Feb 03, 2022 Charter Review Commission

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY.

AS WE START THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS A MOMENT OF

[MOMENT OF SILENCE ]

[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU.

[WELCOME]

>> ONCE AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY.

[ROLL CALL]

I THINK WE'LL START WITH DAVE.

SINCE YOU ARE FRONT AND CENTER.

>> MY NAME IS DAVID -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> MR. TAYLOR. >> THERE WE GO.

OKAY. I GUESS HE -- ARE WE READ NOW? SO, -- WE NEED A MICROPHONE.

I'M NOT SURE YOU NEED A MICROPHONE BUT WE DO NEED ONE.

>> TAKE TWO. >> DO YOU WANT TO SIT UP

HERE -- >> YEAH.

>> WHY DON'T YOU SIT UP HERE.

>> I'M DAVID THEUS. NICE TO MEET YOU.

>> INSTEAD OF COMING DOWN, COME ON UP HERE.

THERE YOU GO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GLENN.

>> MY NAME IS GLENN TAYLOR. I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE ECONOMICS. I HAVE AN OFFICE HERE IN

FLEMING ISLAND. >> THANK YOU.

>> ROBERT DEUCE. >> CHRIS RUSSEL.

>> JIMMY JETTE. >> SUZI LUDWIG.

>> BOW NORTON. >> AGAIN.

>> -- CRIT CRIST. >> MITCH MITCH -- CHRISTINE

BACKSCHEIDER. >> YUL MCMAYOR.

>> DEBBY. >> DEANN DOCKERY.

>> THEN OVER -- IN THE FRONT -- BRIAN KRAUT.

OKAY. OUR GREAT ADMINISTRATOR TERESA, AS I LOOK, I SEE WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY, CORTNEY.

VERY GOOD. LIEUTENANT MOLLER.

VERY GOOD. AND WE HAVE OF COURSE CRISTY BLANCHETTE FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, IN THE BACK, MR. DRAKE. OUR APPRAISER, MR. CHAND LIST, OUR COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS.

THEN WE HAVE DEPUTY VAUGHN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT AND TO OUR GUESTS WHICH OF COURSE WE HAVE YOUR CARDS AND WHEN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS. WITH THAT, FINISH ROLE CALL.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT I WANT TO BRING FORWARD.

FIRST OF ALL, MR. HODGES WHO IS NOT HERE TONIGHT HAS ASCENDED TO TAKE DISTRICT 4 SPOT FOR MR. CARTER WHO HAS RESIGNED. SO THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD. MISS CHRISTINE BACKSCHEIDER, WELCOME, SHE IS REPLACING STEVE RIZZO, HIS POSITION.

SO FROM DISTRICT 5. THAT SAID, THE NEXT ITEM ON

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SO IS, HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM? OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> APPROVE.

>> MR. TIMBERLAKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MS. LUDWIG SECONDED. ARE THERE ANY ADDITION, DELETION, CORRECTIONS THAT YOU SAW IN THE MINUTES? NO? THEN HEARING NONE I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT FORWARD TO A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE WE GET INTO OLD BUSINESS WOULD BE

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

YOU WILL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES.

YOU'LL SEE THE LIGHTS. THE WAY IT WORKS IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR, GREEN LIGHT THEN THE YELLOW LIGHT GIVING YOU A HEADS UP LIKE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND RED LIGHTS.

[00:05:03]

OKAY. THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE FIRST COMMENT IS, CARD CAME FROM RICHARD, IS IT CLINGING, I CAN'T -- I NEED TO PUT MY GLASSES ON. I'M SORRY.

KLINSMANN. WELCOME, SIR.

>> FOR SOMEBODY MUCH TALLER AND LESS WIDE THAN MYSELF, RICH KLINSMANN, 1985TAMUCA TRAIL, MIDDLEBURG.

I'M HERE BECAUSE I READ LAST WEEK'S MINUTES AND WATCHED A LOT OF THE MEETING ON-LINE. AND I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE ATTEMPT TO PROVE ONCE AGAIN THAT DOING THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN AND OVER AGAIN, IT WILL GIVE A DIFFERENT RESULT. HENCE THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY. FOUR YEARS AGO THE C.R.C.ATTEMPTED TO JACK UP THE SALARIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS. DESPITE THE COMMISSIONERS' CLAIMING THEY WERE NOT ASKING FOR A, AN INCREASE.

AND NOW I SEE IT HAS COME UP AGAIN IN THIS C. R. C., AND IT SHOULDN'T. THIS SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY. THE OTHER THING THAT THE C.

R. C. IS LOOKING AT AGAIN IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS' TERM LIMITS. I WAS AGAINST THE TERM LIMITS FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POLITICIANS.

THEY'RE BUSINESS PEOPLE, CAREERISTS.

PEOPLES WHO KNOW THEIR JOB AND WANT TO CONTINUE DOING IT. AND TAKING THAT AWAY IS GOING TO BE A BLOW TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

FINALLY, ADDRESSING THE RAISING OF THE SALARY, I WAS ALSO VERY CONCERNED THAT THE WORDING IN THE MINUTES, THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO PULL A FAST ONE ON THE VOTERS, BY COUCHING THE SALARY RAISES AS INSTEAD OF AN INCREASE IN SALARY, JUST SAYING IT IS, WELL, IT'S 70% OF STATE EMPLOYEES. THAT'S THE WRONG THING TO DO. TRYING TO FOOL THE TAXPAYERS NEVER WORKS. AND THERE WILL BE PLENTY WRITTEN ABOUT THAT IN THE COMING WEEKS I'M SURE.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING POSITIVE THAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST TAKING A LOOK AT THE HOUSING IN THIS COUNTY, WE USED TO HAVE A COUNTY THAT HAD ONE HOUSE PER ACRE, AND THEN THAT WAS CHANGED TO TWO HOUSES PER ACRE. NOW IT'S FREE FOR ALL.

WE HAD WHAT I AMUSINGLY CALL POCKET GET ORBS GOING UP ALL OVER THIS COUNTY. THAT'S WHERE A SMALL SECTION IS CLEAR CUT, TREES ARE DESTROYED.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN REUSED. THEY'RE BURNED.

WILDLIFE IS CRUSHED. ALL FOR GREED.

AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A RETURN, PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, YOU CAN PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT AND ADD IT TO THE CHARTER. THAT IS ROLL THIS NONSENSE BACK. I'M SORRY, AND -- THROW ME.

ROLL THIS NONSENSE BACK AND HAVE TWO HOUSES PER ACRE OR MAYBE THREE HOUSES PER ACRE IN A PINCH.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT IS MR. GAM BONE. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> MIKEAM GAMBONE, 582 GULF TRAIL EAST, ORANGE PARK, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD CLEARED AND UNEQUIVOCAL PERSONS ABOUT -- A FEW QUOTATIONS FROM SOME OF THE REMARKABLE MEN, JEFFERSON SAID, WHENEVER A MAN IS CAST A LONGING EYE ON OFFICES A RODNESS BEGINS IN HIS CONDUCT.

JAMES MADISON THE TRUTH IS ALL MEN HAVING POWER OUGHT TO BE MISTRUSTED. ADAMS SAYS THERE IS A DANGER FROM ALL MEN. THE ONLY MAXIM MUCH A FREE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE TO TRUST NO MAN LIVING WITH THE POWER TO ENDANGER THE PUBLIC LIBERTY.

GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID, THE PEOPLE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT AGAINST TYRANTS MASK RAIDING AS PUBLIC SERVANTS. FRANKLIN SAID IN FREE GOVERNMENTS THE RULER ARE THE SERVANTS AND THE PEOPLE THEIR SUPERIORS. BEYOND THE CYNICISM OF OUR

[00:10:03]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO. OKAY.

THEN THAT BEING SAID, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS.

ARE THERE ANY CHARTER TOPIC SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE

[1.  Revised Charter Topic Suggestions]

[2.  Recommendation for BCC Salary]

[3.  Proposed Text of Salary Recommendation for Inclusion on Ballot]

THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' SALARY.

AT I RECALL, THE LAST MEETING, THE CONSENSUS WAS TO INCREASE THE SALARY AND THE DECISION WAS DEFERRED TO THIS MEETING AS TO WHAT TO DO IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL AND HOW TO GET THERE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION TO THE GROUP AND SOLICIT YOUR IDEAS AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS THEN EVENTUALLY A MOTION. SO THE, TO THE PANEL, THE FLOOR IS OPEN. YES.

ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WASN'T HERE LAST WEEK, OUR LAST MONTH.

I HAVE SOME COMMENTS CONCERNING ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT WAS ADDRESSED THREE YEARS AGO BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION. THAT'S A SLAP IN THE TAXPAYERS' FACE WHEN THREE YEARS LATER WITHOUT SOME SUBSTANTIATEED CHANGES IN THE VOTERS, WITHOUT SOMETHING HAPPENING FOR WHICH WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS AGAIN, YOU KNOW. WHETHER I WAS ON COUNTY COMMISSION, WE SUPPORTED THE CREATION OF CHARTER GOVERNMENT. WITH A STARTER CHARTER.

WE DID IT BECAUSE WE BELIEVED IN HOME RULE WOULD BE INCREASED BY CHARTER GOVERNMENT.

THAT THE HOME RULE POWERS OF CITIZENS WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MORE ACCESSIBLE, MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE TAXPAYERS AND MORE TRANSPARENT. ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS, OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE CITIZENS USED THEIR ABILITY TO REDRESS LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY DOING CITIZENS INITIATIVES. AND ONE OF THOSE CITIZENS' INITIATIVES ADDRESSED CUT IN SALARY FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH BUT IF THE VOTERS VOTED FOR IT, WE SHOULD ABIDE BY IT.

IT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE C. R.

C. TO READDRESS THIS IN THREE YEARS.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA SAYS. UNDER THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ENTITLED POLITICAL POWER, UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1, THE FIRST SENTENCE SAYS ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE.

SO WE SHOULD NOT BE TELLING THE PEOPLE OF CLAY COUNTY THAT YOU MAKE A MISTAKE AND THAT THREE YEARS LATER WE'RE GOING TO CORRECTS THE MISTAKE BY READDRESSING IT.

IF GOVERNMENT FAILS, YOU KNOW, THE CITIZENS CAN PUT IT ON -- LETY ME SAY THIS. THAT ALSO GOES TO THE EXTEND TO THE B.C. C.TO THREE TERMS. IT WAS ADDRESSED ALSO LAST TIME.

I DON'T AGREE WITH TERM LIMITS.

THE LAST 6 SHERIFFS WE HAD ONLY ONE OF THEM SERVED OR LAST 6, JAMES MARCH RESERVED 24 YEARS.

HE WAS THE LAST PEEK ONE. THE NEXT SHERIFF SERVED ONE TERM. THE NEXT SERVED 34.

THE NEXT SHERIFF SERVED 3 TERMS. NEXT SHERIFF SERVED ONE TERM.

WE'VE TERM LIMITS IN THE FORM OF VOTING RIGHTS.

EVER 2 YEARS WE CAN ADDRESS TERM LIMBS.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE SAME WAY.

WE SHOULDN'T BE ADDRESSING THESE TWO ITEMS WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS FROM WHEN IT OCCURRED.

I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I BELIEVE AS I SAID IT'S A SLAP IN THE VOTERS' FAVES AND A SLAP IN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU. DAVID.

[00:15:01]

>> SO HAVING TIME TO THINK ABOUT OUR LAST CONVERSATION HERE ON THE COMMITTEE, I'M PULLING BACK FROM THE -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SALARY AT THIS POINT.

COMPENSATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IN MY LINE OF WORK I'M CONSTANTLY ASKING MYSELF WHO IS THE CUSTOMER? WHO IS MY CUSTOMER? AND IN GOVERNMENT, CUSTOMER IS THE TAXPAYER.

OF WHICH I'M ONE ONE -- ONE OF AND I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE LAST MONTH. THE PUSHBACK HAS BEEN WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN RAISING COMPENSATION F. THERE'S A PROBLEM FOR A COMMISSIONER TO RUN FOR COMMISSION AND HE OR SHE IS NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE JOB ENTAILS AND WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO RUN.

I BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT IS A CALLING OR A VOCATION.

IT'S IN THE A CAREER -- NOT A CAREER.

IT'S SERVICE TO MY COMMUNITY.

IN WHATEVER FORM THAT ENTAILS WHETHER YOU ARE THE DOG CATCHER, AS AN ELECTED PERSON, IF YOU ARE ELECTED IT'S A SERVICE TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

YOU SHOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPENSATION, THE TERM IN WHICH IT'S TO BE SERVE AND WHAT YOUR JOB DUTY IS. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THE INCREASE. I KNOW THAT OUR JOB HERE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS WE'RE JUST TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO BIND THE RULE OR THE LAW, THE VOTER ULTIMATELY MAKES THE CHOICE BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT OUR PLACE TO TAKE THIS UP. ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT TOOK PLACE WITH THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. RIGHT OR WRONG, THEY VOTED.

THEY ARE OUR CUSTOMER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH OVER THE LAST MONTH.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BUT I'VE ALSO HAD SOME PHONE CALLS AND TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE OUT AT A RESTAURANT AND SO FORTH. THEY ARE NOT FOR THAT IN ANY WAY. I DID MENTION AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I WASN'T OPPOSED TO SOME TYPE OF POLICE STATION FOR SOME TYPE OF RAISE, BUT EVEN THEN IT WOULD BE A SMALL STEP OR SOMETHING.

BUT AFTER TALKING TO PEOPLE, LEARNING MORE, I DON'T -- I FEEL THE SAME WAY AS MR. THEUS.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE I WOULD VOTE FOR THAT AGAIN, IF WE TALKED ABOUT IT AGAIN TONIGHT.

IF WE DID, MY OPINION WOULD BE A VERY SMALL PROVISION WHERE THERE IS MAYBE A STEP WHERE THEY WON'T GET ANY MORE THAN REGULAR COUNTY STAFF.

SO -- >> CHRIS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO RING IN ON THAT AND BE ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION. ONLY BECAUSE MY PERSPECTIVE IS NOT JUST A TAXPAYER BUT IT'S FROM THE H.R.PERSPECTIVE. AND WHEN YOU HAVE A VACANCY WHETHER YOU ARE AN H.R.OR YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SMALL BUSINESS, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO FILL A JOB, YOU WANT TO GET QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN THERE.

PEOPLE WHOSE WILLING TO DO THE WORK.

AND I THINK WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION INDIRECTLY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THEY NEED A PAY RAISE, THEY CAN'T GET GOOD PEOPLE AND KEEP THEM.

WHEN WE LOOK AT SALARIES, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE MONEY. IT'S ABOUT THE POSITION.

WITH THAT POSITION COMES A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES.

WE'VE HEARD MANY PEOPLE STANDING AT THE PODIUM IN PUBLIC COMMENTS JUST FOR THIS COMMISSION WHO TALKS ABOUT THE FIRST YEAR 18 MONTHS, TO RUN AROUND LIKE THEIR HAIR IS ON FIRE TRYING TO CATCH UP.

THEY DON'T KNOW THE SYSTEM. THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING IF IT'S NORTH, SOUTH EAST, WEST.

THEY'RE TRYING TO LEARN T. ONCE THEY FIGURE IT OUT AND WE JUST HEARD THE CHAIR, I THINK IT WAS LAST MEETING, MR. WE HEARD HIM SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW AFTER ABOUT THE FIRST TWO YEARS, YOU ARE LIKE NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IS NOT IMPORTANT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ALL OF IT.

WE JUST FOCUS ON WHAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT.

IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW SHOW UP IN THE INBOX OR IN THE 2 INCH BINDER THEY GET EVERY TWO WEEKS, IF IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GET PRINTED ON PAPER OR HIT THE INBOX, SOMEBODY OUGHT TO BE READING IT BECAUSE THESE FOLKS, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE THE DECISION MAKERS. IF YOU TAKE A CORPORATE DECISION MAKING INDIVIDUAL, THEIR SALVI GOING TO BE PROBABLY -- SALARY IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY MORE THAN THE POVERTY LINE. I THINK -- AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO PAST C.R.C.AREAS ANYBODY WHO SETS THE SALARY AND DOES NOT INCLUDE COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION, THEY

[00:20:06]

SO I THINK CAPPING A $37,000 SALARY SIMPLY TELLS ME THAT YOU ONLY ONE A PART TIME EMPLOYEE WHO IS ONLY GOING TO GIVE BUT 3 TO 4 HOURS A DAY OF WORK AND THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH. IF IT WASN'T FOR MISS CAPO WHO PROBABLY NEEDS A 3 WEEK VACATION BUT THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. THE PEOPLE ARE OUR DECISION MAKERS. IF WE DON'T WANT TO ATTRACT GOOD DECISION MAKERS, THEN WE'LL KEEP THE SALARY AT $27,000 AND GET SOME -- $37,000 AND GET SOME PART-TIME PERSON WHO IS ON FOOD STAMPS.

MAYBE THEY'LL WANT TO PUT TIME IN.

WHO WE WANT TO RUN OUR COUNTY?

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. >> COMMENT?

>> COUPLE OF COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE, WHEN YOU MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE $37,000 IS NOT GOING TO ATTRACT GOOD CANDIDATES, WE'VE FIVE EXCELLENT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN ON THERE NOW FOR $37,000.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A PART TIME JOB.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PART TIME JOB.

IF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR A PUBLIC OFFICE, BECAUSE OF THE MONEY, YOU ARE RUNNING FOR THE WRONG REASON.

IT'S A PUBLIC VER HAVEN'T POSITION.

AND -- SERVANT POSITION, LASTLY, IF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE SO INTENSE ON CHANGING THE SALARY, THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY DID LAST TIME WHEN THEY PUT ON THE BALLOT TO LIMIT THE TERMS LIMITS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. LET THEM PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. LET THEM ANSWER TO THE VOTERS OF CLAY COUNTY. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WILL BECAUSE IF IT GOES ON THE BALLOT AGAIN IT'S GOING TO BE VOTED DOWN AGAIN. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY,

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES, SIR, DEB.

>> I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE WITH MOST OF THE THINGS MR. JETTE SAID. WE WATCHED THIS PROCESS AND YOU KNOW, IF THE HORSE IS DEAD YOU GET OFF.

AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAID MORE.

I AGREE WITH THAT IN THEORY AND FROM AN H. R. STANDPOINT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT.

IN MY PERSONAL LIFE ONE OF MY CHILDREN IS LEAVING TEACHING BECAUSE SHE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE BILLS AND BE A SINGLE PARENT. I DON'T THINK AGAIN THAT A PUBLIC SERVANT IS GOING TO BE IN THE POSITION THAT'S GOING TO COME TO THE JOB. WE HAD A REALLY UGLY BATTLE THE LAST TIME. I THINK SETTING INFLEXIBLE SALARY LIMIT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, PUNITIVE AND IT WAS POLITICAL BUT IT STOOD BY THE VOTERS.

SO I DON'T AGREE WITH IT PERSONALLY.

MR. RUSSEL, YOU ARE RIGHT. WHO ARE WE GOING TO ATTRACT? YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE.

MAYBE LET THE VOTERS SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

EVERYBODY I'VE TALKED TO IN RESTAURANTS, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MY CHURCH AND THOSE THINGS, NOBODY HAS ANY COMMENT EXPECT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS' SALARY.

IT'S NOT POSITIVE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CHANGING GROWTH OF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO AT SOME POINT IN TIME DEMAND WE'RE DIFFERENT WITH HOW WE COMPENSATION OUR COMMISSIONERS BUT I'M NOT SURE NOW IS THE TIME. I THINK IT IS BUT I'M NOT

SURE. >> WHEN YOU SAY, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE REMARK YOU MADE IT'S NOT POSITIVE TO RAISE

IT OR PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT? >> OH, THE ONLY THING IS THEY WERE SAYING WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THE -- POLITICIANS MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY.

THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE POLITICIANS MAKE, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW LARGE THEIR CONSTITUENCIES HAVE GROWN BUT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS THEY HAD POSITIVE COMMENTS ABOUT -- THEY HAD NO POSITIVE COMMENTS EXPECT POSITIVE REACTION TO WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING OR WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.

THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THEY MAKE.

THEY DON'T CARE BUT THEY DON'T WANT US TO RAISE THEIR FALL -- SALARIES. THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING BUT THAT'S OUR JOB TO INFORM THE ELECTORATE AS A GOVERNMENT.

NOT US AS A C.R.C.BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL STAND THE TEST OF TIME FOR A VOTE. SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD SET OUR GOALS ON THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE N COMMUNITY RATHER THAN STIR THE POT AND BE -- WHAT DID YOU SAY, MR. JETTE. THE 4TH TIME OR THIRD TIME IT'S VOTED DOWN? [INAUDIBLE]

>> OKAY. SEVERAL.

I THINK WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS EVEN THOUGH I AGREE THEY'RE NOT PAID WELL. I DON'T ADISAGREE WE SHOULD HAVE SET LIMITS ACROSS THE BOARD.

[00:25:02]

NO NOTHING. >> CAN I -- DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH THE COUNTY MANAGER MAKES?

>> A LOT. >> THANK YOU.

>> A LOT. >> READ MY BEAK.

OKAY. HE MAKES MORE THAN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, HE IS NOT A DECISION MAKER.

JUST SAYING. >> BRIAN?

>> I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT MR. JETTE SAID, BUT ALSO IF WE EXTEND THIS WHERE THERE ISN'T ANOTHER C. R. C.

FOR 6 OR 8 YEARS IT'S 3 YEARS THEY HAVE THE SALARY.

IT COULD BE MAYBE 11 YEARS AT THE SALARY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE MEETS AGAIN. AND AT SOME POINT, 20, 30 YEARS, THEY CAN'T STILL BE MAKING $37,000 SO I THINK AT SOME POINT IT HAS TO BE DONE.

I DO AGREE IT'S VERY MUCH AN UPHILL BATTLE ANY TIME YOU ASK THE ACCIDENTS TO VOTE ON APPARITION' SALARY RAISE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO DO.

I GUESS THAT'S WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS, THEY NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. I DON'T KNOW THAT IS OUR JOB TO DO T. AND ALSO I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER BENEFITS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE IN THE WAY OF INSURANCE OR PENSION OR ANYTHING.

I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MR. CHAMBLISS KNOWS THAT OR SOMETHING THAT COULD TALK ABOUT THE SALARY, WE AT LEAST KNOW WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE ALSO.

>> CAN I -- >> YES, SIR.

>> HE HAS A GOOD POINT. IF YOU LOOK BACK IN THE MINUTES THAT WE JUST APPROVED ON PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH MY NAME IS ALL OVER THE PARAGRAPH.

I WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN SO TERESA CAN TYPE THAT IN THE NEXT MONTH'S MEETINGS. CLAY COUNTY IS GROWING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE ARE IN THIS ROOM THAT IS ACTUAL ACTUALLY DROVE NEXT TO OLD LAKE WHICH IS ON HENLEY ROAD. IT'S CRAZY.

NOT COUNTY SARATOGA SPRINGS, WE'VE OVER 4,000 HOUSES GOING IN NOW. THESE ARE STARTER HOMES, IT'S NOT EVEN A BIG HOMES GOING OFF OF RUSSEL ROAD.

WHAT SARATOGA SPRINGS HITS THAT'S ANOTHER 5300 HOUSES OR SOMETHING GOING ON DOWN TO BACK AND MAGNOLIA POINT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE JUST IN THE ONE LITTLE SECTION OF CLAY COUNTY, I WANT TO SAY 9,000 HOMES.

YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, SIR.

I'M TELLING YOU. YOU ARE RIGHT.

BY THE TIME IT COMES UP AGAIN, THIS CONVERSATION, WHETHER IT BE A C. R. C. IN 4 YEARS, 6 YEARS, 8 YEARS OR EVEN 10 YEARS. SALARY IS GOING TO BE SO FAR DOWN WE'RE POVERTY LINE, YOU'LL BE ON FOOD STARCHES WORKING FOR $30,000 A YEAR. IT'S RIDICULOUS.

I SAID IN THE MINUTES, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS CHARTER REVIEW SHOULD BE KNOWN FOR THE ONE THAT IS GOT AHEAD OF THE PROBLEM TO HEAD IT OFF NOT NOT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM 4 YEARS OR 6 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> EVERY HIGH SCHOOL TEENAGER IS MAKING MORE THAN OUR COMMISSIONERS SERVING ICE CREAM.

>> DAN? >> SIR, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

SO I THINK A LOT OF GOOD POINTS BEING MADE.

WHERE I'M COMING DOWN ON THIS, CLAY COUNTY IS, IT'S GROWING, IT HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY IN THE PAST 3 YEARS. WE NEED TO THINK WHERE DO WE SEE THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY.

IF WE WANT IT TO BE A VIBRANT GROWING COUNTY WE NEED COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO CAN DO THAT.

YES, THE STRUCTURE IS ANTIQUATED.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE THE WAY IT WAS.

THE STATE HAS A FORMULA THAT TELLS US WHAT WE SHOULD BE PAYING OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND HOW WE SHOULD BE COMPENSATING THEM IN A WAY WE GROW IN LINE WITH THE TIMES WE'RE IN. SO I THINK THE IDEA THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS SHOULDN'T SCARE ABOUT THE MONEY -- CARE ABOUT THE MONEY. THEY SHOULD BE HAPPY TO THAT IS FINE EXPECT JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WHETHER IT'S NOTHING OR $37,000, WE'RE SEVERE LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN EVEN CONSIDER RUNNING FOR THIS POSITION. THEY EITHER HAVE TO BE RETIRED. THEY HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY. THEY HAVE TO ALREADY HAVE SOME OTHER PART-TIME JOB THAT ALLOWS THEM TO SUSTAIN THEIR LIFE ON $37,000. IN WHICH CASE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THE JOB AS IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED TO US.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT LOVING YOUR COUNTY, LOVING YOUR COUNT RICHES WANTING TO SERVE THE CONSTITUENCY MEANS

[00:30:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MITCH. >> I'M GOING TO RAMBLE FOR A MOMENT. FIRST IS THERE IS NO TIMELINE OR BENCHMARK ON WHAT YOU SHOULD DO WHAT IS RIGHT. IF IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, YOU SHOULD BE WILLING TO STAND UP AND SAY IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND WHETHER THE VOTERS OF COUNTY VOTED THE LAST 4 CHARTER REVIEW, WE DON'T WANT TO INCREASE THEIR PAY RAISE, WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT BUT IF THE COMMISSION THINKS THAT OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ALTERED AND THAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CHARTERED TO DO: AT A PASTOR AT A CHURCH SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WE RAISED THE SALARY AND WE RAISED IT PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY. ONE MAN SAID I'M NEVER TAKING HIM OUT TO LUNCH AGAIN.

THAT IS LIKE SAYING THOSE POLITICIANS MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY. I ASKED THE PERSON WHO CALLED ME HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH? THEY'RE GETTING TOO MUCH. NO, THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. THE LONG STORY SHORT IN THIS CASE WAS YOU HAD A MAN SHOW UP AT HIS OFFICE.

HE SAID I DROVE BY YOUR HOUSE, AT 8:30.

YOUR CAR WAS STILL IN THE DRIVEWAY.

YOU HADN'T GONE TO THE OFFICE.

WE'RE PAYING YOU, YOU OUGHT TO BE IN THE OFFICE 8:30 IN THE MORNING EVERYDAY. THE PASTOR SAID I TELL YOU WHAT THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT I GOT A CALL AT 1:30 IN THE MORNING ONE OF OUR CHURCH MEMBERS WAS IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, TWO PEOPLE WERE KILLED.

FROM 1:30 UNTIL 6:30 I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL MINISTERING THEM. NEXT TIME THAT HAPPENS I'LL CALL YOU TO GO WITH THEM. THE NEXT NIGHT HE GOT ANOTHER CALL AT MIDNIGHT. THE NEXT DAY THE GUY SAID YOU DON'T NEED TO CALL ME ANY MORE.

ALL OF THAT TO SAY, OUR COUNTY, MR. JETTE, YOU SAID WHAT'S CHANGED, 25, 30, 50,000 PEOPLE IN LAST FOUR YEARS. THAT'S A BIG CHANGE.

THE NUMBERS YOU MENTIONED I THINK ARE SLACK IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF HOUSES PLANNED.

THE NUMBER THAT CHERIE TALKED WITH US IS THE DEAR SUM OF 12 OR 14,000 HOUSES PLATTED.

FOUR PEOPLE A HOUSE THAT IS 48,000 MORE PEOPLE.

MAYBE IT'S ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, MAYBE IT'S TEN.

THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE. MY BRIEF TEN YEAR IN PUBLIC SERVICE WE DIDN'T GET PAID MUCH IN THE CITY OF GREEN COVE BUT THE SIT ACCIDENT CAME BACK AND SAID WHAT THEY WERE BEING PAID WAS WAY TOO LITTLE.

THEY INCREASED IT. VOTERS WILL INCREASE IT IF THEY'VE GOOD INFORMATION AND THEY UNDERSTAND.

I SUPPORTED THIS ORIGINALLY. I'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN A COUNTY OF 250,000 PEOPLE,

ROUND NUMBERS. >> 225.

>> 225, OKAY. THE JOB THEY HAVE TO DO IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS 175,000, IF NOTHING ELSE JUST THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

IT'LL CONTINUE TO GET LARGER.

I ASK YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, WITH ALL RESPECT TO THE VOTERS, I THINK IF THE VOTERS UNDERSTAND AND THEY GET BEYOND I THINK THEY GET PAID TOO MUCH MONEY, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND. WE NEED TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE JOB. I WILL TELL YOU IT'S NOT A TWO OR THREE HOUR JOB A WEEK.

IT TOOK ME LONGER THAN THAT TO READ THE BACKUP MATERIAL.

OKAY. AND SOMEBODY SAID TWO INCH BINDER, THE ONES I GOT WERE 4 INCH BINDERS.

WHEN YOU GOT INTO THINGS LIKE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. RECONSTRUCTION PLANTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE WHERE I'M SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON, ARE WE GOING TO SPEND MONEY TO BUILD A NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED ON THOSE ISSUES.

THE NEXT ONE DEALS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AND NEXT DEALS WITH SOMETHING ELSE. I RAMBLED A BIT OF I SUPPORTED THIS LAST TIME. I STILL SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IF CITIZENS WANTS TO CALL ME AND TELL ME, THAT IS FINE.

I'LL EXPLAIN MY POSITION AND AS I TOLD THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE TALKED WITH, SHOULD IT GET ON A BALLOT, YOU'LL HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION.

>> DAVE. >> THANK YOU.

MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK WE'RE DISCUSSING A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE ABOUT OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT GOVERNMENT IS. I'M A BELIEVENER SMALLER

[00:35:05]

THAT COMES WITH THE DOLLAR TYPICALLY WHAT FUELS DURE ACCURACY -- BUREAUCRACIES TO GROW.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACT -- I BELIEVE COMPENSATION DOES NOT EQUAL WISDOM, PRUNES AND JUDGMENT.

THERE ARE FINE PEOPLE THAT SERVE ON THE COMMISSION NOW WHO I SEEK FOR WISDOM PERSONALLY AND I LOOK FOR GUIDANCE OFTEN AND THEY'RE BRILLIANT PEOPLE.

I'M IN THE ASHAMED TO SAY THAT.

-- NOT ASHAMED TO SAY THAT. THEY'RE NOT COMPENSATED A HIGH RHODE ISLAND THEY KNEW THE RATE BEFORE THEY STARTED. MY INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNMENT, MY BELIEF PERSONALLY IT IS A SERVICE.

I KNEW IT GOING IN. IF I WAS GOING TO BECOME A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR I COULD WORK IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND MAKE MORE MONEY. SERVICE IS A CALLING AND A VOCATION, THERE IS MOG SENIOR REWARDING THAN A DOLLAR BILL S. IT A FAIR LIVING WAGE? PROBABLY NOT. DO THE CALCULATION TO DETERMINE HOW MANY HOURS DIVIDED INTO WHAT THEY'RE MAKING, I'M SURE IT'S LESS THAN ICE CREAM MAKERS.

THAT IS FINE BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE ON TODAY'S COMMISSION GOT INTO IT BECAUSE THEY NEEDED A LIVING WAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE WEALTHY OR THEY HAVE PART TIME JOBS, THEY OWN THEIR OWN BUSINESSES BUT THEY DIDN'T SEEK THIS JOB AS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER BECAUSE THEY WERE LOOKING TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE AND THEIR LIVING WAGE.

THEY DID IT BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE AND CALLING.

SO I BELIEVE THE VOTER KNOWS BEST WHAT TO DO.

I DON'T LIKE THIS POSITION THE VOTER CAN FIGURE IT OUT ON THEIR OWN. WE'RE NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE JUST A BOARD GIVING RECOMMENDATIONS BUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SETS UP HERE AND I'M A TAXPAYER OUT THERE, I'M THE GUY WHO IS THE BOSS. I'M THE CUSTOMER.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT MY GOVERNMENT TO THINK ABOUT ME AS A TAXPAYER. RIGHT, WRONG OR INDIFFERENT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS COUNTRY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY WHY WE PICKED UP TO BE A CHARTER SO WE WON'T FALL UNDER WHAT THE STATE WAS TRYING TO MANDATE TO US TO DO.

THEY'RE CREEPING INTO OUR BACKYARD EVERYDAY BY TAKING MORE AND MORE OF OUR HOME RULE AWAY.

SO IF YOU ARE FOR SMALLER GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT, YOUR PHILOSOPHY IT'S A SERVICE, CALLING, VOCATION, SHORT OF BEING FREE AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT.

I THINK THE RATE WE'RE PAYING THESE FOLKS STANDS IN MY BOOK. THAT IS JUST MY OPINION.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>

>> I THINK THAT'S VERIED A MISHABLE.

I DO BELIEVE POLITICAL SERVICE IS A CALLING.

IT IS A SERVICE. BUT MANY THINGS R. I LIVE IN THE NONPROFIT WORLD. I SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN PEOPLES' WILLINGNESS TO VOLUNTEER IN THE SAME WAY THEY USED TO.

THAT'S NOT JUST ME. THERE IS NATIONAL STUDIES THAT YOU CAN SEARCH AND SEE THAT THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. RIGHT NOW, AT, AND I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE THERE RIGHT NOW. BUT WHERE THEY'RE BEING PAID IS JUST MARGINALLY ABOVE BEING A VOLUNTEER.

THAT IS DIMINISHING OVERTIME.

SO WE HAVE THESE PEOPLE WHO GOT INTO THIS OFFICE KNOWING WHAT THE SALARY IS AND THAT WORKED FOR THEM.

BUT I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE IN 10 YEARS AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING AT IT AT THAT TIME. IT PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE A POPULATION THAT IS FAR LESS LIKELY TO TAKE ON VOLUNTEER TYPE POSITIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S A LOT TO ASK OF PEOPLE WHEN THERE ARE SOME REALLY GOOD TALENTED PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SOMETHING BUT NEED SOME COMPENSATION IN ORDER TO CHANGE THEIR LIVELIHOODS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. THEN THE OTHER POINT THAT I MEANT TO SAY BEFORE IS THAT I DO THINK IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH MESSAGING. WE'RE LIVING OUT OF STATE THREE YEARS AGO. WE SINCE MOVED BACK.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE ON THE BALLOT AT THAT TIME, BUT IF YOU ASK MOST PEOPLE DO YOU LIKE TO PAY TAXES? THEY'LL SAY.

NO. I DON'T WANT TO PAY TAXES.

I WANT TO PAY LESS TAXES. BUT THEN IF YOU SAY DO YOU WANT GOOD ROADS? DO YOU WANT POLICE PROTECTION? DO YOU WANT FIRE SERVICE? IF YOU TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THEIR TAX DOLLARS DO FOR THEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. I THINK IT'S THE SAME WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SALARIES FOR OUR, WHETHER IT'S OUR COMMISSIONERS OR COUNTY OFFICERS OR ANY POLITICIAN IN POLITICAL POSITION, IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM GETTING MORE MONEY. IT'S ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR COUNTY AND FOR THE CITIZENRY AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW WE'RE THE ONES WHO GET TO

[00:40:02]

PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR THE MESSAGE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO VOTE.

THANKS. >> OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO -- I WOULD THINK THE MAJORITY US WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT THE DYNAMICS OF CLAY COUNTY IS CHANGING. WE AGREE TO THAT? WE'RE GETTING THESE INFLUX OF PEOPLE, A LOT.

YOU MENTIONED 14,000 HOMES. IT'S CHANGING.

IT'S CHANGING, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE QUICKLY OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CLAY COUNTY BEING THE NEW SAINT JOHN'S COUNTY.

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. WITH THAT SAID, WE SIT HERE AND DISCUSS ABOUT WHAT THE VOTERS WANT.

WHAT THE VOTERS WANT, WHAT THE VOTERS DID BUT IT'S CHANGING. IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING.

EVERY YEAR, EVERY TWO YEARS, EVERY FOUR YEARS.

OUR COUNTY IS CHANGING. MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS CHANGING, TEN YEARS AGO WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE AT 53 YEARS OLD, I WAS THE YOUNGEST ONE ON THE STREET.

CRAZY. YOU KNOW.

BUT IT'S CHANGING. NOW I'M NOT THE YOUNGEST.

OF COURSE I'M NOT THE OLDEST EITHER BUT THAT IS OKAY.

BY GOD. ANY WAY.

I WANT US TO LOOK AT THIS. NOT WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY AND JUST WHERE WE'VE BEEN BUT HOW DO WE SEE THE FUTURE AND HOW THE CHARTER CAN HELP THE COUNTY.

I THINK MITCH HAS A REALLY GOOD POINT.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO ON IN THE BACKGROUND FOLKS DON'T SEE. THEY DON'T SEE THIS.

THEY DON'T HEAR OUR CONVERSATIONS.

BUT IT'S LIKE THE PREACHER GOING TO THE HOSPITAL AT NIGHT. NOBODY SEES THAT EXPECT FOR HIM AND HIS FRIENDS. NO ONE SEES AND HEARS OUR DISCUSSION BUS WHEN WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION I LIKE FOR US TO ENCOURAGE US TO NOT JUST LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR OR FOUR YEARS AGO, TWO YEARS AGO, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN 2 YEARS FROM NOW, 4 YEARS FROM NOW? CAN WE SET UP THE COUNTY CHARTER TO BE READY FOR THAT? FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

>> YES, SIR. >> A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MR. JETTE, I'M GOING TO CALL UPON YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

CAN A COUNCILMAN, CAN THE COUNCIL GO AND PUT A MOTION, IF YOU WILL, OR SUGGEST WE NEED A PAY RACE, CAN THEY PUT IT TO THE VOTERS? THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES.

>> THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN PUT CHARTER ISSUES ON THE BALLOT. SO IF THEY DECIDE THE COUNTY HAS CHANGED THAT MUCH IN FIVE YEARS, THEN IT'S CERTAINLY THEIR PRIVILEGE TO PLACE THE BALLOT ISSUE ON

THERE TO RAISE SALARIES. >> TO STATE FOR THE RECORD AND MY UNDERSTANDING, THE WAY TO GET THIS CHANGE IS EITHER THROUGH A CITIZENS INITIATIVE, ONE, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND GET IT ON THE BALLOT, TWO, OR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER CAN TAKE THE CHARTER TO THE BALLOT ITSELF.

SO, MR. RUSSEL, RESPECTFULLY AS WE GROW THE COUNTY AND THE NEED COMES FOR A RAISE, I WOULD RATHER THAN SEE THE COMMISSIONER, WE PROBABLY KNOW HOW THAT TURNS OUT BUT LET THEM PUT IT TO THE VOTE. THEY'LL KNOW FIRSTHAND BEST WHERE THE NEEDS ARE AND BE ABLE TO EXPRESS I THINK IN GREAT DETAIL, WE NEED SOME RAISE OR MORE MONEY.

FUT THAT THE -- PUT IT TO THE VOTERS THAT WAY.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S OUR ROLE AT THIS JUNCTURE TO BE THE ONES TO SUGGEST IT. OTHER COMMENTS.

YUL. >> SO A LOT OF INTERESTING COMMENTS. SOME I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH.

SOME I THINK I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'VE YET TO SEE A BASIS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OR CHANGE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGE, AND WHETHER WE DO SOMETHING OR WE DON'T, I'M THE TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS TO BE A BASIS FOR SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW. DID SOMEONE COME UP WITH COMMISSIONERS ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES OR IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE STATE LEVEL GUIDELINES? YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT CERTAINLY FOR ME TO CONTINUE TO EMBRACE THIS BY UNDERSTANDING ARE WE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA. I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE ANSWER NOW OR TONIGHT. BE MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT. REDUCING SOMEONE'S SALARY OR A GROUP'S SALARY JUST BECAUSE I FEEL, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOO MUCH OR FOR WHATEVER OTHER REASONS, YOU

[00:45:04]

WE CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHOA ARE WE TRYING TO ADDRESS FAIRLY FOR THE TAXPAYER TO CONSIDER.

SY WOULD CLOSE BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES. WHERE DO WE STAND AS IT RELATES TO OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES.

SET ASIDE THE SET GUIDELINES BUT I'M MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT ARE OUR OTHER PEERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN PLACE? ARE THEY GETTING PAID $30, $37,000 A YEAR? I WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING, I STILL HAVEN'T GOT THERE IN TERMS OF NOT DOING SOMETHING. I NEED SOMETHING MORE BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO BASIS FOR WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST, WELL, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CORRECT IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF DOING THE RIGHT THING. SO THANKS.

>> OTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. TAYLOR. INFORMATION THAT YOU AND MISS GRIM PROVIDE THAT HAD WE FORWARDED TO EVERYONE CAN YOU ENCANS LATE THAT FOR NEWS TERMS OF 2008 WE HAD SEVERAL THINGS HAPPEN. THEN THAT RESULTED IN WHERE

WE ARE TODAY. >> ACTUALLY IN 2008, IT DID NOT MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE BALLOT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND THE -- THEY HAD THE SALARIES -- I COULD SAY IT THIS WAY.

THE SALARIES FROM 1991-2008 CAME IN AROUND 53, 55,000 THEN THEY HAD THEM FROM 2008 THROUGH 2010 AND THEY ADJUSTED THEM ON THE PERCENTAGE BASIS.

THAT BROUGHT THEM UP TO ABOUT $6 64,500 THEN THEY PASSED IT AGAIN, REDUCED IT DOWN.

VOTERS REDUCED IT DOWN TO $37,000.

THAT'S WHERE IT HAPPEN CAPPED.

>> 2,000 -- MR. JETTE, WERE YOU THERE AT THE TIME, 2008? OKAY. 2018 IT WAS VOTED ON AGAINST WHICH WAS THE LAST REFERENDUM AND THAT WAS NOT

APPROVED, RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO 2008, 2010 IS WHEN IT WAS

REDUCED TO $37. >> IN 2010, YES, SIR.

>> SO WE'RE NOT 2011 -- CORRECT, OKAY.

I'M GOING TO CALL OUT MR. LAND LIST HERE FOR A SECOND, TOO. BEFORE I GO ON, MR. CHAMBLISS? [PAUSE]

>> NOT A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT EITHER.

[INAUDIBLE] >> I KNOW IT.

>> CHAIR, PLEASE FORGIVE ME BUT I OPERATE --

>> YES, SIR. >> THE FIRST SLIDE THAT YOU

[00:50:02]

MR. GENTLEMEN, YOU WILL SEE IN 1990, THAT WAS WHEN THE STARTER CHARTER MET. YOU PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

THERE WAS A 60% TURNOUT. AND IT WAS APPROVED BY 54%.

>> EXCUSE ME, MR. KLINSMANN, SIR, SIR, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEAT OTHERWISE LEAVE.

>> SO LET ME EXPLAIN REAL QUICK WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PACKET. THE FIRST SLIDE WILL BE ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVISIONS.

SECOND SLIDE WILL BE THE GENERAL TURNOUT, ELECTION TURNOUT GOING BACK TO 1982. THEN OF COURSE GOING DEEPER INTO YOUR PACKET, THE FIRST ITEM THAT YOU WILL SEE IS THE ORIGINAL BALLOT. ALONG WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO YOU LATER ON WHEN YOU START DISCUSSING, HEY, I WONDER WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE ELECTION COMPLETE WITH THE TURNOUT. THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTE APPROVAL ORGANIZE DENYING EACH ONE OF THE ISSUES.

AND IT GOES DOWN EACH TIME THAT THERE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE ON THE BALLOT.

YOU WILL NOTICE ON THE FIRST SLIDE, IF YOU WILL, THAT ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE IN ORANGE YEARS WERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION COMMISSION BROUGHT SOMETHING TO THE BALLOT. YOU WILL SEE THAT NOTE THAT 2008 IS IN BLACK. THAT'S BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ISSUES, THE FIRST CHARTER ISSUE WAS AN ISSUE ADDED TO THE BALLOT BY THE B.C. C.

THE ONE WITH TWO STARS WAS A CITIZENS INITIATIVE.

THE ONE WITH THREE STARS IS A CITIZENS' INITIATIVE THAT WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OKAY. SO YOU WILL SEE THAT IN 2008, THE SALARY REVISION WAS 83% YEAH.

YOU WILL SEE IN THE 2008 BALLOT, YOU WILL SEE IT REDUCES THE SALARY TO $37,000.

OKAY. AND THEN OF COURSE YOU WILL SEE THE CHARTER INITIATIVE NUMBER 2.

IN 2008. THAT WAS THE ONE THAT HAD TO DO WITH ANY TIME THERE'S A REVISION TO THE CHARTER, BY EITHER THE C.R.C., THE BOARD, OR A CITIZENS' INITIATIVE, THAT IT MUST PASS BY 60%.

THAT WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AGAINST THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION. THEN LASTLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE WAS A CITIZENS' OR EXCUSE ME, CITIZENS' INITIATIVE WAS NUMBER 2. NUMBER 3 WAS A CITIZENS', AN ISSUE BY THE C.R.C.THEN THE LAST ONE WAS NUMBER 4 WAS OR NOT BY THE C. R. C. THEN NUMBER 4 WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS A CITIZEN'S INITIATIVE AS WELL.

SO ISSUE ADDED BY THE B.C. C.WAS 55%.

ISSUE BY THE CITIZENS WAS 83 %.

AND 77% THAN AN ISSUE THAT WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAS 80%. WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS THE PERCENTAGE THEY PASSED. NOTICE THAT WHENEVER YOU PUT ITEMS ON TO THE BALLOT, THEY TYPICALLY GO IN OFF ELECTION YEARS OR IN GUBERNATORIAL YEARS.

YOU WILL SEE THAT YOUR TURNOUT IS RARELY A HIGH TURNOUT. OKAY.

AS A MATTER OF FACT THE HIGHEST ONE THAT YOU SEE THERE IF MY EYES DECEIVE ME IS 62%.

79% WAS A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR. THEN OF THAT, YOU ARE GETTING AN APPROVAL RATE THAT IS TYPICALLY IN THE 50S, IF IT PASSES. IF IT DOESN'T PASS, IT USUALLY FAILS IN THE 30 PERCENT.

I KNOW THAT YOU ASKED ME ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS, AND I WENT A LITTLE BIT DEEPER BECAUSE WHAT I'M WANTING YOU TO SEE IS THAT BALLOT LANGUAGE HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IT. I'VE SEEN TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE SET AT $37,000. OF COURSE IT DIDN'T MENTION A COST OF LIVING AND THAT'S THERE'S NOT ONE IN THERE.

YOU WILL SEE THAT SHOULD IT BE 70% OF THE C.P.I.? THAT WAS' ONE YEAR FOR SALARY INCREASE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

NOW YOU HAVE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR EACH TIME THE CHARTER WAS TOUCHED, AND YOU HAVE THE RESULTS AND TURNOUT FOR EACH TIME. ANY QUESTIONS?

[00:55:02]

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YESES -- QUESTIONS FROM THE GROUP? THE REASON FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS WAS SIMPLY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THOSE YEARS IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH THE TURNOUT WAS AND WHAT THE RATIO OF PASS TO FAIL OR SUCCESS OR APPROVAL OR NOT APPROVAL WAS SO IT WOULD HOPEFULLY GIVE US A FEEL FOR WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH THE MINUTES OF THE VOTERS AT THAT TIME.

A LOT OF BACKUP MATERIAL IN HERE.

AND CHRIS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS HERE. YUL.

>> THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAMBLISS, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION SAID THAT YOU CAN'T HOLD A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT TO A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER.

SO IT WAS OVERTURNED IN COURT.

>> OKAY. >> ONE THING I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU OF IS WHEN YOU SEE, FOR INSTANCE, TO KEEP THE MATH EASY, IF YOU SEE IN 2006, A 46% TURNOUT AND THEN UNDERNEATH THAT YOU SEE THAT A CHARTER INITIATIVE PASSED AT 87%. REALIZE THAT MEANT 30% OF

THE PUBLIC VOTED THAT IN. >> THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. CHAND LIST. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, ARE YOU EXTRAPOLATING SOME OTHER OUTCOME THAN WHAT THE VOTERS

VOTED FOR? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN ITEMS -- WE ALWAYS WANT, WE DESIRE, WE PLAN, WE PREPARE FOR 100% TURNOUT. AND TURNOUT DICTATES LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT. FOR INSTANCE OUR HIGHEST TURNOUT THAT WE'VE EVER HAD WAS 1992.

IT WAS AN 87% TURNOUT. ANYONE HAZARD A GUESS WHAT WAS ON THE BALLOT? I BELIEVE IT WAS TERM LIMITS FOR YOUR FLORIDA SENATORS. TERM LIMITS FOR THE SENATORS. 87% TURNOUT.

>> MY CONCERN WITH THAT PIECE OF DATA WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER DISCUSSION THAT THE VOTER HAS MAYBE A CASE OF DERELICT OF DUTY FOR VOTING. THEY SHOULD SAY THAT MORE SERIOUSLY AND DO IT. REGARDLESS OF THE TURNOUT IF THE DECISION WAS CAST BY THE VOTER, SO WHAT.

I MEAN, TO ME THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING.

THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP. THEY SHOULD HAVE.

SHAME ON THEN BUT THE VOTERS SPOKE.

>> TRUE. BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT ANY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS BEEN BY THE C. R. C., THERE IS VERY LITTLE ADVERTISEMENT OF THAT. THERE'S NOT A PROPONENCEY

FOR OR AGAINST IT. >> I'M IN THE BALLOT.

I CAN READ HOPEFULLY. THAT'S ASSUMPTION.

I STILL CAN CAST MY VOTE. >> POINT TAKEN.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHERS? NO?

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MITCH. >> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD -- I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

BUT YUL RAISED AND INTERESTING POINT.

THAT IS WHAT ARE OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES DOING AS IT RELATES TO COMPENSATION OF THEIR COMMISSIONERS.

I'M NOT GOING TO IT WILL YOU BECAUSE DUVAL COUNTY DOES SOMETHING, WE SHOULD DO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE A CHARTER COUNTY OR NOT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. I'M TOO, AM FAVORABLE TO A SMALLER GOVERNMENT. SMALLER GOVERNMENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY, YOU DON'T PAY THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE IN GOVERNMENT. SMALLER GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU JUST DON'T CREATE A GIGANTIC ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.

YOU TAKE AWAY FROM RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE AREAS. I'VE TREED TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE MATERIAL THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN CORTNEY OR TRACY, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT LOOKS AT THE OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES TO SAY WHAT THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE IS --

>> ACTUALLY WE DO. IT WAS IN THE FIRST PACKET OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU MONTH AGO.

FROM IS A CHART -- >> THAT'S OKAY.

I MISSED IT. AND I'LL ACCEPT THAT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TIME TO REVISIT THAT BEFORE I VOTE ON THIS ITEM.

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT.

CERTAINLY SO I DO. >> IF WE VOTE IT DOWN THAT'S OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE LATITUDE TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION IN LIGHT OF WHAT

[01:00:02]

WE'VE LOOKED AT TONIGHT. >> VERY GOOD.

>> I'M MAKING THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL THE

NEXT MEETING. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. NOW UP FOR DISCUSSION; THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? [INAUDIBLE]

>> CORTNEY GAVE US -- GREAT PACKET.

ALL THE CHARTER COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA ARE LISTED IN T. A LOT OF THE DETAILS, NUTS AND BOLTS.

THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION.

>> THERE IS ONE CHART, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T FEEL THAT YOU NEEDED TO WADE THROUGH EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED THAT TO GET TO SLEEP, THE ONE CHART THAT LISTS ALL THE CHARTER COUNTIES, IT LISTS THE SALARIES.

IT LISTS THE POPULATION. SO IN ONE QUICK GLANCE YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THIS COUNTY DOES AND HOW IT STACKS UP AGAINST THE OTHERS TO YOUR POINT.

ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WAS IN THE HOMEWORK, IF YOU WILL, THAT

WAS ISSUED. >> I LOOKED AT IT.

>> SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. >> SOME MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN TO IT. BUT IT'S ALL THERE.

THAT SAID, DO WE -- IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE AT TABLING IT?

[INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY.

THEN WE HAVE A MOTION, IT HAS BEEN SECONDED TO TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING. PUT IT FOR A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

OPPOSED. THE MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR INPUT ON THIS, TOO. OKAY.

SWIMMING IN DATA. THAT'S GOING TO BE TABLED.

TILL NEXT MEETING. THAT WOULD ALSO TAKE CARE OF THE FOLLOW ON ITEM WHICH WAS THE PROPOSED TEXT.

[1.  Section 3.1 Elected County Constitutional Offices - Term Limits/Additional Minimum Qualifications]

THESE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE MEMBERS OF THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO DISCUSS AND TO IT IS ON THE TABLE AT THIS POINT.

ALL RIGHT. START WITH TERM LIMITS.

AS YOU KNOW, CORTNEY AND GLENN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, THE TERMS ARE 4 YEARS AND THEY HAVE A 3 TERM LIMIT BEFORE THEY HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN. VERY SIMILAR TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE A TWO TERM LIMIT BEFORE THEY HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK THEN IF THEY WERE ELECTED AGAIN THEY CAN SERVE TWO MORE TERMS, TAKE A BREAK AND KEEP DOING THAT.

BUT THERE HAS TO BE A FOUR YEAR BREAK BETWEEN THE TWO TERMS. IN THIS CASE, WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALS IT HAS TO BE A FOUR YEAR BREAK BETWEEN THE THREE TERMS. DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> OKAY. SO I GUESS THE DISCUSSION FOR THE GROUP WOULD BE DO WE KEEP THAT? OR DO WE CHANGE IT? IF WE CHANGE IT, TO WHAT? I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK RHETORICAL QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF US IN THE ROOM WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE EIGHT YEARS OF YOUR ADULT LIFE, PREFERRED PROBABLY IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR ADULT LIFE AND FIND A JOB FOR 8 YEARS AT SOME COMPANY THEN WALK AWAY FROM THE JOB IN 8 YEARS

-- >> THIS IS 12.

>> 12 YEARS, TEN YEARS, I'M JUST SAYING.

IT'S, IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR LIFETIME.

EVEN IF IT'S 12 YEARS ON CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

TO ME IT'S JUST BIZARRE. I'M AGAINST TERM LIMITS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, I WAN TO THROW THAT OUT

THERE. >> RESPECTFULLY, MR. RUSSELL, IN 9:11 HIT I LOST A JOB IN MANUFACTURING AND AS ABLE TO REBOUND TO FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CREATE ANOTHER CAREER TWICE. I THINK TO RUN FOR OFFICE WE'RE EDUCATED PEOPLE. WE HOPE TO BE.

AND I THINK IF YOU DON'T% KNOW THE JOB AND WHAT IT ENTAILS AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR YOU AS A CAREER MOVE, SHAME ON YOU. THE GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE SEEMS TO BE OKAY WITH AN 8 YEAR TERM IN HIS CURRENT SITUATION IN HIS CABINET KNOWS FULL WELL WHEN THE TERM IS OVER, THEY'RE GOING TO GO FIND A JOB.

[01:05:02]

>> OPEN DISCUSSION. >> THAT'S GOOD.

YOU ARE RIGHT. WHEN YOU GET THAT FAR UP THE LADDER, MOST OF THE GUYS WERE ALL LAWYERS OR POLITICIANS ANYWAY. THEY ALREADY LINED UP THEIR NEXT JOB. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMON FOLKS MAKING $37,000 OR I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR SALARIES ARE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS BUT SALARIES ARE MINIMUM BUT AGAIN EITHER WAY, WHEN YOU TAKE A SABBATICAL OUT OF THE MIDDLE YOUR ADULT LIFE FOR 12 YEARS, THAT'S A LONG TIME.

I MEAN I'M A CAREER GUY. MILITARY CAREER GUY.

SO IT'S, TO ME, CAREERS ARE IMPORTANT.

AND THESE FOLKS, I THINK SOMEONE, A GENTLEMAN HERE ALREADY SAID IT THIS MORNING OR THIS EVENING, IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, THEY'RE BOSSES.

THEY'RE MANAGERS. THEY'RE NOT THE POLICY MAKERS. THEY'RE THE MANAGERS.

THEY'RE RUNNING THEIR DEPARTMENTS.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. SO THEY DO HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT THEY DO VERSUS A COUNTY

COMMISSIONER. >> IF I MAY RESPOND ONCE MORE, I'M SORRY. AGAIN, I HEAR YOUR POINT.

THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE THAT SOME OF US SHARE AND SOME OF US DON'T. I BELIEVE THAT THE, YOUR JOB AS A SERVANT IS JUST THAT. SO YOU MAY GET TO THE END OF YOUR TERM AND HAVE TO BOUNCE SO TO SPEAK.

I DON'T BELIEVE OUR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SHOULD BE CAREERISTS. WASHINGTON, WHO IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERSON. HE IS GONE BUT WASHINGTON IN HIS FINAL ADDRESS SAID COME SERVE TO WATCH AD GO BACK TO YOUR FARMS AND YOUR BUSINESSES, IS THAT WASHINGTON OR FRANKLIN? I THINK IT WAS WASHINGTON IN HIS FINAL ADDRESS. THERE WAS NO TERM LIMIT DISCUSSION IN OUR FRAMING AND FOUNDERS BUT THAT WAS' WASHINGTON ON HIS FINAL ADDRESS THAT SAID T. I, IT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE. MR. RUSSELL I RESPECT YOUR COMMENTS AND I RESPECT YOUR CAREER PATH.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IT'S PHILOSOPHICALLY DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU ARE GOING TO SERVE YOUR GOVERNMENT, YOUR EXPECTATION IT'S NOT A CAREER.

>> CLARIFICATION, WHAT YEAR DID WE TERM THE CONSTITUTIONALS, WHAT YEAR DID THAT HAPPEN? DID WE GIVE THEM TERM LIMITS?

I THINK WE'RE -- >> LAST ELECTION.

>> I WAS OBVIOUSLY LOST. NOT GONE.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. RUSSELL.

I WAS IN A VERY SPECIFIC FIELD WHICH SHOULD KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DOES.

AND I DID IT FOR THREE DECADES.

I WOULD NO MORE HAVE YOUR JOB, IT IS A -- I THINK THE SUPERVISOR OF LEAKS, THESE JOBS ARE VERY COMPLICATED.

THEY MANAGE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A BROAD BASE OF KNOWLEDGE. SOME AND A VERY SPECIFIC BASE OF KNOWLEDGE, SOME. I'M SORRY.

IT HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW THAT REVOKING IT, ANYBODY HAS THE STOMACH FOR THAT EITHER, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MEET WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALS BUT I'M BEEN IN THIS COUNT' LONG TIME AND I WATCH WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION ALZHEIMERS DO AND I DON'T MIND THEY'RE CAREERISTS. WE'RE HAD SOME OF THE FINEST MANAGERS IN THEIR POSITIONS. I THINK THE LEARNING CURVE IS WICKED. WITH SOME JOBS, IT'S WICKED ON THE FLY. MR. CHAPPED LIST'S JOB BECAUSE HIS -- CHANDLESS' JOB BECAUSE HIS JOB IS AFFECTED BY WHAT PEOPLEY DO IN MIME WE HANGING CHADS.

HE HASNO NO RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT.

IF HE CAN'T MANAGE HIS LOCAL PEOPLE TO THE DEGREE OF PROFESSION ALISM THAT HE DOES, WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME POSITION. I'VE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH CAREERIST HERE AND I THINK WE FOUND OUT,WAYS WASN'T IT MR. JETTE THAT SAID WE PUT A FEW SHERIFFS IN AND OUT.

AND THAT'S UP TO THE VOTERS. I NEVER BELIEVE IN TERM LIMITS OF ANY KIND BUT I THINK WE'RE TO, MAYBE ARE MAKING THE GENE POOL SMALLER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE IF WE HAVE SOMETHING WHO IS DOING THEIR JOB AND DOING IT REALLY WELL. IT'S THE SAME THING, MAKING THE GENE POOL SMALLER IF WE DON'T PAY THEM REALLY WELL.

SO I'M AGAINST THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IT AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WE WANT TO REVERSE IT BUT I THINK THAT WE ARE VERY BLESSED IN THIS COUNTY TO HAVE SOME CAREER POLITICIANS, YUCKY WORD THAT DO THESE MANAGIAL JOBS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GROUP.

MR. JETTE, MR. TIMBERLAKE, YOU WERE ON THE LAST COMMISSION. IS THAT CORRECT.

>> NO. >> YOU WEREN'T BUT YOU WERE ON THE 2017 COMMISSION. C. R. C.

[01:10:01]

>> I WASN'T THERE IN -- I RETIRED IN 2013.

>> SORRY. GLENN, DO YOU KNOW?

>> NO. >> CORTNEY.

WHAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THE --

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> TO -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> RIGHT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WHAT WAS THE GENESIS FOR PUTTING IT ON THERE? COMMISSIONERS? CHRIS? OKAY.

MR. DRAKE? [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU FOR, FIRST OF ALL

FOR COMING TONIGHT. >> SURE, NO PROBLEM.

>> THE SECOND IS TO MR. MCNAIR'S POINT OF WANTING TO KNOW WHY. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE BACKGROUND.

PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, TRACY DAY, CLAY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER.

SO I'VE WORKED FOR THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SINCE 1993. I'VE SEEN MANY COMMISSIONERS, MANY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MANY CHARTER REVIEW MEETINGS MYSELF. SO TERM LIMITS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR MANY COMMISSIONS. THEY HAVE A GOOD SENSE TO NEVER PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. IN 2018, LIKE MOST COMMISSIONS, SOME YOU HAVE A VOICE THAT'S A LITTLE LOUDER THAN OTHERS. IN 2018 THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT THE AGENDA WARNINGS I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT JUST A LITTLE HISTORY.

IN 2018, I PERSONALLY REACHED OUT TO 11 OF THE 15 CHARTERS MEMBERS WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME ABOUT.

AND I ASKED THEM, IF THEY KNEW WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS DID. NONE OF THEM COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION. NONE OF THEM COULD TELL US, TELL ME WHAT ANY OF THE INSTALLATIONAL OFFICERS TRULY -- CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS DID OTHER THAN THE FACT THEY VIEWED US AS POLITICIANS.

BECAUSE WE WERE ELECTED THEY PUTS IN THE SAME BOAT AS COMMISSIONERS, WHAT HAVE YOU.

THE LOUDEST VOICE IN THE ROOM MADE THE MOTION FOR TWO TERMS. IT FAILED.

IT FAILED THREE TERMS. IT FAILED IN THE COMMISSION.

FOUR TERMS, FAILED IN THE COMMISSION.

THEN IT FINALLY DIED AT THAT POINT.

WHEN IT GOT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEY HAD DISCUSSION. IT WAS 3-2 VOTE.

BASED ON THE FACT OR THE COMMENTS WERE MADE THAT'S -- WHAT IS IT GOING TO HURT TO LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE? MR. CHANDLESS CAN INFORM US, I BELIEVE IT PASSED WITH 53.

SOMETHING PERCENT OF THE VOTE.

IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE]

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE

SUBJECT. >> OUT OF CURIOSITY, MR. DRAKE, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF ACCREDITITION AND TRAINING THAT YOU HAVE TO GO TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN YOUR POSITION, IF SOMEBODY WAS TO COME INTO THE JOB FROM DAY ONE, JUST GOT ELECTED, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE THEM TO COME UP TO SPEED TO BE EFFECTIVE IN THEIR POSITION?

>> MORE THAN 8 YEARS. I HAVE A DESIGNATION THAT REQUIRED MORE THAN 8 YEARS JUST TO GET.

I APOLOGIZE. I THINK THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE AS A CITIZEN MYSELF, LIKE I SAID I'VE BEEN IN THE JOB SINCE 1993. I NEVER INTENDED TO RUN.

I DIDN'T DO ANY OF THIS TO BECOME A POLITICIAN OR TO RUN FOR OFFICE. I'VE BEEN AN APPRAISER SINCE 1993. I'LL ARGUE I'VE MORE CREDENCE, MORE QUALIFICATION, MORE EXPERIENCE THAN ANYBODY IN THE STATE TO DO THIS JOB BUT I RAN BECAUSE MY PREDECESSOR RETIRED.

AND TO YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO AUTOMATICALLY PURGE PROFESSIONALS.

I'M A PROFESSIONAL. IT'S, I AM OFFENDED IF YOU CALL ME A POLITICIAN. I HOLD FOUR DESIGNATIONS.

I HOLD A STATE CERTIFIED APPRAISERS LICENSE, INTERNATIONAL MEMBER, MEMBER OF THE YEAR, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. CHANDLESS, OUR CLERK, OUR SHERIFF, I DON'T THINK ANY US ARE ROTTEN YET.

[01:15:02]

I WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTY. I WORK HERE BECAUSE OF WHAT I ENJOY. THIS IS MY CAREER.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THAT IS A BAD THING NOW BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE TRYING TO BE EDUCATED, TRYING TO SERVE, TRY TO GAIN EDUCATION THAT ONLY BENEFITS THIS COUNTY. HAVE I HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO LEAVE? SURE.

CAN I LEAVE? SURE.

BUT IS THAT WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTY? DO YOU REALLY WANT ME TO LEAVE AFTER 8 YEARS AND NOW LET'S JUST HOPE THAT THE NEXT PERSON THAT COMES UP HERE KNOWS HOW TO APPRAISE THE ORANGE PARK MALL? OR YOUR HOUSES? DO YOU WANT TO PAY TAX ONS SOMETHING THAT NEXT PERSON MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO DO? WE'RE NOT A COUNTY YES.

WE'RE THE 25TH LARGEST COUNTY IN THE STATE.

WE'RE GROWING. I GET IT.

I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE. 2018 THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE OF TERM LIMITS. I GET T. YOU SAY TERM LIMITS. THAT IS THE BUDS WORD NOW.

IN POLITICS NOW, IT'S SO DIVISIVE.

WE CAN'T GET ALONG. LET'S GET RID OF EVERYONE BUT IN 2018 WHEN THIS CAME B EVEN THIS COMMISSION THEN, THEY COULDN'T AGREE ON WHAT TO DO.

SO, SO THE COMMISSIONERS DID IT FOR THEM.

BUT NOW WE'VE GOT CLARITY. WE'VE GOT CLARITY.

THERE IS ONLY THREE COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAVE TERM LIMITED CONSTITUTIONS.

DUVAL COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY WHICH IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IS OR ORLANDO AND US. LAST TIME I CHECKED, WE'RE NOT YET DUVAL COUNTY. WE'RE SURE NOT ORANGE COUNTY. WHEN YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE POOL OF PEOPLE THAT CAN DO MY JOB, THE BENCH IS THIN.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU. THERE AIN'T MANY PEOPLE THAT CAN STEP IN ON DAY ONE -- WE MAY WANT SOMEBODY THAT ON DAY, YEAR 10 CAN DO THIS JOB BUT THEY CAN'T DO IT ON DAY ONE. SO SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION WHAT DO WE WANT FOR THIS COUNTY? DO WE WANT QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS THAT CAN DO THE JOB OR DO YOU WANT PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO JUMP FROM JOB TO JOB? WE'VE CLARITY NOW WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTIONALS.

DUVAL COUNT AS FAR AS WE NEED TO LOOK IS DUVAL COUNTY. THEY HAVE 88 YEAR TERMS, TWO TERMS, TWO FOUR-YEAR TERMS. JERRY HOLLAND, CURRENT PROPERTY APPRAISER, HE WAS ON THE JACKSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL. HE BECAME SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. TERM LIMITED OUT.

BECAME PROPERTY APPRAISER. AND LAST OCTOBER HE JUST ANNOUNCED HE IS GOING TO RUN AGAIN FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. IF WE THINK WE'RE SERVANTS WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE FARM, BECAUSE WE SERVED OUR TIME AND WE'VE DONE WHAT GOOD CITIZENS DO.

IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. PEOPLE TALK IT'S ALL ABOUT INCUMBENCY, NO IT'S ALL ABOUT BUILDING THE NAME.

I KNOW JERRY HOLLAND. I FORGOTTEN MORE THAN HE LEARNED SINCE HE HAS BEEN PROPERTY APPRAISER.

THAT IS WHAT DUVAL COUNTY GOTTEN BECAUSE THEY GOT PEOPLE WITH A NAME. NOT WITH QUALIFICATIONS OR CREDENTIALS. THAT'S JUST THE PROPERTY APPRAISER' OFFICE THEN WE GET TO MIKE HOGAN.

JACKSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL. FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TAX COLLECTOR.

TERM LIMITED OUT. NOW HE IS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THEN YOU GET MICHAEL CORRIGAN. JACKSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL.

IN HIS SECOND TERM AS TAX COLLECTOR THEY TOLD HIM IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO GO. HE -- JACKSONVILLE SAYS WE WANT YOU TO BE OUR C.E.O. MICHAEL CORRIGAN SAID YOU ALREADY TOLD ME I'M GOING TO LEAVE.

I'M GOING TO LEAVE EARLY SO THE TAXPAYERS OF DUVAL COUNTY GOT TO PAY FOR A SPECIAL LEAKS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT COST BECAUSE THE TERM LIMIT HE LEFT. THAT IS HOGUE, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL CORRIGAN. JIM OVERTON, JACKSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL. PROPERTY ABRAISER, AT SPECIAL ELECTION HE BECAME TEXAS COLLECTOR.

IF WE THINK TERM LIMITS IS THE ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTIONALS OR LET'S REDUCE THEM EVEN MORE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. IT'S HAPPENING IN DUVAL.

ONE OF THE 3 COUNTIES THAT HAVE TERM LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONALS, THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING THEIR NAME THAN THEY ARE INVESTING AND LEARNING THE JOB. THAT'S THE FACTS.

WHEN YOU ASK ME, MR. CHAIR, HOW LONG DO I THINK IT TAKES, I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW I'VE SPENT A YEAR AND

[01:20:03]

I HAVE TO ADMINISTERRER EXEMPTION IN THE COUNTY.

56,000. WE GET 5,000 NEW POLICE STATIONS. I HAVE TO APPRAISE EVERY PROPERTY IN COUNTY EVERY YEAR WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT. THAT IS THE ORANGE PARK MALL. THE DOG TRACK.

YOU IMAGINE IT. I HAVE TO APPRAISE ALL OF IT. GO FIND AN APPRAISE THEY'RE CAN DO ALL THAT. THEN ASK THE QUESTION, IF YOU HAD YOUR, IF YOU WERE SELLING YOUR HOME, WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING OR SOMETHING THAT HAS ENOUGH NAME THAT YOU RECOGNIZED AN YOU WANT TO USE THEM TO BE THE APPRAISER WHEN YOU SELL YOUR HOUSE? NO.

I'LL END ON THIS. EVERY PRESENTATION I GAVE I ASK THE QUESTION, WHO LIKES, RAISE YOUR LAND IF YOU LIKE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES? YET HAVE I GOT WENT ONE HAND RAISED. MY NEXT QUESTION HAS BEEN WHY WOULD YOU WANT A POLITICIAN DETERMINING THAT AMOUNT FOR YOU? YOUR PROPERTY TAXES IF YOU OWN A HOME IS THE SINGLE LARGEST RECURRING EXPENSE THAT YOU MAKE EVERY YEAR. DO YOU WANT A POLITICIAN DOING THAT OR SOMEBODY WHO IS A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL? MY OPINION YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR IT BUT AM I AGAINST TERM LIMITS? ABSOLUTELY.

WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME BOAT. I HAVE A DAILY COMMITMENTS TO DO MY JOB. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW TO DO THE JOB ISN'T SOMETHING YOU LEARN FROM COMING FROM THE COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL TO BECOME THE -- IN DUVAL COUNTY WHEN YOU HAVE 140 EMPLOYEES YOU CAN DO THAT.

WE'VE 33 EMPLOYEES APPRAISING THIS COUNTY EVERY YEAR. 33.

I'VE HAD THE SAME NUMBER SINCE 2008.

THE GROWTH IN THE COUNTY, I'LL ADD PEOPLE BUT I KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE. I'VE USED TECHNOLOGY TO DO THAT. SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK FOR LARGER BUDGETS. ANYWAY, I'LL GET OFF MY SOAP

BOX, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> FLOOR IS OPEN.

SIR. >> I THINK THAT'S AN ARGUMENT NOT HERE ON THIS COMMISSION, NOR DO I WANT TO BRING IT UP BUT JUST FOR CONVERSATION'S STANDPOINT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND TO YOUR POINT, PROFESSIONALISM IS A BIG PART OF THAT AND THE CAREER THAT GOES ALONG WITH T. I WOULD ALMOST ARGUE EXCLUDING THE SHERIFF MAYBE BUT YOU COULD ALMOST MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT THESE POSITIONS OR YOU WOULD BE HIRED EMPLOYEES, PERIOD. YOU YOURSELF WERE AN EMPLOYEE OF COUNTY BEFORE YOU BECAME ELECTED OFFICIAL.

>> CORRECT. >> YOU EXPRESSED TO ME THE SAME THING YOU WORKED IN THE ELECTIONS OFFICE BECAUSE YOU

BECAME ELECTED OFFICIAL? >> CORRECT.

>> I AM ADDRESSING YOU AS THE CHAIR, THAT'S NOT A PERSONAL QUESTION. MY UNDERSTANDING OF A PROPERTY APPRAISAL YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEGREE AND YOU HAVE TO GET CERTIFIED. WHAT OTHER LICENSE DO YOU NEED TO BE A PROFESSIONAL APPRAISER?

>> PROFESSIONAL. >> PROFESSIONAL YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BACHELORS DEGREE, SO MANY THOUGHS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE THEN YOU TAKE A TEST FOR THE LICENSE.

>> YOU ARE SOMEWHAT DEEMED AS AN EXPERTISE --

>> CORRECT. >> DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT UPON LEAVING THIS JOB YOU COULD FIND WORK IN THE

APPRAISAL FIELD? >> SURE.

>> OKAY. SO AS FAR AS THE REPLACEMENT OPPORTUNITY TO FIND ANOTHER JOB AFTERWARDS MY CONCERN IS THE INCUMBENCY PART. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE POOL BEING SHALLOW. AGAIN I'M ADDRESSING YOU AS THE CHAIR. THE INCUMBENCY PART IS A TOUGH ROAD TO FIGHT WHEN YOU WANT TO BECOME AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, WHAT WAS THE LAST TAX COLLECTOR BEFORE THE NEW ONE? JIMMY WEEKS.

THAT WAS A GUY THAT RAN IN ORANGE COUNTY, EARL K. WOOD.

I THOUGHT HE WAS A BUILDING BUT IT WAS A GUY.

I THINK HE WAS A TAX COLLECTOR IN ORANGE COUNTY FROM THE TIME I WAS AN INFANT TO THE TIME I WAS AN ADULT. IF I EVER THOUGHT ABOUT RUNNING AS A TAX COLLECTOR AGAINST EARL K. WOOD, FORGET T. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO HE S. I DON'T LIKE THE INCUMBENCY PART. NOT THAT YOU WOULD BUT THE SEAT IS THERE BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW HOW ARE.

WRAPPING TUP, THIS IS WHERE I GET BACK TO.

I TOLD A BRIEF STORY THAT I DROVE A GOLF COURSE AT GRACE ACK LICK CAN CHURCH. PEOPLE WANTED A FREE RIDE TO THE FRONT DOOR. I DID IT FOR FIVE YEARS.

I LOVED THE JOB. I LOVED IT UNTIL MY WIFE SAID ARE YOU EVER GOING TO LET IT GO? I SAID 6 COURSE NOT. I LOVE IT.

THEY LOVE TALKING TO ME. I LOVE TALKING TO PEOPLE.

HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED SOMEONE ELSE MAY WANT TO

[01:25:01]

THERE MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE ELECTIONS OR PROPERTY APPRAISER OR TAX COLLECTOR.

THAT'S MY POINT. >> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? I THINK WHAT IS FRUSTRATING FOR ME, I APOLOGIZE, I'M IN MONTH TWO OF YEAR TWO OF MY FIRST TERM.

SINCE 1993, I'VE BEEN STAFF. YOU KNOW THE LAST CHARTER WAS BRUTAL AS MR. TERRY SAID.

I THINK FOR SOMEBODY LIKE ME, THAT I COULD GO.

I COULD HAVE LEFT AND MADE MORE MONEY AND EVENTUALLY THAT DAY WILL COME. BUT I THINK MR. JETTE WILL I A -- TO ATTEST TO THIS. WHEN YOU ARE MAKING LESS MONEY THAN YOU COULD ON THE OUTSIDE AND YOU ARE TREATED LIKE YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

YOU ARE TREATED LIKE WE KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO O. WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT YOU YET. THAT IS MY POINT IS THAT WHEN CHARTERS CONSISTENTLY PICK AND PICK AT THE SCAB, THAT WE'RE WRONG FOR WANTING TO DO THIS JOB, OR THAT ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS COUNTY AFTER 12 YEARS, AND THAT THE ONLY PERSON NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN WILL BE ME.

AS A REPUBLICAN, IT IS IRON TICK ME THE REPUBLICANS SEEM TO BE THE PARTY WE WANT OUR FREEDOM BUT WE'RE SO QUICK TO BE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE CHOICE TO WHO WE HAVE SERVE.

BY US SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TERM LIMIT EVERYBODY WHETHER WE LIKE THEM OR NOT WE DON'T EVEN GET A CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TRACE DRAKE GETS TO STAY THEN WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT MY POINT IS 12 YEARS FOR ME, I'M SURE WILL BE QUITE ENOUGH. MY PREDECESSOR TOLD ME WHEN THE TERM LIMITS WERE PASSED HE IS GOING TO RETIRE.

HE SAID BY THE TIME YOU GET TO 12 YEARS YOU WILL BE THANKING THEM FOR IT. SO, I'M NOT UP HERE TRYING TO SAY ABOLISH TERM LIMITS. I'M SOMEWHAT SMART MAN.

I CAN DO MATH AND COUNT. SOMEBODY SAID THIS JUST HAPPENED THREE YEARS AGO. NOW WE'RE GOING -- LET'S PUNISH THEM SOME MORE. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ATTITUDE OF MOST OF THE CHARTER COMMISSIONS.

IT'S PUNITIVE. IT'S NO GOOD REASON WHY WE NEED TO GO FROM 12 TO 8. THAT IS WHAT WE THINK AND JUST HOPE FOR THE BEST. I CAN TELL YOU THE CONSTITUTIONALS, I'M PROUD OF THEM.

YOU HAVE AN ALL STAR TEAM OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS RIGHT NOW. I'LL GUARANTEE YOU NONE OF US ARE WILLING TO STAY THAT I LONG ARE THAN WE HAVE TO.

I'LL END ON THIS. EVERY YEAR IN AUGUST I MAIL A LIST TO EVERY PROPERTY ON THE COUNT THAT HE TELLS YOU THIS IS THE VALUES, EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW.

OUR OFFICES, I DON'T KNOW COULD BE ANY MORE TRANSPARENT. IF ANYBODY IS LOOKING FOR A REASON TO GET RID OF ME, THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK HARD. AS A ELECTED OFFICIAL, ONE BAD DECISION AND WE'RE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER. WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT 12 YEARS. THE SUPERVISOR OR THE SHERIFF, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, YOU MESS UP IN THE COUNTY ARE GOING TO PAY ATTENTION.

I DON'T KNOW THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ARTIFICIAL EXPIRATION DATE RIGHT NOW. MY THOUGHTS LEAVE IT ALONE.

IF WE FEEL LIKE CHRIS AND I WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF OUR LIFE DOING THIS, IT'S ALREADY PROVEN WE CAN'T BUT TO KEEP PICKING AT THE SCAB, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> MISTER -- >> MS. TERRY.

>> I NEVER LAID EYES ON YOU BEFORE.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WAS.

I WAS A REAL ESTATE BROKE AND I HOLD AN ACTIVE LICENSE FOR THREE DECADES. EVERYTHING HE SAID, BECAUSE YOU ARE UP HERE, I WOULD HAVE PICKED ON CHRIS IF HE WOULD UP HERE. THERE IS A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE ROOMS KNOW I'M NOT A GLASS HALF FULL KIND OF GIRL. I'M GLASS HALF EMPTY BUT I TOOK THE APPRAISERS' CLASS. I PASSED THE STATE.

YOU DON'T WANT ME DOING HIS JOB.

WHEN YOU GET, WHEN IT'S THIS COMPLICATED AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, IF HE DOESN'T DO IT RIGHT, I'M GOING TO BE SCREAMING EVERY TIME THE TRIMS IN COMES OUT.

I'M SURE THE PHONES RING OFF THE HOOK BUT IF HE IS NOT

[01:30:02]

SO IT'S DARNED IF YOU DO AND DAMPED IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE PUT IN THE HOT SEAT WITH VALUATION, WITH THE VIRTUAL NUMBERS, ALL THE PROPERTIES COMING ON-LINE.

THIS IS ONE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER.

I HAVE TO AGREE 100%, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR T. I LOST MY MIND AND DIDN'T KNOW WE DID DID BUT WE'RE LUCKY IT'S 12 YEARS SO -- JIMMY, WHEN YOU STARTED AUTOMATING AND RUNNING TECHNOLOGY THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS HERDING CATS. IT WAS HARD TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION. YOUR EMPLOYEES' PERCEPTION, IF YOU WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A TECHNOLOGY GROOVE AND IT WAS AT THE END OF YOUR 12 YEARS THERE'S ANOTHER LEARNING CURVE THAT HAS TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY.

WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF OURED A MINIMUM STRAIGHTORS IN EACH OF THE POSITIONS AND I DON'T THINK THEIR TERMS SHOULD BE SHORTER THAN THEY ARE.

>> MITCH? >> THANK YOU, THIS IS A POINT OF CLARITY OR CLARIFICATION.

MY NAME IS ON THIS ITEM. THE REASON I BROUGHT IT UP WAS NOT TO REDUCE TERMS BUT TO DO AWAY WITH TERM LIMITS.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

I LIVED IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD.

DO YOU THINK G. E., DO YOU THINK BOEING, YOU CAN NAME ANY FORTUNE 500 COMPANY, DO YOU THINK ANY ONE OF THEM WOULD SAY, TRACY, WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE BUT BUDDY, 12 YEARS, YOU ARE OUT OF HERE.

EVEN IF HE IS DOING A GREAT JOB.

DO YOU KNOW ANY MAJOR CORPORATION THAT WOULD DO THAT? THE ANSWER IS NO.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET TOP NOTCH, LET'S GO BACK MORE.

UNDER JACK WELCH AT G.E.HE GRADED YOU OUGHT IN NINE BLOCKS, IF YOU WERE IN THE TOP RIGHT HANDBOOK BLOCK THEY DID ANYTHING IN THE WORLD THEY COULD TO KEEP YOU ON THE PAYROLL. IF YOU WERE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER, YOU WERE' GONE BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WERE A NONPERFORMER. IT JUST STRIKES ME THAT THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY GOT CAUGHT UP IN THIS TERM LIMIT THING WHICH HAS A PHILOSOPHICAL SOUND AND I'M ANTI-TERM LIMITS. I'LL PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK THE VOTE IS THE GREATEST TERM LIMIT.

THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE LOUD VOICE THAT GOT TERM LIMITS PASSED WERE PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T GET THE PEOPLE WHO THEY WANTED ELECTED SO THEY COULD GET RID OF PEOPLE TO HAVE PARTY CHANCE OF GETTING PEOPLE ELECTED.

IF YOU MOVE TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL I THINK THE INCUMBENCY CARRIES ANOTHER WEIGHT WITH T. I COULD TELL WHEN AN BECAUSE CLIFF STERN SEND ME 800 PIECES OF MAIL.

I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. I THINK IS THERE A LOT OF NOSTALGIA THAT GETS BROUGHT INTO CONVERSATION WHEN WE GET INTO GROUPS AND TALK ABOUT THE FOUNDING AS FAR AS AND ALL THAT -- FATHERS. HOUSE WAS JOHN QUINCY ADAMS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE? ANYBODY KNOW? 35, 40 YEARS, HE DIDN'T GO BACK TO THE FARM.

OKAY. JEFFERSON, HOW LONG WAS HE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE? WASHINGTON IS THE ODD ONE OUT BECAUSE FOLLOWING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR HE BECAME PRESIDENT THEN HE WALKED AWAY FROM IT.

BUT IF YOU GO DOWN THE REST OF THE LIST OF ADAMAGES JEFFERSON, MADISON DOWN THE LIST THEY DIDN'T JUST SERVE TWO TERMS AND WERE GONE. THEY WERE IN VARIOUS FORMS. I THINK YOUR COMMENT ABOUT BEING THERE AND MOVING FROM ONE JOB TO THE AREA WE SEE IN OUR COUNTY.

THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK THE PUBLIC AND THE LAST TIME WHEN THEY VOTED FOR THIS MOST OF THEM DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WAS. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THEY ARE EXECUTING POLICY THAT IS PUT IN PLACE BY THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

THEY ARE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO DO THAT.

YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR QUALIFICATION, CHRIS, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET CERTIFIED WHERE YOU ARE NOW.

>> MINIMUM OF SIX YEARS. >> OKAY.

YOU'VE GOT POSITIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HALF WAY THROUGH THEIR POSSIBLE TERMS THEY REACH CERTIFICATION LEVEL. SOME BEYOND THAT.

I THINK IT'S NUTS. I COME BACK TO AS A COMMISSION, IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE RIGHT OR THERE IS A GOOD RATIONAL FOR IT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SAYS YOU DON'T TRY TO GET IT RIGHT WHEN YOU COME BACK TO IT.

THAT WAS THE REASON I PUT IT ON TONIGHT.

I THINK IT'S JUST VERY INTERESTING THAT WE SOMETIMES LOSE SIGHT. YUL, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP EARLIER. WE NEED TO LOOK WHY TERM LIMITS WERE PUT IN PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHAT WERE THE PREVAILING ISSUES AT THE TIME.

[01:35:01]

I CAN TELL YOU FROM BEING IN MY POSITION IN GREEN COVE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WE NEVER HAD ANY MILLION DOLLAR PARTIES. NEVER.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY THOUSAND DOLLAR PARTIES F. THAT IS EXPLAINED WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE EXECUTION OF OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE. THAT WAS WHY I BROUGHT IT FORWARD AND I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE POINT OF

CLARITY. >> MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADD ONE

-- >> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> TO THE ISSUE OF INCUMBENCY.

ABOUT HOW THE -- I AGREE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DUVAL COUNTY AND WHAT THE POWER OF THE NAME BRING.

WHEN I FILED TO RUN I FILED TO RUN IN FEBRUARY OF 2019.

HI NO NAME. I WAS THE ASSISTANT PROPERTY APPRAISER, MY NAME, FEBRUARY EVER -- I FOLLOWED THE RUN.

QUALIFICATION WAS JUNE OF 2020.

I RAN UNOPPOSED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE NATURE OF THE JOB BUT IT SURE WASN'T BECAUSE I HAD A NAME. I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE BENCH BEING THIN IN CLAY COUNTY.

THAT'S -- I'M NOT TRYING TO FEAR MONGER BUT THE FEAR WHAT IF I HAD NOT RUN? WHAT DO WE HAVE IN CLAY COUNTY? THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BASED ON THE SIZE OF OUR COUNTY, AND MR. MCNAIR YOU ASKED WHAT ARE WE COMPARING THIS TO? YOU KNOW, JERRY HOLLAND IN DUVAL COUNTY RAN FOR SUPERVISOR OF UNELECTIONS AND WAS UNOPPOSED IN A POPULATION OF -- SOMETIMES PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT THE JOB. BUT MY POINT IS I WASN'T AN INCUMBENT. I RAN UNOPPOSED.

NOW PROBABLY I'LL HAVE 18 PEOPLE RUN NEXT TIME AGAINST ME BUT IT'S, SO IT WASN'T LIKE I HAD SOME BIG NAME AND SCARING PEOPLE O. I THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF OUR COUNTY. SORRY.

>> THAT'S OKAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANTED TO AGREE WITH MITCH AS A FORMER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER AND MY COLLEAGUE, ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE TO THE RIGHT.

YOU KNOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE MANAGERS.

THEY MANAGE THE OFFICE. THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE THROUGHOUT MALFEASANCE OR MISFEASANCE OF DUTY ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR EMPLOYEE, THEY CAN BE CHARGED IF THERE IS ILLEGAL EXPENDITURES, YOU CAN BE MADE TO PAY BACK LIKE ONE OF THE FORMER SHER HE WAS TO PAY BACK $60,000 SOMETHING THAT WAS MISAPPROPRIATED SO THAT GOES WITH THE OFFICE. THEY SHOULDN'T BE ANY TERM LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

CERTAINLY WE SHOULDN'T REDUCE IT TO LOWER -- IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ON THE BALLOT.

ONE MORE THING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

THE EMPLOYEES IN A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE SERVES AT THE WILL AND PLEASURE OF THE ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER. INADVERTENTLY WHEN A NEW ELECTED OFFICIAL UNLESS HE COMES FROM WITHIN THAT AGENCY WILL GO IN AND THE TOP ECHELON OF THE OFFICE ARE GONE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IN PEOPLE THEY CAN TRUST, PEOPLE THAT ARE QUALIFIED, THAT THEY THINK ARE QUALIFIED AND SO ON.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE OFFICIAL CAN BE TERMINATED AS LONG AS YOU DON'T VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN BE TERMINATED WHEN YOU ASSUMED OFFICE.

WHEN I ASSUMED OFFICE AS CLERK OF THE COURT IN 1982 I HAD TO SWEAR IN EVERY EMPLOYEE IN MY OFFICE.

AS A DEPUTY CLERK. AT THAT POINT IN TIME I COULD HAVE SAID, SORRY, I'M NOT SWEARING YOU AND THEY'RE GONE. THE STABILITY COMES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS CONTINUING TO SERVE UNTIL THE VOTERS DECIDE IT'S TIME TO GET RITE OF HIM OR HER.

SO I'M AGREE WITH YOU, MR. PROPERTY APPRAISER, THAT JUST FOR STABILITY PURPOSES, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS SHOULD STAY UNTIL THE VOTERS DECIDE TO GET THEM OUT.

SHERIFF'S AS I SAID EARLIER, 6 CANDIDATES.

FIVE OF THEM LOST THEIR POSITION BY THE VOTERS.

ONE REMAINED UNTIL HE RETIRED.

SHERIFF BASELER. AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, HE LOST OUT OF THE PAST 6 WE LOST 3 OR 4 TO ELECTIONS. SO IF YOU SCREW UP IN THOSE OFFICES, OUR ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE PUBLIC OR THEY, YOU ARE NOT TRANSPARENT, YOU ARE GONE.

I BELIEVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MR. -- TWO COMMENTS.

>> JIMMY, I WANT TO -- I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT BUT

[01:40:03]

BECAUSE IF INDEED THERE IS A CHANGEOVER, LIKE YOU SAID, NOW I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE ANYTHING NEFARIOUS YOU ARE GOING TO BRING THE PEOPLES YOU TRUST AND FIELD ARE BEST QUALIFIED BUT THIS COULD HAVE A HUGE TRICKLE DOWN TO PEOPLE WHO SPEND A CAREER AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES IN A DEPARTMENT. THIS -- I NEVER GOT THAT FAR. MY THOUGHT PROCESS BUT THIS IS DAMAGING IN AN UNINTENDED CONQUEST OF POLITICS.

>> SORRY. RESPECTFULLY, I GREW UP IN A HOUSEHOLD. MY FATHER WAS A PROFESSIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND IN CENTRAL FLORIDA.

EVERY FOUR YEARS AROUND OUR HOUSE, TIGHTEN THE BELTS.

NEW PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IS HE A HAWK OR IS HE ANTI-WAR? EVERY FOUR YEARS WE TIGHTENED OUR BELT BECAUSE GET WHAT? IF AN ANTI-HAWK CAME INTO THE PRESIDENT DEFENSE CONTRACTS GOT SLANDER. DAD GOVERNMENT HIS JOB.

THERE IS NOT A POLITICAL OFFICE, I'M TRYING NOT TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT SIDE WAKES, THERE'S NOT A POLITICAL OFFICE THAT DOESN'TENCE WHAT A NEW BOSS COMES IN OPPORTUNITY THEY MAY GET CLEARED OUT. ANY SHERIFF, ANYTHING, WHETHER IT BE THE PRESIDENT, LOSES HIS CABINET.

EVERYTHING VISITS OR THE GOVERNOR -- SHIFTS OR THE GOVERN. YOU KNOW THAT GOING INTO.

WHEN YOU GO INTO PUBLIC SERVICE THAT COULD BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT GOING IN. MR. CHANDLESS, A POINT OF CLARITY FOR ME, YOU HAVE TOLD US SEVERAL TIMES IT TAKES YOU SIX YEARS TO GET CERTIFIED.

MUST YOU BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL BEFORE THE CLOCK

STARTS? >> YES.

>> SO IT'S SIX YEARS UNDER THE CLOCK OF YOU BEING

ELECTED. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> PASS THE TEST YOU HAVE TO COMPLETE A GENERAL --

[INAUDIBLE] >> ARE YOU EMPLOYED AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM YEAR ONE THROUGH YEAR 6, YOUR STATISTIC JUST BEING PASSING THE TEST? OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE -- MR. DRAKE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. CHANDLESS TO COME UP.

I RECOGNIZE NOT EVERYBODY LAST HAD A CHANCE TO SPEND TIME WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALS.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MR. CHANDLESS GIVE US HIS VIEWS ON THIS.

AND FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS, IF YOU

HAVEN'T ALREADY. >> JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. I WAD HIRED INTO THE OFFICE FIRST AS A CONTRACTOR. WHEN WE LEFT PUNCH CARDS AND WENT TO OPTICAL SCAN, I HELPED MR. KIRKMAN SELECT THE OPTICAL SCAN ANTI- TOOK ABOUT A YEAR FROM US TO GO FROM PUNCH CARDS TO OPTICAL SCAN.

I PUT THE VERY FIRST COMPUTENER OUR OFFICE.

PREVIOUSLY WE PIGGY BACKED ON TO THE CLERK'S A. S. 400 MAIN FRAME. I PUT THE VERY FIRST PERSON COMPUTER IN THE OFFICE. I PUT THE VERY FIRST TABULATION SYSTEM THAT WAS COMPUTERIZED INTO THE OFFICE. THEN I CAME ON BOARD.

I'M NATIONALLY CERTIFIED. I'M STATE CERTIFIED.

I'M A MASTER CERTIFIED ELECTIONS PROFESSIONAL.

I'VE GIVEN NATIONAL TESTIMONY.

AND I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DO.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE OFFICERS DEDICATED TO PROVIDE MISSION SPECIFIC STATE SERVICES.

FOR EXAMPLE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOCUSES ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTS IS THE GATE KEEPER TO DEMOCRACY. PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF LEAKS PROCESS AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE, I LIVED HERE 45 YEARS.

WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE PEOPLE SAID, CHRIS, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR ME? SHERIFF MAYBE CAN HELP ME WITH A TICKET. COUNTY COMMISSIONER CAN GIVE MY PROPERTY REZONED. WHAT CAN YOU DO? I CAN INSURE THAT YOUR CANDIDATE HAS A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ELECTION IN MY OPINION.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE. NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS THE LINCHPIN OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER OVERSEES MISSION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS AND ARE ELECTED LOCALLY.

THEY'RE POSITIONED TO QUICKLY RESPONDS TO THE NEEDS OF THEIR CITIZENS FAILURE TO ACT IN THEIR SPECIFIC AREA OF PUBLIC TRUST WOULD RESULT IN THERE BEING REPLACED AT THE BALLOT BOX.

REMEMBER WE'VE TERM LIMITS EVERY FOUR YEAR.

ASK SEVERAL SHERIFFS. ASK SEVERAL SUPERINTENDENTS.

ASK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WE'VE TERM LIMITS.

TERM LIMITS, THE SOLUTION BUT TO WHAT PROBLEM?

[01:45:04]

PUBLIC POLICY MAKER WHO DOES NOT CREATE LEGISLATION OR LAW. WITH THESE THREE ROLES LONGEVITY CAN BE AN ASESSION FOR THE PEOPLE AND -- ASSET FOR THE PEOPLE AND ELECTS REMAINS THE MEANS CITIZENS EXERCISE ACCOUNTABILITY. NOT TO MENTION THE ELECTION IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY. I HAVE THREE AUDITORS THAT AUDIT ME ANNUALLY. IN ADDITION TO THAT I CAN BE REMOVED MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE.

THE GOVERNOR, SEE HOW THAT WORKED IN BRAUDE COUNTY.

CAN REMOVE THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

TERM LIMITS ARE FUNDAMENTALLYLY UNDEMOCRATIC. THEY UNDERMINE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR WHOM EVER THEY CHOOSE IMPOSING AN ARBITRARY RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

EVERYBODY WHO IS A CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIAL UNDER TERM LIMITS, YOU REMOVE THE CITIZENS' RIGHTS TO VOTE FOR THAT PERSON. BUT YOU GIVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO ALL OF THE OTHER CITIZENS WHO DON'T HOLD POSITION BY ALLOWING A VOTE FOR THEM.

TERM LIMITS DENY SOME CITIZENS THE ABILITY TO RUN FOR OFFICE OR OTHER CITIZENS' THE ABILITY TO VOTE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL THEY BELIEVE WILL BEST REPRESENT THEIR INTEREST AND WHATEVER OFFICE THEY HOLD.

TERM LIMIT PROPOSALS ARE NUMBING RESPONSE TO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS. WHEN IN REALITY THE SOLUTION TO REAL PROBLEMS ARE BEING IGNORED.

PROPONENTS OF TERM LIMITS HOLD THEM OUT AS A CURE-ALL FOR WHATEVER THEY PERCEIVE TO BE A PROBLEM.

CORRUPTION, ABUSE OF POWER, OR THE LATEST PROBLEM ISSUE.

IN THE REAL WORLD, SOME OFFICE HOLDERS ARE REELECTED. OTHERS ARE NOT.

IF THE ELECTORATE APPROVES OF AN OFFICE HOLDER OR OFFICE SEEKER, THAN THAT PERSON RUNNING WILL BE ELECTED. IF NOT THEY WON'T.

THIS IS HOW REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACIES WORK.

PROBLEMS, PERCEIVED OR NOT, CAN ONLY BE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY ARBITRARY LIMITS ON WHOM THE VOTERS CAN CHOOSE. AGAIN REAL TERM LIMITS ARE IN THE BALLOT BOX. THIS IS WHERE THEY SHOULD REMAIN. THE OTHER KEGS INSTRUCTIVE RESULT THAT TERM LIMITS CHRISTMAS TO DIN GRATE THE VALUE -- DENIGRATES THE VALUE OF EXPERIENCE.

MR. TIMMERLAKE, I THINK YOU BROUGHT THIS UP.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE AGENCY ADMINISTRATE OOH MANAGERS.

I CAN'T SAY THIS STRONGLY ENOUGH.

IMAGINE HOW FOOLISH IT WOULD BE TO PLACE A MANDATORY LIMIT ON MANAGERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

A SUCCESSFUL CORPORATE EXECUTIVE WOULD ALL HIS OR HER SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, WHEN YOU COME TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND YOU ASK FOR A SPECIFIC ANSWER TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION, YOU DON'T JUST GO TO THIS DEPARTMENT OR THAT DEPARTMENT. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, HIM OR HERSELF WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I KNOW HOW TO CODE LEAKS. I KNOW HOW -- ELECTIONS.

I KNOW HOW TO DELIVER VOTING EQUIPMENTS.

I KNOW HOW TO FIX VOTING EQUIPMENT.

I KNOW HOW TO RUN A PRECINCT.

I KNOW HOW TO REMOVE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.

I KNOW HOW TO DO THOSE THINGS.

BECAUSE BEFORE I WAS ELECTED I WAS IN THE OFFICE FOR TEN YEARS. STOCKHOLDERS, A SUCCESSFUL CORPORATE ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTIVE WITH ALL HIS OR HER SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE WOULD HAVE TO ARBITRARILY LEAVE PROBABLY AT THE TIME WHEN THE EXECUTIVE IS MOST EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE. STOCKHOLDERS WOULD REACT VERY BADLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF STOCKHOLDERS WERE DISSATISFIED WITH A CORPORATE MANAGER, THEY COULD REMOVE THAT MANAGER.

LIKEWISE, THE VOTERS REMOVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WITH WHOM THEY ARE DISPLEASED.

THE ONE LAST THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ADD TERM LIMITS APPLICABLE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

[01:50:06]

I'VE LIVED IN THIS TOWN FOR OVER 45 YEARS.

MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER IS.

IF YOU WANTED TO BE TRUTHFUL ON THE BALLOT, YOU COULD HAVE SAID, SHERIFF. YOU COULD HAVE SAID PROPERTY APPRAISER. YOU COULD HAVE SAID CLERK OF COURT, TAX COLLECTOR. YOU COULD HAVE ROTATED THEM OUT A LITTLE BIT ALT A TIME INSTEAD OF ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS POTENTIALLY LEAVING AT THE SAME TIME. HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE GOOD GOVERNMENT IN CLAY COUNTY WHEN ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE TERM LIMITED OUT ON THE SAME DAY? THANK YOU.

>> QUESTIONS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

MITCH? >> I THINK I'M TALKING A LOT. NOT A QUESTION.

IT IS ONE MORE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IT HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES WHEN PEOPLE RAN FOR OFFICE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING OFFICE.

>> I DIDN'T HAVE TERM LIMITS WHEN I RAN.

>> EXACTLY. CAN I TELL YOU A NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS BUT ELECTED OFFICIALS KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO WHEN THEY RAN.

THEY KNOW WHAT THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE WAS WHEN THEY RAN. IS THAT ALL WELL AND GOOD.

OUR JOB IS TO SAY WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF CLAY COUNTY GOING FORWARD? NOT WHAT DID THEY KNOW. DID THEY THINK COMPENSATION WAS GOOD, BAD, INDIFFERENT. DID THEY ASK FOR T. SHOULD THE COMMISSIONERS PUT THEIR PAY RAISE ON THE BALLOT? THAT'S ALMOST POLITICAL SUICIDE.

I UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMISSION FOR TO SIT DOWN AND SAY WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF CLAY COUNTY NOT 50 YEARS AGO BUT TEN YEARS FROM NOW, 15 YEARS FROM NOW.

WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TOPICS, I QUESTIONED CHRIS ABOUT THIS WHEN WE MET BECAUSE I TOO, THINK MOST PEOPLE IN GREEN COVE SPRINGS COULDN'T TELL YOU WHEN A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER IS.

THAT'S SAD. IT'S EVEN MORE SAD TO KNOW THEY VOTED TO RESTRICT THEIR TERMS IN OFFICE WHEN THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE OR WHAT THEY DID.

SO IS IT WORTH BRINGING BACK AGAIN? IN MY MIND IT IS AND PUTTING IT ON A BALLOT IN SUCH A WAY PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S ON THE BALLOT AND WHO THOSE OFFICERS ARE AND WHAT THEY DO.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRS. >> GO AHEAD.

>> MISS DOCKERY. >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION EITHER. COMMENT.

>> WHEW. >> FIRST I WANT TO REALLY THANK CHRIS AND TRACY FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT AND SHARING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND, I DO THINK THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WE SAID EARLIER IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERNOR, IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE LEGISLATURE, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR, THEY'RE BACKED UP BY PROFESSIONAL CAREER PUBLIC SERVANTS. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT GOT TO BE A BAD THING.

I THINK IT'S A HIGH CALLING FOR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE A CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHATEVER THAT IS.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HAVE DONE THAT. I THANK YOU.

I WILL SAY, TOO, THAT ONE, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WAS. I HASN'T HERE TO VOTE ON T.

I WON'T HAVE VOTED ON IT BUT I KNEW WHAT A CLERK OF COURT WAS AND SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AND THEY WERE ELECTED, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WAS NOT A PHRASE THAT -- I DIDN'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD KNOW. SO THAT WAS MY OTHER POINT.

LASTLY, I DO THINK WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITIZENS. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS IT. PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT WE'RE GOING TO LOOSE ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AT THE SAME TIME WHICH MEANS THE NEXT ELECTION UNLESS SOMEBODY IS NOT VOTED BACK IN, IS GOING TO HAN ALL OVER AGAIN 12 MOREEE, WE LOOSE ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AT THE SAME TIME UNLESS SOMEONE LEAVES OR LOSES THEIR OFFICE.

THE LAST POINT IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT CAN WE BRING SOMETHING UP THAT THE VOTERS JUST VOTED ON? MAYBE THAT'S NOT RIGHT TO DO SO SO SOON.

YOU LOOK IN THE PACKET IN 2006, WE THE VOTERS VOTED TO INCREASE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY TWO AT LARGE SEATS. TWO YEARS LATER THE VOTERS VOTED TO REDUCE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BY TWO SEATS.

[01:55:01]

MAYBE THEY DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON, BUT ANYWAY -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, BOTH, FOR YOUR TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT. I DO LOOK AT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS DIFFERENTLY THAN I LOOK AT THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE. YOU ARE PROFESSIONALS.

IT'S YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. WHEN YOU REALLY START LEARNING ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THERE IS A CLERK OF COURT. YOU KNOW IS THERE A SUPERVISOR OF LEAKS. PROPERTY APPRAISER BUT WHEN YOU GET IN AND FIND OUT, OKAY.

WHAT KIND OF CREDENTIALS DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE? WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THAT, AND JUST TO DO THE JOB, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYBODY CAN GET ELECTED BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. AS FAR AS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IF YOU HAVE MONEY, NAME RECOGNITION, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PROBABLY GET ELECTED AND COUNTIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- YOU HAVE SPECIALTY. SO I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY DIFFERENT FOR YOU. THE EXPERIENCE, YOU DON'T WANT THAT WALKING OUT THE DOOR.

YOU DON'T WANT THE TURNOUT OF THE STAFF.

-- TURNOVER OF THE STAFF FOR CONSISTENCY.

I LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY THAN I LOOK AT THE OTHERS.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT. THEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO IT TOO MUCH BECAUSE WE TABLED IT BUT WHEN I ORIGINALLY SAW THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR SALARY INCREASE I DIDN'T LIKE THERE WAS NO PROVISION. NOTHING, NO STEP, NO COST OF LIVING. BUT LIKE I SAID IN THE LAST MONTH I'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE VOCAL ABOUT T. I DON'T FEEL LIKE IF YOU GO AND SAY, AT LEAST BASED ON WHAT THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT, IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS, IF YOU PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THERE, IT NEEDS TO BE A STEP, SOMETHING REASONABLE PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER.

IF YOU PUT IT BACK ON THERE. BUT I DEFINITELY DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU SHOULD BE LIMITED. SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THIS GROUP IS IF YOU COULD MAYBE PUT TOGETHER SOME KIND OF SPREADSHEET OR SOMETHING, MAYBE TERESA COULD HELP WITH THIS.

MAYBE JUST DO SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION. THE CREDENCES YOU HAVE TO -- CREDENCES YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO DO THE JOB THEN THE EXTRA THAT YOU HAVE. BUT LIKE YOU SAID IT'S 6 YEARS, AND YOU HAVE TO BE IN OFFICE TO GET THE CERTIFICATION. IT'S HELPFUL WHEN YOU ARE MAKING DECISIONS TO KNOW THAT BACKGROUND INFORMATION, BUT. YES.

I'M PERSONALLY I'M NOT FOR LESSENING IT AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE TERM LIMITS FOR YOU BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE VOTERS WILL DO THAT.

>> CHRIS. >> YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT.

TO RUN FOR SUPERVISOR OF LEAKS OR APPRAISE ESH, TAX COLLECTOR, THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION ARE YOU HAVE TO BE 18 YEARS OLD. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE.

>> REGISTERED VOTER. >> THAT'S IT.

>> RESIDE WITHIN THE COUNTY ITSELF.

>> OKAY. >> EXPECT FOR THE SHERIFF.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT.

THAT'S IT. >> YEAH.

>> CERTIFICATION -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> AND GET ONE MORE VOTE. >> YOU HAVE TO -- BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO RECOGNIZE YOUR CERTIFICATION IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. YOUR CERTIFICATION IS A REQUIREMENT TO GET CERTIFICATION PAY AND BE RECOGNIZED AS A CERTIFIED SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

THEN OF COURSE EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE I'M A MASTER STATE FLORIDA SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

I'M ALSO A NATIONALLY CERTIFIED SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. IN 2012, I WAS SELECTED AS THE NUMBER ONE ELECTIONS COUNTY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY THE GOVERNOR. IN 2016 AS I WAS THE PRESIDENT OF OUR STATE ASSOCIATION.

I MEAN SO IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMING TO WORK AND BEING SUCCESSFUL IN WHAT YOU DO.

I TAKE PRIDE IN WHAT I DO. >> FIRST OF ALL, FOR MR. DRAKE AND MR. CHANDLESS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

THANK YOU FOR WILLING TO PUT YOUR HEAD OUT AND DO WHAT YOU DO. I MEAN THAT WITH COMPLETE

[02:00:03]

>> BY LAW, I'LL GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER.

THE LEGISLATURE IN 2000 I BELIEVE PASSED THE TAXPAYERS BILL OF RIGHTS. IT SAID BY LAW THAT I HAVE TO EVERY YEAR, NOT ONLY APPRAISE EVERY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH NOTICE AS TO WHAT THEIR VALUATION IS. WHAT EXEMPTIONS THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS WE OF COURSE NOW SINCE 1995, WHEN THE SAVE OUR HOMED A MEANT EVERY PROPERTY IS CAPPED WITH A HOMESTEAD.

SMOOTH NO LONGER 2+ 2. SO THE ANSWER IS EVERY YEAR, EVERY AUGUST I HAVE TO NOTIFY --

>> DOES THAT DOCUMENTATION COME ON A LETTERHEAD WITH YOUR NAME AS WELL AS AN ENVELOPE WITH YOUR NAME ON

IT? >> I BELIEVE SO.

YES, SIR. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER TIME OFFICIALLY THAT YOU HAVE TO NOTIFY THE TAXPAYER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER VIA NOTIFICATION WITH YOUR NAME ON IT AND THE ENVELOPE OR LEDDERHEAD?

>> THE ONLY OTHER TIME WOULD BE THIS TIME OF THE YEAR WHEN ANYBODY WHO HAS RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION THE PRIOR YEAR, THEY GET AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CARD FROM ME THAT SAYS THIS IS A RECEIPT.

>> IF I PURCHASE A PROPERTY IN CLAY COUNTY, DO I GET SOME NOTIFICATION FROM YOU AS A NEW PROPERTY OWNER? DO I GET SOMETHING THAT SAYS, WELCOME TO CLAY COUNTY OR THIS IS -- I'M YOUR PROPERTY APPRAISER?

DOES THAT COME IN THE MAIL? >> I DON'T DO THAT.

WHAT I DO IS -- >> IS THERE SOMETHING --

>> WE SEND A WELCOME NEIGHBOR THAT SAYS MR. THEEUS, WELCOME TO CLAY COUNTY.

HERE IS YOUR FORM TO -- >> DOES THE NAME HAVE YOUR NAME ON THE LETYHEAD OR ENVELOPE.

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> MR. CHANDLER, I FEEL LIKE I'M CROSS EXAMINING BUT I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION FOR MYSELF. MR. CLINT MESS, I MOVE AND I GOT INFORMATION FRO YOUR OFFICE TO MY NEW ADDRESS; YOU SEND OUT MAIL TO THE, TO ALL THE FOLKS IN CLAY COUNTY? WHEN DO YOU SEND STUFF OUT?

>> I HAD THE WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO SEND SAMPLE BALLOTS TO EDUCATE THE VOTE WHAT'S IS ON THE BALLOT.

IF THERE'S A VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION, AND YOU RETURN IT BACK AND I WILL SEND YOU A VOTER INFORMATION CARD THAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW.

IF I REMOVE YOU FROM THE ROLES, I PLACE THAT LETTER AND THAT COMES FROM ME AS WELL SIGNED BY ME.

IF YOU ARE AN 18-YEAR-OLD YOUTH AND YOU PRE-REGISTER TO VOTE AND YOU ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL, I WILL SEND YOU A

BIRTHDAY CARD SIGNED BY ME. >> YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT.

MY POINT IS -- I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE -- AND I WILL TELL YOU AS SOMEONE WHO RAN FOR AN OFFICE, MY ATTITUDE WAS, THE VOTER IS THE ARBITOR OF THE TERM.

TILLY FOWLER WAS A TERM SUPPORTER.

DR. YOHO WAS A TERM SUPPORTER.

YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR FEDERAL OFFICES EXPECT FOR CONGRESS, THEY HAVE TERMS BUT THEY HAVE UNLIMITED TERMS. IT SPEAKS BACK TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF SOMEONE ELSE WHO WOULD DESIRE TO SERVE. MR. DRAINING, SPEAK -- RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE RUNNING UNOPPOSED.

WHAT POSITION WERE YOU BEFORE YOU RAN.

THE ASSISTANT PROPERTY APPRAISER, YOU DID HAVE NAME RECOGNITION, AS SOON AS YOU SAID I'M THE ASSISTANT PROPERTY PRAISER, THIS GUY -- HE KNOWS HOW TO DO T. THE FELLOW WHO WON PUTNAM TAX COLLECTOR HAS BEEN THE ASSISTANT TAX COLLECTOR SINCE HE HAS BEEN OUT OF COLLEGE. HE WON CLOSE RACE BUT HE WON BECAUSE HE HAD NAME RECOGNITION.

THE INCUMBENCY IS THE PROBLEM.

I'M NOT SURE I'M UPSET WITH WHAT WE HAVE AS A TERM.

IT'S 3, 4 YEARS, 4 YEARS AT A TIME WITH THREE OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK AS SOON AS WE START INPUTTING TERM LIMITS IN WE'VE DONE OUR JOB TO DUMB DOWN THE VOTER. WE'VE TAKEN ONE RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM THEM BUT I'LL SAY THEY'RE BUSY PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE A LOT ON THEIR PLATE.

SOMETIMES THEY DON'T DO ALL THE WORK THEY SHOULD.

UNFORTUNATELY, TERM LIMITS SEEM TO BE A WAY TO -- I DON'T WANT TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM BUT IT MAKES THEM WAKE UP AND SEE WHO IS COMING NEXT.

SO, IN CLOSING, THE INCUMBENCY IS THE PROBLEM.

[02:05:04]

I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE, IS THERE A YOUNG CHRIS CHANDLESS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION, CAN YOU SPOT SOMEONE THAT SAYS THAT GUY REMINDS ME A LOT OF MYSELF?

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE THAT I HOPE WOULD DECIDE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

>> IF THERE WERE NO TERM LIMITS IN PLACE, COULD YOU SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PERSON, MAYBE AT THE RIGHT TIME TO FIND THE SLOT TO RUN AGAINST YOU?

>> CERTAINLIES. >> BUT YOU RUN AGAINST YOUR

BOSS, YOU GOT TO -- >> THAT WAS WHAT I DID.

>> THAT RULE IS FINE. I'M SAYING SPEAKING TO THE

-- >> THAT IS FINE.

THAT'S AN EDUCATED GUESS, YOU BETTER KNOW GOING INTO GOVERNMENT. BUT INCUMBENCY, I THINK THERE'S A FLAW IN YOUR STATEMENT.

>> PLEASE. >> I DON'T WANT TO GO TIT FOR TAT. BUT IF I MAKE A MISTAKE THEY'LL REMEMBER MY NAME. OKAY.

HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO OPEN UP YOUR ENVELOPE THAT COMES TO YOU WITH NO NAME ON IT? OKAY.

AGAIN MY POINT IS I UNDERSTAND INCUMBENCY, NAME RECOGNITION, ALL CARRIES A BENEFIT BUT IT'S A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE YOU ARE GOING TO GET REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

>> WELL, YES, I AGREE. >> COULD I MAKE A POINT, MR. THEEUS, TO YOURS? YOU MENTIONED ABOUT CONGRESS AND TERM LIMITS. PART OF MY BACKGROUND WAS WORKING LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS FOR NAVY AND THE PENTAGON.

I GOT TO SEE FIRST HAND WORKING WITH A LOT OF HILL STAFF. AND THE ONE THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THE CONSTITUENTS IN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT PUSH FOR TERM LIMITS ACTUALLY HURT THEMSELVES. THE REASON THEY HURT THEMSELVES IS BECAUSE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES NEVER GAINED THE SENIORITY NECESSARY TO GET ON THE COMMITTEES TO BE ABLE TO EFFECT LEGISLATION FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

BECAUSE THEY NEVER WERE THERE LONG ENOUGH.

NOW THAT'S THE SYSTEM. RIGHT.

SO I ONLY POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THE OTHER PART OF THAT WAS THEY ALL HAD PROFESSIONAL STAFF.

SO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE ALL KNOW THE GAME THAT TAKES PLACE. BUT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF WAS THERE ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S WHAT KEPT EVERYTHING RUNNING. WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF, HERE, IT'S THE SAME THING. THAT'S.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN COME AND GO.

BUT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR STAFF IS WHAT KEEPS THE COUNTY RUNNING ON A DAILY BASIS ALONG WITH COUNTY MANAGER AND THE COUNTY MANAGERS' STAFF.

SO JUST AN OBSERVATION. >> ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MR. DRAINING OR MR. CHANDLESS? NO, THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

VERY MUCH. SO WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO DECIDE DO WE WANT TO LEAVE THIS AS IS OR DO WE WANT TO CHANGE IT. IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT, DO WE WANT TO REMOVE IT OR REDUCE IT? I THINK THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS TO BE, THAT ARE ON

THE TABLE. >> NOT REDUCING.

>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT I MEAN IS THAT AN OPTION. OK.

NOW THAT SAID, SCUZI. >> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS THE TRANSPARENCY PART BECAUSE IF YOU PUT IT -- I'M SO MUCH ABOUT BEING TRUTHFUL, HONEST AND YOU KNOW, IF VOTERS MAKE A DECISION AND THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AND WE DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR DECISION THAT'S OKAY. I SAY WE, THEY, I'M ONE OF THEM. WHEN I GO IN THERE AND I THINK LAST WEEK YOU MENTIONED THE PEOPLE THAT HURRY IN AND OUT. THAT'S NOT TRUE.

BECAUSE MR. CHANDLESS SENDS US, YOU KNOW, PRACTICE BALLOT, A SAMPLE BALLOT WE SHOULD BE RESEARCHING BEFORE WE WALK IN THERE. SO I'M IN A HURRY AND I GO IN AND I'VE ALREADY, I HAVE IT MARKED SO, YOU KNOW.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE BUT THAT IS MY POINT IS THAT IT'S OUR JOB AT SOME POINT TO EDUCATE OURSELVES.

BUT I FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE TRANSPARENT, WE PUT ON THEIR AND THE WORDING WHERE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, I DON'T LIKE ANY ATTEMPT, ESPECIALLY AS A VOTER, TO FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING THE WOOL PULLED OVER MY EYES.

>> MR. TIMMERLAKE, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP TO PUT ON THE DISCUSSION POINT HERE. AND YOU'RE POINT WAS TO MAKE IT WITH NO TERM LIMITS, THAT'S CORRECT?

>> MR. CHAIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT WE'RE AT A

[02:10:02]

IT AS IT IS. >> ARE YOU ASKING ME TO MAKE

A MOTION. >> I AM SAYING WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE TERM LIMITS AWAY OR COME TO A CONSENSUS AND LEAVE IT AS IS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS COMMITTEE MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SUGGESTING THE REMOVAL OF TERM LIMITS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

>> CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM FOR THE --

>> YES, THAT IT WOULD BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS TO SAY WE THINK, HOWEVER WE WORD IT THAT IT IS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS, NOT

PEOPLE WHO ARE LEGISLATORS. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> GOOD.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE MR. TIMBERLAKE PUT A MOTION FORWARD TO REMOVE THE, MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE TERM LIMITS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY MR. DEWS, CORRECT.

>> YES. >> OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

>> MAKE SURE THE PROCESS IS CORRECT WE DON'T HAVE TO SET THE VERBIAGE, THIS IS GOING TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE FOR ALL OF US TO AGREE ON

THE VERBAGE. >> OKAY.

>> I JUST TO MAKE SURE I'LL DEFER ALSO TO MR. TAYLOR AND MISS GRIM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. SO GOOD POINT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'LL DO. WE WOULD ONCE DISCUSSION IS FINISHED WE'LL BE VOTING ON THE MOTION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WORDING WOULD COME LATER.

AT ANOTHER THE, AFTER A TIME WE GET RECOMMENDATIONS ON

HOW DO IT AND -- >> SOMETHING REAL QUICK, COULD WE GET EITHER YOURSELF OR MITCH, ONE ONE ONE OF THEM, FROM THIS BOARD TO WORK WITH THE, MR. TAYLOR AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS TO COME UP WITH THE

LANGUAGE? >> I THINK WE CAN.

AND I BELIEVE, MR. TAYLOR, DON'T THAT REQUIRE A SUBCOMMITTEE? ESSENTIALLY WE'RE FORMING A

SUBCOMMITTEE, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DOESN'T THAT REQUIRE NOTICE?

>> NO. [INAUDIBLE]

>> ONLY ONE MEMBER UP HERE. >> ONE MEMBER IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> YOU MENTIONED TWO. >> EITHER OR.

EITHER YOU OR MITCH. >> ALL RIGHT.

SURE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, YOU AGREE TO THAT? OKAY. MR. CHANDLESS.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I COULD PLAY A ROLE IN THAT BECAUSE IT'S. [INAUDIBLE]

>> DULY NOTED. MISS TERRY.

>> THAT MIGHT BE TECHNICAL BUT IT PUTS THE CONSTITUTIONALS IN A POSITION THAT I DON'T THINK THIS BODY SHOULD PUT THEM IN.

BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE VOTING ON THEIR FUTURE OR GUIDING WHAT THEIR FUTURE COULD BE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PROCESS, TO PUT A STAKEHOLDER LIKE THAT IN A

GROUP. >> HAVE MR. TAYLOR CORRESPOND WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND SEE IF THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT, AND IF THEY'RE WILLING TO SERVE TO HELP COME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WHICH IS CONFUSING, MAYBE THE OFFICE ITSELF, SHERIFF, TAX COLLECT OOH PROPERTY APPRAISER, SUPERVISOR OF LEAKS, CLERK

OF COURTS. >> WE'D ASK MR. TAYLOR TO WORK TO COME UP WITH LANGUAGE TO PROPOSE TO THE

COMMISSION, CORRECT? >> TO ELIMINATE THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> AND TO MS. LUDWIG'S POINT TO KEEP IT AS TRANSPONT AS POSSIBLE FOR THE VOTERS AS WELL AS TO EDUCATIONAL FOR THEM. RIGHT: I'M NOT TRYING TO

PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO EDUCATE THEM BECAUSE IF YOU CAN USE THE LANGUAGE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND THEN LIST THEM, YOU ARE KIND OF EDUCATING THEM AT THE SAME TIME OF WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WHO ARE THEY, WHAT ARE THESE POSITIONS?

THAT IS JUST -- >> OKAY.

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY THE MOTION.

MR. -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOUR FIRST NAME, I'M SORRY.

>> MR. TIMBERLAKE. >> MR. TIMBERLAKE.

[02:15:02]

>> CORRECT. >> SO IT'S OPEN.

IS IT, CAN YOU CLARIFY, WE'RE IN DISCUSSION NOW.

>> CORRECT. >> IN QUESTIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO GO TO A VOTE. IF WE VOTE TO NO TO THE MOTION, IS IT SAFE TO SAY WE'RE STATUS QUO AS IT

STANDS? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS?

>> MR. CHAIR. >> YES.

>> SO I I HEARD THE MOTION AND I HEARD YOUR SUMMARY OF THE MOTION. I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT BUT I WONDER IF WE COULD READ BACK THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF

THE MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO VOTE TO PROCEED BUT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GO ON THE BALLOT WE'LL HAVE A SECOND VOTE ONCE WE GET THE LANGUAGE.

>> I MEAN -- YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I MEAN THE MOTION ITSELF THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT

-- >> TO BE CLEAR ON THE

MOTION. >> YEAH.

>> SO MR. TIMBERLAKE, DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE THE MOTION FOR THE GROUP? IS.

>> YEAH. [LAUGHTER]

>> IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, IT'S TO MOVE THIS NEW BUSINESS ITEM FORWARD THAT ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS THAT TERM LIMITS BE REMOVED THAT WE BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER TO REMOVE THE TERM LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL

OFFICERS. >> SO THAT IS THE MOTION.

>> THAT'S THE MOTION. >> WE RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

>> YES. >> IT'S IN THE CHARTER.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> I MEAN OBVIOUSLY LANGUAGE COMES AS A SECONDARY ISSUE.

>> CORRECT. LANGUAGE WILL COME

SECONDARY. >> IF YOU WANT CLARITY, IT DOES NOT RELATE TO QUALIFICATIONS.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT'S THE OTHER HALF OF

THE AGENDA ITEM. >> CAN I STILL SECOND THE

MOTION. >> OKAY.

>> MISS DOCKERY -- >> I KNEW IT.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.

TWO NAY. THAT FOR THE RECORD WE HAVE CRIST EVEN YOU HAVE THE NAY, VERY GOOD.

OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES.

AND THE NEXT PART OF THAT, FOR THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE TAYLOR COMING FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE LANGUAGE. CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

VERY GOOD. ON THE ADDITIONAL MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, DO WE WANT TO TACKLE THAT TONIGHT OR DO WE WANT TO DEFER THAT? I GET THE IMPRESSION WE

SHOULD DEFER THAT. >> I'LL BLAKE A MOTION --

>> I DEFER TO THE WISDOM OF THE GROUP.

[LAUGHTER] >>

[INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY.

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

DO WE HAVE ANY -- I'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY, MR. CHANDLESS?

>> GOING TO BE SHORT AND SWEET.

OF COURSE WE HAVE AN ELECTION'S EXPO COMING UP NEXT TUESDAY ON THE 8TH AND WEDNESDAY ON THE 9TH.

THE REASON FOR THE ELECTIONS EXPO IS TO COMBAT MISINFORMATION, MALINFORMATION ANDINFORMATION ABOUT THE ELECTIONS PROCESS.

IT WILL BE AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES.

WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU IN THE FRONT DOOR AND TALK ABOUT VOTER REGISTRATION THEN MOVE TO TALKING ABOUT VOTING BY MAIL. WE'LL HAVE A PRECINCT AN EARLY VOTING SET UP AND THEN WE'LL TABULATE THE VOTES VOTE, COMPLETE AN AUDIT AND HAVE A QUESTION AND ANSWER CEREMONY AS WELL. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS, THE SECURITY IN THE ELECTIONS PROCESS, PLEASE COME.

EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS.

>> WHERE WILL IT BE? >> AT OUR MAIN OFFICE AND THERE'S THREE HOURS. IT'S 5:15, 6:30 AND THEN 7:30. AND BOTH TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY. [INAUDIBLE]

>> 7TH, NO, IT'S FEBRUARY 8TH AND 9TH.

TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY. [INAUDIBLE]

>> 7:30. [INAUDIBLE]

LE. >> OH, SURE.

[02:20:01]

>> YOU WILL BE HIGHLY IMPRESSED.

>> MR. CHRIS -- I'M SORRY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I SAW IN CLAY TODAY; IT ALSO ON THE WEBSITE?

>> YES. >> DO WE NEED TO REGISTER OR

ANYTHING OR JUST SHOW UP? >> JUST SHOW UP.

WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT SHOWINGS GOING ON.

WE'LL JUST MOVE FROM ONE MODULE TO THE NEXT.

>> THERE WILL BE REFRESHMENTS?

>> I WILL BE BUYING COFFEE AND COOKIES.

COFFEE AND COOKIES. >> OKAY.

THAT'S ALREADY. I APPRECIATE THE LEVITY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHANDLESS? PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. WE'RE DOWN TO THE NEXT ITEM

[CRC MEMBER COMMENTS]

[1.  Set Next Meeting Date]

LOOKING OUTS AHEAD, -- OUT AHEAD, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, WE LOOK AT THINGS THAT STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

WE STILL NEED TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE ON COUNTY COMMISSIONER PAY. WE FLEED TO ADDRESS THE LANGUAGE FOR THE NOTION THAT JUST PASSED -- MOTION THAT JUST PASS AND THERE IS STILL SECTION FOUR.

I LOOK AT THAT AND I ASK THE QUESTION TO THE GROUP, WHEN DO YOU WANT TO MEET AND HOW MANY MORE MEETINGS? THAT TO ME WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO MEETINGS.

RIGHT. I LOOK AHEAD AND I THINK, ALL RIGHT. IF WE DID ONE IN MAR AND APRIL, WE HAVE TO FINISH EVERYTHING FOR THOSE OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE BY THE JAMES TIMEFRAME IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A FINAL REPORT AND FINISH OUT IN JULY. MISS GRIM, IS THAT CORRECT? FINISH, JULY WE HAVE TO FINISH AND SUBMIT THE FINAL REPORT, CORRECT? [INAUDIBLE]

>> OKAY. MY ONLY REASON FOR ASKING I LOOK AND SAY DO WE NEED A MEETING BEFORE MARCH OR DO YOU WANT TO GO INTO MARCH FOR THE NEXT MEETING? REALIZING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A MARCH AND APRIL MEETING TO TRY TO CLEAN THINGS UP.

THAT WOULD GIVE US MAY AND JUNE IF WE NEED TO DO

SOMETHING, MITCH? >> I WOULD PREFER IF WE COULD TWO WEEKS FROM NOW TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER MEETING AND GET THINGS MOVING.

BECAUSE I HAVE A CONCERN THE FARTHER ALONG WE GET THE

MORE THE TIME EXPANDS. >> YEAH.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SHORT CUT US.

>> IF WE -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE 24TH -- >> YOU THE 24TH WILL BE

FINE. >> I CAN'T DO THAT.

>> HOW MANY CAN DO THE 24TH.

>> I CAN DO THE 24TH. >> I CAN DO IT.

>> I HAVE A CONFLICT -- >> WHAT DO YOU HAVE ON THE

SCHEDULE? >> WE HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 6:00 BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WILL TAKE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> ARE WE MARRIED TO THURSDAYS?

>> NO. WE'RE NOT.

THAT BEING THE CASE IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY -- FIRST OF ALL THE WEEK OF THE 17TH IS THAT -- THAT'S A BOARD OF COMMISSION WEEK. IF WE LOOK AT THE WEEK OF THE -- THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT WEDNESDAY NIGHT OR TUESDAY NIGHT OR EVEN A MONDAY

NIGHT. >> 15TH IS OPEN.

>> 14TH IS OPEN. >> VALENTINE'S DAY.

>> 14TH IS NOT OPEN. NOT EVEN OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. [LAUGHTER] IF WE LOOK AT THE 15TH OF FEBRUARY, HOW DOES THAT

WORK? >> 7:00 P.M.IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY? THEN WE'LL SET THE NEXT ONE AT 15TH OF FEBRUARY AT 7:00 P.M.

THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTION.

OF MOVING THAT UP. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE? WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> DONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.