1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
COMMISSION MEETING
6
7
8
9
DATE: November 13, 1997
10
TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
11 Concluded at 3:30 p.m.
12 PLACE: Senate Chamber
The Capitol
13 Tallahassee, Florida
14 REPORTED BY: KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
15 Court Reporter
Division of Administrative Hearings
16 The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
17 Tallahassee, Florida
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
ROBERT M. BROCHIN
6 THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH
KEN CONNOR
7 CHRIS CORR (ABSENT)
SENATOR ANDER CRENSHAW
8 VALERIE EVANS
MARILYN EVANS-JONES
9 BARBARA WILLIAMS FORD-COATES
ELLEN CATSMAN FREIDIN
10 PAUL HAWKES
WILLIAM CLAY HENDERSON
11 THE HONORABLE TONI JENNINGS
THE HONORABLE GERALD KOGAN (ABSENT)
12 DICK LANGLEY
JOHN F. LOWNDES (ABSENT)
13 STANLEY MARSHALL
JACINTA MATHIS
14 JON LESTER MILLS
FRANK MORSANI
15 ROBERT LOWRY NABORS
CARLOS PLANAS
16 JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE (ABSENT FOR PM SESSION ONLY)
17 SENATOR JIM SCOTT
H. T. SMITH
18 CHRIS T. SULLIVAN
ALAN C. SUNDBERG
19 JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
PAUL WEST
20 JUDGE GERALD T. WETHERINGTON
STEPHEN NEAL ZACK (ABSENT)
21
PAT BARTON
22 IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)
LYRA BLIZZARD LOGAN (ABSENT)
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum call. All commissioners
3 indicate your presence. (Pause.)
4 (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Everybody take your seats.
6 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum present.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Father Tom Collins will give the
8 invocation this morning. He's from the St. Thomas More
9 Co-Cathedral in Tallahassee. And Father Collins. If
10 everybody would please rise, including the folks in the
11 gallery.
12 FATHER COLLINS: Let us pray. Lord God, I want to
13 thank you and praise you and honor you for the great gift
14 of yours to us which is the state of Florida. You have
15 given us a rich and fertile land unmatched in beauty and
16 you ask us to be responsible stewards with this gift. You
17 have given us a people rich in cultural diversity and
18 talents. And you ask us to honor the dignity that you
19 have given each member, regardless of social status or
20 state in life. You give us a bright and hopeful future if
21 we use the gifts and talents you gave us to seek justice,
22 truth and prosperity for all our people.
23 And so, God, I ask you to bless this commission given
24 the task to be part of the planning for the future. Give
25 them wisdom, understanding and knowledge. Help them to
4
1 help us, the voters, to make the right decisions for all
2 the people of this great state. Make their work fruitful
3 and help their deliberations to be made in charity and
4 respect.
5 And finally, Lord, let your favor be upon all the
6 people of this great state. Grant us prosperity and
7 virtuous lives and give success to the work of our hands,
8 I humbly ask this in your name. Amen.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Thank you, Father. I'd like to
10 call on Commissioner Sullivan to please come forward and
11 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance this morning.
12 (Pledge of Allegiance.)
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Good morning. We've got to start
14 our real work today. Before we do that, however, are
15 there any communications?
16 READING CLERK: None on the desk, Mr. Chairman.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are there any introduction of
18 proposals?
19 READING CLERK: None on the desk, Mr. Chairman.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We will get to the reports of the
21 committee after the next matter.
22 Today is a very significant day here for one of the
23 people that is with us. When she was four years old, she
24 started working for the Florida Senate. That's based on
25 the number of years she claims to have worked for the
5
1 Florida Senate. And today is the anniversary of her first
2 year as being the secretary of the Florida Senate. And
3 she was the first person of her gender, is that the way to
4 say that, to serve in that capacity. And, of course,
5 she's our own secretary and does such a great job for us.
6 In honor of your one-year service, we have some
7 momentos to give to you. We refrained from giving you
8 champagne because we knew you didn't drink, but we were
9 afraid you'd give it to Ed and we might lose him for a
10 week. So I believe our General Counsel has the gift --
11 she's disappeared. Is it all right if I allow her up
12 here, Commissioner Jennings? Is that okay?
13 COMMISSIONER JENNINGS: It's your rostrum today.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Just today.
15 (Laughter.)
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We'd like to present this to you,
17 Fay. And all of us are very proud of your accomplishments
18 and we are delighted to have you serving with us. And I
19 remember you from '78 as a ten-year-old girl. Would
20 everybody rise and give her a round of applause.
21 (Applause.)
22 (Off-the-record discussion.)
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now that we've been able to do
24 that, I might tell you that Commissioner Sullivan, I was
25 having a chat with him. One of the reasons I called on
6
1 him this morning to lead the pledge, he's been on a grand
2 tour of the world. He went to Australia where they have
3 no Outback Steakhouses. That's correct; isn't it?
4 COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: That's correct.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: To determine if he was still in
6 the outback, and then from there to the Philippines and
7 Hawaii. And you do have Outbacks in those venues, of
8 course. And we're all very glad to have you back and glad
9 you made it safely. And as a result of my acknowledging
10 him, he's promised me that I can promise my wife that we
11 won't have to wait on the porch in order to get in. Thank
12 you for your fine work. She won't have to wait, I'll have
13 to wait.
14 COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: You got it.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Fair enough.
16 We'll proceed now with the business. Commissioner
17 Barkdull, report, please, on the committee on rules and
18 administration. Commissioner Barkdull.
19 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, members of the
20 commission. First, the air conditioner is not operative
21 in this room today. And without objection, the members
22 will be able to take their coats off if they would like
23 to.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That is the men. The male
25 members.
7
1 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Well, the ladies can take
2 their jackets off, if they would like to.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Jackets, yes, sir. I really got
4 them going.
5 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I can't keep up with you,
6 Mr. Chair.
7 Today's calendar is before you. The rules committee
8 has set the special order as the proposed special order
9 was on the calendar of yesterday. Overnight the staff has
10 put together the yellow package you find on your desk
11 which is the staff analysis of each of the proposals and
12 the order in which they will come up, for your
13 consideration.
14 We're scheduled to meet today until 4:00 p.m. We
15 will take an hour off for lunch, 12:00 to 1:00, and you
16 will be on your own for lunch. At 4:00 p.m. there's a
17 declaration of rights committee scheduled, at 5:00 p.m.
18 there is a rules committee scheduled, at this point. That
19 might change in time later on depending on how the
20 calendar goes. At the present time, we're scheduled to
21 meet tomorrow at 9:00 until the calendar is concluded. If
22 it is concluded today, we probably won't meet tomorrow.
23 It came up before the rules committee yesterday the
24 policy that would be followed if a member desired to
25 withdraw a public proposal or had reached a point where
8
1 they did not desire to sign a proposal after it was
2 drafted by the bill drafting committee. It was the
3 consensus of the rules committee that the proper way to
4 handle this would be for the member to stand up and ask
5 for unanimous consent to withdraw that particular
6 proposal.
7 If it received unanimous consent, it would be
8 withdrawn. If it does not receive unanimous consent, the
9 person or persons that object will then become sponsors of
10 that proposal. So the burden is on each of the members
11 who have previously indicated that they wanted to move a
12 public proposal, and now decide they do not want to go
13 forward, to ask for consent, unanimous consent of the body
14 to withdraw that proposal.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does everybody understand that?
16 What we're going to do is the rules chairman is going to
17 announce the proposal, or I guess maybe we'll do it from
18 the rostrum, and then the person, we will identify the
19 person who sponsored it and wants to withdraw it. We will
20 then ask if there are no objections, it will be withdrawn.
21 If there is an objection, then the person who objects or
22 the person, whoever desires, will become the sponsor and
23 will need to sign it and it will then be referred to
24 committee and proceed forward.
25 Is that clear? Does anybody have any questions? All
9
1 right.
2 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I have one
3 motion that I would like to make on behalf of all the
4 committee chairmen. I would like to move that the time
5 for consideration of all proposals that have been referred
6 to their committees be extended through the termination of
7 our session in December.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is that a motion?
9 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Yes, sir.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any discussion on the
11 motion? Maybe you'll explain why.
12 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: The reason is the committees
13 are reaching a deadline on their times and they have not
14 had an opportunity to fully discuss certain of these
15 proposals. And some of the committee chairmen have asked
16 for extensions.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does that extend the time to move
18 for a rehearing or not, reconsideration?
19 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I don't think that extends
20 the time for reconsideration. This just extends the time
21 for initial consideration of the proposals.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Very well. All in favor, please
23 say aye.
24 (Verbal vote taken.)
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Motion carries.
10
1 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: That concludes the report,
2 Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The secretary advises me that
4 this packet is the revised rules and they are on your desk
5 for your use and consideration. It includes the
6 Constitution and the index to the rules and the index to
7 the Constitution. So it will be a very valuable tool for
8 your use.
9 One other announcement. Susan Evans is our page
10 today. Susan, would you stand up, please? She's
11 available and you have a button on your desk that says
12 "page." So when you want something, push the button and
13 Susan will respond. She's acting as our page.
14 While we're on that, if you have children that are
15 nine to, or young people, nine to 14 or so, that you'd
16 like to have serve as pages at our sessions, speak to the
17 secretary in advance and we'd be delighted to have them.
18 In '78 I think many of the members had children that
19 served and you may have -- some of ours may have
20 grandchildren or whatever that might like to. Keep that
21 in mind and you can speak to the secretary. And that's a
22 good experience for these young people.
23 All right. We'll proceed forward with the special
24 order calendar. I guess I'll call on the chairman of the
25 judicial committee to present the first set of proposals.
11
1 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little
2 unclear on when the appropriate time to do this would be,
3 but I'd like to withdraw a couple of proposals I filed.
4 Is this the appropriate time?
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It is the appropriate time.
6 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: I'd like to withdraw proposals
7 12 and 68, unless there's an objection.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do them one at time, please.
9 Proposal No. 12. Which is what?
10 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Access to the courts
11 regardless of age.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We've heard the
13 motion of Commissioner Freidin to withdraw consideration
14 of the public proposal to have access, is that it?
15 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Access to the courts
16 regardless of age.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any objection? Commissioner
18 Langley.
19 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Just a question of
20 Commissioner Freidin. Is there another proposal that
21 covers the access for the over 25 and the under, for the
22 deceased parents?
23 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: There is but I was going to
24 withdraw that one, too. The reason that I'm withdrawing
25 both of these at this time is I have asked some
12
1 constitutional scholars to look at them. They have raised
2 genuine concerns. So I don't think that they are
3 constitutionally sound. I don't think that they probably
4 achieve -- either one of them probably achieves what we're
5 trying to achieve in terms -- I mean, and I would welcome
6 some input from anybody because I certainly remain
7 committed to trying to fix that problem, but I don't think
8 that this is the way to do it. And I'm being told that
9 this is not the way to do it by people I respect. That's
10 why I'm moving to withdraw both of them.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Let me point out, Commissioner
12 Langley, I think you pointed this out to me yesterday,
13 that any Commissioner can still introduce proposals up
14 until, what is it, November 25th. So there is nothing to
15 prevent, even if this one is withdrawn, for a Commissioner
16 to submit one which accomplishes or addresses the same
17 subject.
18 Without objection, we will allow the withdrawal of
19 this particular proposal. Is there any objection? If
20 not, it's withdrawn. And No. --
21 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: 68.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: -- 68, covering the same subject?
23 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Yes, sir.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Without objection, we will allow
25 Commissioner Freidin to withdraw her sponsorship of that.
13
1 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is there any objection? If not,
3 it's withdrawn. Are there any others? We had some
4 others. Where are they? We had some that people had
5 sponsored on the floor but they won't sign the jacket.
6 What happened to those? These are public proposals, they
7 wouldn't be proposals that they offered.
8 (Off-the-record discussion.)
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We don't have a list, unless some
10 of you know who you are and want to move to withdraw. I
11 know there are several proposals that people sponsored and
12 we furnished them with the proposal of the draft and they
13 said they didn't want to sign them. And that would be
14 tantamount to withdrawing them. It would be the same as
15 this. I thought maybe we could cover them at this
16 meeting.
17 (Off-the-record discussion.)
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I guess we can get started now
19 and call on the chairman of the judicial committee to
20 present the first proposals on the special order.
21 Commissioner Wetherington.
22 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 The first proposal for consideration is Proposal No. 62
24 which amends Article V, Section 8, to raise the mandatory
25 retirement age of justices and judges from age 70 to age
14
1 72, with no opportunity for the justice or judge to serve
2 any remaining term of office. If I remember correctly,
3 the vote in the committee on this was two to two.
4 The reason why I submitted the proposal I submitted
5 was because the Article V commission recommended this,
6 Justice Grimes recommended it, it makes sense. Rather
7 than the present situation which is if you have served
8 less than half your term when you reach age 70, you have
9 to retire at age 70. If you have served more than half
10 your term when you reach age 70, you can continue to serve
11 the balance of the term. The purpose of the
12 recommendations is to have a uniform rule at age 72. And
13 that's the reason for the proposal.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. As I understand -- if
15 I understand what you're saying is even though the
16 committee two-to-two'd on this and therefore it comes out
17 without approval, you support it.
18 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I do.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Would you like to tell us why you
20 support it and begin the debate on this subject or would
21 you like to combine it with the next one which deals with
22 the same subject?
23 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: The next proposal would
24 be to eliminate Commissioner Sundberg's proposal, which is
25 Proposal No. 9, which would eliminate the requirement of a
15
1 mandatory retirement at age 70 for judges and justices.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Was that one 2/2 also?
3 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: This was defeated.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Let's move with the first one
5 then and you can present that and then Commissioner
6 Sundberg can speak to the other proposal when you finish,
7 when we finish with this one.
8 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: On the age 72, it's not a
9 major matter, but it obviously makes a great deal of sense
10 rather than having the system we have now where
11 arbitrarily some people have to leave at age 70, others
12 can serve to perhaps as much as age 73. And to put
13 everybody on an equal plane, you just have one date
14 everybody leaves on. That was the reasoning behind the
15 Article V commission's recommendation.
16 Justice Grimes appeared before our committee and he
17 agreed with this. He did not agree with eliminating the
18 mandatory retirement, but he did agree with this
19 particular provision. And for those reasons, that's why
20 I've submitted this proposal.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Connor.
22 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a
23 question.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to Commissioner
25 Connor?
16
1 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Judge Wetherington, are there
3 any other provisions in the Constitution, or indeed in
4 statutory law in Florida, that either mandate the
5 retirement of a public employee or official at a given age
6 or place any other limitation on their service based on
7 age? On the upper end of the scale as opposed to the
8 lower.
9 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I'm not aware of any.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think there may be some
11 statutory requirements, for example, in the university
12 system, I believe, Commissioner Marshall, but they can be
13 waived; is that not correct? Would you respond to that,
14 please, Commissioner Marshall? I know you are familiar
15 with this in the university system. Commissioner
16 Marshall.
17 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is
18 such a requirement, it's been under review in recent
19 years. I think you're correct when you say the
20 restriction is there at age 70, I believe, but can be
21 waived for fairly casual reasons.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's the only one I'm aware of.
23 There may be others in the statutes. Some of you members
24 of the Legislature may know. Does that answer your
25 question? Is there any other further discussion in
17
1 opposition or in favor? Commissioner Brochin.
2 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: I just had a question.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to Commissioner
4 Brochin?
5 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: So I'm following along, is the
7 proposal we're considering No. 62 in the package that we
8 got yesterday? Is that the actual language that we're
9 considering in terms of amending the Constitution?
10 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: So the committee hasn't changed
12 any of the language on the proposal?
13 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: No.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg, for what
15 purpose do you rise, sir?
16 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Mr. Chairman, just --
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: First of all, do you yield to
18 Commissioner Sundberg?
19 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I will.
20 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Commissioner Wetherington, I
21 take it you're seriously --
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You're off.
23 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I've been accused of that
24 before.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I mean your sound is off. You've
18
1 never been accused of that before.
2 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you. If this provision
3 is adopted, which you urge, it will then preclude the next
4 proposal, will it not; that is, that there be no age
5 limitation on the service of a judge or justice in this
6 state; is that correct?
7 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's correct.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley, you were
9 next. For what purpose do you rise?
10 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: You're going to hate me for
11 this.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you have a question?
13 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: A point of order. I have
14 heard said by you, Mr. Chairman, also by the rules
15 chairman, that it takes 19 votes for a measure to survive
16 today. And I respectfully request you to consider that
17 that's not what the rule says. The rule says a majority
18 of the commission. And the definitions under Rule 9.4
19 says that a majority of the commission is a majority of
20 those voting. And therefore if there were only 27 here
21 today, it would only take 14.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm not sure we're quite to the
23 point where we need to consider that.
24 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: We're about to vote on
25 something.
19
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We still have people that want to
2 discuss this issue then we'll take it up. Commissioner
3 Barkdull is going to answer that at the time, not now,
4 soon as the other people -- we'll stay in order and we
5 will continue with Commissioner Wetherington who has the
6 floor. Anybody that wants him to yield for a question,
7 this is the time to do it. Commissioner Smith.
8 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First
9 of all, Commissioner Wetherington, will you explain,
10 especially for the nonlawyers, what it means when you said
11 that some people have to retire at 70 and others have to
12 retire at 72 and by now coming forward with a proposal
13 that everybody has to leave at 72 it levels the playing
14 field, that's No. 1.
15 And question No. 2, is this the same proposal in
16 substance that was rejected by the voters in the last
17 election after the Article V commission?
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I can answer that. It didn't
19 pass the Legislature.
20 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: On the first point, the
21 way it works now, if you serve less than half your term
22 when you reach age 70, you must retire. If you're a day
23 over half your term, you can then serve out the balance of
24 your, the balance of your term. So theoretically you can
25 serve out close to three years.
20
1 Let me add this point, which I think is significant.
2 This is not a major -- this is not a major problem. The
3 idea is that if we end up with, for example, a judiciary
4 proposal that combines a number of issues that are all
5 desirable but are not necessarily earthshaking, this is
6 the kind of proposal that I would envision would be
7 included in that kind of an overall proposal including a
8 number of matters that are desirable, beneficial, but
9 would not meet a very, very high-needs test in terms of a
10 constitutional amendment.
11 And it is being submitted with that in mind. If we
12 can do that combination in the right way without
13 disturbing anything, it would be a desirable thing to do
14 because I think it makes sense, but it would not meet, in
15 my opinion, a high-needs test.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner West, for what
17 purpose do you rise?
18 COMMISSIONER WEST: Just to ask Judge Wetherington a
19 question.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield, Judge Wetherington?
21 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I do.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Wetherington, he's
23 no longer a judge, we've removed him.
24 COMMISSIONER WEST: Thank you very much,
25 Mr. Chairman.
21
1 Did you have testimony in committee meeting from the
2 justice that spoke, his name was --
3 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Grimes.
4 COMMISSIONER WEST: Justice Grimes. Did you have
5 testimony from him on his position on Commissioner
6 Sundberg's proposal?
7 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes. He's against
8 eliminating mandatory retirement.
9 COMMISSIONER WEST: Why?
10 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: His feeling was --
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'd like to hold this until the
12 next -- that is the next issue that will arise is the
13 issue of no retirement -- well, I think it's pertinent.
14 Go ahead and answer his question.
15 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: His feeling is although
16 he doesn't want to leave now, he'd like to stay on, his
17 feeling was whereas a lot of people can stay on, there are
18 instances of people that do have problems and that this
19 having a mandatory retirement overall, in his opinion, and
20 I think in the opinion of the Article V commission,
21 eliminates some problems that might otherwise arise.
22 It's difficult to remove people. The Judicial
23 Qualifications Commission has difficulty in removing
24 people simply on the grounds that maybe they're not up to
25 doing their job anymore. And that therefore, overall,
22
1 it's probably a good rule. And although it applies to him
2 and he's leaving and he would rather stay, he favored the
3 rule. That was one of the things that was persuasive to
4 me.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any further questions
6 or debate?
7 Commissioner Barnett, for what purpose do you rise?
8 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A question really of the
9 sponsor and/or the Chair. I just want to clarify a
10 comment made earlier when Commissioner Sundberg asked
11 whether consideration of this proposal would preclude
12 consideration of his proposal. The answer was yes and
13 what I thought --
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The Chair didn't rule, we'll
15 still consider it.
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I want to make sure that what
17 the real implications of that was that the proposals are
18 inconsistent, but that we will debate and consider
19 removing mandatory retirement.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's correct.
21 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: And it would be possible, at
22 least at this stage, for both to go forward with a
23 positive vote.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It would be possible, but not
25 likely.
23
1 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: But it would be possible.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That is correct.
3 Commissioner Connor.
4 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak
5 in opposition to the proposal.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Very well. Hold it just a
7 moment. Do you have anything, Commissioner Barkdull?
8 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I speak in favor of the
9 proposition.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Favor? All right. Commissioner
11 Connor, if you'll wait until -- Commissioner Barkdull,
12 you're next.
13 Incidentally, my understanding, Commissioner Jennings
14 and Commissioner Scott, this proposal came from the
15 Article V revision group and it passed the Senate and
16 received a 3/5 vote and it did not pass the House. And
17 therefore it was not on the ballot and it was opposed by
18 the Black Caucus, Commissioner Smith, it's my
19 recollection. And one of the members of that was on the
20 Article V commission and she was successful in keeping it
21 from receiving the 3/5 vote. That's why it was never on
22 the ballot. The people never got to vote on it.
23 Commissioner Barkdull.
24 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I speak in favor of this
25 proposal as one affected by the present Constitution, I
24
1 think, and also as one who served for a number of years on
2 the Judicial Qualifications Commission and also as one who
3 served with certain individuals that were exempt from the
4 70 provision.
5 As many of you know, I have served on previous
6 commissions and I also served on the Article V task force.
7 I have never thought strongly that this should be changed.
8 I've had recently people ask me about it, would I support
9 the change, and I said, no. The reason I said, no, is I
10 knew what it was when I took the job, that the term
11 expired in accordance with the terms of the Constitution
12 and that I would be gone. And I think, on balance, it is
13 a very good provision and I would urge that you support
14 the proposition as advanced by Commissioner Wetherington.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Anyone else as a proponent?
16 Commissioner Connor is an opponent.
17 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
18 opposition to the proposal because I have a general
19 reluctance to endorse age-based caps for service. I have
20 talked with several judges about this proposal, all of
21 whom have favored that because they frankly indicated that
22 they found in a number of instances, not many instances,
23 that there were some judges when they reached a given age
24 lacked the energy, and drive and capacity to manage their
25 caseloads.
25
1 And that it was uncomfortable and difficult for them
2 to confront those judges about that and to raise issues
3 about their qualifications. And that is certainly
4 understandable.
5 The flip side of that, I believe, is that when we
6 adopt an age-based limit of service that in effect we are
7 affirming, in a very real sense, a form of age
8 discrimination, indicating there is a presumption that
9 when a person reaches a given age, to wit in this instance
10 72, that they lack the capacity to go forward and carry
11 out the execution of their duties.
12 I think that's a wrongheaded approach and I don't
13 think that we should adopt such a wrongheaded approach to
14 relieve others in positions of responsibility who have a
15 duty to do the difficult task of grasping the medal and
16 confronting someone who is incapable of service or who
17 doesn't measure up or whatever, and relieving them of that
18 rather difficult political responsibility.
19 So I think we substitute a much greater problem by
20 adopting any form of age-based or age-capped service. And
21 I will object -- I object to it, will vote against it and
22 will vote to support Commissioner Sundberg's proposal.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further debate or discussion?
24 Anybody else in opposition or now anyone in rebuttal?
25 All right. Before we vote, Commissioner Langley's
26
1 point of order, Commissioner Barkdull, on whether or not
2 it takes a majority of those present and voting or whether
3 it takes 19 votes, regardless.
4 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I've been advised by people
5 with great wisdom that it takes a majority of those
6 present.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Anybody want to address that
8 before the Chair rules? Commissioner Scott.
9 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I agree with him and I think
10 particularly at this stage when we still have the 22 vote
11 requirement for the final passage. And also I'm kind of
12 worried about reconsideration, would that take 19 votes.
13 So I think it's a majority for everything except where
14 specifically provided.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I was one of those with great
16 wisdom that he referred to. The Chair is going to rule
17 that it takes a majority of those present and voting, as
18 long as we have a quorum. But I want to remind you that
19 that's subject to appeal, the ruling of the Chair. So if
20 anybody wants to appeal it, now is your shot.
21 (No response.)
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Very good. Commissioner Langley,
23 thank you for bringing that to our attention. We can now
24 proceed with great vigor. Is there any further discussion
25 on the first proposal? If not, we'll proceed to vote.
27
1 Read it, we didn't do this and I think we need to
2 have it read. You can leave your votes up there.
3 READING CLERK: Proposal 62, proposal to revise
4 Article V, Section 8, Florida Constitution, raising the
5 mandatory retirement age for justices and judges.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Has everybody voted? Lock the
7 machine.
8 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
9 READING CLERK: Fourteen yeas and 13 nays,
10 Mr. Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: By the barest of margins, it
12 stays alive. Commissioner Langley, shake hands with
13 Commissioner Wetherington, you've saved the day. This is
14 one we probably may want to reconsider that close vote.
15 (Off-the-record discussion.)
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We'll stand in informal recess,
17 but don't open the chamber. We'll take a five-minute
18 break while they are trying to repair the printer.
19 (Brief recess.)
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Okay. Come to order. We now
21 have everything in working order. If everybody will take
22 their seats. Would you check back there to make sure they
23 know we're meeting?
24 SECRETARY BLANTON: All members indicate your
25 presence. Quorum call. All members indicate your
28
1 presence.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, indicate your
3 presence please. Commissioner Freidin is here. She needs
4 to indicate her presence. Commissioner Connor, he's here.
5 Here he comes. Okay. Thirty-two members present. We'll
6 now proceed.
7 Commissioner Wetherington, you yielded to
8 Commissioner Sundberg to present the next proposal.
9 Before you do, I ask the clerk to read the proposal.
10 READING CLERK: Proposal 9, proposal to revise
11 Article V, Section 8, Florida Constitution, repealing the
12 provision that stipulates a maximum age beyond which
13 individuals may not serve as justices or judges.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg, you're
15 recognized.
16 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
17 rise to speak in favor of this proposal, which as has been
18 indicated, plain and simply would eliminate the provision
19 for constitutional senility when it comes to judges. The
20 argument is made that we really will not lose the services
21 of these judges because they always can continue to serve
22 as senior judges and it provides the check that the chief
23 judge or the chief justice who must pass on their
24 qualifications can make a determination if they are, in
25 fact, qualified to serve.
29
1 The problem with that is that when a judge goes on
2 senior status, in order to qualify to serve inactive
3 service, that judge has to accept a salary or actually a
4 payment of, I'm not sure, it's probably $200 a day. Judge
5 Wetherington, is that accurate?
6 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: 250 a day.
7 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: 250 a day. That, of course,
8 is far less than what the judge or justice was receiving
9 in active service. So that requires that in order for a
10 senior judge to continue to serve as a resource for the
11 state court system, he or she has to make the sacrifice of
12 accepting less than the full salary or the compensation he
13 or she would have received in active service.
14 Furthermore, any one of those individuals, it's been
15 my experience, is quite able to serve as a mediator or
16 arbitrator and is in fairly great demand amongst parties
17 for that service, at which they can receive as much as
18 $250 an hour for that service. It calls for, in my
19 judgment, quite a sacrifice to ask these senior status
20 people to continue to serve the state court system.
21 The other thing that I think makes it -- and the
22 argument is we've all seen individuals who have lost their
23 intellectual prowess at a certain point in time and age
24 and hence they don't bring the kind of vitality to the job
25 that they should. I will grant you that that does pose a
30
1 problem.
2 However, and I must defer to Commissioner Barkdull
3 who served from the beginning for many, many years on the
4 JQC. But there are the mechanics of the JQC for judges
5 who suffer from a mental or emotional disability that
6 makes them unfit to serve in office and they can be
7 removed in those instances. I grant you it's not an easy
8 task, but I can remember an occasion, one judge that was
9 removed simply because he couldn't make a decision. He
10 broke out in a rash every time he was called upon to make
11 a decision. And I think Commissioner Barkdull recalls
12 that case.
13 It is -- and unlike the federal system where those
14 judges are appointed for life, there is not a comparable
15 system to check those judges who have reached that point
16 in time where they should not continue to serve.
17 In response to Commissioner Barkdull's statement that
18 he knew what the deal was when he ran for the office or
19 undertook the office, that isn't the point at all. I
20 don't urge this proposal on you for the benefit of the
21 judge. I urge this proposal on you for the benefit of the
22 public.
23 I had the great good opportunity to serve on a
24 collegial court with some people who were absolutely
25 outstanding legal scholars and yet at a time when their
31
1 faculties were fully in force and continue today to be
2 fully in force, had to leave the bench. Justice Jimmy
3 Adkins was one of the finest legal minds I've ever seen in
4 my life. And until the day he died, long after he had
5 reached age 70, he continued to have that kind of
6 facility.
7 Justice Ray Ehrlich, whom you all know or should if
8 you don't, today has those faculties that would permit him
9 to serve well, but he was required to leave the bench.
10 And most recently of course, Justice Grimes is being
11 required to leave. Steve Grimes' faculties are as acute
12 today as they ever have been.
13 So I urge you at a time when it seems to me in almost
14 every other sector of our society we recognize that age is
15 not necessarily disqualifying, that we extend that to this
16 situation which is, as was I think borne out by
17 Commissioner Connor's question, in almost no other that I
18 can think of, a conditional provision in the university
19 system that can be waived, do we say that it is
20 disqualifying.
21 We have the experience of the federal system, which
22 is a far different problem from the standpoint of being
23 able to relieve those judges. They are appointed for
24 life. At least judges here are only going to be in that
25 position until an election period arrives. There is that
32
1 check. And there is a much more significant check by our
2 Judicial Qualifications Commission than they have in the
3 federal system.
4 For all of those reasons, I urge you to support this
5 proposal and let's not lose the services of the Steve
6 Grimes, and the Ray Ehrlichs and the Jimmy Adkins and
7 many, many more that I have not had personal experience
8 with that I'm sure are out there in the state court
9 system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any proponents or questions
11 directed to the sponsor?
12 Commissioner Brochin.
13 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: Yes, I have a question.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield?
15 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I yield.
16 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: Did the committee consider the
17 historical creation of this amendment that capped it at 70
18 years? As I understand it was passed in 1985, or is that
19 not correct? My question was did the committee consider
20 how it came about that we decided 70 was the appropriate
21 age and therefore the reason for --
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to Commissioner
23 Barkdull who was present in 1904?
24 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Gladly I'd yield to
25 Commissioner Barkdull.
33
1 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Commissioner Brochin, in
2 answer to your question, in the reorganization of the
3 appellate court system, before the Legislature in 1955,
4 part of the proposal in that joint resolution that there
5 was a mandatory retirement age at 70.
6 I believe it was in 1963, this is why this appears in
7 the disciplinary section and not somewhere else in Article
8 V, when the Judicial Qualifications Commission was up for
9 consideration, there was a situation where the judge and
10 former justice and former Governor Caldwell was allowed to
11 be able serve out his term and not have to leave when he
12 was 70. And it was figured out when he reached 70 he was
13 to be over halfway into his term and that's the way that
14 got into the Constitution.
15 The 70 business did not come in in '85, it's been in
16 existence since 1955. It originally provided a
17 grandfather clause for all those judges and justices that
18 were serving on June 30th, 1957. It was changed, I
19 believe, when we adopted Article V in 1972 and moved one
20 day to July 1, 1957. The reason for that was that on
21 July 1, 1957 the District Courts of Appeal came into being
22 and there were also some other statutory courts at the
23 trial level that were having additional judges added to
24 them.
25 So between June 30th and July 1 there was a
34
1 substantial difference in the number of judiciary. But
2 that's been in existence some 40-odd years now.
3 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: If I may respond. None of
4 that information was brought to the attention of the
5 committee during our deliberations.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I understand the answer in a one
7 liner is it's been in the Constitution for 40-odd years;
8 is that correct, in one form or another, 70 retirement
9 mandatory?
10 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: But as I understood the
11 question by Commissioner Brochin was whether or not the
12 committee considered that historical information and the
13 answer is no.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barnett, for what
15 purpose do you rise?
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: To speak in opposition to the
17 proposal.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: First, are there any
19 commissioners who wish to speak in favor of the proposal?
20 (No response.)
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Barnett.
22 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you. I hesitated to do
23 this, but I decided that I think there are some issues
24 about this that need to be discussed.
25 First, I had the great privilege and honor of having
35
1 former Justice Ray Ehrlich as my law partner. And while
2 he delights in telling people that until Steve Grimes
3 retires this month, he's the only person in the state
4 who's been declared constitutionally senile, I can tell
5 you he is not, that he is one of our most energetic and
6 productive lawyers in our law firm. He really sets a
7 model for some of the younger lawyers in the firm.
8 Perhaps just having the opportunity to have someone
9 like Ray Ehrlich come back into the private bar is enough
10 for me to support some type of mandatory retirement for
11 judges because but for this provision I suspect he as well
12 as Steve Grimes and other great justices would still be on
13 the court.
14 But I don't believe that is the issue and I don't
15 believe that it is the question necessarily of the
16 senility or ability of the justice or a judge to continue
17 to serve. I think the JQC could in fact handle those
18 issues, although I suspect that if we had the statistics
19 we would find that over the years there have been very,
20 very few situations where a judge has actually been
21 removed. And normally I think that would be for
22 misconduct as opposed to omission to act or failure to act
23 with appropriate energy, although maybe someone can
24 provide that information. I don't think that is the
25 issue.
36
1 For me, the issue is the opportunity in our judiciary
2 to continue to have new faces, new people participate in
3 the judicial branch of government. We have a situation
4 right now in the state of Florida, like today, yesterday
5 and tomorrow occurring that to me illustrates why this is
6 important. And that is, with the vacancy created in the
7 Florida Supreme Court with the retirement of Justice
8 Grimes.
9 Most of you know, probably know, that at this point
10 in time there are no women on the Florida Supreme Court,
11 although a substantial number of the members of the Bar
12 are women and certainly a substantial number of the
13 population of this state are women. There is only one
14 African-American on the Florida Supreme Court although,
15 again, there are many, many lawyers in this state who are
16 African-American and there are many, many citizens of this
17 state who are African-American.
18 I believe that our court system needs to reflect the
19 people that it serves appropriately and that the time has
20 come for us to have a more diverse court. And indeed the
21 five people who have presented to the governor, of those
22 five there are four women. And I think there is a
23 substantial possibility that we will have a justice on the
24 court who is a woman, a very qualified woman.
25 It is the opportunity that mandatory retirement
37
1 presents to bring in fresh ideas, fresh faces and new
2 enthusiasm to the judicial branch that compels me to
3 oppose this proposal, although I don't like to be -- I
4 don't want to be characterized in any way as being for
5 discrimination. And to the degree this is age
6 discrimination, I may have the same reaction Commissioner
7 Connor does. But I believe there are many instances in
8 our statutes where we make distinctions based on age and
9 it is not necessarily discrimination.
10 So I come down in favor of continuing the current
11 status of the Constitution.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner -- do you have a
13 question, Commissioner Connor, or are you --
14 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: A rejoinder.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You'll have to wait. I believe
16 you want to speak in opposition, Commissioner Smith?
17 COMMISSIONER SMITH: That's correct.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You're recognized.
19 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Although it's extremely difficult for me to oppose any
21 idea that could, a proposal that could get both Justice
22 Sundberg and my dear friend Mr. Connor to agree to, I must
23 respectfully object.
24 I object not for the great justices Ehrlich and
25 Adkins and others who have served so well, I object
38
1 because of what the people of the state of Florida have
2 said to us by their actions and by their testimony.
3 Clearly the trend throughout this state is not to extend
4 the service of public servants, but to limit the terms of
5 public servants. As we've seen with Eight is Enough,
6 whether that's right or wrong, the people have a right to
7 speak. They have a right, as Judge Wetherington so
8 eloquently said yesterday, they have the right to make bad
9 decisions. It is their government.
10 With regard to this issue, we have heard at every
11 stop along the way people's frustration with our legal
12 system, their frustration with what they perceive as the
13 arrogance of the Bar to tell them what is best for them in
14 their court system. I think this proposal sends a bad
15 message. That while you're telling us even to limit the
16 terms of judges, while you're telling us to give new
17 people an opportunity to serve, as my friend Ms. Barnett
18 has so eloquently stated, that you folks know better.
19 And so in the face of what we are saying, you believe
20 that you're going to extend the terms. Let me tell you
21 something, there are -- as brilliant as he is, there are
22 other young Justice Sundbergs out there. As brilliant as
23 Ehrlich is, there are other young brilliant Ehrlichs out
24 there. Give them a chance.
25 Thank you.
39
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any other speakers in opposition?
2 All right. For those in favor, Commissioner Connor.
3 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I believe
4 Commissioner Barnett and Commissioner Smith made a
5 compelling case, by virtue of their very arguments for
6 term limits for judges, which I support. What I oppose is
7 the notion that we should conclude that one is somehow
8 legally incapacitated by virtue of age and unable to carry
9 out the duties of office.
10 We live in a period of marvelous health care, of
11 increased life expectancies, in a state in which the
12 population who is over age 65 exceeds that of any other
13 state in the union and our population of those who exceed
14 80 is growing as well.
15 I think it's a mistake and I think it's the wrong
16 message to send to say that we believe that older folks in
17 our society are legally incapacitated to carry out the
18 duties of public office, particularly as it relates to the
19 judiciary. I would be much more in favor of a term limit.
20 I know it's not a popular opinion, but please don't cut me
21 off, Mr. Chairman --
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It's the mikes, I would not cut
23 you off.
24 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: -- I would be much more
25 supportive of a term limits proposal which would infuse
40
1 fresh faces, new blood, new energy, new creative ideas, et
2 cetera, than I would to say that if you reach 70 years
3 old, or you reach 72 years old you are presumptively,
4 constitutionally senile and incapable of carrying out your
5 duties.
6 So in order to accomplish Ms. Barnett's goal and to
7 further debate, I'll support a proposal that would provide
8 a limitation of terms for judges to conform to those of
9 other public servants in the state.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I might caution you, you must
11 ultimately do that by the 25th of this month, unless you
12 want to make an amendment.
13 Any further debate? Commissioner Sundberg.
14 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: May I close?
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: In response to Commissioner
17 Barnett's premise I'm not sure there is anything -- that
18 there is particular merit in new faces in the institution
19 of the judiciary.
20 Just anecdotally, I can tell you that when I went on
21 the Supreme Court there were four members of the court,
22 including me, who were under the age of 44 years old. We
23 profited greatly by the presence of Jimmy Adkins on that
24 court because of the maturity he brought to it that we had
25 no idea about. So, you know, turnover for the sake of
41
1 turnover, make space for, is not a very compelling
2 argument to me.
3 And the two instances you raise, and I'm not sure
4 you're not suggesting that we discriminate against one
5 group in favor of another group if we're to make way for
6 women and African-Americans and Latins by virtue of
7 shoving other people out the other end.
8 And I would suggest to you that the only woman who
9 has ever served on the Florida Supreme Court did not
10 undertake that service because of someone's having to
11 leave because of age. She filled a space that was vacated
12 by James Alderman, who was about 50 years old when he left
13 the court.
14 The second African-American, and the one who serves
15 on the court today, took my position on the court and I
16 was not then and I'm even not now constitutionally senile.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You don't want a ruling from the
18 Chair on that, do you?
19 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I said constitutionally. I'm
20 talking about de jure, not de facto. So those arguments
21 are not compelling and should not be compelling to us.
22 In addressing my good friend Commissioner Smith's
23 remarks, and I know they are deeply felt, first of all,
24 this is not a term limits issue. It has nothing to do
25 with term limits. If a person were elected at age 68 or
42
1 appointed at age 68, he would still have to leave or she
2 would still have to leave at age 70 under the current
3 Constitution. So it's not a term limits issue.
4 And whether or not the people have the right to
5 speak, sure they have the right to speak. But they might
6 want to distinguish between the skills and talents that
7 are required to serve in the judiciary as opposed to the
8 skills and talents to serve in the executive or
9 legislative branch of government. So if you want to let
10 the people speak, put this on the ballot and let them
11 speak to it. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Proceed to vote on
13 Proposal 9.
14 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
15 READING CLERK: 10 yeas and 21 nays, Mr. Chairman.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The proposal fails. Now we go to
17 Proposal 67. I ask the clerk to read the title please.
18 READING CLERK: Proposal 67, proposal to revise
19 Article V, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and to create
20 Article XII, Section 21, Florida Constitution, providing
21 for an increase in the length of membership in the Florida
22 Bar which is required of a candidate for the office of
23 circuit judge or county judge.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Wetherington to
25 present the proposal for the committee which passed it out
43
1 with approval; is that correct?
2 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's correct. This
3 proposal was also recommended by the Article V commission.
4 And the purpose of it is to increase the legal experience
5 level of those who are either appointed or elected to the
6 circuit or county courts in an effort to increase the
7 overall competence and experience of the judiciary.
8 That's the only purpose of it. I think it's the right
9 thing to do.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any -- Commissioner
11 Smith, for what purpose do you rise?
12 COMMISSIONER SMITH: For a question.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield?
14 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I do.
15 COMMISSIONER SMITH: You mentioned this was
16 recommended by the Article V task force. What happened to
17 it after its recommendation?
18 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It isn't -- hasn't been
19 -- I don't think its been passed on.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I don't think it passed in the
21 Legislature.
22 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It hasn't been submitted
23 to the people, in other words.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, did the
25 task force actually recommend this?
44
1 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Yes, sir.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Am I correct in saying it did not
3 pass the Legislature?
4 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I can't answer that. I think
5 Mr. Buzzett can.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is that correct, Commissioner
7 Wetherington?
8 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: What was the question?
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It did not pass the Legislature;
10 is that right? Mr. Buzzett was the executive director of
11 that commission.
12 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It was never taken up by
13 the Legislature, according to Mr. Buzzett.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's the same thing as not
15 passing it, I think.
16 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Right.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is there any other debate, any
18 pro or con, or any further questions of Commissioner
19 Wetherington on this issue?
20 Commissioner Wetherington, I have a question.
21 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: This applies to everybody, is
23 that right?
24 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Correct. There's an
25 exception in there I think for counties under --
45
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Tell us what the exception is and
2 why it's in there, if you would.
3 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I think there's an
4 exception for the counties -- there are some counties that
5 still have nonlawyer judges, small counties.
6 (Off-the-record discussion.)
7 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I think it should be in
8 there.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: What this does though for
10 counties under 40,000, it requires them to just be a
11 member of the Bar?
12 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: That's right.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And have we phased out all the
14 nonlawyer county judges? Commissioner Langley, are you
15 familiar with that? So this wouldn't change that; is that
16 correct? Could you respond?
17 Commissioner Thompson, you probably know more about
18 this than the rest of us.
19 COMISSIONER THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, to tell you,
20 it's been so long since I've been in the legislature and
21 dealing with this that I haven't paid too much attention
22 to it. But I do know that we do have county judges that
23 are nonlawyers. And I think the way the law is is they
24 can continue to run so long as they are in office. But if
25 there's a gap, in other words if a nonlawyer quits, then a
46
1 lawyer has to run. That just happened in Liberty County,
2 as you probably know.
3 Now I tell you one of the things that concerns me,
4 folks, is that 40,000 may not be the good magic figure
5 anymore. I'm thinking of my home county is probably at
6 44,000. Jackson County is probably at 45-. And a lot of
7 the lawyers are doing kind of like me, they are moving,
8 you know, so you don't have a lot of lawyers in those
9 counties. So you may have trouble getting any kind of a
10 choice. In some of the counties that may be pushing up
11 toward 50.
12 I wonder if we're going to recommend this ultimately,
13 I would recommend to you-all that we go to 50,000 or maybe
14 more, I don't know. But 50- is probably a pretty good
15 place to stop, based on the counties that I'm familiar
16 with. You-all are familiar with other counties.
17 How do you put an amendment up there?
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You put it in writing. We have
19 people here to put it in writing for you.
20 COMISSIONER THOMPSON: While the debate ensues, I'll
21 do that.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Mr. Buzzett, will you see that
23 his amendment is prepared?
24 I have a question while you're here. Somebody said
25 yesterday, maybe it was Commissioner Langley or someone
47
1 that looked at this problem, that 80 percent of all the
2 judges came from counties with over a 100,000 population.
3 Is that -- who told me that? Commissioner Evans-Jones?
4 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: I have a question for
5 Commissioner Wetherington.
6 Commissioner Wetherington, could this be done by
7 statute by the Legislature? Does it have to be a
8 constitutional amendment?
9 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I think it does, yes.
10 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: You think it does?
11 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes, it does have to be a
12 constitutional amendment.
13 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Thank you.
14 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I'd like to make an
15 observation, Mr. Chairman. That whatever exemption we put
16 in for the counties of lesser population, we either put it
17 in in a schedule form where it can be changed by the
18 Legislature, or we provide that in counties below a
19 certain level the Legislature by law may provide an
20 exemption.
21 So whatever arises as to lawyers moving out or where
22 the lawyers not within a county of a certain years of
23 experience that there will be some availability, because
24 that's been the problem that executives have in filling
25 some of these smaller counties particularly. You can't
48
1 find a lawyer or you can't find a lawyer with even five
2 years' experience. But I think if you left it optional
3 with the Legislature to fix whatever minimum requirements,
4 it would be better than us trying to write it in the
5 Constitution.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are you going to prepare that and
7 offer it as an amendment?
8 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I'll see how it goes.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You're not going to have much
10 longer at it. Commissioner Scott, did you want to be
11 recognized?
12 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Is it for a question?
14 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: No, just a statement in support
15 of the pending amendment.
16 I'm sure many lawyer members probably know this, but
17 what happens in small counties, I have a ranch out in
18 Holmes County, they have a circuit and you're part of a
19 bigger circuit. And all the circuits are generally the
20 same size. So there will be a lot of counties to chose
21 circuit judges from. But county is just, I mean,
22 population -- I think there is only four lawyers in the
23 town or maybe eight out there.
24 And if you start limiting them in age -- and the
25 other point is you might be lessening the quality. It may
49
1 well be that there's right in some small county a very
2 qualified person, but if he's limited, somebody that maybe
3 is not and is sort of mediocre or happens to be somewhere
4 else will move into the county. So I really think it
5 probably ought to be 60,000 to give a little bit of leeway
6 to counties like Jackson County.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to a question from
8 the Chair?
9 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It was raised it would be better
11 to leave this to some extent to the Legislature, if it's
12 under a certain amount. And we're talking about a 20-year
13 period before this will be addressed by another revision
14 commission. And we've gone now to the point where our
15 larger counties are becoming much larger and our middle
16 and small counties are beginning to swell.
17 When we select a figure in population, whether it be
18 40 or 50 for this thing, doesn't that create a problem
19 potentially in the next ten years? Commissioner Scott,
20 you're familiar with the state.
21 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Right. I think Judge Barkdull's
22 idea is a good one to put it in a schedule. The way it's
23 worded, it's not clear. It says, unless otherwise
24 provided by general law. It sort of implies that the
25 Legislature could keep those counties from -- in other
50
1 words, they could go in one direction but not necessarily
2 in the other. So I think we need to probably clarify that
3 they could change the population figure if it became
4 appropriate.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are you amenable to a suggestion,
6 Commissioner Wetherington, that we temporarily pass this
7 and that the people who have expressed this concern, at
8 this meeting, come back with an amendment proposal that we
9 could deal with this? Is that agreeable to those that are
10 concerned with this? Commissioner Scott, Commissioner
11 Thompson, Commissioner Barkdull?
12 If it is, I would entertain a motion to temporarily
13 pass this and move on with the special order and we will
14 come back to it later in the session today, if that's
15 agreeable. Can somebody move it?
16 Without objection then we'll temporarily pass it.
17 Thank you, Commissioner Thompson.
18 All right. We'll move on then on the special order.
19 And does that -- that next one is Proposal 44 Commissioner
20 Langley. Would you yield to Commissioner Langley to
21 present this? Commissioner Langley, would you present it
22 please?
23 Oh, before you do that, I'll ask the clerk to read
24 it.
25 READING CLERK: Proposal 44, proposal to revise
51
1 Article V, Section 2, Florida Constitution, allowing the
2 State Supreme Court to District Courts of Appeal to submit
3 questions of military law to the Federal Court of Appeal
4 for the Uniform Services for an advisory opinion.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley.
6 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To
7 answer the first question, yes, this is constitutionally
8 necessary. The next three proposals, they all relate to
9 one problem that has come up because of a decision of our
10 Supreme Court in dicta, not directly related to the matter
11 before it, but in it said that, in fact, if an
12 imprisonment sentence in a court-martial by the Florida
13 National Guard came before them, that it would most likely
14 not be constitutionally sound.
15 The Florida National Guard, when not under call of
16 the federal government, is basically a state agency or has
17 been ruled as that. In the Waterman case, interpreting
18 one of the articles of the Constitution, it says, no
19 imprisonment nor unscheduled fine can be levied by an
20 agency.
21 Now if the National Guard is called out, then they
22 become a agent of the federal government, they're subject
23 to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and there is no
24 question but that they can impose fines, imprisonments,
25 demotions or whatever they may want to do under the
52
1 Uniform Code of Military Justice. But when they are just
2 not that way; i.e., weekend camps and what have you, if a
3 member breaks that Code of Justice it has been ruled by
4 the Supreme Court, at least indirectly, that probably the
5 current Florida National Guard could not imprison that
6 soldier for breaking the rules.
7 So there's a series here of three of them which gives
8 the Florida National Guard, and its military tribunal the
9 right to impose those sentences provided under the Uniform
10 Code of Military Justice. And these three amendments do
11 that. The world is probably going to go on without this,
12 but you do need, in the military, you do need the
13 discipline, you do need that as the ultimate discipline.
14 Incidentally, the ultimate punishment it 280 days in
15 the military stockade. And that would be the maximum
16 punishment that they can render. So these next three do
17 all of that including the right of the military tribunal
18 to seek the opinion of a district military court as to any
19 legal matters relating to those particular proceedings.
20 So that's what it is, Your Honor.
21 Let me tell you, with Chairman Wetherington in the
22 judiciary committee, we have a consensus in the committee
23 that we're going to do a catchall amendment. There are a
24 lot of small things that need to be fixed in Article V in
25 the judiciary. And this might be one of those things that
53
1 we fix in a multi-subject amendment that will cure a bunch
2 of little problems that we have in the Constitution.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Something like a reviser's bill
4 that's not controversial?
5 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes, sir. And I submit to you
6 that it will not be anything controversial.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Does anybody have any questions
8 to Commissioner Langley? Is there anybody that wants to
9 speak as a proponent? Anybody that wants to speak as an
10 opponent? If not, we'll proceed to vote.
11 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine.
13 READING CLERK: Twenty-nine yeas and zero nays,
14 Mr. Chairman.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley.
16 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes, sir. The next is the
17 second part of the package --
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'll ask him to read the title of
19 Proposal No. 4 -- 25, excuse me. That was 44, this is 25.
20 READING CLERK: Proposal 25, a proposal to revise
21 Article V, Section 1, Florida Constitution, providing for
22 military court-martial to be conducted by military judges
23 of the Florida National Guard with the direct appeal to
24 the District Court of Appeals, First District.
25 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: That's the second part of that
54
1 same issue. The first one allowed the appeal for an
2 advisory opinion and this direct appeal to the --
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any debate? If not, we'll vote.
4 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine.
6 READING CLERK: Thirty yeas and zero nays,
7 Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Now we'll move to
9 No. 4, Proposal 4. Would you read the title?
10 READING CLERK: Proposal 4, proposal to revise
11 Article I, Section 18, Florida Constitution, clarifying
12 the authority of the Department of Military Affairs,
13 through court-martial to impose sentences of imprisonment
14 and other penalties.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any proponents or opponents?
16 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: I have a question.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: They can't do that now?
18 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: No, sir, that's what the
19 Waterman case said that they could not.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: They had done it in the past.
21 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes, sir. Let me answer it.
22 They are doing it now but the Supreme Court has said if
23 that were before us, we would probably rule that you can't
24 do that now.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: So that's the reason for this?
55
1 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any further debate or
3 questions? If not, we'll proceed to vote.
4 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Lock the machine.
6 READING CLERK: Thirty-one yeas and zero nays,
7 Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You increased it one vote with
9 that one. Now we'll move on to the next proposal which is
10 the last one other than the one we're coming back to by
11 the judicial committee today, Proposal No. 87. Would you
12 read the title then I'll recognize Commissioner
13 Wetherington to present it.
14 READING CLERK: Proposal 87, a proposal to revise
15 Article V, Section 1, Florida Constitution, allowing the
16 Legislature to establish by general law a system of family
17 magistrates.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Wetherington, you're
19 recognized.
20 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: This is comparable in
21 some ways to the traffic hearing officers, or traffic
22 magistrates that were approved and added as recognized
23 constitutional officers. The problem basically is this.
24 In our family courts, we have a problem with respect to
25 the volume of child support cases and other family cases
56
1 that require expedited hearings and part of this
2 requirement is because of federal requirements to their
3 funding that they give and grants they give to the state.
4 They require expedited hearings with respect to such
5 matters, for example, as child support.
6 We're presently doing that by using child support
7 hearing officers and also we're doing it by General
8 Masters that are in existence in 16 out of the 20
9 counties. There are some problems that come up in these
10 two areas. And one is the long-standing constitutional
11 provision in the state of Florida and that is if you refer
12 something to a Master or something to a non -- to somebody
13 who's not a judge, you have to have the consent of the
14 parties. And there are certain other limiting factors
15 that are involved.
16 In order to have a more effective system of judicial
17 support through our Masters and our hearing officers to
18 eliminate some of the legal impediments to the effect of
19 use of these aids to the Court, this provision would allow
20 the Legislature to create a system of family magistrates
21 in the state of Florida which would be state funded. It
22 would allow, in other words, for a uniform system, uniform
23 regulations, uniform standards and it would be something
24 that would aid, in other words, in the family court.
25 That's the purpose of the proposal. Problems do come up
57
1 because of the constitutional impediments that exist with
2 respect to the referral system like that. It would be
3 eliminated if we had this.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to Commissioner
5 Barkdull?
6 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I do.
7 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Commissioner Wetherington, I
8 have a question that goes right to your last statement.
9 At the present time, if a family matter has a controversy
10 against the will of one of the parties, it cannot be
11 referred out to a third person to be determined it must be
12 determined by the judge himself. Will this prevent that
13 from happening or -- what I'm getting at is I would hate
14 to see us get away from the Supreme Court decisions that
15 say that when you have a judicial controversy it will be
16 decided by the judge unless you agree that it will go to a
17 special Master. Will that eliminate this?
18 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It could. The
19 Legislature could decide to do it either way it wanted to
20 do it. For example, in the federal magistrate system you
21 have -- a lot of the matters are referred over to federal
22 magistrates to handle certain kinds of matters without the
23 consent of the parties. And the Legislature could
24 provide, under a family magistrate system, that there are
25 certain matters. For example, child support. Right now
58
1 we're referring child support to child support hearing
2 officers without the consent of the parties because
3 there's a feeling that we have to do this to meet federal
4 guidelines. Now a question can be raised as to whether or
5 not that is constitutional.
6 And the answer is, do we refer matters for expedited
7 hearings when the courts are backed up to the child
8 support hearing officer without the consent of the parties
9 and the answer is, yes, we do. And the answer is, is this
10 something we need to do in order to get expedited
11 determinations in this critical area. And the answer in
12 many areas of the state is, yes, we need to do this.
13 And, yes, it would result in some instances in which
14 the parties would have a matter just like in the traffic
15 area too that they will have to go in front of the traffic
16 hearing officer, although I recognize that's of much less
17 importance, but it could lead to the fact these
18 magistrates, in order to be effective, with the volume of
19 the court and the need to move family cases and to get
20 prompt hearings would be in a position to where they would
21 have a matter referred and they would make a decision.
22 That decision may be subject to review by the judge
23 in that particular division but it would not necessarily
24 require the consent of the parties. And absolutely that
25 is one of the big factors that's involved in the creation
59
1 of a family magistrate system.
2 Our magistrates, for example, in Dade County, Broward
3 County, and many are selected. They are rated -- they get
4 an average rating of about 87 to 88 percent on the Bar
5 rate. They rate average, better than the average judge in
6 terms of satisfaction by the parties and they are
7 well-respected, they are well regulated and this would
8 allow for a system of carefully monitored, well-regulated,
9 well qualified people to do essentially judicial functions
10 under judicial supervision but in a more limited way, it
11 would involve that.
12 I know your court has taking the view many times
13 which we respect, that you have to have consent of the
14 parties, that's what the law is in the state of Florida.
15 There's a question of whether that's required in the
16 hearing officer matter. But this would involve being able
17 to refer these matters in order to get expedited hearings
18 in these critical matters.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barkdull, do you
20 have another question or an observation or whatever?
21 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: No. I've got an observation
22 and I guess that answers itself. And that is any
23 qualifications for these people would be regulated by the
24 Legislature. And the way I read this, they could regulate
25 their qualifications. Thank you.
60
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Let me ask you something. I'm
2 not sure that I'm very alert here but what I read within
3 the body of this is the Legislature may establish by
4 general law or the Supreme Court may establish by rule a
5 family court magistrate system to hear family law matters.
6 If established the family court magistrates should be
7 funded by the state.
8 I raise the question immediately this will not be a
9 noncontroversial amendment, number one, because you're
10 creating a new system of judges with this. But you're
11 also taking away from the Legislature and giving it to the
12 judicial branch the right to create courts and they shall
13 be funded. So I think that question should be answered
14 and it has not even been addressed. I mean you've told us
15 that the Legislature could do this but this says the
16 Supreme Court can; is that not true?
17 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I have no problem
18 eliminating the Supreme Court part if that's offensive.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well, that's not my question.
20 The way it is now --
21 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It could be either.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The Legislature and the Supreme
23 Court as the judicial branch could create judges and they
24 are required to be funded by the Legislature.
25 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, we could eliminate
61
1 the Supreme Court part if that's offensive.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well, the judicial branch does
3 not create judicial office; is that correct?
4 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's not entirely
5 correct. We have a Master --
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: But they are not judges.
7 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, they perform quasi
8 judicial functions, exactly the same thing as the family
9 magistrates are going to perform.
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm not arguing with you, I'm
11 just telling you Judge Barkdull points out that you have
12 the right to go back to the judge if you don't like what
13 the Master did and you would have a right to do that with
14 a magistrate system too. But I understand your point, if
15 there's an objection to the part dealing with the Supreme
16 Court doing the appointment, the establishment of the
17 standards, I don't have any problem amending that and
18 deleting that.
19 Commissioner Scott.
20 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: We're preparing an amendment to
21 take out the words "or the Supreme Court by rule" which I
22 will offer.
23 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I'll accept that.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right, sir. As soon as it's
25 in writing, we'll take up the amendment.
62
1 Commissioner Langley.
2 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: I rise in semi-support of the
3 bill.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Semi-support you're going to have
5 to explain that.
6 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Halfheartedly. Seriously, we
7 need something to deal with multiplicity of all the
8 domestic problems that we have and I think this is a step
9 in the right direction. I support Senator Scott's
10 amendment. I don't think the Supreme Court ought to order
11 it and tell the Legislature to fund it without the
12 responsibility.
13 But if you'll look at the language, it only says --
14 this only allows the Legislature to do that if it chooses
15 to. There is no mandate that the Legislature do it but
16 there was some question about whether or not the
17 Legislature could create these in and of its own power.
18 And that is why the amendment is there. So again, we're
19 not ordering it to be done, we're saying if the
20 Legislature wants to do it, wants to fund it, and wants to
21 provide an appeal back to a real judge, then that could be
22 done by law also.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, I think your
24 proposed amendment is on the desk, is it not? Would you
25 read the proposed amendment, it's moved by Senator Scott
63
1 -- Commissioner Scott.
2 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Scott on Page 1,
3 Lines 25 and 26, delete, "or the Supreme Court may
4 establish by rule."
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. You move that. Would
6 you like to speak -- anybody want to speak in opposition?
7 Commissioner Thompson has a question -- Commissioner Scott
8 or Commissioner Wetherington? All right, Commissioner
9 Wetherington yields.
10 COMISSIONER THOMPSON: I just wonder and the answer
11 very well may be yes if the term "family law," I mean,
12 don't know that I've seen it anywhere else in any
13 Constitution, is it a well-enough defined thing in the law
14 so that the Legislature is going to know what the
15 jurisdiction of these magistrates would be or would not
16 be? Because the cases that I know about sometimes can get
17 very, very complicated and go beyond -- I mean, you know,
18 you have to get accountants in to find out what businesses
19 are worth and all these kinds of things. And I'm just
20 wondering if this is a good term to use in the
21 Constitution and whether or not it's well-enough defined
22 elsewhere in law to be placed in the Constitution.
23 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, the specific
24 functions and all could be set forth by the Legislature.
25 The concept of magistrate is well-recognized in the law.
64
1 We have federal magistrates, we use the traffic hearing
2 magistrates, it's a term that's used, for example, in the
3 federal system. We recognize it. The question is what
4 duties or what limitations do you want to impose on the
5 system that can be done by the Legislature in creating the
6 system. They can say -- they can define it if they want
7 to. And they can say the family magistrates will have the
8 following jurisdiction or so on and so forth and they can
9 lay it out in that respect. Any further questions,
10 Commissioner Smith? Do you have a question?
11 COMMISSIONER SMITH: No, sir.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I have a question. Family law
13 generally means adoptions. It also means domestic
14 violence, it means injunctive relief which you can put
15 people in jail for violating the injunction. So if we're
16 allowing the Legislature then to create a new court if
17 we -- if the people so desire if they approve this
18 amendment; is that not correct?
19 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's correct, but we as
20 a court that presently exists right now, it's not -- this
21 isn't a new court. This is a court that exists right now.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It does not exist as a judge does
23 it, Commissioner Wetherington? It exists under the
24 auspices of a duly appointed or elected circuit judge or a
25 circuit court. It is not a -- an authorized judge that
65
1 can take final action such as entering an injunction.
2 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It's a quasi-judicial
3 officer in the same way that a magistrate would be to some
4 extent --
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm going to have to leave the
6 chair if I keep debating you.
7 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: No, you can keep -- no,
8 no, no. This is perfectly -- the point is right now on
9 the hearing officers, the child support hearing officers,
10 the matters are referred to them. In order for us to get
11 federal money we have to do it. And that's what we're
12 doing every day. And what's happening is, a matter is
13 being deferred over in order for there to be a prompt
14 child support hearing.
15 Now, we're doing that right now. Now, you can call
16 it whatever you want to, but the person sitting in that
17 row sits down and listens to the evidence from one side
18 and then sits down to listen to the evidence in the other
19 side and that person says, the child support will be X
20 dollars. Now, that can be subject to review by the judge
21 just in the way that a family magistrate would make that
22 exact same decision and that can be reviewed by the judge.
23 And if the Masters are doing it, the only difference
24 is that if the parties -- the parties have to agree to the
25 referral. Once they agree to the referral, the magistrate
66
1 sits down every day -- the General Masters are sitting
2 down every day and they are trying, with the agreement of
3 parties, in some instances the entire divorce case, right
4 now. And they're making findings and rulings that are
5 subject to review by the trial judge and then that's
6 subject to appeal by the appellate court. That's going on
7 right now. Now, if you don't want to call that being a
8 judge, that's okay.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I think we strayed
10 from the matter on the floor. There's an amendment on the
11 floor that's been proposed by Commissioner Scott. And the
12 debate now is on the merits which we'll come back to. Are
13 you on the amendment, Commissioner Barnett?
14 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Question.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: A question on the amendment?
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: No, on the rule.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Let's hold it and
18 vote on the amendment.
19 Does anybody have any questions or debate on the
20 amendment? Would you read the amendment again and we'll
21 vote.
22 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Scott on Page 1,
23 Lines 25 and 26. Delete, "or the Supreme Court may
24 establish by rule."
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Is everybody ready to
67
1 vote, if so, let's vote. We'll just take a voice vote.
2 All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed like sign.
3 (Verbal vote taken.)
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It carries. Did somebody oppose
5 it? This is the amendment. All right. Now we'll refer
6 to the proposal as amended. Commissioner Mills and then
7 Commissioner Barnett.
8 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, would the
9 gentleman yield to a question?
10 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I think this goes to your
12 question, some questions that I've heard around here.
13 That is, is the term magistrate or is the term magistrate
14 system anywhere else in the Constitution?
15 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: No.
16 COMMISSIONER MILLS: All right. Well, I mean
17 that's -- the question then is what is the magistrate
18 system the first time it's mentioned in the Constitution?
19 Does it need further definition or does that say enough to
20 everybody -- these folks in here are not quite clear if
21 that adopts the current magistrate system in which they
22 must return to the court constantly, et cetera. In other
23 words, there is a -- this is again a definitional issue.
24 The first time we introduce something in the
25 Constitution, somebody is going to pay attention to it.
68
1 And if it's not very clear -- and in fact since what we
2 say here is important to clarify that. If our intent is
3 unclear, we need to actually say it in words. If our
4 intent is clear, we need to say what it is.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Barnett.
6 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I have a question. I'm not
7 prepared to answer his question.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Well just wait a
9 minute, we'll get to you and then we'll get to
10 Commissioner Scott. Commissioner Wetherington, do you
11 understand the question posed to you by Commissioner
12 Mills?
13 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I understand. And the
14 answer is that the Legislature -- you can call them
15 anything you want to, I'm not wedded to the word.
16 Magistrate is just the word that we really took because
17 that's the way the federal system does. They have
18 magistrates that assist the judges over there in the
19 performance of matters so it's a recognized concept in
20 that context.
21 But the answer to the question is the Legislature
22 will define the jurisdiction and the authority if they
23 should decide to establish this. They would define this
24 themselves and they would say what the jurisdiction would
25 be and what they would be allowed to hear and what they
69
1 would not be allowed to hear. And that's what you would
2 do in any -- in the creation of any -- just like they did
3 with the traffic hearing officers. The traffic hearing
4 officer's jurisdiction was subsequently defined and that's
5 the way it was done.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Barnett,
7 you had a question. Do you yield?
8 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes, sure.
9 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The simple statement or the
10 question is why -- explain why this needs to be a
11 provision in the Constitution. As I heard the debate, it
12 sounds like many of these functions are currently being
13 performed under our current circuit court -- our current
14 judicial system, in that the only constitutional question
15 is whether the Legislature has the authority to establish
16 a new court and that would be what the authorization was.
17 But I am confused and need to know whether this is
18 something that needs to be done constitutionally or can be
19 done now statutorily.
20 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: The reason why you have
21 to have constitutional recognition is that under the
22 present state of our constitutional law, a matter cannot
23 be referred by a judge to a quasi judicial officer such as
24 a hearing -- such as a special Master or maybe even a
25 child support hearing officer without the consent of all
70
1 parties, that's the main -- apart from the other factors
2 which are having uniformity and standards throughout the
3 state in terms of family law which are additional
4 considerations.
5 But the main, the centerpiece frankly, is right now
6 you cannot refer anything out unless everybody agrees
7 under the constitutional cases. Now because these --
8 because general Masters or child support hearing officers
9 for that matter are not Constitution officers, they are
10 not recognized in the Constitution and they could not --
11 not having that status, they could not be given that
12 authority.
13 This would allow -- it would be a system, which in
14 some ways would be similar in some ways to the federal
15 magistrate system where a matter could be referred out
16 whether it's a child support matter, temporary child
17 support, an alimony matter or whatever else the judge felt
18 was appropriate to refer out to the family court
19 magistrate.
20 They would hear the matter, they would make a
21 decision subject to review by the trial judge. But it
22 would not require the consent of the parties before the
23 referral could be made. That cannot be done now under the
24 law without the constitutional change. Whether or not
25 it's important enough to do it is a different matter. And
71
1 there's been a tremendous emphasis in our state on family
2 law. We have a huge number of cases, particularly we're
3 getting a mushrooming number of pro se litigants in our
4 system. We have to handle the problem. We have the
5 problem of the child support hearing officer which is
6 mandated in effect by the federal funding. We are going
7 to give up millions and millions and millions of dollars
8 if we can't do this.
9 So the question is this would allow a more efficient
10 system for judicial assistance in this area which requires
11 prompt decisions. We can't -- in some of these cases we
12 can't wait in other words. And it helps with the
13 tremendous backlog of cases. It makes it easier, it makes
14 it more efficient and that's the whole purpose of it.
15 Commissioner Barnett.
16 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Just a follow-up question.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield?
18 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I do.
19 COMMISSIONER BARNETT: As I understand the proposal,
20 it would be left up to the Legislature to create this
21 magistrate system and funded by the Legislature. But the
22 question is under our current judicial system, do the
23 circuit courts have the authority or does the Legislature
24 have the authority either to create family court divisions
25 and then if the problem is the need for additional judges
72
1 in funding, create those divisions, authorize the new
2 judges, and fund the family court division.
3 I mean, is there any reason we couldn't do that other
4 than the will of the Legislature to do it?
5 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: You can do it but
6 constitutionally can't solve the problem I'm talking about
7 without some recognition in the Constitution of these
8 persons, whatever you want to call them, being
9 constitutionally-recognized officers.
10 And if you take a look at a family court now to
11 handle the volume that we've got, as complicated as family
12 law is and as important as it is, we have hearing
13 officers, we have general Masters, we have judges, we have
14 family investigators, we've got family court mediators, we
15 have a whole panoply of professionals that are needed to
16 handle this very, very important area of law in our state.
17 And there is no way -- and everything we've done has
18 been to recognize the importance of this. But we need all
19 these professionals in there. There is no way the judges
20 can do it by themselves. And right now we're using these
21 professionals. There may be some questions raised by the
22 child support hearing officers, I don't know. But we have
23 to have them because of federal funding.
24 All this does would allow for the court to be -- to
25 have a more efficient system to eliminate the problem of
73
1 the necessity of consent for the parties with respect to
2 referrals that may be needed and to allow for the creation
3 of a uniform, maybe arguably, a higher quality, more
4 effective way to help our family courts.
5 Can we survive without it? Yes, we can survive
6 without it. But the only reason I put the proposal
7 forward is because of the importance of family law. It
8 isn't going to hurt anybody. The Legislature can tell
9 them to do what they want to do. And if we didn't have
10 the problem of consent, we wouldn't need it.
11 But constitutionally, we have the problem of consent.
12 Because the Masters which have been with us since the time
13 of the 14th century -- we used special Masters since the
14 time of the 14th century in Chancery, the Chancery used
15 special Masters. But the problem with all this is that we
16 have constitutional decisions in the state of Florida
17 which say you have to have the consent even on a minor
18 matter to refer anything to someone other than a judge.
19 That's basically it.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott, I believe you
21 raised your hand. You'll be next, Commissioner Freidin.
22 Are you speaking?
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I was going
24 to -- I think I'm going to speak against it. And I would
25 like to make this caveat with all due respect to the
74
1 committee and Commissioner Wetherington. There are enough
2 questions raised here -- first of all, I'm not sure that
3 it's all bad to require consent for someone other than a
4 judge to determine rights which are in some respects even
5 greater and longer lasting and more potentially
6 devastating not only financially but to children and
7 others to have them decided by our court system. And the
8 court system is not perfect and it's, you know, it's often
9 delayed and may become more delayed in this area.
10 But in view of what Commissioner Mills said, I don't
11 really frankly like the word "magistrate" for starters.
12 Something about that goes back to the systems that we've
13 basically gotten rid of including even municipal courts in
14 this state where it is not too completely defined. The
15 fact that the federal government might, in effect, require
16 something, that doesn't move me at all. I mean, we're not
17 sure we're not going to give up the money, but at least
18 we've now got a system where the Court does have a review.
19 And so I would say that for us, as we sit here today, the
20 Legislature could always propose this constitutional
21 amendment after maybe some more work on defining it and so
22 forth.
23 So I'm saying I'm probably going to vote against it
24 just because I don't know enough and because I'm not so
25 sure that it's bad to require consent on those matters.
75
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now, Commissioner Freidin.
2 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Mr. Wetherington, I had a
3 question about the consent issue and the necessity to have
4 some kind of constitutional validation in order to refer a
5 case to a magistrate or a Master or whatever.
6 Supposing that this amendment were passed and the
7 Legislature in its wisdom chose not to create or fund a
8 system but in Dade County for example we have the system
9 of general Masters who now get referred these cases
10 questionably under the -- questionably with regard to the
11 constitutional authority --
12 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: It's not questionable
13 because we have consent.
14 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Consent. Would this solve
15 that problem? I mean would the amendment that's being
16 proposed solve that problem or would it be better to
17 somehow deal with both issues? I mean, the way I'm
18 understanding it there are two issues. One, should the
19 state have a uniform system so that in every circuit we're
20 dealing with the same thing.
21 And, two, in a circuit where there are Masters,
22 should there, if the circuit so chooses and finds a way of
23 funding it, should that be constitution -- should it then
24 become constitutionally permissible for courts to refer
25 matters to those Masters. Is there a way -- does the
76
1 amendment -- I mean, does the proposed amendment to the
2 Constitution deal with both of those issues or does it
3 only deal with the uniformity issue?
4 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I think it deals with
5 both issues. It would allow the Legislature, if it
6 elected to do it, to have these judicial officers to find
7 their jurisdiction, the functions, the way they are
8 selected, the way they are regulated, just like they would
9 any class of judicial officers. It would take care of the
10 whole issue.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Any further -- Commissioner
12 Morsani was up.
13 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: If I might, sir, ask a
14 question. I appreciate all the debate here by the legal
15 minds and I'm certainly not an attorney. But I think
16 there is some -- one element of this is missing that's not
17 in the discussion.
18 In visiting with Chief Justice Kogan, it was his
19 thesis that the purpose of exploring this type of change
20 was twofold. I -- first to bring these kinds of cases
21 closer to home rather than -- and to short-circuit, if you
22 will, and maybe you don't like to hear that as legal
23 minds, but to short-circuit this tremendous logjam or
24 longtime elements. I don't hear that being told here,
25 that it was his intention to bring justice closer to
77
1 the -- almost a neighborhood, almost create a neighborhood
2 court so to speak because we've gone so far away from that
3 and caused this tremendous logjam in our courts.
4 I haven't heard that discussion here by you ladies
5 and gentlemen that know the courts and I certainly don't.
6 And then that piece of it I don't hear and then the other
7 piece is the qualifications of these people that might be
8 becoming magistrates. I haven't heard any one of those
9 two things discussed. And in my conversation with Chief
10 Justice Kogan, that was really the thesis for what this
11 was going to be put forth. If I might hear some comments,
12 I would appreciate it.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley.
14 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: I'd like to rise in support of
15 the proposition and just tell you that in answer to your
16 question, Commissioner Morsani, now there are almost as
17 many non-married custody support fights as there are
18 dissolution custody support fights. Because so many
19 people are living together and having children, you don't
20 go in with a dissolution, you go to the paternity suit to
21 establish custody, visitation, just like a divorce. And
22 nine out of ten of these people can't afford lawyers.
23 A lot of them are going pre se which is really a mess
24 for the courts and the clerks to deal with. And we need
25 at least an opportunity -- this just says, we are not the
78
1 Legislature and we really shouldn't be that concerned with
2 the intricacies of what may or may not be provided once
3 the Legislature may decide to create these domestic
4 magistrates if they do. They will have their hearings,
5 they will set the qualification for the magistrates, they,
6 I hope, will provide an appeal from that magistrate's
7 decision.
8 All that Commissioner Wetherington is asking of this
9 is, the Legislature says we can't do it now -- or the
10 Constitution says the Legislature can't do it now -- let's
11 let the Legislature explore that. And if it's a whole lot
12 cheaper to deal with magistrates than it is to deal with
13 judges and retirements and secretaries and health
14 insurance and all the other things that we do when we
15 create a judgeship, so if we can simplify it, make it more
16 accessible to the poor people of this state that need it
17 and relieve the pressure on the judiciary, all we're
18 saying is let the Legislature look at it. And they may
19 decide they don't want to do it, but that's fine. To say
20 that it shouldn't be done I don't think it's our
21 prerogative.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Nabors.
23 COMMISSIONER NABORS: Yes. I'd like to ask you a
24 question Commissioner Wetherington. I'm sympathetic to
25 where you are going. But one of the things that troubles
79
1 me about this and maybe we could table it, or whatever the
2 procedure rule is, what troubles me about it is I
3 supported the amendment that basically provided that the
4 Court could not require appropriation. It troubles me
5 just as much on a separation of powers' concept
6 fundamentally to put too much power in the Legislature
7 dealing with jurisdiction and dealing with reconciling
8 jurisdiction, these issues between the circuit and these
9 type courts.
10 And so it seems to me what I'm struggling with is is
11 that appropriate. And it bothers me to say the
12 Legislature can define a family magistrate court system
13 because the Constitution does preserve procedure and other
14 things to the judiciary. So it seems to me that there
15 might be a middle ground between the court adopting rules
16 relating to jurisdiction and procedures and the funding
17 and maybe we can separate those down the line.
18 But does it bother you the fact that you give the
19 Legislature so much power in this area? This is
20 fundamentally different than traffic, for example, issues.
21 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: I agree with what
22 Commissioner Langley said obviously. And that is the
23 means and the mechanisms and the way in which it would be
24 instituted would have to be done, I take it, like we do in
25 many areas which involve both the Court and the
80
1 Legislature.
2 What they would probably do, what they would probably
3 have some kind of analysis done maybe in conjunction with
4 the Supreme Court and if they decided to do it, they would
5 come up with a proposal just like for example with the
6 rules of evidence which are both the Supreme Court and the
7 Legislature, as you know, have signed off on. And they
8 would come up with a proposal that made sense. And after
9 they came up with a proposal that made sense, they would
10 simply define it. And if they wanted to say that the
11 rules and procedures and things like that would be
12 established by the Court, they could do it.
13 I'm not proposing the entire system and all the
14 intricacies and details of the system obviously. I think
15 it's the kind of thing that the Legislature could do
16 probably in consultation with the court if we wanted to
17 have this power in the Legislature to address it. It's
18 not as radical a proposal as some people are interpreting
19 it to be because we have 75 percent of this going on right
20 now. This isn't totally new court, it's simply -- it
21 would allow to improve the efficiency of what we're doing
22 to allow these quasi judicial officers to be of greater
23 assistance to the courts with a mushroom caseload with the
24 increase in the pro se cases that we're dealing with.
25 It appears to me that since you have a right of
81
1 review with a trial judge you're not giving up judicial
2 control, and it's just an effort to try to do something to
3 help make us more effective and move efficient in the
4 field of family law anticipating what's happening in
5 family law now. Can we live without it? Yes, we can live
6 without it. Would we probably have a more effective and
7 more efficient family law handling of all these cases
8 including domestic violence and the child support and the
9 terrible things that are happening? I think we would and
10 that's why I proposed it.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner
12 Sundberg. Incidentally, the air conditioner is back on if
13 you want to put your coats back on.
14 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Commissioner Wetherington,
15 would you yield for a couple of questions? Commissioner
16 Langley said, you know, they aren't creating a court here
17 but in fact doesn't this create a court? Doesn't it
18 create an Article V court?
19 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Then next, and I support this
21 in principle, I'm just not sure -- the more I look at it,
22 I'm not sure we thought it completely through. Are you
23 troubled at all by the fact the jurisdiction of a circuit
24 court is defined -- first of all, are you troubled at all
25 by the fact that this would be the only court in which its
82
1 jurisdiction is defined by the Legislature as opposed by
2 the people in the Constitution?
3 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Am I troubled by that?
4 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Yes, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: No, not in this instance
6 I'm not.
7 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: But, in fact, that is true,
8 the jurisdiction of every other court, Article V court, is
9 defined in the Constitution; is it not?
10 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's correct except for
11 the traffic hearing officers.
12 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Yes, but which is a court.
13 But the jurisdiction of the circuit court is provided by
14 Section V and it says, "The circuit court shall have
15 original jurisdiction not vested in the county courts and
16 jurisdiction of appeals not vested elsewhere."
17 Does that not need some amendment to say, "not vested
18 in the county courts or in any magistrate court system
19 that's established"?
20 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: That's a good point.
21 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
22 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: In other words, these are
23 all good points. Do I think with respect to this that it
24 could be handled by the Legislature and the Court? And
25 the answer is I think it could. Am I proposing an
83
1 entire --
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We have to break for just a
3 second. We have to change the paper. (Pause.) Okay.
4 You may proceed.
5 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Just so I'm clear, are you
6 suggesting that the Legislature could deal with the issue
7 of -- that's raised by Section V, subsection (b) that says
8 a circuit court shall have original jurisdiction not
9 vested in the county courts?
10 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: That the Legislature could
12 say notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5(b) of
13 Article V that the circuit courts would then have
14 jurisdiction not vested in the county courts or in these
15 magistrate courts?
16 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: These are family law
17 matters. The circuit court has jurisdiction of family law
18 matters. That's the only court that has jurisdiction of
19 family law matters now. Subject matter is not obscure.
20 We're talking about family law cases so we know it's
21 subject matter. And the only question is we talk about
22 what can be referred and any limitations on referral and
23 what are the qualifications of the officers and we put in
24 a few things like that and that would have to be filled
25 in, yes.
84
1 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Okay.
2 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: In other words, I'm not
3 proposing a whole system for you today with all the
4 details, I wouldn't presume to do that. I'm just trying
5 to put forth a concept so it might be of some help. It's
6 not -- going to require some thinking and the Legislature
7 in conjunction with the Court having to sit down and put
8 it together and come up with like they did with sentencing
9 guidelines for example when you were there and many other
10 projects which are joint legislative judicial decision
11 where jurisdiction involves the legislative prerogative as
12 well as this judicial prerogative, this would be involved.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioners, it's been
14 suggested to me by several commissioners that we probably
15 are in a position where we could vote on this unless there
16 is really some matter that you feel you have to raise.
17 Commissioner Barkdull.
18 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Mr. Chairman, I make an
19 observation and a question to Commissioner Wetherington
20 because my understanding when this thing first started out
21 is, in the explanation of what you wanted to do, that this
22 was an aid to the circuit court when they were determining
23 a family matter. Now you indicate to a response, I
24 understood, to a question by justice -- Commissioner
25 Sundberg, that this was a new court. And if it's a new
85
1 court, then what is the remedy of a person that's
2 aggrieved? Do they have an appeal to the circuit court or
3 do they have an appeal to the DCA?
4 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: The way it works is
5 exactly like it works right now, it's a referral to the
6 magistrate. The magistrate makes the decision. That
7 decision can be sent back for review by the trial judge.
8 The trial judge will make the decision. If they're
9 offended by the trial judge's decision, it will go out to
10 your court just like it does right now.
11 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Then it's not a new court.
12 This is an adjunct -- help to the existing -- to the
13 existing system?
14 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, yeah, I didn't want
15 to fight with him because he's saying if you put it in the
16 Constitution is it now -- you want to call it a new court,
17 you can call it a new court.
18 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: I don't want to call it a new
19 court.
20 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, you don't have to.
21 But from his perspective it's not -- I don't have any
22 disagreement if you want to call it a new court or not.
23 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Then my only other
24 observation is if you're going to equate this to
25 sentencing guidelines I might be against it.
86
1 (Laughter.)
2 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Well, I'm not. I'm going
3 to take that back because --
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Is everybody ready to
5 vote? All right. Let's vote.
6 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Have all commissioners voted
8 except me? Lock the machine.
9 READING CLERK: Nineteen yeas and 12 nays,
10 Mr. Chairman.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'll announce that I voted yes so
12 I can move to reconsider. I just announced it. I'll have
13 to leave the chair to do that.
14 All right. We'll move to the next special order.
15 Proposal 29 by Commissioner Riley. Would you rea |
