1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
COMMISSION MEETING
6
7
8
9
DATE: January 27, 1998
10
TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
11 Concluded at 5:00 p.m.
12 PLACE: The Senate Chamber
The Capitol
13 Tallahassee, Florida
14 REPORTED BY: KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
15 MONA L. WHIDDON
Court Reporters
16 Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
17 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 W. DEXTER DOUGLASS, CHAIRMAN
3 CARLOS ALFONSO
CLARENCE E. ANTHONY
4 ANTONIO L. ARGIZ (ABSENT)
JUDGE THOMAS H. BARKDULL, JR.
5 MARTHA WALTERS BARNETT
PAT BARTON
6 ROBERT M. BROCHIN
THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH (A.M. ONLY)
7 KEN CONNOR (EXCUSED)
CHRIS CORR
8 SENATOR ANDER CRENSHAW
VALERIE EVANS
9 MARILYN EVANS-JONES
BARBARA WILLIAMS FORD-COATES
10 ELLEN CATSMAN FREIDIN
PAUL HAWKES (A.M. ONLY)
11 WILLIAM CLAY HENDERSON
THE HONORABLE TONI JENNINGS
12 THE HONORABLE GERALD KOGAN (EXCUSED)
DICK LANGLEY (ABSENT)
13 JOHN F. LOWNDES
STANLEY MARSHALL
14 JACINTA MATHIS
JON LESTER MILLS
15 FRANK MORSANI
ROBERT LOWRY NABORS
16 CARLOS PLANAS (EXCUSED)
JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
17 KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE
SENATOR JIM SCOTT
18 H. T. SMITH
ALAN C. SUNDBERG
19 JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
PAUL WEST
20 JUDGE GERALD T. WETHERINGTON
STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
21
IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)
22 LYRA BLIZZARD LOGAN (ABSENT)
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 SECRETARY BLANTON: All unauthorized visitors, please
3 leave the chambers. All commissioners indicate your
4 presence. All commissioners indicate your presence.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We have a fair quorum. If you
6 could get everybody into the chamber.
7 SECRETARY BLANTON: All commissioners indicate your
8 presence. Quorum call. Quorum call. All commissioners
9 indicate your presence.
10 (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)
11 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We'll come to order,
13 please, Commissioners. Okay. If everybody would take
14 their seats, we are going to get underway.
15 SECRETARY BLANTON: All unauthorized visitors, please
16 leave the chamber. All commissioners indicate your
17 presence.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: If you haven't signed in, sign
19 in. All right, if everybody will take their seats, we
20 will begin our session this morning. Before we start, let
21 me say how happy and pleased we are that Commissioner
22 Sundberg is back with us. And also, Commissioner
23 Sundberg, you need to know that everybody in this group
24 has prayed for you and your family and we are just
25 grieving with you.
4
1 But we are also delighted to have you back and know
2 that as you get into this work, this will help some to
3 relieve a lot of what you have gone through. That's not
4 to say that what you will have happen to you here is bad,
5 but it is time-consuming and interesting. But I think all
6 of us want you to know that we are and were with you
7 during your time of trial and we are glad that you are
8 back.
9 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: So, if you would all rise, I will
11 ask Reverend Candice McKibben, the singles minister of
12 East Hill Baptist Church in Tallahassee to give the
13 opening prayer. Reverend McKibben.
14 REVEREND: Would you join your heart with mine in
15 prayer. Dear God, our creator, our parent ruler of the
16 universe, remind us that there is a power beyond our own
17 power on which we may rely when called upon to make
18 critical judgments that affect many lives, not only today
19 but in the years and decades ahead.
20 Father, grant wisdom, discernment, compassion and a
21 sense of justice to these who review the Constitution of
22 this great state. Grant each a clarity of thought and
23 expression so that communication is open and purposeful.
24 May the revisions made, O God, uphold goodness and
25 truth and the welfare of all who call themselves
5
1 Floridians. Amen.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: From Nims Middle School here in
3 Tallahassee, as I call your names, if you would come
4 forward and stand in front here and then you can lead us
5 in the pledge. Alfred Scruggs, Jamichael James, Sherry
6 Bass, Amber Gordon, Matt Rogers, Cassie Willis, Rebecca
7 Lambright. Just spread across the front there. Shalanda
8 Johnson, Kiara Wesley and Gracie Mosely. We are delighted
9 to have these young people to lead us this morning. If
10 you will turn and face the flag and lead us in the Pledge
11 of Allegiance please.
12 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: These young men and women will be
14 our pages today. So, remember you have a page button when
15 you need a Coke or a glass of water or to send a note,
16 they are available to work for you and we are delighted to
17 have them. We'll now proceed to the daily order of
18 business and I'll recognize the chairman of -- rules
19 chair, Commissioner Barkdull.
20 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 Members of the Commission, you have on your desk a yellow
22 packet which has proposals and explanations by the staff.
23 This will follow the purple packet we had yesterday. And
24 if you want to mark on your calendar where the break
25 occurs, it is on Page 5 on the right-hand side above
6
1 Proposal No. 169 commences the yellow packet. Until we
2 reach that area, we will be using the purple-covered one
3 that we used yesterday.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, my packet
5 has Proposal 148 as the first one in the yellow packet.
6 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I'm following the
7 instructions of the director. I see that the packet says
8 148, and I'll find it in the appropriate place on the
9 calendar. The schedule for this week is on your desk on
10 the front page of the calendar, and you will note that we
11 have committee meetings tonight, finance and tax in the
12 entrance lobby, select committee on initiatives in Room
13 301 tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning, 8:00 a.m., style
14 and drafting in 309. Noon tomorrow, select committee on
15 sovereign immunity in Room 309.
16 You will receive, during the course of today, a block
17 calendar which indicates the public meetings, this type --
18 which indicates a change from the original one, as I
19 indicated yesterday, that backs up a hearing from a Friday
20 to a Thursday in St. Petersburg.
21 You will also receive, or it's on the back of this,
22 is your hotel information that has the hotels that the
23 block of rooms have been reserved in and the appropriate
24 number to call for reservations. A copy of this is also
25 being sent to your home office.
7
1 Please note that on these hotel reservations, because
2 of the season, they are only going to be held to about --
3 one of them is February the 13th, the other one is
4 February the 11th. So, if you are going to plan to attend
5 the public hearings, you need to get your reservations
6 made and that will be our individual responsibilities to
7 do it.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, it is my
9 understanding, the Windham in Fort Lauderdale, if we don't
10 do it by a certain date, there won't be any there, it is
11 very hard to make reservations.
12 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That's what I just announced,
13 Mr. Chairman.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That one is particularly
15 difficult, the other one is not.
16 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Well, both of them have got
17 deadlines.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Correct.
19 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That's it, Mr. Chairman. And
20 I remind people, some people have mentioned to me, they
21 want to withdraw proposals. They can do it at the end of
22 the calendar or when we reach them today in the calendar,
23 they can announce that they wish to withdraw them. That
24 concludes the report of the rules committee.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barton, you rise.
8
1 COMMISSIONER BARTON: Mr. Chairman, I had a question
2 relative to the public meetings. Do we know the times
3 those will be held because that might make a difference
4 whether somebody needed a hotel reservation or not.
5 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I assume that they will start
6 at 9:00 in the morning.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think one of them starts in the
8 afternoon, I believe the one here.
9 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I'm talking about the ones
10 other than the one here. Which I assume the one here will
11 be the afternoon before a session of some type.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's correct.
13 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: The other two, the one in St.
14 Pete and the one in Fort Lauderdale will be at 9:00 in the
15 morning.
16 COMMISSIONER BARTON: My other question is, what
17 would be the order -- or the discussion subjects that we
18 would be covering?
19 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I can't tell you at this
20 point. I think that the committee and the Chair will work
21 that out after the style and drafting committee begins to
22 put some of these proposals together. If that's not
23 possible to be availed, well then we will have to make a
24 selective of topics because we certainly will be expected
25 to have a freewheeling public hearing such as we have had
9
1 in the past.
2 I think it is the Chair's thought that as we get --
3 for instance, merit retention for trial judges, which we
4 have had, would have a pro and con speaker. If we go to
5 the reduced Cabinet, that would probably have a pro and
6 con speaker, and so forth, on certain items that were
7 thought to be of major concern of the citizens. It'll be
8 a structured public hearing.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Morsani, you rose.
10 Oh, she answered your question. Commissioner Ford-Coates.
11 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: If I could ask a follow-up
12 question. Will there be a beginning and ending time
13 publicized on those hearings?
14 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: We will have an ending time
15 publicized, certainly.
16 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: So we could get that as
17 soon as possible I would hope. Also, the comment on the
18 public hearing in Tallahassee would probably start in the
19 afternoon; according to this calendar, we are not
20 scheduled for any kind of session the day after the public
21 hearing in Tallahassee. We are scheduled the following
22 weekend.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That may be changed.
24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Tallahassee can be adjusted.
25 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: I would just reiterate,
10
1 you know, as soon as possible is helpful because many of
2 us are trying to make commitments for March and would like
3 to finalize that. Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further questions of
5 Commissioner Barkdull? Okay. We have a matter on
6 reconsideration, the matter that we had yesterday,
7 Proposal 168. Commissioner Barkdull.
8 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Corr's proposal from the last
9 day, not yesterday.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. The director asked us
11 to TP for a minute. Commissioner Corr just arrived and
12 they are getting a copy to pass out. So, we'll move to
13 the special order, Proposal 105 by Commissioner Planas,
14 and I see he's been unable to get here today either. What
15 is the recommendation of the rules committee on Proposal
16 105? Commissioner Barkdull.
17 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I know you excused him
18 yesterday for medical reasons, I assume that carries over.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Same reason today.
20 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Yes, I talked with him
21 yesterday and I understand his appointment was actually
22 going to be today.
23 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: He is going to be here?
24 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: No, sir, his appointment, as I
25 understand, medical appointment, was going to be today.
11
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner, did he tell you
2 whether or not he wanted us to go ahead and consider this
3 or did he want us to wait on it?
4 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: I'm sorry, he did not indicate
5 that. We didn't discuss that, we just talked about his
6 situation.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is he in reasonably good shape
8 you think?
9 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: I just know that he has
10 complaints and he's having them investigated is all I
11 really know.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, what is
13 your recommendation?
14 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I recommend that we take them
15 up as we come to them.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Proposal 105 was
17 referred to the committee on legislative and withdrawn for
18 lack of quorum. I think it was probably discussed there.
19 Would you read Proposal 105, please?
20 READING CLERK: Proposal 105, a proposal to revise
21 Article III, Section 15, Florida Constitution, and Article
22 VI, Section 4, Florida Constitution, increasing the term
23 of office of State Representatives and State Senators,
24 increasing the number of years such officers may serve.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Would someone on the
12
1 legislative committee care to explain this? Commissioner
2 Thompson.
3 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Sorry, I'm not really
4 prepared to do that at this point. Let me be sure. We
5 discussed this a couple of times and had a potential
6 amendment. Debbie, did we have a potential -- now, wait,
7 you are not staff on that committee. We had a potential
8 amendment, and what it boiled down to is, we were
9 recommending to Commissioner Planas to change his proposal
10 to allow 12 years of membership in each house of the
11 Legislature, and I don't think this does that.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The title does not. I am
13 looking. I think you are right.
14 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: And I think he had a
15 potential amendment. I just don't think we ought to take
16 this up without him being here.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you move to TP it, temporarily
18 pass it?
19 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, let's do that.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. Without objection, it will
21 be temporarily passed. And we may take it up as soon as
22 possible. I think this is one we are all pretty well
23 ready to debate. All right. The next proposal is
24 committee substitute for Proposal 170 by the committee on
25 executive and Commissioner Mills, recommended as a
13
1 committee substitute and disapproved by the committee on
2 executive. Would you read it, please?
3 READING CLERK: Committee substitute for Proposal No.
4 170. Proposal to create Article IV, Section 14, Florida
5 Constitution; providing for the establishment of a
6 citizen's advocate to be appointed by the Governor to aid
7 the public in obtaining redress of grievances arising from
8 administrative actions of state agencies or local
9 governments.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Mills,
11 you are recognized.
12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, this proposal is
13 both derived from several, specific suggestions we have
14 heard and the general context that the citizens in this
15 state are concerned about access to government, being able
16 to deal with bureaucracy, but not only that, this concept
17 of a citizen advocate or really, in some cases, you would
18 call it an ombudsman, is well tested both in the private
19 sector and the public sector in higher education.
20 And not only is it a way to help citizens solve
21 problems, it is a way to improve the management of the
22 system. What is an effective citizens' advocate or
23 ombudsman will collect data on those agencies about which
24 citizens complain and provide management data to, in some
25 cases, corporations, in this case, government, to improve
14
1 its performance.
2 Are there other citizens' advocates anywhere in
3 Constitutions? No. Are there citizens' advocates in
4 statutes? A lot. My position is that it would augment
5 the status of the citizens' advocate position in Florida
6 by making it constitutional, by making it appointed by the
7 Governor, and by allowing that individual to help
8 citizens.
9 We have said this is a big state. We have said this
10 is a bureaucracy. It's not going to get smaller. It
11 seems to me that this is an opportunity to simply provide
12 citizens with a way to get assistance. I think the
13 concern that I heard expressed in the committee by those
14 that did not favor it was, why put this in the
15 Constitution. Well, my answer to that is it elevates this
16 function to a status where it has to be recognized on a
17 continuing basis. And the function, to me, in terms of
18 both management and helping the average citizen through
19 their problems is one that deserves to be in the
20 Constitution.
21 Many of us and others have means to obtain help. You
22 can go to your Legislature, you can go to people you know.
23 The average citizen, in dealing with this bureaucracy,
24 does not have that kind of assistance. There is a
25 citizens' assistance office, I have sort of a 20-year
15
1 history with this, the citizens' assistance office which
2 is made by statute exists in the Governor's Office. I
3 think it needs increased visibility. We don't need
4 duplication. So language added by the committee removed
5 that duplication. I would be glad to respond to any
6 questions.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: First question is, if you are
8 repealing a statute, that shouldn't be in the
9 Constitution, should it? You have a statement in there,
10 the Office of Citizens' Assistance is hereby repealed.
11 Shouldn't that be in the --
12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Schedule.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: -- schedule, or somewhere other
14 than in the Constitution itself?
15 COMMISSIONER MILLS: It should be in the schedule.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Then you would leave that to
17 style and drafting?
18 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I would leave that to the
19 excellent style and drafting committee.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Of which you are chairman. All
21 right. Commissioner Henderson.
22 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Mills, if you will yield
23 for a question. Since yesterday we replaced the Cabinet
24 with a triumvirate. Don't you think this might be a way
25 of giving something back to the people for access to their
16
1 government?
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Yes, this would provide a
3 constitutional means for the public to have access to
4 government.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Henderson, you are a
6 sore loser. Commissioner Barton.
7 COMMISSIONER BARTON: I have a question. How large
8 is this office going to be? I have dealt with a
9 bureaucracy a lot through the years and I don't think one
10 person is going to hack it.
11 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well, Ms. Barton, that's why it
12 says the Legislature will determine that. What this
13 relies on is the good faith of the Governor, the
14 appointment of a good person, and the ability of that
15 person to advocate it effectively with the Legislature.
16 And by the same token that means that the Legislature
17 would keep this from becoming a bureaucracy.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any further debate?
19 Commissioner Zack.
20 COMMISSIONER ZACK: Commissioner Mills, will you
21 yield for a question?
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: He yields.
23 COMMISSIONER ZACK: Yesterday we did try to make the
24 Cabinet and particularly the Governor's Office stronger.
25 And as I see this proposal, if a person didn't vote for
17
1 this or this failed, there's nothing to keep the Governor
2 from appointing such an advocate, is there?
3 COMMISSIONER MILLS: That's correct.
4 COMMISSIONER ZACK: My concern, if I could rise to
5 this issue, Mr. Chairman -- I guess I can.
6 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Go ahead, and we'll let you know
7 when you have to stop.
8 COMMISSIONER ZACK: My concern is the Wetherington
9 overriding issue, which is, what are we going to put on
10 the ballot. And I think this is important. Frankly I
11 would hope that there's a citizen ombudsman in various
12 departments. If we have three Cabinet offices, maybe each
13 one of them needs an ombudsman. I'm concerned that some
14 people will say that they don't have to do anything
15 further because we have this in the Governor's Office and
16 therefore it's not an issue they want to concern
17 themselves with.
18 My vote, which is for the proposal, but against
19 probably the ultimate putting it on -- among the things
20 for the citizens to vote on. We have talked about a
21 number of times -- and I think we needed to reemphasize
22 this earlier today, in view of what's been happening over
23 the last few meetings where we have had some very, very
24 good proposals, where I sincerely hope the Legislature
25 will review and adopt as they did a number of proposals of
18
1 the previous Constitution Revision Commissions.
2 I do think that we have to make sure that we focus on
3 the major issues of this state that are going to require
4 the citizens to hopefully vote in favor of what we do,
5 which in the final analysis is what we have to continue to
6 focus on if we are to do a good job here.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well, I will gratefully accept
8 Mr. Zack's vote and then further explain. Actually, since
9 I've had the opportunity to review what we have passed,
10 Mr. Zack, and I think this is important, let's take a look
11 at what style and drafting is going to do.
12 The first thing I would suggest to you is that this
13 commission has done an excellent job. When we went around
14 this state the people in this state told us they were
15 concerned about access, they told us they were concerned
16 about the elections process, they were concerned about
17 education, they were concerned about the environment; who
18 would handle those things.
19 I think you would be surprised by the 30-some
20 proposals how many are easily considered as
21 noncontroversial. We have had proposals by -- that
22 Mr. Langley handled dealing with military law. As you go
23 through the proposals, you are going to begin to see, it's
24 possible, of those 30, to group about 19 as one proposal.
25 It's also possible to group those proposals as
19
1 dealing with education, environment, access to government,
2 the judiciary. Having said that, there are only going to
3 be -- I think there's a likelihood that there are only
4 going to be seven or eight proposals. So, what I'm
5 suggesting to you, and why this happens to be appropriate
6 to this conversation, is while a citizen's advocate
7 wouldn't be appropriate for a separate proposition
8 standing by itself, coupled with other provisions dealing
9 with access to government, it makes sense, it would be
10 popular, it is the right thing to do.
11 And I think you need to judge the proposals based on
12 the overall application of what you are seeing come
13 through this commission. And I endorse what you are
14 saying in terms of saying, think about the majors, think
15 about what you are going to put in Article V, think about
16 what you are going to put in the executive. This is in
17 the executive branch. You have just taken away access
18 from the executive branch. This improves access to the
19 executive branch. So, it's only fair.
20 I mean, you have just reduced the citizen's access to
21 the executive branch, and that proposal is going to be
22 there and this proposal will be with it.
23 COMMISSIONER ZACK: I hear a procedure that I'm not
24 sure I agree with. When we are down the road, as we are
25 now, we start thinking about -- I'm sure each of us are
20
1 thinking about the voter standing in the poll place, and
2 I'm not sure that one proposal with 19 subparts is one
3 proposal, it is kind of like the one interrogatory with A
4 through Z.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: This is out of order. Your
6 comments were out of order. First of all, there's been no
7 determination on this, there's been no -- it's an opinion.
8 COMMISSIONER ZACK: As long as it's out of order,
9 I'll be happy to be seated, but I didn't want it to go
10 without saying --
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm glad you did. Because what
12 Commissioner Mills said is not necessarily the case at
13 all. We will debate that at another time. The debate is
14 on his proposal to add a citizen's advocate to the
15 Constitution, and not how we put it on the ballot, if we
16 do. First of all, it has got to get enough votes to get
17 there. And that's what we need to be debating. And I
18 think you are out of order to discuss that, even though
19 you are chairman of the style and drafting, that's only
20 one vote.
21 I would ask that we stay germane. But you were
22 correct in raising it, Commissioner Zack. Is there any
23 debate or questions on this issue? Commissioner Barkdull.
24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: As an opponent.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: As an opponent, all right. Is
21
1 there another proponent? All right. Commissioner
2 Barkdull, you are recognized.
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the
4 Commission, I'm not so sure that this is a good idea, but
5 if it is a good idea and you really mean what it should
6 be, I think it ought to be a person appointed by the
7 Governor and the Cabinet and it ought to have a six or
8 eight or nine-year term and not be subject to the politics
9 of one administration coming and going as one appointee.
10 But frankly, we have got it in the statutes, I don't see
11 any real reason to move it into the Constitution and I
12 suggest that we leave it in the statutes.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further discussions?
14 Commissioner Evans-Jones.
15 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: As an opponent.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: As an opponent.
17 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Members of the Commission,
18 I don't think that it needs to be in the Constitution.
19 And I do think that we have the members of the House, the
20 members of the Senate who should be responding to the
21 needs of their constituency. And if they are not
22 responding to those needs, then they ought not to be
23 reelected.
24 And I think that's much closer to the people, much
25 easier access when they have a problem with the
22
1 bureaucracy. I know many -- I see some of our fellow
2 legislators nodding that have certainly been in that
3 position. We do a great deal of casework and try to help
4 people. So, I would suggest that you have all of those
5 advocates out there doing this work anyway, and I don't
6 think we need to add to that.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further discussion before
8 Commissioner Mills closes? You are recognized to close.
9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the
10 Commission, let me first respond to a couple of issues.
11 The issue of whether members of the Legislature can
12 adequately represent their constituents on issues before
13 the bureaucracy is one that I'm familiar with, it's one
14 that Commissioner Evans-Jones does very well, it's one
15 that a number of members of the Legislature do very well,
16 but that depends upon whether you are a member of the
17 Legislature.
18 And also, fortunately, or unfortunately, it depends
19 on your relationship with the member of the Legislature.
20 Many citizens, because they may have a bad relationship
21 with their member of the Legislature may not have quite
22 the same access to that assistance. With respect to some
23 legislators, and I know we had some outstanding examples
24 of that here, they are even-handed and they are going to
25 devote their time to dealing with citizens' problems, the
23
1 more detail the better.
2 And, Mr. Chairman, with regard to my discussion as to
3 how things might be grouped, of course that is a decision
4 of the commission, I was simply responding to a question.
5 And it seems to me that there are some opportunities or
6 issues that are related. And the issue that was brought
7 up in debate is that there was reduced access to the
8 executive branch by what we did yesterday, that is we are
9 going to have less Cabinet activity, but it's relevant
10 that we balance what we do.
11 This is in Article IV, this gives increased access
12 for citizens. Gives them back something that we may be
13 taking away. It might help. I would urge you to endorse
14 this proposition. It should be in the Constitution. It
15 is the right thing to do. It helps balance other issues
16 that we have proposed.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Everybody ready to
18 vote? Unlock the machine and we'll vote.
19 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Has everybody voted? Lock the
21 machine and announce the vote.
22 READING CLERK: Twelve yeas and 16 nays,
23 Mr. Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: By your vote, you have defeated
25 the proposal. I think we are ready now to move back to
24
1 Proposal 105. Commissioner Thompson. Well, he told me he
2 was ready and he disappeared. Here he is. Proposal 105,
3 I think you told me that you were ready to proceed on
4 that?
5 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm
6 not ready. We are trying to come up with the amendment.
7 Let me explain to you what the situation is there.
8 Commissioner Planas had talked about a potential
9 amendment. We did not have a quorum. We all conceptually
10 agreed on an amendment, and basically what it is, so
11 everybody can start thinking about it is, raise the terms
12 for House and Senate members from 8 to 12 years, very
13 simply. He had some other things there. He wanted to
14 change the --
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Term of office.
16 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, term of office and so
17 forth.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: So, what you are going to do on
19 behalf of the committee then --
20 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Is offer that very simple
21 amendment, but we are trying to get it prepared and
22 distributed.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. We'll get it considered.
24 And now we'll go to Proposal 168 by Commissioner Corr on a
25 motion to reconsider what's pending on and has been voted
25
1 to be reconsidered, has it, Commissioner Barkdull?
2 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: It has not.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It has not. Okay, Commissioner
4 Corr's proposal, would you read the proposal which is on
5 for reconsideration?
6 READING CLERK: Proposal 168, Proposal to revise
7 Article IV, Section 6, Florida Constitution; providing
8 that an entity purportedly within an executive department
9 which is not subject to the direct supervision of the
10 agency head is a department providing that the amendment
11 does not affect the status of such entities to issue
12 revenue bonds before a specified date; and to create
13 Article XII, Section 23, Florida Constitution; providing
14 that the amendment does not affect the status of such
15 entities in existence on the effective date of the
16 adoption of the amendment.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Motion to reconsider by
18 Commissioner Barkdull. Commissioner Barkdull, you are
19 recognized.
20 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman,
21 Members of the Commission, this matter came up in the
22 debate yesterday on the downsizing of the Cabinet and
23 there was some concern about the fact that there would no
24 longer be availability of collegial responsibility as is
25 now provided in certain statutes for the Governor and the
26
1 Cabinet members. I know Commissioner Corr's proposal
2 received a unanimous vote of those of us that were present
3 at the time.
4 I certainly think that there's a great deal of wisdom
5 in having a direct line of responsibility. And I
6 generally favor that. But I do think that there was some
7 merit to the arguments that I heard yesterday about a
8 number of the statutes that have put collegial
9 responsibility on the Governor and the Cabinet or certain
10 Cabinet officers. I think that latitude should still
11 exist and that is the purpose of this motion.
12 I would suggest that if the motion passes, that the
13 matter be left pending to further address the Corr issues
14 to use -- of Commissioner Corr's proposal, and I would ask
15 at this time for an affirmative vote on the motion to
16 reconsider. And if that passes, then we would temporarily
17 pass reconsideration of the matter.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
19 Henderson.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll support
21 this motion in the interest of -- I appreciated the humor
22 and levity that the Chairman made of my being a sore loser
23 earlier, but I'm obviously interested in having the
24 ultimate work product of this commission something the
25 public can completely support.
27
1 And I know Commissioner Barnett and I are still very
2 much concerned about making sure that there's appropriate
3 access to whatever new creature we have created here,
4 triumvirate or otherwise. So that relates to the issue of
5 the certain appellate capacity with which the current
6 Cabinet acts.
7 Now, I do not believe that the Corr proposal as
8 amended affects that, but it might well be a vehicle for
9 us to fix this problem as we move down the road and look
10 at it a little bit more. So, I think the Corr proposal is
11 solid. I think we can tweak it with this and this will
12 give us the time to do it. So, I support the motion for
13 reconsideration.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Corr.
15 COMMISSIONER CORR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess
16 I'm still a little confused. The original proposal that
17 passed unanimously just reinforces a limitation that's
18 already in the Constitution. So I -- I mean, if there's
19 something that was created out of another proposal
20 yesterday, then I'm certainly willing to work together to
21 sort of figure out what the challenges were.
22 But this proposal that we passed last time was pretty
23 straightforward and pretty simple, so I'm expecting that
24 there's something still that I don't understand. And
25 maybe there's a way, Commissioner Barkdull, that you can
28
1 help me understand it, or maybe I'm just not that smart.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull to reply to
3 his question.
4 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: In response to Commissioner
5 Corr's question, in the debate yesterday, it was the
6 understanding that the impact of your proposal that was
7 adopted at a previous meeting would prevent the
8 Legislature from assigning collegial duties to the
9 Cabinet.
10 And my purpose is to try to be sure -- I understand
11 your explanation, but it was the feeling of people here on
12 the floor that that proposal would have saddled us with
13 the inability of the Legislature to create collective or
14 collegial responsibility and we wanted to be sure that we
15 didn't do that.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any further
17 discussion? This is on the motion to reconsider the vote
18 by which this passed, which was unanimous when we passed
19 it, by Commissioner Barkdull. Unlock the machine and
20 let's vote.
21 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine and record the
23 vote.
24 READING CLERK: Twenty-one yeas and six nays,
25 Mr. Chairman.
29
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. It is voted to be
2 reconsidered. Commissioner Barkdull, you are recognized.
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I move that we do not take it
4 up on the merits at this time, but temporarily pass it
5 until tomorrow afternoon.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, it is
7 temporarily passed. Now we move to Proposal No. 2 by
8 Commissioner Sundberg. Would you read it, please? It was
9 approved by the committee on declaration of rights.
10 READING CLERK: Proposal 2, a proposal to revise
11 Article I, Section 2, Florida Constitution; providing for
12 citizens to enjoy equal opportunity to employment,
13 housing, public accommodations, public education, and
14 other benefits and authorizing governmental agencies to
15 take actions to remedy the effects of past discrimination
16 in certain areas.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg, you are
18 recognized.
19 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Mr. Chairman, if you would
20 indulge me. This was temporarily passed at our January
21 meeting because of concerns that Commissioner Connor had.
22 And I have not had an opportunity to talk to him about
23 those concerns. If you could give us a little more time
24 to see if we can reach some accommodation on that. In
25 fact, I saw him earlier, I don't know --
30
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: He's here, he's back in the
2 telephone booth conducting business.
3 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Maybe I could get him next.
4 Could we temporarily pass this?
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We will temporarily pass it
6 without objection, take it up later in the morning.
7 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, it is
9 temporarily passed until it's called again. And you can
10 get with Commissioner Connor. Proposal No. 135 by
11 Commissioner Henderson, approved by the committee on
12 finance and taxation. Commissioner Henderson.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I am beginning to think that
14 we could have passed this about two weeks ago and gotten
15 it off of the agenda, but, you know, again, the issue is,
16 this afternoon finance and tax were trying to marry this
17 to a sister proposal. And so I ask for it to be deferred
18 until tomorrow.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: What is the sister proposal?
20 COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there was a
21 proposal by Commissioner Mills which is similar. And F&T
22 passed out this proposal and has not given full
23 consideration to that one pending staff analysis by that
24 committee. That committee came back yesterday with a very
25 thoughtful staff analysis and has given us a couple of
31
1 options that will -- that will help us better define this
2 issue.
3 That is on the committee's agenda for this afternoon.
4 We have been working closely with Commissioner Scott on
5 this. And so we'll hopefully be in a posture tomorrow to
6 be exactly where we need to have it.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills, is that what
8 you want to do?
9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Yes, sir. The staff has
10 provided us with a couple of options to combine both of
11 them that I think will make this work.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, it will be
13 temporarily passed, but it's going to be taken up before
14 we leave this week.
15 Proposal 33 by Commissioner Barnett. Read it,
16 please.
17 READING CLERK: Proposal 33, proposal to revise
18 Article VII, Section 5, Florida Constitution, eliminating
19 the prohibition against levying a state income tax.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: There is an amendment on the
21 table. Do you want to speak for the amendment, or is it
22 your amendment?
23 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It is my amendment, Mr.
24 Chairman.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right.
32
1 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It actually was going to be
2 Commissioner Planas' amendment, but it doesn't appear that
3 he is going to be here, and so it is an amendment that I
4 agree with and my name is on there.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Then, we should read
6 the amendment.
7 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Barnett, on Page 1,
8 Line 18, insert, No tax upon the income of natural persons
9 shall be levied unless authorized by a two-third's vote of
10 membership of each house of the Legislature. There shall
11 be exempt from any such tax not less than 45,000, which
12 amount shall be adjusted each year to reflect inflation.
13 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Would you like me to explain
14 the amendment first?
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Yes, go ahead.
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Is the amendment on the desk?
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This amendment -- the
19 underlying proposal, it simply lifts the ban that
20 currently exists in our Constitution on the Legislature
21 imposing a tax on personal income. This amendment places
22 some restrictions on the Legislature in the event that it
23 chose -- it chooses to actually impose a tax on personal
24 income; and that is that it requires a two-third's vote of
25 both houses of the Legislature and exempts the first
33
1 $45,000 of income.
2 That is, the purpose, is to make sure that there's
3 broad-based support in the Legislature for imposing a tax
4 on income. And also, to protect families at the lower end
5 of the economic scale. The median income for a family of
6 four in Florida in 1995 was $44,600.
7 So, people at a median income level and below would
8 be, by this amendment, exempt from any tax if the
9 Legislature ever chose to impose a tax on income. There
10 is a language in the amendment also that adjusts that for
11 inflation. So, that is the amendment. And I would ask
12 you to adopt that before we debate the proposal.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We are on the
14 amendment before we get to the merits of the proposal.
15 Does anybody care to address the amendment? Is it clear
16 to everybody? All right, we'll proceed to vote on the
17 amendment.
18 All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed?
19 The Chair is in doubt, unlock the machine.
20 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine and announce the
22 vote. I do have good ears.
23 READING CLERK: Fifteen yeas and 14 nays,
24 Mr. Chairman.
25 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: For those opposed to a super
34
1 majority, and particularly who want to tax those who are
2 the poorest of the poor if we ever have an income tax.
3 That is a joke -- meant to be. This is actually a very
4 serious debate, and I'm very serious about this proposal.
5 I would like for you, for a moment, to please put
6 aside the politics, the political wisdom that this state
7 will never tax personal income and at least consider, in
8 this body, the merits of whether we should lift the ban on
9 a tax on personal income. I think we have plenty of time
10 to talk about the politics. I think that's talked about
11 all of the time.
12 I frankly believe that it is a myth that this state
13 will never tax personal income. I hope it happens sooner
14 rather than later, but I think it is a myth, and I think
15 in our lifetime this myth will be lifted and our
16 Legislature, in its wisdom, will address this subject.
17 Let me make it very clear. If you vote for this
18 proposal, you will not be voting to impose a tax on
19 personal income. You will not be voting to tax income.
20 All you will be doing, and it's significant, but all you
21 will be doing is lifting the constitutional prohibition
22 and giving a grant of authority to the Legislature, in its
23 wisdom, and at an appropriate time, if there ever is an
24 appropriate time, to consider income as a potential source
25 of revenue. And that is all that you are doing. This is
35
1 simply a lifting of the ban.
2 I think that Senator Scott, Senator Jennings,
3 Representative Webster, I think they have --
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioners Scott and Jennings.
5 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I'm speaking about him in his
6 capacity as a Senator, Senator Scott, Senator Jennings,
7 members of the Legislature have been very circumspect in
8 the last several years in listening to the citizens of
9 this state on accountability and tax issues and have made
10 some very, very significant changes.
11 And I trust them. I trust them with this authority.
12 I trust them with the authority to consider income because
13 I believe that they have a sense of what's right and they
14 have the responsibility during various times, particularly
15 times of fiscal crises, to fund state government. And I
16 want to give them this tool, and I trust them to use it.
17 And that is what we are doing.
18 Florida, and you have all heard me say this several
19 times, you have heard others say it, I'm not a lone voice
20 in the wilderness on this, the State of Florida needs a
21 better revenue system. Currently we only -- there are
22 three things that you can look to to fund government, you
23 can tax property, you can tax consumption, and you can tax
24 wealth.
25 And our state has chosen not to tax wealth of
36
1 individuals, so it creates a lot of distortions in how we
2 fund government. When you take away one leg of a
3 three-legged school, there's not balance. And what this
4 does would allow some balance to come in our revenue
5 structure. It would give us the opportunity to look to
6 all three sources of potential revenue under appropriate
7 circumstances.
8 Florida is a very different state today than it was
9 in the 1920s when these types of provisions, this and the
10 ban on a corporate income tax, were put into the
11 Constitution in order to attract business and bodies to
12 the State of Florida. In 1973 we lifted, by
13 constitutional amendment, the ban on taxing corporate
14 income. It hasn't had any dramatic negative effects on
15 the State of Florida. In fact, the state has flourished,
16 flourished and thrived since that time. I think it is
17 time to now lift the ban on taxing personal income because
18 our state, today, is the most vibrant, dynamic, growing
19 state in the country.
20 Everybody wants to come to Florida. Many people come
21 to Florida to retire because of our weather and our
22 environment and our amenities, but others retire in this
23 state simply because we do not tax wealth. And they have
24 come to Florida to shelter that income.
25 Now, I'm delighted to have them. Some of them are
37
1 good friends of mine that I have met throughout the years,
2 but I think that they should participate and share in the
3 burdens of financing government and pay for the benefits
4 that they now get by being citizens of this state.
5 The issue is not the adequacy of the money we are
6 currently raising to pay for government, it's not that I
7 think we don't have enough money to fund governmental
8 functions, that is not the issue to me. There are other
9 issues. The first one I mentioned earlier is a balanced
10 revenue system, but there are issues such as fairness.
11 Taxes ought to be fair. The sales tax on which we rely
12 dramatically, the sales tax is not fair; it is a
13 regressive tax.
14 Commissioner Nabors' proposal to deal with exemptions
15 and exclusions will help a lot, the Legislature addressing
16 that will help a lot, but the sales tax is a regressive
17 tax and it taxes consumption, that's not fair.
18 Competitiveness. Our current tax structure does not
19 create a competitive environment. Thirty to 40 percent of
20 the sales tax, I'm told, is paid directly by business.
21 That doesn't create a competitive environment for business
22 in Florida. Almost 20 percent of our sales tax is paid by
23 tourism. We talk about exporting it, we export it to
24 tourist. Well, I suspect we'll have tourists a long time.
25 But, again, it is a competitive issue. That leaves the
38
1 balance paid by individuals. And as I said, it hits
2 individuals at the lower income levels much higher than
3 those at the higher income levels.
4 Another issue to me is responsiveness. Taxes ought
5 to be responsive to the changes in the nature of an
6 economy. And under our current structure, we don't have
7 the ability that we should have to respond rapidly to
8 changes in our economy and to respond to crisis.
9 There's -- some day there's going to be a crisis in this
10 state and we don't have the ability to respond.
11 Ultimately, our taxes, whether they are property
12 taxes or consumption sales taxes, they are going to reach
13 a level where the people just won't take any more. We see
14 that now with the property tax. They have about hit the
15 point on property taxes, people are tired of them, there
16 is too much, they have about hit the cap. And we are
17 getting there with the sales tax. We need another way for
18 our Legislature to be responsive to changes and to respond
19 to the needs of this state.
20 Reliability is another reason I think we need to look
21 at the sales tax. I said earlier, I think that the
22 current tax structure in Florida is a disincentive to
23 business development, at least the kind of business
24 development this state wants and should want to have. Our
25 inadequate revenue sources create a lot of problems. It
39
1 creates the distortion in the sales exemptions we have
2 now.
3 We try to attract businesses with special interest
4 exemptions. And we get a few, but historically all of the
5 studies show that really doesn't matter, what businesses
6 want is an adequate, educated workforce. They want
7 reliability, they want things that are not just pure
8 exemptions. We do not have the money to invest in human
9 capital in this state in the way we should. And we have a
10 large percentage of low-end wage jobs, not high-end wage
11 jobs.
12 An educational system, a good, adequate,
13 comprehensive educational system is what attracts
14 businesses to the State of Florida, the kind of businesses
15 we want, and we don't fund adequately the education
16 system, either the capital side of it, or as I heard
17 Senator Jennings say the other day and I thought she was
18 so right, it's now looking at the actual education side,
19 you know, getting into the education component. Those are
20 things that attract businesses. And that reliability and
21 those things, I think, come from a balanced revenue
22 system.
23 I ask each of you all, how could we afford not to
24 look at personal income tax? How can we, as a citizens'
25 group, representing the citizens of this state, how can we
40
1 as a group that really are not in the same awkward
2 situation I think that sometimes our elected
3 representatives are, how can we not afford to raise with
4 the people of this state the real cost to the individuals
5 of this state as not giving our Legislature a balanced
6 revenue structure from which they can make decisions and
7 choose and make public policy choices? I think that we
8 are the body that has to look at that. I think it is our
9 obligation to take this issue back out on our public
10 hearings.
11 Let's at least give it a majority vote and see what
12 the public reactions are. I think when the people of this
13 state are educated about the cost, the real cost to them
14 individually and as a citizen of this state of not having
15 this opportunity, there may be a lot more support for
16 lifting this ban than we think, particularly when it is
17 combined with the trust and respect they have for our
18 legislative leaders and what they can do.
19 So, I ask you to vote in favor of it. Let the people
20 comment in the next couple of months. We'll have another
21 chance to look at it again before it goes out on the
22 ballot. If we don't do this, it will be a long time
23 before the people get a chance to talk about it.
24 Taxes are painful, no one likes to pay them, but
25 people do like roads, schools, police forces, all of the
41
1 benefits of government. And it's our obligation, I
2 believe, to take our tax structure into the next
3 millennium, balanced, fair, reliable, and responsible.
4 I appreciate very much the attention you have given
5 me this morning. And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your
6 tolerance on this issue. And I'll be glad to answer any
7 questions.
8
9
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Wetherington?
11 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I hope we don't have a
12 need for an income tax in the state of Florida. However,
13 there's a very good likelihood that if we're going to
14 handle our problems in a responsible way that we might
15 have to do that. As a consequence, I think the
16 flexibility should be there to address those needs in
17 terms of responsible government.
18 I think a great deal of the problem that we have on
19 taxes is the fact that there is a widespread cynicism on
20 the part of the public in terms of how the government is
21 doing its job. People resent paying taxes to some extent
22 because they don't think the job is being done the right
23 way. That cynicism, however, among other things, can
24 change and I hope it does change and our government can
25 get better. And I hope that it does get better and there
42
1 may be a time in which the people have the sufficient
2 confidence in the government to know that it's going to
3 properly spend the money.
4 It seems to me that we're one of four states I think
5 in America that don't have an income tax. That means all
6 the other states including many very fine states have
7 decided that they have to have an income tax in order to
8 properly finance their government and provide the services
9 and protections that their citizens need.
10 The same thing can very easily become true in
11 Florida. We've been fortunate, I think, overall in not
12 having to do it but we could have to do it tomorrow if we
13 should have the means to do is. We should not have this
14 constitutional restriction.
15 Obviously the Legislature is not going to do it
16 unless there is a tremendous need. We know just through
17 the political process that that's a reality. If that need
18 arises, the authority should be there. And for those
19 reasons, I agree and will support this proposal.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Brochin?
21 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: They say that this is not
22 going to pass and that we should rise at least to debate
23 it. I think it's an excellent idea. And I think its time
24 has come not just to debate it but to pass it. But for
25 purpose of the debate, let me offer the following.
43
1 Forty-three states in our federal government impose a
2 personal income tax. Those Legislatures and Congress are
3 elected each and every year and each and every year they
4 go back and they impose an income tax and there's no claim
5 that it is infringing on their constitutional rights that
6 some tax is being opposed. Six states -- seven states
7 including the state of Florida -- do not have a personal
8 income tax. But only one state, that's Florida, has a ban
9 in its Constitution.
10 The other six states that prohibit an income tax or
11 don't have an income tax is not because there's a
12 constitutional ban, it's because their dually elected
13 members of the Legislature believe that that is not an
14 appropriate tool of financing state government at that
15 particular time. So 49 states in our federal government
16 have seen their way fit and clear to give the Legislature
17 the right to impose that tax.
18 Commissioner Barnett points out and I underscore,
19 that this is not a proposal to raise or impose any income
20 tax. It is a proposal that is consistent with our mission
21 to revise the Constitution. So when the Legislature
22 convenes over the next 20 years, they have the ability to
23 finance its state government with another source of
24 revenue.
25 Now the finance and tax meeting nobody of course
44
1 wants to come up and say they're in favor of this and they
2 danced around it quite gingerly and diplomatically. But
3 every one of them told us that the narrower your tax base
4 and the higher your rates, the more chaotic your tax
5 structure becomes as in the state of Florida. Personally,
6 I think the Legislature ought to impose an income tax.
7 For example, if they reduced the sales tax to
8 3 percent, cut the property taxes in half and imposed the
9 1 percent income tax to make up the difference, I think a
10 lot of people may support something like that, then we
11 wouldn't have one of the highest sales tax rates in the
12 country. Our property taxes would not be well above the
13 national average. And more important, we could get the
14 federal subsidy that income taxes bring by taking a
15 deduction on our income tax just like 43 other states do.
16 And then we would no longer in the state of Florida
17 subsidize the states of California state government and
18 Mexico, Arizona and all the others states that have income
19 taxes which are all subsidized through the federal tax
20 structure.
21 Florida citizens will then enjoy that subsidy as
22 well. The other six states that don't impose an income
23 tax, the only one of any size, is the state of Texas.
24 Florida is one of the fastest growing states in the
25 country. If we don't allow the Legislature another means
45
1 of financing our government in the next 20 years, I'm
2 afraid we will have failed our citizens miserably in not
3 being prepared. I voted against the amendment actually
4 because I was dismayed about the two-thirds' requirement.
5 It doesn't seem to me that we ought to put in a super
6 majority in our Constitution for a form of taxation that
7 43 other states and our federal government impose upon us
8 day by day. So I think this idea has not only come to
9 debate, I think this idea has come as a time to pass. So
10 I join in and support it.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Morsani?
12 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: I would like to speak in
13 opposition if that's now in order.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Go ahead.
15 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: It pains me to speak in
16 opposition because Commissioner Barnett did such an
17 eloquent job in presenting her case. However, I think the
18 perception unfortunately in the public's mind becomes
19 reality. But let's review history just a little bit and
20 then move forward with some vision and possibly some
21 wisdom, not on my part necessarily with the wisdom, but
22 with this commission's wisdom.
23 You know, it took from 1845 to 1968 for our budget to
24 reach $4 billion. Also, that period of time, we, in 1968,
25 we had approximately 42,000 state employees. Four years
46
1 later we had a $16 billion budget and 73,000 employees.
2 The current budget which will probably come out in 1999,
3 42 to $44 billion in our state budget.
4 If we continue not to have examples of where money
5 has changed the thrust of government and public policy.
6 The current proposals which will be this evening from our
7 federal government, from our executive branch, that even
8 though we are going to propose a budget for the current
9 year in our federal government, rather than pay off any
10 part of our deficit that we have accumulated for the past
11 40 years or 30 years, we are going to increase the budget
12 by probably $100 billion in new programs.
13 Now that's not the state of Florida. But that's a
14 mirror of what we are confronted with in a perception of
15 our public. The real problem, and I think that
16 Mr. Brochin touched on it, in the public's eye, is how
17 we're developing government services, i.e., the management
18 of government which is suspect.
19 We debated a few days ago, a few weeks ago, about the
20 water management districts and their taxing policies and
21 the kind of monies they are currently taxing, the various
22 levels. I don't think that we can as a commission,
23 without having the economics and the database to
24 determine, for example 3 percent sales tax, 1 percent
25 income tax, so on and so forth, that Mr. Brochin so
47
1 eloquently articulated, without having -- if we have that
2 kind of information, that analytical data, I mean, we
3 could probably present something to the public.
4 But I don't think that this body or the economists of
5 this state or our university systems can produce those
6 numbers that we could be salesmen for this kind of policy.
7 Even though I imagine that most of us in this room agree
8 with the thesis that you have put forth and we want to
9 agree with that.
10 But there are other impediments that make this not
11 the right proposal for this commission. We want to do the
12 right thing. I want to do the right thing for our state
13 and for this commission. And even though I'm sympathetic
14 with the rhetoric, I don't think that it's a proper thing
15 at this time. We don't have the data to support our
16 thesis. And without that data, we would be suspect in the
17 public's eye.
18 Therefore, as much as I want to agree with you,
19 Commissioner, I must vote against this proposal and I
20 would hope that the other members would vote against this
21 proposal. It's with deep regret that I say that, but
22 that's where I am.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Connor?
24 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
25 opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Morsani has
48
1 talked about the rhetoric associated with this debate.
2 Let me suggest to you what the reality is.
3 The reality is that this proposal is dead on arrival
4 in the public arena, plain and simple. And the reality is
5 that passing this proposal will probably do more to hold
6 this body in this repute in the eyes of the public than
7 passing any other proposal before this group. And it
8 probably, because of that, will do more to damage the
9 potential of passing whatever proposals come out of this
10 group because of the lack of esteem that will be accorded
11 the work of this commission by the inclusion of this
12 matter on the agenda.
13 In Gainesville I remember Professor Little talking
14 about the purpose of a Constitution being to organize the
15 functions of government and to limit the powers of
16 government as it relates to the people. Limiting the
17 ability of government to tax the people is most certainly
18 an appropriate constitutional matter. It is certainly
19 within the purview of constitutional jurisprudence, if you
20 will, to authorize the people to limit government from
21 imposing the most despicable form of taxes in the eyes of
22 the public.
23 The one single agency held in the greatest disrepute
24 in the federal government is the Internal Revenue Service.
25 The abuses of the Internal Revenue Service have been
49
1 spread upon the pages of the media of late but they are
2 not new to the public who has dealt with that agency. We
3 have, in our state Constitution, Article I, Section 23,
4 which has become a virtual shrine for many of you. I
5 would submit to you that the real purpose of that proposal
6 was to protect against informational and disclosural
7 privacy.
8 One of the reasons the Internal Revenue Service is
9 held in such low esteem is because it is so intrusive into
10 the daily lives of people. Notwithstanding whatever tax
11 credit we may get, what we do by passing this kind of
12 proposal and by only authorizing the Legislature to pass
13 an income tax is that we allow government to stick its
14 nose into the daily affairs and activities of the public.
15 Now, it's rather curious, I think, and somewhat
16 ironic that Commissioner Barnett in effect says, This is
17 not self-executing, this just provides the constitutional
18 footing to enable the Legislature to act. And we ought to
19 let the people debate that issue. I guarantee you no one
20 knows better than I that that argument did not wash with
21 this body when it came to the parental consent proposal.
22 And I guarantee you the support of the public is
23 overwhelming for that kind of proposal compared to this
24 kind of proposal, overwhelming.
25 It would be a grave mistake, I believe, for us to do
50
1 this. One of the things that attracts people to Florida,
2 one of the things you hear about about the fact that we're
3 one of seven states who don't do this is the fact that
4 they don't have an income tax in Florida, hurray for
5 Florida. Leadership is not finding a parade and getting
6 out in front of it, Oh, 43 other states are doing this,
7 let's join the parade. Let's get out in front and show
8 what kind of bold leaders we are; baloney.
9 Leadership, in my estimation, involves tying
10 government up, locking it down. Preventing it from being
11 able to grow by an ever increasing flow of funds because
12 there clearly is an inverse relationship between the size
13 of government and the amount of freedom that we enjoy.
14 If you want government to grow, you pass the proposal
15 and encourage the Legislature to pass that. If you want
16 your freedom to shrink, go ahead and do the same. But if
17 you want to have a hue and cry, the likes of which we have
18 not heard before -- you know, I haven't gotten one letter
19 that says, Please, Mr. Connor, we should restrict -- we
20 should lift the restriction on government so that it can
21 impose an income tax on us. I haven't gotten one.
22 Is there a compelling necessity, absolutely not. Is
23 it bad public policy, it absolutely is. Will it
24 enormously impact our goals as a body to make positive
25 changes in the Constitution of our state so that the
51
1 functions of government are better organized and so that
2 the powers of government as it relates to the people are
3 limited, absolutely.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Further debate?
5 Commissioner Ford-Coates?
6 COMMISSIONER FORD-COATES: Not speaking as the tax
7 collector, no. Over the last 20 years, I've been involved
8 with the Women League of Voters in every tax study that
9 the League conducted in this state and every one of those
10 came down and said that an income tax is without a doubt
11 the fairest and most stable form of taxation that the
12 state of Florida could have. During that same time frame,
13 I've heard again and again, over and over, the people of
14 Florida do not want an income tax, it has no prayer of
15 passing. The people have spoken.
16 And I realized that after appointment to this
17 commission when I went and spoke to people and they asked
18 me about the income tax, my response to them was, The
19 people have spoken, they don't want it. And I found
20 myself saying that and then going back and thinking, Wait
21 a minute, the people haven't spoken. They haven't had a
22 chance to vote on an issue which is already in our
23 Constitution.
24 Yesterday we took the action to eliminate the Tax and
25 Budget Reform Commission. Previously, I had thought,
52
1 Well, I would like to see the public have a chance to vote
2 on this issue. And some people have said it's not the
3 time, it may damage the work of the commission. And I
4 have those fears also. But the reality is, there is no
5 other alternative. This commission is the only place in
6 the next 20 years that it's ever going to put this on the
7 ballot and give the public a chance to look at the issue.
8 The Tax and Budget Reform Commission perhaps could
9 have done that. They do not exist if the proposal as
10 adopted yesterday is voted on by the people. I would
11 suggest that the proposal as amended is very limited,
12 requires a two-thirds' majority. It is not a blank check
13 in no means, by no means, but it does give the option to
14 the state. I think it's time that someone stood up and
15 took the political chance to at least give the public the
16 opportunity to vote on this issue. And I think that the
17 restrictions, as placed in there, pretty much eliminate
18 the possibility of the abuses that we have seen from our
19 federal taxing system in that I don't think a two-thirds
20 majority is going to pass anything but the simplest and
21 smallest and most efficiently administered of income
22 taxes.
23 No Legislature is going to do anything but the best
24 possible product with these restrictions on it. And I
25 strongly urge you to stand up and take the political risk
53
1 of voting to give the public a chance to really finally
2 make their voice heard.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott?
4 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Barnett and I agree
5 on 99.9 percent of the matters, it's just lately we
6 haven't. And it's a very eloquent presentation. And
7 philosophically in the purest sense, I would be one to
8 give the Legislature all options and we hear that time and
9 again on some other things that might come up here.
10 But I want to address a couple of points that were
11 made. First of all, this ideal that, Well, let's just
12 move this forward and give the public a couple of months
13 to comment on it and so forth, I would urge you not to do
14 that, particularly on something like this. Because what
15 happens, and I've seen it time and again in the
16 Legislature, you can start -- let's just take this
17 proposal if it were in the Legislature.
18 People go on and on about it. They read about it,
19 they start writing letters, they contact all of their
20 groups, they contact their clubs, their businesses, their
21 chambers, and whatever. And then a couple of months later
22 maybe they amend it so that it's something either totally
23 different or maybe somewhat innocuous, it doesn't matter.
24 They are against it and then legislators have a great deal
25 of trouble, as their representatives, trying to go back
54
1 and say, Well, I didn't really support that and so forth.
2 The point is this. You put something like this out,
3 I think that we're doing some pretty good work here in a
4 number of areas, may not agree with all of them, in fact,
5 maybe we should save this one to last and then if you
6 don't like what we're doing, you could put this out there
7 and kill everything else that we've done here.
8 We've done a lot of good things in the environment.
9 I think a number of other areas. So, let's don't vote for
10 this. If you don't think this should go on the ballot
11 with our package, let's don't vote to move it forward and
12 put it out there for a couple of months. Because what
13 you're going to do is, you're going to have an uproar that
14 will never be able to reach the people and say, Well, we
15 didn't really put that on the ballot or at least they will
16 have a negative impression of our entire package and
17 that's the way these things happen. And so I would urge
18 you not to do that.
19 I, frankly, don't think it fits Florida. I'm not
20 saying at some time it might in the future. But for right
21 now, we want people to come here and have businesses. We
22 want people that are young in their working years to come
23 to Florida because we need them, among other things, to
24 help support a lot of the elderly people who have come
25 here and who live a long time here and have very high
55
1 costs that they often have to rely on government either at
2 state or federal level.
3 So what's wrong with taxing them on the money they
4 spend? I mean, on the value which we do in property
5 taxes. What's wrong with taxing them? If they are going
6 to spend, they're going to buy new cars, they're going to
7 buy expensive cars, they are going to buy -- you know,
8 what's wrong with that? At least then they are paying and
9 contributing something. You don't take, and going the
10 opposite direction, take the burden and put it on people
11 who are working and producing jobs that help make Florida
12 more balanced and not just a bedroom community or
13 whatever, we've often been a retirement community.
14 There is one point that was made and this by
15 Commissioner Brochin and maybe others. This idea that it
16 is a subsidy because the federal government came along a
17 few years ago and took away the deductibility of the sales
18 tax. Well, just because they messed up like that, I don't
19 think that we should go and try to cure it by then going
20 to a personal income tax. So for some of those reasons,
21 plus I'm back to the main point, is let's don't put it out
22 there as a trial balloon because I think it could have an
23 adverse effect that we will have great difficulty
24 correcting should we decide not to put it on the ballot in
25 the end.
56
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Hawkes?
2 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
3 suppose that if you had asked me a few days ago, Are you
4 going to vote for the income tax, I would have said, No,
5 I'm not going to vote for the income tax. But as I sit
6 here and I contemplate and listen to the discussions, I
7 think that there are some thoughts that deserve your
8 consideration.
9 One, I'm not sure that we jeopardize everything we do
10 if we put an issue on the ballot that the voters of this
11 state clearly understand and have expressed their personal
12 views on. And to give them an opportunity to reassert
13 their opinion or to change what we think is their opinion,
14 I don't think it is necessarily bad. I know, as a member
15 of the Legislature, the press constantly beat up on me and
16 said, you know, You're not responsible because we don't
17 have a sales tax and you need to have a sales tax. And I
18 tried to explain to them that my constituents didn't want
19 a sales tax.
20 Well, this gives the people of the state of Florida a
21 chance to clearly say, you know, they do or they don't.
22 And I don't think it jeopardizes the rest of our product.
23 If making people mad was going to jeopardize our product,
24 perhaps Commissioner Rundle's proposal has jeopardized our
25 product because I've certainly heard far more about 167
57
1 than I have anything else.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It passed.
3 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: So the other thing, of course,
4 is being personally imposed. I mean, if it's an issue
5 that people can understand, I mean, I don't think that we
6 ought to have appointed judges at the trial court level.
7 But I understand that in south Florida their situation was
8 different so I voted for a local option, let people
9 discuss it, let people decide and let people cast their
10 opinion.
11 So if there is any value to a commission like this
12 where we don't have to worry about unfair taxing, that
13 we're doing something that we really didn't intend to do
14 because we're not running for reelection, then I think it
15 would be to give the people of the state of Florida a
16 chance to clarify their viewpoints and what they want to
17 do. And I happen to think that they are going to say no,
18 at least if they are consistent with the people as I think
19 I understand them in my district.
20 So I don't think it jeopardizes the product. I don't
21 think it's a bad thing to put it out there and let people
22 cast their opinions and I think it clarifies what
23 direction Florida's leaders and lawmakers ought to go in
24 depending upon the result of this. So with that, I'm
25 going to vote for your proposal, Commissioner Barnett, at
58
1 least at this point. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull?
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
4 rise as an opponent of this proposal for several reasons.
5 First, I attended every public hearing and sat through all
6 the hours of it. There may be one or two that commented
7 on this provision in the Constitution but there was
8 certainly not any overwhelming demand by the public to
9 remove this proposal. And I also have not received, to my
10 knowledge, any correspondence asking me to vote to remove
11 this proposal.
12 I also call your attention to the fact that the
13 committee that considered this proposal spent a lot of
14 time going over it and I realize that their votes are only
15 recommendations and they ought to carry some presumption
16 and they disapproved this proposal. I now want to come to
17 two items that haven't been mentioned. The proposal says,
18 Let's tax people above a certain level. Is that a single
19 income or dual income? But more importantly, this is a
20 wedge in the class warfare.
21 There is a comment made by Commissioner Ford-Coates
22 that this was the only way to do it. Well, it's not the
23 only way to do it. I made this same comment 20 years ago
24 and I don't know that anybody has taken me up on it, but
25 it's still available and that's constitutional initiative
59
1 and it would be a simple initiative not one that has to be
2 expounded upon in great lengths on approval by the Supreme
3 Court, just repeal this prohibition, nobody has offered
4 that.
5 And last but not least, you want to wreck whatever
6 proposals we put out there, adopt this proposal.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Smith? You're next,
8 Commissioner Corr.
9 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
10 think that this proposal definitely shows vision and
11 courage. However, I think that we have to balance vision
12 and courage with reality. I'm not afraid to put something
13 on the ballot if it's something that the people want.
14 This is the people's Constitution. We are obviously aware
15 of the fact that this is not something that people like
16 anyway. People don't like being taxed and if we're
17 talking about correcting our tax structure and our tax
18 system, then I think with regard to that, I think we need
19 to have the necessary data and information to educate the
20 public. We don't have that ability as a commission to do
21 that. We simply don't. We may have five, six, seven,
22 eight, I don't know how many proposals going out. We're
23 not going to have time.
24 This is not going out, not as a proposal that will
25 allow the Legislature if there is an emergency or if there
60
1 is some need in the future for an income tax, this is
2 going out to the public. And here are these elitists
3 sitting around now trying to find another way to get in
4 our pocketbook. And let me just tell you, I'm one who
5 definitely believes that government should be out trying
6 to help the least of these.
7 This matter came to my mind in a way that I could
8 understand it. When Miami started dealing with its
9 homeless problem someone said, Let's tax -- let's impose a
10 one cent sales tax for the homeless and everybody said,
11 You've got to be out of your mind, that would never pass.
12 Then Dade County got sued and then almost every day we
13 began to find out how serious this problem was and how it
14 was a drain on our tourism. And how it was a big, big
15 problem. And then the people understood it.
16 Once the people understood it and they understood
17 that there was a need to raise the money, Dade County
18 commissioners voted 13 to zero to impose a one cent sales
19 tax and there hasn't been one bit of backlash, not one.
20 The visionaries who proposed this before the people were
21 educated as to why it was needed were just ahead of their
22 time.
23 What I'm saying is, we can wreck things if we're too
24 far ahead of the people. If the people understand that
25 there is a need for this, they won't go to the Legislature
61
1 and say, We've got to change this. They will institute a
2 citizen's initiative, or they will do whatever is
3 necessary. The people are not going to let their state go
4 under economically.
5 But until we show fiscal responsibility for the
6 monies already raised, until we educate the people why
7 with a combination of other tax proposals this is one part
8 of making it fairer, making it broader, making it a tax
9 structure for the future, until we educate the people to
10 that, I mean, let's be real, this is, in fact, a proposal
11 destined for failure, destined for ridicule of this
12 commission, destined to bring other issues that the people
13 have asked for, the people have told us, Please protect
14 our environment. The people have told us, Please, please
15 do something about our educational system.
16 The people have told us, Please look at restructuring
17 our government. We know it doesn't work now, but see if
18 you can do something to make it work better. They've told
19 us these things.
20 Hopefully we've heard from people who've told us,
21 Make the political process accessible to more than just
22 the two main political parties. They've talked to us
23 about human rights issues. But honestly, honestly, I
24 mean, intellectually, Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner
25 Brochin, I believe you're right. I believe this is
62
1 something that's inevitable. But until the people see
2 that it's necessary to change their Constitution and until
3 the people see that there are other proposals that are
4 going into place to make this a part of not only making
5 the tax structure fairer, but lessening the burden on
6 them, until that happens, I strongly suggest that we will
7 be doing a disservice. Vision, yes. Courage, yes.
8 Reality, no. And that's why I must vote no.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Corr?
10 COMMISSIONER CORR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well,
11 first of all, I keep hearing the song from the Twilight
12 Zone in my head because I'm sort of shocked that we're
13 here in Tallahassee in this chamber actually proposing a
14 state income tax. I mean, I never thought in my wildest
15 imagination, being a member of this commission, that
16 anybody would bring this to pass after the public
17 hearings, anybody would bring this up on the floor of this
18 CRC. But because it is, I guess we're in the position to
19 have to speak in opposition.
20 And I think what we've heard so far, is the only good
21 reason we've heard to put this on the ballot, has been
22 echoed by Commissioner Barkdull by Commissioner Smith, by
23 Commissioner Scott, the only reason to put this on the
24 ballot is if you want to kill everything else. This, as
25 Commissioner Connor said, this will seriously cripple the
63
1 credibility of the CRC instantly. If this passes and hits
2 the newspapers tomorrow, we're done.
3 There's been no argument even though we're hearing
4 what sounds like virtues of income tax, no argument here
5 holds water. Commissioner Brochin, with all due respect,
6 the idea that property taxes could come down, that sales
7 taxes could come down, is noble, but nowhere in this
8 proposal does it say that.
9 I would say that once government had the chance to
10 get the extra income, we'll never see the reducing of
11 those taxes to bring it down to equity. There was some
12 talk about need for more state income.
13 We've had 4 percent income growth in the last two
14 years. We have the highest budget we've ever had in
15 history. It's increased every year this decade. I would
16 say that we're finally in the Legislature -- and I haven't
17 been here in a couple of years -- we're finally in the
18 Legislature in the great position of having a little bit
19 of extra money to delegate. President Jennings might
20 think otherwise, but we've had budget surpluses. We don't
21 have a need for more state income.
22 The argument that this is a better tax, that it's a
23 fairer tax, would say it's wrong. Every presidential
24 candidate on both parties, maybe not every presidential
25 candidate, but candidates from both parties, have talked
64
1 about doing away with federal income tax over the last few
2 years. They all see the problems, the challenges within
3 income tax, not a better tax, do away with it on the
4 federal level.
5 In as far as Florida being the only state in the
6 nation that has abandoned its Constitution, I would say
7 that that doesn't make us followers, that doesn't make us
8 backwoods sort of, you know, country bumpkins without, you
9 know, we've heard talk of vision. I'd say it's the exact
10 opposite. We are leaders. We are the only Constitution
11 that bans an income tax. I'd say that's a model for
12 others to follow, not for us to follow others.
13 In closing, because I'm echoing what others have
14 said, let me just say because we're hearing virtues of
15 income tax that the exact opposite is true. An income tax
16 by its nature is evil. Commissioner Connor started to say
17 that. He talked about it a few minutes ago. A tax by its
18 nature is evil to tell somebody that by being successful
19 that they are going to be penalized is wrong. We, as
20 Florida, have never done that. We've been a state that
21 has been the growth state as Commissioner Scott has said.
22 Come to Florida, open a business, be successful, raise a
23 family with a vision for the future. Give them a reason
24 to be successful, that's what Florida is all about.
25 This proposal is the exact opposite. I would say we
65
1 need a strong show of support against it here. There is
2 no virtue in putting it on the ballot whatsoever.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I've been reminded by
4 the rules chairman on issues with a lot of debate I should
5 ask for the proponents to be recognized first and let me
6 know who they are and then the opponents. And then the --
7 and I haven't done that much. So he's right. Also, he's
8 keeping time on the ten minutes that are limited in
9 debate. So far that's been good. And now we will go to
10 the close. You rise, Commissioner Scott?
11 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of
12 that rule. And if it's modeled after Senate rules, in
13 fact, in the Senate we often go back and forth. We might
14 line up debate, but we go back and forth. I'm not sure
15 what rule that is.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Me either, I just reported what
17 he told me. So we'll take that up later. Obviously, I
18 have been following the Senate rule, if that's the rule.
19 I've been doing what you said. Anyway, we'll take that up
20 later but I was just reporting. But the ten-minute rule I
21 know is in the rules and nobody has violated it in this
22 debate. Commissioner Barnett, you may close.
23 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
24 I want to thank the members of the commission for the
25 attention that you've given this issue and what I think is
66
1 a very good informed debate. One of the concerns that I
2 have that's been expressed in various ways by others, both
3 as a reason to do this and a reason not to do it, is that
4 the people of this state have never been educated about an
5 income tax. It's a myth about what an income tax does for
6 the state and doesn't do for the state.
7 They don't know what options are available if the
8 Legislature had a balanced revenue system from which to
9 make its choices. None of us really know. We can look at
10 examples in other states. We can study tax principles, we
11 can predict what some of those things will be, but the
12 people really react to this self-perpetuating myth that we
13 will never have an income tax and it's bad and, Oh, by the
14 way, let's don't ruin everything else on our ballot with
15 an income tax.
16 I think the people are smarter than that. I think
17 the people deserve an opportunity to speak to this. It's
18 not going to happen that the people are going to come
19 forward and say, Tax me. Please add some more taxes to
20 me. The people would repeal the sales tax and the
21 property tax if we gave them the option, I guarantee you
22 that would pass, or it would get a lot of attention.
23 So it's not whether the people want to be taxed on
24 income. No one wants to pay taxes. But I guarantee you
25 that if we have a balanced revenue system the facts are
67
1 available, the data is available to show that the
2 Legislature has increased options in how it taxes its
3 citizens and there would be the potential, the real
4 potential, for savings in areas of property tax, in areas
5 of sales tax, for changes to the sales tax, for changes to
6 the intangible tax.
7 Right now the intangible tax is a real burden on
8 economic development in this state and the Legislature is
9 addressing it. It costs money to make dramatic changes in
10 the intangible tax, it's a billion dollars of revenue.
11 Article V, we all want very much, I believe, to do the
12 Article V cost. It costs money. There have to be
13 options, a broad array of options available to the
14 Legislature. I'm not saying tax income, I'm not
15 advocating that. And I'm not asking anybody on this floor
16 to vote to tax income.
17 What I am advocating is vote for a balanced revenue
18 structure. Give the tools, the appropriate tools, to our
19 elected officials so that they can do their job, so that
20 they can give the citizens options, some of which will
21 benefit people who don't make a lot of money, who don't
22 have a lot of wealth. It will give them an opportunity.
23 What are we afraid of? I ask you what are you afraid
24 of? Are you afraid that the people will reject this? I'm
25 not. I'm not a bit afraid that the people of the state
68
1 will turn down a personal income tax. I believe in the
2 people. I believe that if they want to do that, and the
3 facts will come out if this goes forward about the
4 opportunities for change and betterment, frankly, the tax
5 situation of a lot of people, but if they reject it, I'm
6 not afraid.
7 I'm not afraid that the people will come out in
8 droves and vote against the rest of our proposals. I'm
9 not afraid of that, that's another myth in my judgment. I
10 think the people of this state are very smart. I think
11 they are very sophisticated about government. I think
12 they've done a pretty good job of letting government
13 officials know what they want and what they value, and I'm
14 not afraid of that.
15 We can structure this in a way that gives the
16 citizens a clear choice. So I ask you, What are you
17 afraid of? Are you afraid they'll tax your income? Are
18 we afraid personally? I don't think so. I don't think
19 so. This is an opportunity. This is an important
20 opportunity to give this state a foundation to take it
21 into the next millennium. The business community ought to
22 be behind this. The individuals ought to be behind it and
23 I would hope that you-all will be behind it today. And
24 again, I thank you very much for the attention given to
25 the issue.
69
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We'll proceed to
2 vote. Open the machine.
3 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Has everybody voted? Record the
5 vote.
6 READING CLERK: Nine yeas and 23 nays, Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: By your vote you have defeated
8 the proposal. We'll go back now, I think, Proposal 105.
9 Commissioner Thompson, I understand you are ready on
10 Proposal 105. Would you read it again, please? Read 105.
11 READING CLERK: Proposal 105, a proposal to revise
12 Article II, Section 15, Florida Constitution, and Article
13 VI, Section 4, Florida Constitution, increasing the term
14 of office of state representatives and state senators;
15 increasing the number of years such offices may serve.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Before I recognize
17 you, Commissioner Thompson, let me commend the commission
18 on a very orderly and informative debate on the last
19 subject. It was not one that was easy to debate. It was
20 done in a great fashion. And I'm sure that -- the Chair
21 appreciates it. And, Commissioner Barnett, you may not
22 always be right, but you are never, like me, in doubt. We
23 appreciate your candor. Commissioner Thompson?
24 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman and
25 Members, this is Commissioner Planas' proposal. It
70
1 originally would have done two things. And as it's in
2 your special order book, it would have done two things.
3 One is it would have changed the terms of office for House
4 members from two to four years and for Senate members,
5 four to six years. That is in the State of Florida, of
6 course.
7 The second thing that it would have done was extend
8 the eight is enough amendment, that's the best way to
9 explain that probably, which would be the entire length of
10 terms in office, a time in office, from eight years to 12
11 years. The Legislative Committee agreed with Commissioner
12 Planas to just deal with the latter issue and that is just
13 an extension of eight-year terms to -- or time spent in
14 office to 12 years of time in office, consecutively. And
15 so, that's what we are recommending to you. In order to
16 do that, Mr. Chairman, I would first like to ask you to
17 take up the first amendment on the desk.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Read the first
19 amendment on the desk by Commissioner Thompson.
20 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Thompson, on Page 1,
21 Line 11, through Page 2, Line 17, delete those lines.
22 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Okay. What we are doing here
23 is we are deleting -- if you are looking at Proposal 105,
24 we are deleting the language on Page 1 of that proposal
25 and the language at the top of Page 2 of that proposal.
71
1 And the reason is, those things pertain to the change in
2 the term from two to four years and four to six years.
3 And we are leaving in, then, the change in language
4 at the very bottom of Page 2 and carrying on over to Page
5 3, which makes it clear that we are only proposing to you,
6 for your consideration, that you propose to the public
7 that we extend the time of - |
