Sept. 5th Minutes of Charter Review. By Geniusofdespair

I am including most of the minutes of the Charter Review meeting September 5th, but this is the important discussion:

Responding to Mr. Smith, Assistant County Attorney Randy Duvall advised that in Shaw vs. Reno, the Court determined it was unconstitutional to use race or ethnicity to draw the lines for single-member districts.

Mr. De Grandy noted the district election system was not found unconstitutional in Shaw vs. Reno, but the plan as drawn was found unconstitutional and the remedy was to draw a compliant district plan.

Assistant County Attorney Duvall advised the same applied for at-large systems. He noted the Voting Rights Act looks at operation of a particular election system including voting patterns, demographics and geography. Mr. Duvall said the Court objected to the lines being drawn primarily toward race.

Assistant County Manager Susanne M. Torriente noted Ms. Amy Horton-Tavera, Office of
Strategic Business Management (OSBM), would provide a Power Point presentation on the
foregoing issue.

Ms. Amy Horton-Tavera, Office of Strategic Business Management (OSBM), provided a Power
Point presentation on various models of Commission structure which included variations of
majority rule system and proportional representation elections. She discussed the majority rule
system (winner take all model) which comprised single-member district, at-large districts and a
blend of single and at-large districts; and proportional representation. Ms. Horton-Tavera noted
proportional representation elections comprised choice, cumulative and limited voting systems.
She summarized the pros and cons for the majority rule system and proportional representation
and noted some of the arguments against majority rule were that certain forms may lead to
under-representation of women, racial and ethnic minorities and other minority constituencies.

Ms. Horton-Tavera provided a brief history on proportional representation. She noted the City of
Cambridge and some smaller cities and counties in Texas, North Carolina and Alabama utilized
proportional representation. Ms. Horton-Tavera said proportional representation was designed to
facilitate representation of women, minorities and other communities of interest, such as
constituencies that were not usually addressed by the districting system; was responsive to
demographic and political changes in the electorate and may result in more competitive races and
reduced campaign costs. However, Ms. Horton-Tavera noted this system could be confusing to
voters in this country and potentially result in legislative instability and poses technical
challenges to election officials and may require changes to State law. She then proceeded to
discuss the three main variations of proportional voting (choice, cumulative and limited voting).

In response to Mr. Smith, Ms. Horton-Tavera said Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, Philadelphia
and Washington, D.C. utilized proportional voting; however, these systems were a little different
because they were partisan city councils.

Responding to Mr. Smith, Assistant County Attorney Randy Duvall advised that in Shaw vs.
Reno, the Court determined it was unconstitutional to use race or ethnicity to draw the lines for
single-member districts.

Mr. De Grandy noted the district election system was not found unconstitutional in Shaw vs.
Reno, but the plan as drawn was found unconstitutional and the remedy was to draw a compliant
district plan.

Assistant County Attorney Duvall advised the same applied for at-large systems. He noted the
Voting Rights Act looks at operation of a particular election system including voting patterns,
demographics and geography. Mr. Duvall said the Court objected to the lines being drawn
primarily toward race.

Acting Chairman Ferre announced a quorum was present.
Later in the meeting, it was moved by Mr. De Grandy that the Task Force defer the foregoing
Agenda Item (Study of Board of County Commissioners Composition) for consideration as the
first item on its September 19, 2007 agenda. This motion was seconded by Mr. Smith and upon
being put to a vote, passed unanimously by those members present.
3. A. Discussion of Issue 1 – Study of Supervisor of Elections being elected
It was moved by Mr. De Grandy that the Task Force recommend to the County Commission that
the Supervisor of Elections remain an appointed position. This motion was seconded by Ms.
Hernandez.

Commissioner Souto and Mr. Vazquez spoke in opposition to the foregoing motion.
Commissioner Souto emphasized the importance of the Supervisor of Elections being elected by
the people.

Following discussion and amendments proffered by the Task Force members on the foregoing
motion, the Task Force voted to recommend to the County Commission that the Supervisor of
Elections remain an appointed position for a period of four (4) years, subject to reevaluation; that
the appointment can be vetoed by a super majority (two-thirds vote) of the County Commission;
that the Supervisor of Elections could be removed by the Mayor, subject to a super majority
(two-thirds vote) of the County Commission; that once appointed, interference by the Mayor or
the County Commission would be cause for termination. This motion was seconded by Ms.
Hernandez and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 12-3, (Mr. Kuper, Mr. Vazquez and
Commissioner Souto voted “no’) (Mayor Dermer, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Handfield, Mr. Illas,
Mayor Martinez and Chairman Diaz were absent).

It was moved by Ms. Hernandez that the County Attorney’s Office provide the Task Force with a
position paper regarding legal guidance on issues. This motion was seconded by Mr. Smith.
Mr. De Grandy and Mr. Ginsburg expressed concern regarding the foregoing motion.
Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks noted she would prefer the Task Force
members clarify the legislative intent of the issues and legal staff would prepare the appropriate
legal language for a ballot vote.

Ms. Hernandez withdrew the foregoing motion and Mr. Smith withdrew his second to the
The Task Force by motion duly made, seconded and carried, amended the motion made and
approved at its August 29, 2007 meeting to require that the Mayor’s appointment be vetoed by a
super majority (two-thirds) vote of the County Commission as follows:

It was moved by Mr. Hogan that the Public Safety Director (i.e. Sheriff, Police Chief) shall be
appointed by the Mayor for a period of four (4) years, subject to reevaluation; that the
appointment can be vetoed by a super majority (two-thirds) vote of the County Commission; that
the Public Safety Director could be removed by the Mayor; subject to the consent of a super
majority (two-thirds) vote of the County Commission; that once appointed, interference by the
Mayor or the County Commission would be cause for termination. This motion was seconded
by Mr. Holland and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 12-2, (Mr. Kuper and Mr.
Vazquez voted “no”) (Mayor Dermer, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Handfield, Mr. Illas, Mayor Martinez,
Commissioner Souto and Chairman Diaz were absent).

It was moved by Mr. Kuper that the Task Force recommend to the County Commission that the
Property Appraiser be an elected position. This motion was seconded by Mr. Vazquez.
Discussion ensued among the Task Force members on the foregoing motion.
Mr. Kuper and Mr. Vazquez accepted Mr. Holland’s amendment that the terms of office be
limited to two, four-year terms.

Following further discussion and upon being put to a vote, the motion that the Property
Appraiser be an elected position with terms of office limited to two, four-year terms, failed by a
vote of 6-6, (Commissioner Gimenez, Mr. Kuper, Mr. Smith, Ms. Soler-McKinely, Mr. Vazquez,
Mr. De Grandy voted “yes”) (Mr. Diaz-Padron, Mr. Ferre, Mayor Gibson, Mr. Ginsburg, Mr.
Hogan, Mr. Holland voted “no”) (Ms. Dannheiser, Mayor Dermer, Mr. Greenberg, Mr.
Handfield, Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Illas, Mayor Martinez, Commissioner Souto and Chairman Diaz
were absent).

C. Discussion on Public Feedback and Prioritization of Issues
It was moved by Mr. De Grandy that the Ethics Commission/Office of Inspector General be
added to the Task Force’s list of issues for study, with a view toward clearly delineating and
providing checks and balances on the powers invested in those offices. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Holland and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 10-1, (Mr. Diaz-
Padron voted “no’).

It was moved by Mr. Holland that the Task Force add to its list of issues to be studied, a
recommendation that any changes in the form of County government be placed on the ballot for
motion.

a general election. This motion was seconded by Mr. De Grandy and upon being put to a vote,
passed unanimously by those members present.

It was moved by Mr. Holland that the Task Force add to its list of issues to be studied, a
recommendation that any County employee who is convicted of any crime involving a breach of
public trust shall be subject to forfeiture of his/her public earned salary, pension rights and
privileges. This motion was seconded by Ms. Soler-Mckinley and upon being put to a vote,
passed unanimously by those members present.

It was moved by Mr. De Grandy that the County Attorney’s Office provide the Task Force
members with a report on existing State law and its applicability to County employees convicted
of a crime involving a breach of public trust. This motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and upon
being put to a vote, passed unanimously by those members present.

4. New Business
A. Discussion of Issue 5 – Study of Initiative, Referendum, Petition & Recall
(Staff research related to this issue will be provided in the September 5,
2007 Addendum Package)
Not considered
6. Adjournment