1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
COMMISSION MEETING
6
7
8
9
DATE: December 11, 1997
10
TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
11 Concluded at 12:45 p.m.
12 PLACE: The Senate Chamber
The Capitol
13 Tallahassee, Florida
14 REPORTED BY: JULIE L. DOHERTY, RPR
MONA L. WHIDDON
15 KRISTEN L. BENTLEY
Court Reporters
16 Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
17 1230 Apalachee Parkway
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 (EXCUSED)
JUDGE THOMAS H. BARKDULL, JR.
5 MARTHA WALTERS BARNETT
ROBERT M. BROCHIN
6 THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH (EXCUSED)
KEN CONNOR
7 CHRIS CORR
SENATOR ANDER CRENSHAW
8 VALERIE EVANS
MARILYN EVANS-JONES
9 BARBARA WILLIAMS FORD-COATES
ELLEN CATSMAN FREIDIN
10 PAUL HAWKES
WILLIAM CLAY HENDERSON (ABSENT)
11 THE HONORABLE TONI JENNINGS
THE HONORABLE GERALD KOGAN
12 DICK LANGLEY
JOHN F. LOWNDES
13 STANLEY MARSHALL
JACINTA MATHIS
14 JON LESTER MILLS
FRANK MORSANI
15 ROBERT LOWRY NABORS
CARLOS PLANAS
16 JUDITH BYRNE RILEY
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE
17 SENATOR JIM SCOTT
H. T. SMITH
18 CHRIS T. SULLIVAN
ALAN C. SUNDBERG
19 JAMES HAROLD THOMPSON
PAUL WEST (ABSENT)
20 JUDGE GERALD T. WETHERINGTON
STEPHEN NEAL ZACK
21
PAT BARTON
22 IRA H. LEESFIELD (ABSENT)
LYRA BLIZZARD LOGAN (ABSENT)
23
24
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 (Quorum taken and recorded electronically.)
3 SECRETARY BLANTON: Will all unauthorized visitors
4 please leave the chamber. All commissioners please
5 indicate your presence. All commissioners please indicate
6 your presence.
7 (Pause.)
8 SECRETARY BLANTON: All commissioners indicate your
9 presence. All commissioners, indicate your presence.
10 (Pause.)
11 SECRETARY BLANTON: Quorum present, Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We'll come to order
13 please. Will everyone take their seats, please. Will all
14 unauthorized people please leave the chamber.
15 (Gavel.)
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Take your seats, please. Would
17 all commissioners and guests in the gallery, please rise
18 for the opening prayer given this morning by the Reverend
19 Emory Hingst, pastor of St. Stephen Lutheran Church in
20 Tallahassee. Reverend Hingst.
21 REVEREND HINGST: Amid the multiple and diverse
22 issues of fate and life in your world, we now ask for your
23 presence all mighty and loving God. By and with your
24 spirit, remind us at this moment, and throughout this day,
25 the very essence of our existence, the very core of our
4
1 salvation, the joy of our lives and the privilege and
2 responsibility to be in community with you and your family
3 of humankind begins and ends in you.
4 Oh gracious God we acknowledge your perfection and
5 our imperfection by coming to you and asking you for your
6 continued acceptance and forgiveness. Forgive our
7 forgetting, forgetting our mixed motivations, or
8 forgetting to walk in the shoes of experience of those
9 different from ourselves, so often forgetting the silent
10 ones and hurting ones of our community and our state.
11 We also ask for your stirring presence in us, stir up
12 our sensitivity to be aware of our motivations, needs and
13 wants as well as the needs and wants of other persons and
14 other people. Guide our vision to see more fully and
15 frequently the goal of justice with peace for all
16 humankind.
17 Build into our world the desire to remove the walls
18 and barriers which separate people by race, culture,
19 economics or any other divisive means. And kindle in us
20 the desire to be more completely tuned into the excitement
21 of constructing bridges of care and avenues of mutual
22 growth and shared opportunity in the citizenry movement
23 beneficial to all. Be with us, O God, at this moment and
24 every moment of our lives to direct us to be more human
25 according to your creation, to appreciate, care for and
5
1 share the gifts of our environment, to celebrate the gift
2 of life. Amen.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Thank you, Reverend. Would
4 Commissioner Riley please come forward and lead us in the
5 pledge this morning?
6 (Pledge of allegiance.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Reverend, that was very inspiring
8 that we all appreciate and we have an opportunity to go
9 with it to our own various religions.
10 Before advancing to the daily order of business, I'd
11 like to say, for the benefit of those that might have had
12 too many things of your desk yesterday, I'll be hosting a
13 cocktail party in the lobby of the Old Capitol this
14 evening following your committee meetings at 5:30. Or you
15 can come at 5:30, and I look forward to seeing all of you
16 at that event. This has been announced as a nonbusiness
17 event, and we can all relax and enjoy ourselves at that
18 event. I trust that you will all come. I was told by
19 Commissioners Evans-Jones she didn't know anything about
20 it, so I thought I would make sure everybody knew about
21 it, and you are invited to be there.
22 We will not have canapes tonight. I don't know what
23 they are, that's why we are not having them. But we will
24 have roast beef and stuff like that. We will now proceed
25 to the daily order of business.
6
1 Commissioner Barkdull.
2 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
3 members of the commission. The rules committee met
4 yesterday afternoon, and on your desk is a proposed
5 calendar. I'd like to make some observations as to
6 certain matters that appear therein. On Page 4,
7 commencing with Proposal 97 by Commissioner Evans, there
8 are four matters there that are indicated that if received
9 we would take them up. They were not received, so they
10 will not be taken up. And when we get to that portion of
11 the calendar we will move to temporarily past them.
12 Going to Page 5, you will -- the first column, about
13 halfway down, is Proposal 94, and then on the right-hand
14 column, proposals 108, 153, and 160. These were all
15 received from the committees and they will be considered.
16 They were voted out unfavorably. Those will be the only
17 changes that I'm aware of at this time on the special
18 order. And with those modifications, I move that the
19 special order be approved.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Just one correction. The
21 Proposal 153 and Proposal 60 I understand reported out
22 favorably, and of course we will come to that when we get
23 to it, and the other one was -- the other two were
24 unfavorable.
25 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Correct.
7
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: So that will be the way we will
2 proceed.
3 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Question from Commissioner
4 Connor.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Connor.
6 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Chairman, I have a point of
7 inquiry if I might. Yesterday, with unanimous consent of
8 the body, one of the proposals submitted by Commissioner
9 Rundle was withdrawn from consideration. And I learned,
10 and probably should have learned in advance, but frankly
11 things were happening so quickly, that that proposal
12 involved authorization of the ethics commission to
13 initiate investigations. I would, if it's appropriate, I
14 had, like as a member of the winning side, if it's
15 appropriate, to move to reconsider the withdrawal of that
16 proposal. It is one about which I feel strongly and I
17 feel other former members of the ethics commission may
18 well -- feel strongly as well, and I'm not sure we fully
19 appreciated the significance of what we were doing.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You can move to reconsider with a
21 voice vote.
22 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: I would do that, sir.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right.
24 COMMISSIONER ZACK: Mr. Chairman, I was --
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Who was up first, Commissioner
8
1 Scott?
2 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I was going to question whether
3 you can move to reconsider. You can move to reconsider
4 action taken, but I think once something is withdrawn, I
5 think it is withdrawn.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: The Secretary informed me that
7 the most -- I'm relying on my parliamentarian here. She
8 tells me it would be correct for the vote to be determined
9 since there was a motion made and that the vote on the
10 motion could be reconsidered or he could ask permission to
11 waive the rules and introduce it himself and have it
12 brought back into consideration, either one.
13 It is my understanding he has moved to reconsider the
14 motion by which it was withdrawn. And in order to
15 overcome that, I would have to get a majority vote -- no.
16 SECRETARY BLANTON: I think it would be a waiver of
17 the rules.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It would be a waiver of the
19 rules, he would have to get unanimous consent, according
20 to my secretary here.
21 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I move we waive
22 the rules and request that by unanimous consent that
23 proposal either be reinstated by one of its original
24 sponsors, or alternatively I would request the opportunity
25 to sponsor it.
9
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well, I think what you should do
2 is, since it's been withdrawn, is ask unanimous consent to
3 file it as your own proposal.
4 COMMISSIONER CONNOR: Then I do make that request,
5 Mr. Chairman.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now Senator -- Commissioner
7 Scott.
8 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: It was my understanding, from
9 what Commissioner Rundle said, that the ethics
10 commission -- that they really didn't want this proposal,
11 so I object.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well, you don't get a unanimous
13 consent, so if there are any other ethic commission
14 proposals that come up, you can obviously offer it as an
15 amendment. Commissioner Freidin?
16 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: I would ask a question of
17 Commissioner Rundle, if she had some conversation with the
18 people from -- I think it was Bonnie Williams from the
19 ethics commission that spoke to the committee, and I think
20 she was very cautious about saying that she was not
21 authorized on behalf of the ethics commission to take a
22 position. She had -- she expressed some potential
23 problems with the proposal but she did not take a
24 position. So unless -- unless you had some other
25 conversation.
10
1 COMMISSIONER RUNDLE: All my information was from --
2 COMMISSIONER FREIDIN: Well, maybe that was a
3 misunderstanding.
4 COMMISSIONER RUNDLE: The impression that I got was
5 that she did not, nor did the commission itself support
6 that particular proposal. So in view of that, it was my
7 opinion that it was a proposal that should not move
8 forward.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioners, let's don't get
10 balled up on this too much. What I believe is the correct
11 ruling on this is it would take unanimous consent to
12 reconsider in this instance. It would take a two-thirds
13 vote to waive the rules, and therefore Commissioner Connor
14 has moved to waive the rules to allow him to introduce
15 this proposal; and therefore, it will take a two-thirds
16 vote of the body to -- for him to do that.
17 And what I am prepared to do, and will do, is to call
18 for a vote on the waiver of the rules to allow
19 Commissioner Connor to introduce this proposal as his own
20 proposal, and therefore all in favor of waiving the rules,
21 say aye. All opposed?
22 (Verbal vote taken.)
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We will take a vote,
24 unlock the machine.
25 (Vote taken and recorded electronically.)
11
1 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Everybody voted? Lock the
2 machine and record the vote.
3 READING CLERK: Twenty-eight ayes and four nays,
4 Mr. Chairman.
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Go ahead.
6 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: All right, Mr. Chairman, I
7 don't know whether you put the motion to approve the
8 calendar, which I made. We got interrupted.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: We have a motion to approve the
10 calendar. All of those in favor say aye; all opposed.
11 (Verbal vote taken.)
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It is approved.
13 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: As we talked about yesterday,
14 we are going to schedule tomorrow's session at 8:30 to
15 begin with no lunch break. We hope to conclude around
16 1:30. There will be snacks and fruit available in the
17 rest area.
18 Two proposals that were referred to committees
19 yesterday are available for consideration this afternoon
20 during the committee's committee meetings. They are not
21 on the schedule, but I am making the announcement because
22 they were referred yesterday, and that's committee
23 substitute for Proposal 45 on unification which involves
24 the Game and Freshwater Commission and Marine Fisheries,
25 is in the Legislative committee. And Proposal 40 relating
12
1 to the division of school districts is in the education
2 committee. Both of those will be available for
3 consideration by those committees when they meet today.
4 Lunch today will be the same as yesterday, hopefully a
5 half hour or 40 minutes in the lounge area.
6 The select committee on Article V costs is scheduled
7 to meet at 4:00 this afternoon in Room 301 for those that
8 are interested in those items. I will call your attention
9 again, and hopefully at the end of this session you will
10 be prepared, those of you that are interested in
11 withdrawing any proposals, as we conclude this morning's
12 session, so the staff will know how to handle them. I
13 know I've got a couple I want to ask to be withdrawn, so
14 I'm just alerting you to that fact that we will get to
15 that.
16 Other than that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the
17 report of the rules committee.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We will take up
19 committee substitute for Proposal 70, which we were
20 involved with when we adjourned. What I would like to
21 suggest is that, because of the procedural knots that we
22 got tied into there, that we move to reconsider all
23 pending amendments and start over.
24 (Off-the-record comment.)
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: She tells me that all we need to
13
1 do is move to reconsider the amendments to the substitute
2 and then start over.
3 All right. Because actually this thing -- we have
4 got it too complicated. Basically, the substitute was by
5 Commissioner Mills. And I'd like to go back and have that
6 read before we do this, if you would like.
7 (Off-the-record comment.)
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: She tells me that where we got
9 balled up was the amendments to the substitute were
10 actually amendments to the proposal and they were adopted,
11 so now the substitute includes those. And so we still had
12 one pending, did we not?
13 (Off-the-record comment.)
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I'm going to rule
15 that the -- to save some time, that the -- read the
16 substitute if you would, please.
17 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Mills, on Page 2,
18 Lines 16 and 17, delete those lines and insert Paragraph
19 A1 for purposes of this section.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Now, the other
21 proposals -- amendments, rather, that were passed -- or
22 were they passed?
23 (Off-the-record comment.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I'm going to state
25 for the record that the amendments were to the proposal
14
1 rather than the substitute, and the substitute we start
2 clean -- as clean as we can.
3 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I have a -- if there is some
4 motion here, I have a substitute; or if not --
5 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott.
6 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move
7 that we -- I have a motion that says that all those
8 amendments be shown adopted to the substitute so that we
9 don't have to go back through every one of these. Now I
10 recognize that Commissioner Mills has somebody that wants
11 to reconsider one of them, but we can still do that.
12 Rather than go back through all of this again, I mean, we
13 are going to spend another hour that we have spent
14 already.
15 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's right. I take your
16 motion. The motion is that the amendments that were
17 adopted be amendments to the substitute.
18 (Off-the-record comment.)
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: No, his motion was as to the
20 substitute, wasn't it; wasn't that your motion?
21 (Off-the-record comment.)
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's what I was trying to do.
23 All right. We have got to take a vote on this. But the
24 motion is that the amendments that were adopted, we are
25 not going to go back and reconsider them, they are going
15
1 to be deemed amendments to the proposal. And then, that
2 being the case, we go forward with the substitute, which
3 included those amendments; is that right? Now it does
4 not, all right. I want to make sure.
5 So all in favor of Commissioner Scott's motion which
6 will deem the amendments as having been adopted as
7 amendments to the proposal, please say aye. All opposed
8 say no.
9 (Verbal vote taken.)
10 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That is done. Now, we are on the
11 substitute, and the substitute is offered by Commissioner
12 Mills. Would you explain that please?
13 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, I will explain it,
14 and then I think there is a motion to reconsider the
15 motion -- the vote by which one of the amendments passed.
16 Which gets us down to -- there is one simple issue.
17 My substitute simply gives the Legislature the
18 discretion to adjust this level, the $200,000 level was
19 the original constitutional level established here as the
20 exemption in homesteads. I think we debated this
21 relatively thoroughly yesterday. I hope people know the
22 positions.
23 In other words those of us who are doing this believe
24 that this is the best thing for most Floridians. This is
25 to protect people who are owed money who are actually
16
1 victims of people who go bankrupt, so they are not
2 victimized by the huge unlimited exclusion in Florida.
3 Now recognizing that we didn't want to lock ourselves
4 in, this substitute says the Legislature can adjust that
5 level to any level they choose. So if the Legislature,
6 next time around, decides to adjust that to 300, to 400,
7 to 500, they can do that. But under the current status of
8 this proposal, as Mr. Scott will tell you, while this
9 amendment is pending and it is noncontroversial -- I think
10 it is noncontroversial, you can either go ahead and adopt
11 this and then there will be a motion to reconsider the
12 $500,000, or you can take the motion to reconsider the
13 $500,000 now. If this is noncontroversial, that is to
14 give the Legislature the discretion, the way this
15 amendment -- if this passed right now you would have a
16 $500,000 limit with legislative discretion.
17 And I think you might be able to pass that on a voice
18 vote. Because you haven't gotten to the main -- you
19 haven't gotten to the main motion. Then there will be a
20 motion to reconsider the 500,000 and you can determine
21 whether you want the 500,000 to be in the bill.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Scott.
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I think he is correct,
24 Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify that the
25 substitute does not in any way wipe out the other
17
1 amendments, it is just an additional -- and then he is
2 going to take up the reconsideration.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Langley was up.
4 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Question of the sponsor of the
5 amendment. Does your legislative ability to adjust go up
6 or down?
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: No. Based on the amendment that
8 was offered yesterday that was now placed in the
9 bill-in-chief, it only goes up.
10 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: One in the amendment that's
11 before us that I see, what does it say?
12 COMMISSIONER MILLS: It wipes out everything other
13 than, according to legislative discretion, to adjust the
14 amount.
15 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes, but adjust to me means up
16 or down.
17 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Yesterday Commissioner Hawkes --
18 you know, the two amendments that were just discussed,
19 that Commissioner Scott and the Chairman explained were
20 adopted to the bill-in-chief, one of those amendments was
21 to change the word adjust to raise.
22 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: All right. But what does your
23 amendment say?
24 COMMISSIONER MILLS: My amendment just --
25 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: The substitute amendment wipes
18
1 out everything prior to it.
2 COMMISSIONER MILLS: No, not the way that this has
3 been explained.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'll tell you what we are going
5 to do, whatever we vote on this, we are going to get
6 around to voting on the merits of whether or not we want
7 to do it at all some time this morning.
8 COMMISSIONER MILLS: That's fine.
9 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I think that's the issue that we
10 are going to deal with, ultimately here. So what you are
11 saying, again -- I think I have the same problem as
12 Commissioner Langley. You are leaving everything intact.
13 Commissioner Hawkes' proposal or amendment is now a part
14 of the proposal and you are offering an amendment which
15 would just amend that to say the Legislature can. All
16 right.
17 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, because those two
18 amendments yesterday were offered, procedurally
19 incorrectly, the Secretary is trying to correct that.
20 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That's correct.
21 COMMISSIONER MILLS: And those have been offered and
22 adopted as a part of the main bill. And they are there.
23 (Off-the-record comment.)
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. We are only dealing
25 with two things, the original Planas' amendment,
19
1 Commissioner Planas' amendment, and the Mills' substitute.
2 Because you made a substitute, you did not make -- you
3 made a substitute to Planas' amendment, that's what your
4 substitute goes to.
5 COMMISSIONER MILLS: No. Mr. Chairman, maybe the
6 best way to do this is just let the Secretary consider a
7 motion to reconsider the Planas' substitute first. If
8 that fails, then you can consider this which does not --
9 in other words the object of this motion at the moment is
10 not to change Mr. Planas' successful amendment.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Wouldn't the simplest way to do
12 this be just to vote these two down, go back to the
13 original amendment and then you-all start substituting and
14 amending again? I think that's the quickest way to do it.
15 You can offer it again. Let's vote down your substitute
16 and Commissioner Planas' amendment, then he can get up and
17 make his amendment again and maybe he will include what
18 you have got in it and won't need a substitute. And then
19 we can get on track and get back and vote on the original
20 proposal as amended. Is that agreeable? All in favor --
21 yes, Commissioner Evans, I can't see you over there. You
22 are in a dark dress this morning.
23 COMMISSIONER EVANS: It is not my fault I was put
24 over here. I want to know, I want to see in writing,
25 before I have to take another vote on anything. Yesterday
20
1 afternoon was extremely confusing; it was a flurry, you
2 couldn't help but wonder what in the world was going on,
3 and when it was over I didn't know what had happened. And
4 I want to see it in writing. I don't know what I am
5 voting on, I am very fearful of voting something down in
6 the hopes that somebody might do something else because we
7 might have to have a two-thirds' vote to waive the rules
8 to do it.
9 I would like to see exactly the status, in writing.
10 I don't want to see a piece of paper that doesn't have
11 anything but blanks on it and a little bit of insert here
12 and delete there; I want to see the whole thing written
13 out so I know what I am voting on.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm going to ask Commissioner
15 Langley to see if you can help her out.
16 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: If somebody will help me out,
17 I'll be glad to, but you know --
18 (Laughter.)
19 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: The director and I were trying
20 to figure it out over there.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I will entertain a motion to
22 temporarily pass this --
23 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: So moved.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: -- until the next order of
25 business. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, like sign.
21
1 (Verbal vote taken.)
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: In the meantime, all of you
3 parliamentarians out there on the floor get together and
4 make a motion that will be acceptable and understood by
5 the rest of us. Thank you very much. We will move on to
6 the next proposal. The next proposal is No. 85 -- order
7 please -- by Commissioner Sundberg.
8 Would you read that, please?
9 READING CLERK: Proposal 85, A proposal to revise
10 numerous provisions of the Florida Constitution, providing
11 for a unicameral Legislature.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg, you are
13 recognized as a proponent. It was disapproved by the
14 committee on legislative, Article III.
15 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Mr. Chairman, actually this
16 is a joint proposal by Commissioner Evans-Jones and I, and
17 I would like to yield to Commissioner Evans-Jones for the
18 presentation.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Just a moment. Could you-all
20 step down there out of the line of fire for a moment.
21 Thank you very much. Now, you have yielded to
22 Commissioner Evans-Jones, or do you still have the floor?
23 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I have yielded to
24 Commissioner Evans-Jones until you said wait a minute.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Evans-Jones, no
22
1 longer wait a minute; you have the floor.
2 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: All right, thank you,
3 Mr. Chairman. We have a substitute amendment on the
4 floor, at the desk there. And what we are doing in that
5 amendment is taking out the controversial part, at least
6 some of it. We are deleting the reapportionment section
7 there. We decided that that was one of the battles that
8 we really didn't want to take on today.
9 And I don't know whether you have this on your desk
10 or not, but I wanted to just highlight what is in here so
11 that it will save you from going through all of the many
12 pages that are involved.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Evans-Jones, this is
14 an amendment, is it not?
15 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: And it is on the desk?
17 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'll ask the clerk to read the
19 amendment.
20 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Thank you.
21 READING CLERK: By Commissioner Evans-Jones, the
22 following amendment: Delete everything after the proposal
23 clause and insert a lengthy amendment, Mr. Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Now, will you tell us what that
25 does?
23
1 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Yes, it does delete the
2 reapportionment section that had been in there initially,
3 and it also adds some things that I want to bring to your
4 attention.
5 In Article III, Section 7, it says that no bills
6 shall become law unless it has been printed and upon the
7 desk of the members in final form at least three days
8 before final passage. And obviously what we are trying to
9 do there is to have an orderly process where the members
10 will know what they are voting on, the press can report
11 it, the constituents would know. So this is just a way,
12 with a one-house Legislature, to try to have it in order.
13 And on the legislative apportionment, we are really
14 saying in there, there may be another amendment there that
15 there shall be no less than 40, no more than 120 members.
16 And, of course, the Legislature would determine what it
17 would be between the 40 and the 120.
18 Another addition there is on Article III, Section 20,
19 compensation of members. The members of the Legislature
20 shall receive an annual salary and such allowances as
21 ascribed by law, but any increase or decrease in the
22 amount thereof shall not apply to the Legislature that
23 enacted it.
24 And the reason that we are putting that in there is
25 we think it would be much more acceptable to the general
24
1 public to realize that if you vote your raise, you won't
2 get it during your term of office for that particular two
3 years, or whatever the term is.
4 Committees, the presiding officer of the unicameral
5 Legislature would appoint all of the committees. The
6 difference that we have here than what we are doing
7 generally is, the members of the committee themselves
8 would elect their chairman and their vice-chairman, and
9 this way we feel that that would delete the power of the
10 presiding officer and would be a more democratic process.
11 You also would be able to withdraw, with one-third of the
12 members, you could withdraw a bill so that the entire
13 membership could vote on it.
14 And the others are really technical changes on the
15 revision commission. It now says that nine members would
16 be appointed by the Senate and nine members by the House.
17 So we are saying that nine members would be appointed by
18 the presiding officer and nine members by the minority
19 leader. And the same thing with the taxation and budget
20 reform. We are saying that seven members would be
21 selected by the presiding officer and seven by the
22 minority leader. Which would be sure that they would have
23 proper representation. And those, basically, are the
24 changes, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment contains.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. So we are now on the
25
1 amendment to the main proposal, Proposal 85, unicameral
2 Legislature. Does anybody want to speak on that, on the
3 amendment? All right. If not, we will take a vote on the
4 amendment. All of those in favor of allowing the
5 amendment, signify by saying aye; opposed.
6 (Verbal vote taken.)
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It is amended. The amendment is
8 adopted. We are now on the proposal of Commissioner
9 Sundberg and Evans-Jones as amended. You still have the
10 floor.
11 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12 I want to talk to you very briefly about why I think this
13 is such a good idea to have a one-house Legislature. And
14 I had asked my law student assistant to help me get this
15 information and she contacted Lisa Brown of the Joint
16 Legislative Management Committee, and I have these figures
17 here in front of me that I'm sure are quite accurate.
18 You are talking about a savings of at least
19 $98 million a year by having a one-house Legislature
20 instead of two. And I think that's a very significant
21 amount of money that could be utilized for many other
22 purposes. What you have now, you have very efficient,
23 capable staff in the House, and you have very capable,
24 efficient staff members in the Senate. And they are doing
25 the exact same thing. And actually, you simply don't need
26
1 that, you just need the one house.
2 I would also like to point out that the efficiency
3 would be a lot better. If you have everybody in one room
4 and you are conducting business for the people of Florida,
5 everybody knows what you are doing. Under the current
6 system you have a House that's operating, the members and
7 the lobbyists are running back and forth from the House to
8 the Senate, and it is pretty much mass chaos; nobody
9 really knows what anybody is doing. And this would bring
10 order into the system.
11 You don't have, in giant corporations, you don't have
12 two boards of directors, you have one. That's how to run
13 things. You don't have two county commissioners, boards
14 of county commissioners, you have one in the county. And
15 I think that when Baker versus Carr gave us the decision
16 that, one man, one vote, that now this is just absolutely
17 not necessary to have it this way.
18 We, a long time ago when they first started having a
19 House and a Senate, the people in the Senate were really
20 the landed gentry, the property owners. Those in the
21 House were so-called the masses. But now we don't have
22 that anymore. We have one man, one vote. And I think
23 that it is absolutely unnecessary.
24 Nebraska is the only state that has done this. And
25 you may say, well why haven't other states done this. And
27
1 the reason is because most of the states -- or none of the
2 states have the opportunity that we have here in this
3 Constitution Revision Commission to be able to put things
4 directly on the ballot.
5 And this gives us an opportunity to do something very
6 significant that would make a lot of difference here in
7 Florida.
8 You can rest assured, because I tried it in 1981, to
9 introduce the unicameral Legislature in the House, and
10 obviously it never got out of committee, no big surprise.
11 The Legislature itself is not going to vote to have the
12 one house. There would be members who would do that, but
13 I'm sure you would not get the majority of the people to
14 do that.
15 I'm going to yield right now to Commissioner
16 Sundberg, and then I'll be happy to answer any questions
17 that anybody might have. And so, Mr. Sundberg.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Sundberg.
19 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 Apart from the savings that the commissioner refers to,
21 and I think they are clearly significant, I suggest to you
22 that this proposal passes those sort of fundamental tests
23 that we have, I think, or that we ought to have for the
24 sort of proposals we ought to be moving forward in this
25 process. Mr. Brochin has suggested them from time to
28
1 time.
2 This clearly is not a matter that can be handled
3 legislatively, for a lot of reasons. It goes to the
4 fundamental basis of governance. It goes to one of the
5 three coordinate branches of government. This is a
6 singularly appropriate body to consider this.
7 Secondly, I suggest to you it meets the test of being
8 good public policy. I believe it is a good public policy
9 base apart of the gain of significant savings, I think it
10 will streamline and simply the procedure by which
11 proposals become law in this state. I think this has two
12 virtues to it.
13 The first is I think it will significantly diminish
14 the influence of special interests. It is very easy to
15 hide the ball in a two-house Legislature. Everyone who
16 has had much ado with the Legislature in this house has
17 played the game of hide the ball between one house and the
18 other. It is a very effective device. Except for Senator
19 Langley, of course.
20 (Laughter.)
21 So as I say, I think it will --
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: That is Commissioner Langley now.
23 COMMISSIONER SUNDBERG: I think it will significantly
24 diminish the ability of special interests to orchestrate
25 and influence this legislative process. I think another
29
1 thing of this proposal is at a time when people seem to be
2 completely -- the citizens seem to be completely jaundiced
3 about the process, where I think it is evident from our
4 presence at public hearings around this state that there
5 is this malaise and lack of confidence in the way
6 government operates today, I think this gives us them an
7 opportunity to reenergize their interest in representative
8 government.
9 Almost everything we heard at our public hearings had
10 to do with direct access. When we talked, almost
11 universally, those people who spoke to the initiative
12 process said, for gosh sakes, don't do away with it, it is
13 the citizens input into our government. I think we heard
14 some of the same things when it had to do with reforming
15 the Cabinet. They want to be sure that that's not done in
16 such a fashion that they lose that ability to have access
17 to government. I suggest to you that this proposal will
18 give the citizen much greater access to the legislative
19 process. It will be much more easily understood by the
20 rank-and-file citizens of this state, and hence it has
21 that virtue to it.
22 For those reasons, as well as those articulated by my
23 cosponsor, I urge your passage of this, and let's move it
24 forward please.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are there any proponents that
30
1 want to speak? Any other proponents? Commissioner
2 Jennings, this is proponents.
3 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Commissioners, my staff has
4 certified me as crazy as I am headed for Chattahoochee
5 after this, but I think and I stand today --
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: For a rest, right?
7 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: For a rest. I stand today
8 in support of Commissioner Evans-Jones' and Commissioner
9 Sundberg's proposal. And I have done a lot of thinking
10 about this. Now, again, this is our first vote. I may
11 have to think again when it comes back to us, because some
12 of these things in the amendment, like electing the
13 chairman, I am interested in.
14 But think back to June when we were here and we
15 talked about what constitutional revision is all about.
16 And we had Governor Askew and we had Governor Kirk, and we
17 had our Governors come and speak with us. We have had
18 those who have been here before talk with us about the
19 process and what has gone on. And to a person -- they ask
20 us to be visionary, to look ahead, to look to the next 20
21 years, not how we have done it in the past and those
22 things that haven't worked.
23 And I have been fairly reticent to talk about some of
24 our issues that we are here about today because I feel
25 like I have lived through most of them, Senator Scott and
31
1 Senator Langley, Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner
2 Mills, I mean, we feel like we have been through most of
3 this because a lot of those issues that are before us
4 today are here because the Legislature didn't address
5 them. And as we will find as we go through so many of
6 these, you will find why we didn't address them. Some of
7 them are cost and some are the value of the issues.
8 But as we look forward, and of course I'm speaking as
9 a person who has been involved in this two-house process
10 my entire political career. And you are right,
11 Commissioner Sundberg, we have hidden the ball, we have
12 stolen the ball, we have put the ball in the drawer, we
13 have done all the things we could figure out. And Senator
14 Scott did them all.
15 (Laughter.)
16 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: And he taught me how to do
17 it.
18 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well he is Commissioner Scott.
19 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: Well it was Senator Scott
20 that did them.
21 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Right, he wouldn't do it as
22 Commissioner, would he?
23 COMMMISSIONER JENNINGS: And as we look to the next
24 20 years, you know, I had someone say to me, Well the only
25 people that ever did it was Nebraska. Well, you know,
32
1 sometimes there is a time to break with tradition. We
2 always did things a certain way. As a matter of fact,
3 Commissioner Scott has framed something or other, and it
4 says, we always did it that way, and then there is the
5 "not" through it.
6 The greatest concern I have -- and there are so many
7 pros. We have talked about the cost of government, we
8 have talked about the size of government, we have talked
9 about people being responsive to their government, knowing
10 who their Representative and their Senator and their House
11 members are, those kind of things. But as we look at it,
12 I guess the biggest reservation I would have is the checks
13 and balances.
14 We said the reason we always had a two-house
15 Legislature -- and it goes back to the old English, the
16 Lords and the common man, and you know, and we continue to
17 think we are the Lords down here, and they continue to
18 remind us that we are not so Lordy most of the time.
19 But those checks and balances will rise to the
20 surface if we are talking about a one-house Legislature as
21 well. It will be the checks and balances of the two-party
22 system, which I wholeheartedly endorse. It will be the
23 checks and balances of the philosophical differences,
24 which you see every single day right here in this chamber.
25 So, as we are sitting here today, and Commissioner
33
1 Sundberg and Commissioner Evans-Jones said it so well,
2 this is one of those things that nobody else can do. The
3 Legislature can't address it, I guess the people on their
4 own initiative could come back to us with an initiative
5 petition, as they have done on some other issues. But
6 before we just sort of summarily say, No, we have always
7 done it this way, the two houses are best, all those kinds
8 of things, I would just ask that you think about it
9 because we are not looking for today, we are looking for
10 20 years from now, and what may happen in those 20 years.
11 And Florida has led the nation in a number of things.
12 There may be truly a reason for us to lead in this
13 particular circumstance.
14 So now that I have said my peace, the paddy wagon is
15 waiting for me outside, but I'll be back in time for the
16 party. So, Commissioners as we go forward with this vote,
17 think about it. It will need to go to style and drafting,
18 and in that period of time, we will hear from the public
19 on this, believe you me, of all of these issues that we
20 have had out there, this is one that we will probably hear
21 about a little bit more.
22 And it will give us an opportunity to say, maybe this
23 is a good idea -- oh, those are things we didn't think of.
24 And when we come back looking for that two-thirds' vote,
25 there may be a difference as we approach it. But let
34
1 us -- let this be part of our visioning, let us look
2 forward and not backwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any other proponents?
4 Commissioner Marshall.
5 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of
6 all the things that the commission has considered, it
7 seems to me, this may be the boldest --
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I'm not sure your mike is on, but
9 try again.
10 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL: How are we doing?
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Doing great, we got you.
12 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL: Thank you. Of all the
13 proposals considered by the commission, I would judge that
14 this is the boldest that's been before us. And that seems
15 to me to be just the kind of thing this commission ought
16 to be entertaining, ought to be considering.
17 Other speakers have spoken to the efficiency of this
18 move, cost saving, I think that's important. But I think
19 more important is that this is an opportunity for a more
20 direct exercise of democracy than our present legislative
21 arrangement allows. As you pointed out on a previous
22 occasion, Mr. Chairman, I've been around here for a lot of
23 years, and while I've never been a member of the
24 Legislature or been intimately involved with its
25 proceedings, I have watched it closely and with great
35
1 interest all these years. And I have observed some
2 awkwardness occasionally, and some inefficiency, some
3 great performances by great leaders. But it is not in my
4 judgment to seem to be the most efficient and sometimes
5 not the most effective organization.
6 I think Commissioner Jennings' comment as she posed
7 is right to the point. This is something that deserves
8 the attention of the people of Florida. It will get the
9 attention of the people of Florida. It deserves their
10 thoughts, as expressed to us. For that reason, I would
11 like to support the proposal at this point, hope that it
12 will receive favorable consideration by this body and that
13 it will then be considered and debated by the people of
14 Florida and will have the benefit of their thinking on the
15 matter.
16 So it has my endorsement. Thank you, sir.
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Any other proponents?
18 Commissioner Barton.
19 COMMISSIONER BARTON: I certainly have a lot of
20 questions about the proposal, but I would like to see it
21 go forward for a particular reason. And that is that I
22 have checked with some of my political friends in Nebraska
23 to ask them how to works there. And one thing that I
24 found out that intrigues me greatly as an advocate that
25 goes from the grassroots is that it is much more
36
1 user-friendly than the system that we currently have,
2 which tends to intimidate, tends to remove our elected
3 officials from us. So, for that reason, I am very
4 interested in seeing this proposal go forward so that we
5 can think about it, discuss it, learn more about it,
6 possibly pass it eventually. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Proponents? Commissioner Zack.
8 COMMISSIONER ZACK: I think most everything has been
9 said except for one word, and that's accountability. And
10 I think a unicameral Legislature will give accountability,
11 which is where I think the underlying frustration that we
12 sense in the public begins from -- and they hear, Well we
13 would have done it here in the House except the Senate
14 blocked us. And then the Senate said, Well we would have
15 done it but the House wouldn't let us do it. I'm not sure
16 it is where we need to end up, but I do believe it is
17 something we need to pursue further at this point. Thank
18 you.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Proponents? Commissioner
20 Brochin.
21 COMMISSIONER BROCHIN: I too am going to vote in
22 favor of this, along the lines that Senator Jennings or
23 Commissioner Jennings suggested, that it is as an idea at
24 least worth advancing and giving further consideration to.
25 In speaking with Commissioner Evans-Jones about it as we
37
1 were about to prepare our respective turkeys over
2 Thanksgiving, I went back and did a little research on the
3 history of a bicameral legislative body and learned that,
4 indeed, there really isn't a very good historical reason
5 for it.
6 The actual proponent of it for our federal
7 Constitution, Roger Sherman, actually you will be pleased
8 to learn was a proponent of the unicameral Legislature and
9 believed that that was the best way for the federal
10 government to be organized, but in proposing the current
11 system, which he did, he did it only in the spirit of
12 compromise so they could come out with a Constitution in
13 1887.
14 So if you track the historical analysis, you don't
15 find very good reason for a bicameral legislation. And
16 I'm sure in the State of Florida with its diversity, the
17 unicameral may be a more accountable way to go. But I
18 think it is worthy of consideration, I think it is worthy
19 for us to move it forward. And as Commissioner Jennings
20 says, I think it is worth us, in a visionary sense, to
21 move it forward. So accordingly, I am going to support it
22 as well.
23 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. I want to suggest,
24 the way these debates are going, I don't think they are
25 getting to the point quickly enough. In the Legislature,
38
1 generally, someone would rise and say, Would yield for a
2 question, and proceed to bring out the other side of the
3 argument in questioning the proponent while they are on
4 the floor. What I think I may do in the future, unless
5 there is objection to it, is I'm going to go with a
6 proponent and then I am going to go with an opponent, and
7 we are going to see if we can't get a little more pointed
8 debate, because it occurs to me when I listen to each of
9 you on either side, that there is significant arguments on
10 the other side, and if they are not presented while they
11 are going on they tend to get lost in the process.
12 I know we have a few ex-legislators and legislators
13 here and they have probably been a little reticent to jump
14 into the fray like they do, but now we are going to the
15 opponents. And I am saying what I say to remind you
16 proponents that you can ask them to yield for questions
17 and that does create a lot more lively debate.
18 Commissioner Scott is an opponent.
19 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner Jennings, I was in
20 Chattahoochee. But -- I was temporarily out of my mind
21 but I have it back now.
22 (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So I want to start out with
24 that. Let me just make a few comments on this, and with
25 deep respect to Marilyn Evans-Jones, we did not have a lot
39
1 of discussion about this in committee. I frankly didn't
2 realize that this was something that she had worked on for
3 a number of years, and so we have apologized for that.
4 Okay, let's talk a minute about what we have. What
5 we now have in this country and in every state except one,
6 which other than a great football team, they don't have
7 maybe a lot in common with the state of Florida. We have
8 got a system now where we have got 120 people who have --
9 who run every two years, all of them, and they have their
10 districts. And in Broward County we must have 16 or 18,
11 and I don't know how many in Dade, where they are out
12 there, they are with their -- close to the people, they
13 know -- you know, they have got a smaller area.
14 Then we have 40 Senators that have a broader area, at
15 least three times as many people. And they are supposed
16 to have a little broader view of what's good or bad for
17 the state.
18 I think first of all we have to recognize that
19 government is not a business, we have tried to extol the
20 virtues of running government like a business, but the
21 fact that business might have one board of directors
22 really doesn't apply to what government is all about.
23 So taking that, it is true that when my party
24 achieved control of the Senate, the first thing I did was
25 put in the president's office a sign that basically says,
40
1 No business as usual. And in the years -- in the last
2 seven years, I might point out that laws -- when I was
3 first elected, I came up here and I introduced a lot of
4 bills and I wrote a newsletter. And I put in it, you
5 know, how proud I was to be elected to serve. And I put a
6 paragraph and I said, I managed to pass 15 bills, 15 bills
7 into law.
8 And so I sent these out at my own expense, basically,
9 in my district to some people. And I get some of them
10 back, and one of them comes back and says, I liked your
11 newsletter until this, and they circled this paragraph
12 where I said I passed 15 bills into law. They said,
13 don't -- it said go up there, don't pass no more, and
14 repeal some. So I think what I guess my point of that is
15 that, what we really need is a lot of caution in changing
16 the law, in changing people's rights and responsibilities,
17 financial, property, their very freedom.
18 The system that we have is not perfect. Democracy is
19 certainly not perfect. We would -- they say the most
20 perfect form is a dictatorship, hopefully benevolent, but
21 we have the system that we have. And while I recognize
22 the expression of the unicameral idea, I really believe,
23 just as an example, the House of Representatives, which is
24 120, which would be the maximum limit that's set here, in
25 the last seven years during the time that Ander Crenshaw
41
1 was president and I, they have passed some 7 or $8 billion
2 in new taxes, all of which was not passed in the Senate
3 for the most part. I think one year maybe 100 million or
4 something like that.
5 I think the idea of us having a two-house system
6 really helps the people, it espouses a point of view that
7 they are going to have more than one forum to address
8 policy. Efficient and effective, now we could say we
9 could save money by doing one house, 10 million, 2
10 million, I forget the numbers now, but -- but I would like
11 you to look at the cost, potential cost, to the taxpayers
12 of that type of system.
13 So with the deepest -- oh, and someone mentioned,
14 Commissioner Brochin mentioned about the Thanksgiving
15 turkey that he was getting. Well, let me tell you about
16 some other kinds of turkeys. We have had budgets -- and I
17 won't blame this totally on the House because we have got
18 two former Speakers here, but we had turkeys that really
19 even some of the best of us turkey hunters think were
20 terrible that have come out of the House budget, and I'm
21 sure that there have been many in the Senate budget that
22 have come out. And you go to conference on them and you
23 get some sense and you inject, hopefully, between the two,
24 some sense of public responsibility for spending the
25 public's money.
42
1 So the budget process alone would be, to me, a
2 serious reason for us to have a two-house system. With
3 the greatest respect, I'm trying to remember, I know most
4 of you know this, but Commissioner Jennings and I came to
5 the Legislature the same year. And she was in the House
6 and I was in the Senate when she came over. And I'm
7 trying to remember if we have ever, ever had a debate or
8 disagreed on an issue, and I can't think of one.
9 So, there is a first time for everything I guess.
10 But I would respectfully ask you -- and I don't think
11 that, while it sounds good that we should -- we are
12 talking policy here, I don't think we should just advance
13 something just because it might stir everybody up or
14 because at this point, whatever, we have got enough to do
15 and very little time to do it.
16 So, with the deepest respect -- I mean, if you want
17 to do that -- but I would urge you to seriously think
18 about this kind of fundamental change, as to whether
19 that's what we want our project -- or our product to go
20 out under.
21 So I'm going to vote no on it.
22 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Hawkes.
23 I'll get to the rest of you. Did you have a question?
24 COMMISSIONER SMITH: I had a question.
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well then ask him to yield.
43
1 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Would you yield for a question?
2 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Is it friendly?
3 (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONER SMITH: I think you will let me know.
5 While I share -- well, do you feel that it is both
6 appropriate and fitting that we advance a visionary idea
7 to hear back from the people, not just to let it go
8 forward, but to hear what the people have to say about
9 their government and the vision that this proposal
10 advances?
11 COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Commissioner, I would say,
12 respectfully, no, I don't think we should do that because,
13 why not do that with just anything and everything? You
14 know, I mean, I think that this process, which is unique
15 to Florida, and the way it is comprised and who appoints
16 it, you know, they are looking for our best advice here,
17 you know, as to what we think is basically a good idea.
18 And not just to, you know, run up like a sort of a trial
19 balloon, with all due respect to this particular idea.
20 So I really don't think that we should do that. I
21 think that we should -- I mean if you want to -- if you
22 want to try to get more input, delay, whatever, that's
23 fine. But I really don't think that we should make an
24 expression because so many times that we have seen this,
25 in group processes, I mean, it can get out of hand, so to
44
1 speak, it could go, whatever, or it could have an adverse
2 effect, we don't know. And I really think that in some of
3 these more controversial areas that we have, we really owe
4 it to the people to give it our best view of what we think
5 the results should be.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Hawkes. Any more
7 questions? If not, Commissioner Hawkes has the floor.
8 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 Obviously a two-house Legislature is less efficient than
10 what a unicameral Legislature would be. And obviously
11 democracy is less effective than what other forms of
12 government might be. And the reason that we have three
13 separate branches of government is to provide some of
14 those checks and balances and to make sure that power is
15 divided so that the people are protected.
16 If you think that the Senate is in essence the same
17 as the House it is just that there is different people
18 that sit there, all you would have to do sometimes is come
19 and watch when the Legislature is in session and sit up in
20 the gallery. Maybe the first thing you will notice even
21 before they come into session, is the Senate doesn't have
22 any glass from the public to them. And in the House, they
23 have glass from them to the press. I never quite
24 understood that. But in the House they have glass from --
25 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: It is bulletproof.
45
1 COMMISSIONER HAWKES: They have glass from the pulpit
2 to the chamber, but they don't have glass in the press box
3 to the chamber, so just the opposite of what they have
4 here. But one of the reasons I think the House has that
5 is, if you watch it, the House is -- I have always thought
6 it is dynamic; it is alive; it is productive. And unruly,
7 Senator Langley.
8 But the Senate -- and I think that the behavior -- I
9 was marveled because obviously when you go through civics
10 class they tell you that there is a reason for this, that
11 they do have this different perspective, and you read
12 about it in books and you answer the questions on the
13 exams, and you think, okay, that's fine and dandy, but
14 when you become involved in the process you see that there
15 really is a difference. A Senator's perspective is
16 different than a House member's perspective. The ideas
17 that come out of the House are different from the ideas
18 that come out of the Senate, and it is very -- as a
19 consequence, it is very, very difficult to pass a bill
20 into law.
21 And I think it is good that it is difficult to pass a
22 bill into law because that requires people to think about
23 it and consider it and evaluate it and receive public
24 input.
25 The other thing about a legislative chamber, of
46
1 course, is that there is legislative leadership, and this
2 chamber is full of former legislative leadership, and
3 obviously people's leadership skills are going to affect
4 in part how powerful they are. But I would submit to you
5 that any Speaker of the House or President of the Senate
6 is extremely powerful. And I think the other chamber, as
7 a check and balance on that, protects the public.
8 I guess when I was in the House we passed maybe 400
9 bills a year that would come out, and some of those
10 obviously are technical and of no real controversy, and
11 some are fairly insignificant of no real controversy. But
12 the most amazing part, when I look back, is every once in
13 a while we would pass a boondoggle, something that all of
14 our constituents will start to call and we would get all
15 kinds of letters and we couldn't wait until the chance to
16 come up here and fix what we did. But the amazing thing
17 is that happened really very seldom. And I think that's
18 proof in the pudding, we didn't make a lot of mistakes
19 that upset the people of the state of Florida in a broad
20 sense.
21 Maybe we didn't do some of the things that
22 Commissioner Zack mentioned that some people would like to
23 see done, but I would submit that it wasn't a big outpour
24 when we got back.
25 When the Legislature has failed to act, perhaps the
47
1 net ban is an example of that, the people take it into
2 their own hands and they do in fact -- so I would ask you
3 to leave the current system in place; it is a vibrant
4 system; it is a dynamic system. And I thinks the system
5 has worked well for the state of Florida with 14 million
6 people and very complex and diverse issues. Thank you.
7 And I would be happy to answer questions.
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are you asking him to yield, or
9 are you rising as a proponent?
10 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Opponent.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Opponent.
12 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: You have the floor.
14 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15 Folks, I won't be long, but I either have the advantage or
16 disadvantage of having served up here 18 years in either
17 the House or the Senate, and that does make us some sort
18 of experts, if you please, in this action.
19 You know, they say there is two things you don't want
20 to watch being made, one is sausage and the other is law,
21 because of what goes into it. But what we have has worked
22 very well. And I'd like to speak to some of the arguments
23 of the proponents of this bill. As far as accountability,
24 I can't imagine how you can perceive that one house with
25 less representatives can be more accountable than two
48
1 houses, and one of those houses serving much smaller
2 districts than the other and having more exposure to their
3 people because they have a smaller district.
4 And as far as hiding the ball, it is a whole lot
5 easier for one person to hide a ball or a secret than it
6 is for two, Mr. Commissioner.
7 And again if you speak to efficiency, as Senator
8 Scott alluded to briefly, the most efficient government is
9 a dictatorship, and so if we really want to contract this,
10 we ought to just give it all to the Governor or give it
11 all to the Cabinet and hope they behave well and treat us
12 well.
13 When you look at what the Legislature, both houses,
14 spends compared to the 40-plus billion dollars the State
15 spends, it is a small cost of having a representative
16 government.
17 What bothers me most about one house, I came here in
18 '72 as one of 27 Republicans in a House of 120. The
19 speaker then was not a benevolent dictator, he was a
20 ruthless dictator. And I will never forget now, my good
21 friend, Carl Logden, making the statement, All of these
22 Republicans ought to be on the back row in straight-back
23 chairs. That's what he thought of it. And the
24 concentration of power to me is the biggest evil in
25 government when a few people, the Speaker of the House,
49
1 whether it be the President of the Senate, and a few of
2 his lieutenants can control this whole process, that is an
3 evil.
4 Fortunately, there is competition between the House
5 and the Senate. There is always competition between the
6 President and the Speaker. They all want to be the hero,
7 and you know that's -- if you're not an egomaniac, you
8 don't have any business in politics anyway, because we all
9 are. As I used to say, there are 119 egomaniacs and me
10 down there.
11 But really this is a healthy thing that we have this.
12 And it is a healthy thing that both houses do come from
13 different perspectives. A house is elected or not every
14 two years and the Senate every four. But how many times,
15 if you want to pick up one of the Senate journals, have we
16 in the Senate had to amend House bills and vice versa,
17 Commissioner Mills, where we made obvious mistakes here,
18 send it down there, a good staff analyst down there shows
19 that we did make a mistake, they correct it and send it
20 back? Who is going to correct the unicameral? Well, you
21 say the Governor will veto it. I don't know if you have
22 ever handled vetoes but that is a mess because your law is
23 held in abeyance until it can be handled, it is just a
24 mess. This is a very healthy working system and it should
25 be.
50
1 We get -- I have seen battles in the Senate here and
2 in the House where in the heat of the battle you make a
3 lot of votes because you want to win, whatever winning is.
4 We used to say we would be in one of the rooms discussing
5 something and somebody would say, What was it last year
6 that we were all uptight about? We don't even remember.
7 But at the time it was live or die to win that particular
8 issue. And then when it cools off you say, Golly, what
9 was all that about? And that really doesn't make any
10 sense.
11 And something else, I plead guilty to not going to
12 all of the public hearings. My good friend Frank went to
13 all of them. Did anyone ask for this?
14 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: I never heard it besides you,
16 Commissioner Evans.
17 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: It was a public proposal,
18 if I might answer that. We had ten commissioners here
19 vote for it as well. So I don't know where you were.
20 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Where was it proposed?
21 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: It was proposed -- it was
22 in Tampa, I think. I'm not even sure where.
23 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: I was at that one.
24 COMMISSIONER EVANS-JONES: Well, it was at one that
25 you didn't attend. And it is in the book and you can look
51
1 it up, but they did propose it and Commissioner Sundberg
2 and I sponsored it and we did have the ten votes. So it
3 is legitimately here.
4 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: It's legitimately here but I
5 certainly haven't heard a public outcry for it. I think
6 people want more access to the Legislatures, this is going
7 to give them less. The cooling-off period, the
8 counterbalancing, the separation of the powers, the
9 competition, it's a healthy system. We don't always pass
10 what we want to pass up here. You don't always get what
11 you want to get. But we have sure saved the people of the
12 state of Florida a lot of agony by having two houses.
13 So I represent to you, it's not a good thing for the
14 people. It may be efficient, but efficiency isn't always
15 the best.
16 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Morsani as an
17 opponent.
18 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: I rise with great trepidation
19 because of the people that have proposed this because I
20 have very, very mixed feelings, and I like to be
21 efficient. And all the things, and for the arguments --
22 and I think of the people that have -- that are
23 proponents, and I have a great deal of respect and
24 admiration for all of you.
25 But I would like to maybe make an argument from a
52
1 different point of view as I have thought about the
2 subject and as I've listened to the debate. First of all,
3 I did think that our good friend Mr. Langley, finally we
4 found out that confession is good for the soul. It is
5 good to know the egos that are here. And we appreciate
6 your candor about why you came here in the first place,
7 Commissioner Scott, and all. So we appreciate that
8 knowledge and I think that's valuable for us in our
9 deliberations.
10 (Laughter.)
11 COMMISSIONER MORSANI: I talk about the little signs
12 on the desk. I have one on the back of my desk that says,
13 Insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting
14 different results. So sometimes you think about what we
15 are doing here or think about our two legislative bodies,
16 we are kind of doing that to a degree. However, things
17 have changed dramatically. I think the people, and with
18 all due respect to you, former Congressmen, and there are
19 Senators and Legislators here, in times gone by -- and I
20 happen to be a resident now of Florida for only 41
21 years -- but when the pork choppers were ruling this
22 state, I mean, think about the terrible, I mean the
23 legislation we got prior to the one man, one vote in 1970,
24 it was really a terrible thing on this state.
25 So we have made tremendous progress in the last 20
53
1 years. It has changed dramatically the mix of the people
2 that come here representing the people of this state.
3 As Mr. Langley said, and I wrote down the
4 vindictiveness of leadership of this Legislature in years
5 gone by was absolutely disgusting. Everyone should have
6 been fired. If they worked for you, you would have fired
7 them for everything. And it was a terrible blight on the
8 citizens of this state, just the leadership in the House
9 and Senate in years gone by.
10 That's dramatically changed in the last 20 years.
11 Yes, I wish we could energize the people of our state with
12 a different view all the time. We can't do that in a
13 short time frame. Something of this magnitude has to have
14 a long time fuse on it to get a consensus. And that's how
15 legislation is made. You know, we look in Washington, and
16 even here, what is the purpose of the executive branch?
17 The purpose of the executive branch is to raise ideas,
18 propose ideas, then it is up to the Legislature -- it's
19 not working this way, by the way, but that is how it is
20 supposed to work -- but then the Legislature body is
21 supposed to debate and organize and then bring a bill
22 to -- for approval.
23 So we want to energize the people on something of
24 this magnitude, being of this Constitutional Revision
25 Commission. And I have always tried to be a visionary in
54
1 business and for this nation and been involved in many
2 aspects of international trade. I was one of the first
3 people in China, you-all don't know that, but I had a
4 trading company in Beijing when it was communist and you
5 couldn't go there, but some of us did because it was the
6 right thing do. It was the right thing to do to look
7 forward.
8 And I've tried to be a visionary and I want to be a
9 visionary for legislation. But I don't think that this is
10 truly in the best interests of our citizenry. I think the
11 quality of people that we have representing the people of
12 this state today, we are so fortunate, by and large we are
13 so fortunate, it is entirely different than the rest of
14 the nation.
15 We have the opportunity, that's what I've said about
16 Florida, that's what I say about the city that I am
17 privileged to live in Tampa, that we have the opportunity
18 to be in a state where any person can make their mark,
19 they can create things, they can be dynamic, they can make
20 change. And I think we can make change for the good of
21 our people with the system we have with the kinds of
22 people that we elect to come here.
23 So with all due respect to my dear friend,
24 Ms. Evans-Jones, I don't think that this is the right time
25 or the right place to make this kind of change on behalf
55
1 of the 14 million citizens of our state. Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Anthony --
3 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: -- as an opponent.
5 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too
6 rise in opposition. And those of you that know me, know
7 that I am not afraid of change. I see myself in a lot of
8 ways as a change agent for our state, bringing in a
9 consciousness to public policy that I don't think existed
10 in years past.
11 I think that the existing system that we have really
12 provides an opportunity for Floridians to have
13 representation that really reflects their feelings and
14 concerns back at home. And I think that a unicameral
15 legislation would not present the inclusive opportunity
16 and the opportunity to be heard by people who represent
17 them that this system does.
18 I thought about this as soon as I read about it, and
19 I did hear from the public hearing, the proposal that was
20 brought forward. And what came to mind was that there
21 truly is a growing cynicism in our state and in our nation
22 about elected officials. There is a growing cynicism in
23 our nation about public policy figures, period. There is
24 a growing cynicism about those of us now who are appointed
25 to this Constitution Revision Commission.
56
1 As you all have recognized, those of you that are
2 private sector individuals and now on this Constitution
3 Revision Commission, you are no longer one of them, you
4 are one of those people on that Constitution Revision
5 Commission who we don't trust now.
6 So you are getting a feeling now, as Constitution
7 Revision Commission members, of the perspective that
8 one -- our nation's people have of elected government
9 officials. I stand before you and tell you that I trust
10 the people that we elect. I truly believe that they have
11 in their mind what is best for our nation and our state.
12 And I think that we do have in mind what is best for our
13 nation and for our state.
14 This representative democracy provides a checks and
15 balance's system that I truly think we need in this state.
16 I think it provides an opportunity for us to go to the
17 House members and propose something. And if it's not good
18 public policy, there is this checks-and-balance
19 organization of the Senate that will have that discussion
20 that would tug back and forth at that policy and move it
21 forward if it is good policy.
22 I think a unicameral Legislature is dangerous in our
23 state and it is not good as we approach the year 2000 and
24 the new millennium.
25 Leadership, is it leadership to move this forward?
57
1 Is it visionary for us to move this forward? That's a
2 word that I am very committed to, leadership and
3 decision-making. I think that if we truly are leaders,
4 and we truly have a vision for this state, let's make a
5 decision here and not move public policy forward that
6 truly we are not committed to.
7 One speaker that I heard last week, Dr. Warren
8 Bennice (phonetic), from the University of Southern
9 California, said that a true leader has a POV, and that's
10 a point of view. And they will fight hard for that point
11 of view. And Commissioner Evans-Jones has a strong point
12 of view about this, and so do many of us.
13 My point of view is, and I feel strongly about it,
14 that we should make a decision. We have heard from the
15 public. We have gone around this state and had public
16 hearings. Let us now take and be leaders and show our
17 point of view on this legislation and oppose it here this
18 morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
19 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Wetherington. And
20 then I'll get Commissioner Barkdull and then Commissioner
21 Mills and then Commissioner Mathis, in that order. If I
22 get out of order, call me again. Commissioner
23 Wetherington as an opponent.
24 COMMISSIONER WETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 The framers of the United States Constitution were very
58
1 wise concerning the exercise of governmental power. They
2 were familiar with leading political theory in the west.
3 They were knowledgeable concerning the writings of Locke,
4 Duso, and Montesquieu. They were very practical people
5 and they produced a document that even today we revere as
6 embodying enormous wisdom including a practical
7 understanding of the nature of people and of the nature of
8 the power.
9 When they adopted the United States Constitution, a
10 very important principle concerning the distribution and
11 exercise of power, it was a principle that they adopted
12 from Montesquieu and that was the principle of separation
13 of powers. And they were aware of what could happen with
14 the arbitrary exercise of power because they lived through
15 it and we fought a revolution concerning what they viewed
16 as the arbitrary exercise of power. Their wisdom embodied
17 the concept that we would have the House and Senate.
18 By and large, I think the House and the Senate have
19 worked out very well over the years. I have heard no
20 suggestions that we should not have a House and a Senate.
21 And I think that the wisdom that they reflected with
22 respect to the United States Constitution did reflect the
23 wisdom of the ages and I think it's been borne out. And I
24 haven't seen anything that suggested that this wisdom has
25 now been obscured or transcended. Therefore, I think with
59
1 great respect to the proposer, that we should keep the
2 system that we have.
3 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: All right. Commissioner Barkdull
4 is next as an opponent.
5 COMMISSIONER BARKDULL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
6 members of the commission. I will be brief. I want to
7 point out, number one, I've never been privileged to be a
8 member of the Legislature but I have had the opportunity
9 to observe it for a number of years. And I want to call
10 your attention to the fact that in the last 20 years as
11 Commissioner Morsani has mentioned, this Legislature, as
12 one branch of government here in Florida, has received
13 national recognition as one of the most outstanding
14 legislatures in the state, in all the states. And I don't
15 think there is any reason to tamper with one of the three
16 branches of government.
17 Now I realize that this was brought up at the public
18 hearings, but it certainly was not a major factor at the
19 public hearings. It was mentioned at several of them, it
20 did receive ten votes on this floor, and it has received
21 committee consideration, and it's receiving considerable
22 consideration this morning. And I think that we should
23 not defer because we think this needs more massaging. I
24 think we need to get on with the business of this
25 commission. You can see how long this debate has taken
60
1 this time. If we pass it because we think it ought to get
2 more consideration, it is going to come back here and take
3 a lot longer.
4 I want to close with only one thought. There were
5 times when I was up here as a -- representing clients, and
6 I didn't get what I wanted. I would have liked to have
7 had one house. But I was up here one time when I saw a
8 body in this two-bodied branch of government be stampeded.
9 And if it wasn't for the other body, we would have closed
10 the schools in the state of Florida because that
11 overwhelmingly passed in one of these houses, and it took
12 a lot of courage in the other house to stop it and I think
13 we should not tamper with that system.
14 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills as an
15 opponent.
16 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I
17 wanted to say as an opponent is that with my respect for
18 Commissioner Jennings and the members of this commission,
19 while I am personally convinced, and I'll tell you why I'm
20 convinced I'm going to vote against it, if the other
21 people on this commission are not convinced, I trust that
22 if they are not convinced yet, that would be fine. I hope
23 that those of us that believe it is a bad idea can be able
24 to convince you later. I respect your point of view if
25 you are not yet convinced. But let me tell you why I am
61
1 convinced.
2 There are several principles we have talked about
3 that should be in the Constitution, and one of which is to
4 limit what government can do to citizens. I think it is
5 an indisputable fact that a unicameral Legislature will do
6 more. And I'm not sure it will be better. A bicameral
7 Legislature is inherently limiting. Another principle is
8 the centralization of power and we always remember the
9 quote, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
10 Having been a former presiding officer, along with
11 several of the others here, there is an enormous
12 centralization in the power of the presiding officer.
13 There are many times that I wished there had not been
14 another presiding officer, with all due respect to
15 Mr. Vogt who is on the wall. And there were probably
16 several times he wished that I wasn't on the other side of
17 the hall. But what happened was a reasoned debate between
18 varying points of view and I think it is indisputable that
19 Mr. Scott is right, that a unicameral Legislature will
20 pass more legislation.
21 The other principle I think is interesting is
22 stability. We, in our Constitution, need to provide
23 stability for our citizens. I truly believe a change in
24 leadership and a position this important, and I don't know
25 how often it would change and perhaps Commissioner Evans
62
1 can inform us of that, but if it changes every two, four,
2 or whatever years, I can guarantee you, you will have more
3 of a swing in policy than you would with a bicameral
4 Legislature simply because you have a division of
5 leadership in the legislative area.
6 And as has been said, the issue of turkeys, you would
7 have -- the press is correctly reported, we have lots of
8 bridges, lots of festivals, lots of art centers that the
9 public may not have needed, but we would had have more.
10 We would have more if it weren't for the conference
11 committee and we would have had more if it weren't for the
12 other body. And that's what we always refer to the Senate
13 as, the other body.
14 So I think that when you look back at why we are
15 here, constitutionally, there is a set of principles. And
16 that is, protect the citizen from government, limit the
17 centralization of power and to make sure that policy is
18 well reasoned and after having said all that, and endorsed
19 those principles, I think this is a well reasoned body.
20 And if you are not convinced, vote for this and give us
21 time to convince you. Because I think those principles
22 are fundamental to what should be in the Constitution.
23 And not that we have the best system in the world, I
24 certainly don't want to be quoted as saying dictatorship
25 is the best system in the world, Mr. Scott, but I know
63
1 that was in context. But that a bicameral Legislature
2 here has worked, doesn't mean I have always been satisfied
3 with the result, but this state is in pretty good shape as
4 we go around this state. This state is well run, well
5 governed, whether it is Republican leadership or
6 Democratic leadership, and we don't have much to be upset
7 about with this particular organizational principle. But
8 I intend to vote against it. But if you are not
9 convinced, vote for it and let us convince you.
10 COMMISSIONER EVANS: Yield for a question.
11 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Evans, as an
12 opponent. Are you through? Excuse me.
13 COMMISSIONER MILLS: I'll yield for a question.
14 COMMISSIONER EVANS: A couple of comments were made
15 that I have a question about and not necessarily by you,
16 but one opponent said there is no reason to tamper with
17 one of the three branches of government and I know that
18 yesterday we did indeed tamper with one of the three
19 branches of government in a very significant way and the
20 battle cry of the proponents yesterday was let the people
21 decide.
22 So my question is, why is the battle cry let the
23 people decide appropriate to a major change in the
24 judicial branch but it is not appropriate to a major
25 change in the legislative branch? We're talking major
64
1 changes not just the -- it can be applied to everything
2 that comes before us but major changes as we had
3 yesterday.
4 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Well, I'll be glad to try to
5 address the question. But I would say it seems to me it
6 depends. We are here for major change and if you believe
7 this is a major change, this is a good thing. But I
8 forgot one -- our principle --
9 COMMISSIONER EVANS: Let the people decide question.
10 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Let the people decide. You let
11 the people decide. If your only organizing principle in
12 being here is let the people decide, then you would never
13 vote against any of them. If you are here -- we all
14 wanted to be on this commission, and I respect the members
15 of this commission as much or more than anybody or any
16 group I've been involved in, you're here for your
17 judgment. If your judgment is a bad idea, vote against
18 it. If your judgment is it's a good idea, vote for it.
19 But one other principle I have forgotten, that is elected
20 officials. Now, I've heard a lot of you be concerned
21 about the number of elected officials. And I think it is
22 indisputable, but this proposal reduces the number of
23 elected officials.
24 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Opponents? To close -- wait a
25 minute. Excuse me, Commissioner Mathis.
65
1 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: Well, I don't know how to do
2 this. Do I ask -- since I am a proponent, do I ask for a
3 yield of the question to make a couple of points?
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Well, I'll tell you what we are
5 going to do. We are going the bend the rules and let you
6 speak on the closing along with the closer. Because I
7 think you should not unless somebody raises a point of
8 order, the way we have been doing it. I am going to quit
9 that. But you go ahead and have your say.
10 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: When the rules of the game are
11 clear and everybody plays by those same rules, all people
12 can survive and thrive. When African-Americans weren't
13 allowed to play basketball, you had a very different
14 sport. As soon as African-Americans were allowed to play
15 on the court, according to the rules that applied to
16 everyone else, they survived and thrived.
17 And what I see here are two different courts and two
18 simultaneous games. And I think that gives a lot of
19 hiding the ball, makes a lot of things unclear. I have
20 seen them let one house in the Legislature pass something,
21 knowing that it is going to the other house, and the other
22 house will take care of it. And that is political
23 gamesmanship, it is not governance for the state of
24 Florida.
25 There is an accountability with a unicameral
66
1 Legislature that is not there with the bicameral
2 Legislature and I think a unicameral Legislature would be
3 more diverse and more inclusive. The Founding Fathers
4 where the reasoning was good, was just that. They were
5 Founding Fathers. They didn't address the issue of
6 slavery. They didn't address the issue of women
7 participating in government. But what we have found here,
8 that as we are allowed more diversity, we gain ideas and
9 strength and governance that is good for our state.
10 So I would say that the unicameral Legislature would
11 be better. It would have one game on one court and the
12 rules would be much clearer. The accountability that we
13 are looking at and the issues of separation of powers, I
14 think a lot of that is addressed between the three
15 branches of government, both the Legislature and executive
16 and judicial. But I think the Legislature tends to
17 believe that they are a law unto themselves. And with the
18 two houses they tend to hide things that they are doing.
19 And I also realize, and what I have heard from throughout
20 the state, is that we are dealing with a lot of issues
21 because the Legislature could not deal with them
22 thoroughly.
23 So I stand here as a proponent of the unicameral
24 Legislature and would say, let's keep the ball on one
25 court so that we can move forward and focus on the issues
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS (904) 488-9675
67
1 and not political gamesmanship.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Anthony.
3 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: I rise for a question.
4 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield for Commission
5 Anthony?
6 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Commissioner Mathis, with your
8 concern of inclusion and diversity, do you think electing
9 a smaller number of elected officials for a unicameral
10 Legislature will provide for the diversity of all of the
11 citizens in Florida?
12 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: Yes, I do. I do not think that
13 the diversity of our elected officials is based on the
14 number of elected officials. You have overlapping
15 districts in a number of districts throughout the state
16 with both the Senate and the House. I think if those
17 districts were clearly drawn by the apportionment
18 commission, or whatever body is looking at drawing those,
19 with a mind to the diversity of the state, that a smaller
20 number of legislators could, in fact, be much more
21 diverse, much more responsive than the bicameral
22 Legislators.
23 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: So, you are saying that our
24 state has come that far that we would look beyond some of
25 the things that you're concerned about to elected
68
1 diversity that we need in our state?
2 COMMISSIONER MATHIS: I think that -- I think that
3 our state will go further in the future with a unicameral
4 Legislature, yes.
5 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Commissioner Mills.
7 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Could I ask him a question?
8 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER MILLS: Commission Anthony, I just
10 wanted to clarify where you are coming from. Would it
11 be -- it's your judgment that the result of this is, this
12 lower number, there would be fewer African-Americans that
13 would be likely to be elected to Legislature; is that
14 correct?
15 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Candidly, I'm very concerned
16 about African-American representation. But more so,
17 diversity generally. Our state is a very diverse state,
18 Hispanics, women, minorities, north Florida, south
19 Florida, people from Kentucky now are in the Senate, you
20 name it.
21 (Laughter.)
22 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: You know, that's to strengthen
23 the vitality of our state. And I think that's what we
24 really -- one of the benefits of our Legislature. And I
25 want to keep that vitality that people can come from
69
1 Kentucky and become President of the Senate.
2 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Do you yield to Commissioner
3 Smith? Yes, he does.
4 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Yes, I do.
5 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Obviously, you know, you have
6 tweaked my interest with that concern. Let me ask you
7 this, do you believe that while a smaller number of
8 legislators may result in a smaller number of minorities,
9 it still could end up with the same percentage or larger
10 percentage, which still gives you the type of
11 representation you need.
12 So, in other words, you could have 2 -- 4 out of 40,
13 which is 10 percent, or 2 out of 20, which is still
14 10 percent. Do you concede that that is still a
15 possibility to have the same percentage or even a higher
16 percentage with a smaller number?
17 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Yeah, I stand before you
18 saying that diversity to me is just not about the numbers
19 and not about just racial issues, it is gender issues, it
20 is the diversity of our state, the fact that north Florida
21 Floridians are concerned, and their concerns are different
22 than south Florida Floridians, central Florida, I mean,
23 there is so many opportunities for environmental concerns
24 to be addressed, economic concerns to be addressed. And I
25 truly think that the more voices, and the more opportunity
70
1 that you have to have people to participate in the system,
2 the more opportunity that you have for real policy that
3 reflects our state.
4 And if you want to have a few people that may not
5 have the true concerns of the citizens broad enough to
6 really reflect the public policy that reflects the state,
7 I think you should support the unicameral. But if you
8 want the voices of Florida, the voices of the people of
9 Florida, to grab the microphone and have more opportunity
10 to talk and to be heard, you need more people. And that's
11 what the bicameral legislative process provides.
12 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: Are we still on opponents?
13 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: Question of Commissioner
14 Anthony.
15 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: That is not my proposal,
16 you-all know that?
17 CHAIRMAN DOUGLASS: I understand but you have the
18 floor and he is asking you to yield. Do you yield?
19 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Yes, I will yield.
20 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: The trick by which we do this
21 is ask you a question by saying, Commissioner Anthony
22 would you believe that?
23 COMMISSIONER ANTHONY: Okay.
24 (Laughter.)
25 COMMISSIONER LANGLEY: What has happened in the
71
1 two-house Legislature -- I hate to call it the lower
2 house, but that's what we call it, the lower house, the
3 House of Representatives becomes a training ground because
4 there are more minorities there, they are like 17 to 20
5 over there, and there are more females over there. They
6 become the training ground for those people to later
7 become Senators.
8 At one time here we counted and there were only five
9 or six Senators who had not been in the House of
10 Representatives. So by keeping these two houses and the
11 larger house, you enable those people to come in, run in a
12 smaller district at much less expense and get the
13 experience and either move up in leadership there, or come
14 into the Senate where they are even more powerful, if you
15 want to say that, because they are in a less of a numbered
16 body. So that is always, sir, would you believe,
17 Commissioner Anthony, as a good training ground for higher
18 office and |
