because

17 probably many of us would have an indirect, just by

18 the fact that our state might be a better place if we

19 do good things. So it defines it narrowly and it does

20 allow those situations, yes.

21 COMMISSIONER MILLS: And if someone is an

22 attorney?

23 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: They can vote on issues --

24 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Regulation of the

25 profession?



2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Then maybe you could give us

3 a little further definition of what the conflict would

4 be. As I understand it, one can then declare the

5 conflict and vote?

6 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: No, I think that if you

7 have a conflict --

8 COMMISSIONER MILLS: If you have a real conflict,

9 you don't vote?

10 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Right. I mean, if it's

11 direct --

12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Direct financial interest

13 based on that vote. Since this is something that will

14 probably come up, maybe you could help us by putting a

15 little bit on the record about it.

16 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: No, I don't think that I

17 can speculate as to situations that may arise for

18 individual members. I think that it's obvious that

19 since every county commissioner, every appointed board

20 in the state, every city who falls under this same

21 rule, and I handle it day to day and it probably is

22 not a situation that's going to occur frequently, it

23 enhances our public image because we're complying with

24 the same rules.

25 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I think it's a good idea.


1 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: And I don't know all the

2 situations that might come up, and frankly, in my time

3 in the Legislature I never had a conflict that came

4 up. I don't know all the situations where they would.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Barkdull?

6 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like an

7 inquiry. Has this rule been distributed where we can

8 look at it yet?


10 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Because I'm trying to

11 figure out, if we're going back to rule, Statute

12 286.012, that makes a reference to a couple of other

13 statutes that we've got to look at to understand, and

14 I'm trying to understand what we're being limited to.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Butterworth?


17 concur with Commissioner Barkdull. I've issued a

18 number of legal opinions over the past few years

19 depending upon which statutes we're dealing with, and

20 some of those opinions have stated that if you are on

21 an elected board that you must vote, you have no

22 choice about voting, and if you have a conflict you

23 can set forth what your conflict is.

24 I would move that it would be appropriate that we

25 defer this motion until we do see the particular


1 documents, which could be later today. I'd like to

2 have my staff at least look at it.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course we can do that, but

4 we're actually trying to complete our chores here this

5 morning and this is the only thing left, I think, is

6 this proposal. We don't have it yet, but I guess we

7 can wait until it's printed.

8 I'm going to tell you that the Chair is going to

9 rule, if this is adopted, that you cannot vote in the

10 circumstances which you outlined, because I think

11 there are some opinions that say that, and that if you

12 want to limit the number of people that can vote on a

13 given issue, this would do it, and that's all right,

14 but you should know what you're doing. I don't think

15 you should be sandbagged by what the Chair will rule

16 when you announce it.

17 When you get down to it, however, all conflicts

18 are subject to somebody's interpretation, starting

19 with your own. One of the reasons I would rule as I

20 do is I think every vote we have would be subject to

21 somebody filing a lawsuit if you adopt this rule.


23 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Nabors?

24 COMMISSIONER NABORS: I don't have the statute in

25 front of me, but I recall that what it requires is, is


1 that you're required to vote, that you have like 15

2 days to file a disclosure. I believe that's the way

3 it works. I don't want anybody to be misled. This

4 doesn't mean that someone has to announce the

5 disclosure at the time of the vote. It requires a 15-

6 day filing, but I think the law has changed in our

7 lifetime and requires you to now vote. You used to

8 have to abstain from votes. I think you have to vote

9 and you have 15 days to file a disclosure.

10 I'm not sure it gets us where we want to be in

11 terms of knowing when people vote as to what a

12 conflict may or may not be. It is true the statute

13 divides it narrowly in terms of direct monetary

14 benefit as opposed to something more subtle. The

15 problem is we're trying to draft a legislative statute

16 that works for counties and cities that requires

17 people to vote, requires a subsequent disclosure,

18 which I'm not sure is going to work in the speed in

19 which we're going to have to act on our votes when the

20 final days come.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to question Commissioner

22 Butterworth and then I'll recognize you, Mr. Smith.

23 Isn't it true that the statute applies to us just

24 like it does everybody else, whether it's in this rule

25 or not? The rule would then make it an issue of


1 whether or not your vote was valid, isn't that true?


3 understanding, Mr. Chairman.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Commissioner Smith.

5 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

6 First of all, just as I rose at our first

7 organizational meeting to urge that we not act on the

8 Mathis amendments at that time because of the serious

9 questions a lot of us had as to the impact it would

10 have, I rise to speak against this particular

11 amendment because I think there's some serious

12 question in this body as to whether or not it will get

13 us where we want to go.

14 We're talking about every proposal that a

15 Commissioner brings forward and every proposal from

16 the public coming before us. Almost -- I mean,

17 everything that comes before us we're going to have a

18 conflict, whether it's me dealing with lawyers or the

19 Attorney General dealing with the Cabinet.

20 I think this will seriously impede our ability to

21 do the business that we were sent here for, and I for

22 one, if nothing else, I intend to vote. As we just

23 saw in the Mills amendment, that one vote sure can

24 make a difference in a lot of things that are going to

25 come before us, and I would hope that in the spirit of


1 the openness that Commissioner Hawkes is trying to

2 make sure that we keep foremost in our minds, that

3 where there is -- I mean, this is not like voting on a

4 cable TV contract before a guy who used to work for my

5 law firm. We're talking about voting on the

6 Constitution, which doesn't necessarily in and of

7 itself put money in somebody's pocket.

8 So I don't think we will be impaired by at this

9 time not approving the Hawkes amendment.

10 Thank you.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Langley?

12 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Mr. Chairman, I think

13 we're wasting time and it's almost dinnertime, because

14 we can't change State law here, as I understand it. I

15 mean, we're a powerful Commission, but as I read 286

16 we're going to vote and if you want to file a

17 conflict, file a conflict, and I don't think any rule

18 of this Commission is going to change that chapter.

19 Now, there's some conflict about whether you vote

20 or you abstain. Local officers can abstain and just

21 file a reason as to why they did, but the chapter, I

22 think it's 112 is where they spell out the 286

23 requirements, says, we will vote and then you can file

24 your conflict after you vote, so let's move on.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Agreed. Commissioner Barkdull?


1 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I just rise

2 to oppose the motion. As Commissioner Langley just

3 pointed out, this statute makes reference to other

4 statutes which are not before us. I think the matter

5 is covered by state law and we ought to go ahead and

6 vote this down and get on.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to close?

8 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Just real briefly.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Hawkes.

10 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Just real briefly, Mr.

11 Chairman.

12 It really shouldn't be such a shock of a proposal

13 since in fact it was in the Steering Committee's

14 report, I believe that it was probably even in the

15 1978 Commission rules. If it's already a matter of

16 state law, it does no harm to go ahead and put it in

17 there and clarify the procedure, and I just ask your

18 favorable consideration. Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll proceed to vote. Does

20 everybody know the amendment? Read it, please.

21 Incidentally, I'd like your permission without

22 objection to allow the secretary to make these

23 amendments technically correct without changing any of

24 the meanings of them if there are needs to do so, and

25 if nobody objects I'll just make that ruling if there


1 are no objections.

2 All right, please read this one.

3 MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Hawkes offers the

4 following amendment to the rules as amended. Rule

5 1.17 is amended to read, "1.17, Attendance in voting.

6 Unless a Commission member has submitted the written

7 notice provided in Rule 1.18, every Commission member

8 shall be within the Commission's chamber during its

9 sessions and shall vote on each question as provided

10 in Section 286.012, Florida Statutes."

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You've heard it. All in

12 favor, say aye.

13 (Chorus of ayes.)

14 THE CHAIRMAN: All opposed, no.

15 (Chorus of nays.)

16 THE CHAIRMAN: It fails.

17 Do we have anything else?

18 All right, if there's no further business, what's

19 happening here is the bus will be ready to leave here

20 at 1:30. The Sergeant's people will take care of

21 getting your stuff on the bus if you will direct them

22 to do so, and we're going to have lunch following this

23 in the Senate lounge which will cost you your per diem

24 of six bucks.

25 We will discuss with the Rules Committee the


1 possibility of doing what they do in some houses of

2 the Legislature, I understand, which is have all of us

3 make a contribution to a fund which we could then

4 cover things like this without having each person

5 having to do it, and we'll stay within the confines of

6 the law with whatever amenities we might have.

7 So be advised that the bus is going to leave at

8 1:30. Billy, where is the bus leaving from?

9 MR. BUZZETT: The bus will be behind the Senate

10 Office Building.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Behind the Senate Office Building,

12 which is on Adams Street, which is right down at the

13 foot of this part of the building between the Senate

14 and the Capitol building, and for those of you who

15 don't know, you can out on the PL level and walk

16 directly out those doors and walk down the sidewalk to

17 the bus, but any of you that have things for the

18 Sergeant-at-Arms to put on the bus let them know, and

19 we will have lunch and then we'll all try to get out

20 of Dodge and over to Panama City.

21 Incidentally, the hurricane was not destructive

22 there, a lot of rain in Pensacola, but at least we

23 were spared the damage that some of the other places

24 got.

25 Is there a motion that we adjourn?



2 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Barkdull moves we

3 adjourn. All in favor say aye.

4 (Chorus of ayes.)

5 THE CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.

6 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)





















1 C E R T I F I C A T E



4 I, CLARA C. ROTRUCK, Court Reporter at

5 Tallahassee, 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 73 represent a true, correct, and

12 complete transcript of said proceedings;

13 And I further certify that I'm 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 ______ day of _________________,

18 1997.



21 __________________________


23 Court Reporter