re Vote on Broward County Auditor's Future Role in Charter Votes

Trying to make some sense out of something I'll be voting on tomorrow along with tens of thousands of other Broward voters, I spoke this afternoon with Dee Platt in Broward County Commissioner Sue Gunzburger's office today, and she was her usual helpful and friendly self, reconfirming the info I had about the June 10th Broward County Commission's meeting, where the question of having the Broward County Auditor weighing in on charter questions in the future was first broached by Commissioner Ilene Lieberman.


That process by County Auditor Evan Lukic and his staff would begin immediately if approved in tomorrow's vote for November's charter questions. http://www.broward.org/auditor/


As always, I wish everyone I dealt with in local South Florida government was as professional and friendly as Dee Platt!

She's such a pleasant breath of fresh air to deal with, quite a contrast to many down here who are always secretive, un-communicative and generally of a mind to thwart the public's interest in getting the true facts out.


(At last Wednesday night's Hallandale Beach City Commission meeting, a HB resident and his son who are involved in a dispute with the city regarding some property the family owns, and possible city fines, spoke at length about the myriad problems they've had with HB City Hall in getting the city to comply in a timely fashion with FOIA requests they made in January, for what seems to be years worth of documents, in order to buttress their legal argument.


Even if the specific request may've been -perhaps- a tad unwieldy or wide-ranging, given what I heard that night, you'd think the city could do better than only manage to produce 8 pages of docs in 7 months.

The city promised to do better in the future with regard to the FOIA requests, and City Manager Mike Good promised to meet with the resident in question to get the matter dealt with in a more expeditious fashion, though they are still at loggerheads over the larger issue.)


As much as I unload on the Herald on my blogs, and trust me, what I've written and posted here and at South Beach Hoosier is far less than 10% of the problematic things that I notice and discuss with family and friends -and reporters- on a weekly basis, even I'm surprised that the Herald's Editorial Board is recommending a vote tomorrow in Broward County in favor of an issue that the paper has NEVER actually written about.


Ten weeks after the June 10th meeting -nothing.


Before contacting Ms. Platt this afternoon, I double-checked my sources -again- and unless the Herald has printed something and suddenly deleted it from independent databases, they haven't written word one about this issue, compared to what the Sun-Sentinel's Scott Wyman has written, though I wish there'd been more in his pieces, too.


Having written earlier this afternoon about Broward County Democratic honcho Mitch Caesar appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, I'll be watching C-SPAN's coverage of the DNC, since I'm more likely to see friends of mine from back in D.C. there, than on the nets, who, no doubt, will be constantly on the prowl for camera shots of celebs or wanna-be celebs!



By the way, FYI, in case you hadn't noticed it, Thursday night is shaping up as a real schedule logjam, since that night is also:

a.) the Dolphins last exhibition game at the Saints, on Channel 33,

b.) the U-M season-opener against Charleston Southern at Dolphin Stadium, on ESPN360.com, whose video player I downloaded over the weekend, so I can watch it, and

c.) Obama's acceptance speech.



As to the vote itself tomorrow on the Broward County Auditor's involvement in future Broward County Charter issues, I'll be voting AGAINST it, since based on what I've seen with my own eyes at the Broward County Charter Review Commission's work, http://www.broward.org/charter/ the subject of numerous past posts here.


Personally, I want the county's voters to have sources of information that are NOT tied to the county or any person on S. Andrews Avenue, regardless of supposed independence.

None!


Nothing personal against Mr. Lukic, whom I'm sure is very honest and dedicated, I just don't like the idea of government employees weighing-in on votes, as my recent letter to the State Attorney General about the Broward County School Board's recent antics makes abundantly clear.

(The Herald's Nirvi Shah posted something about my concerns at their Naked Politics blog on August 12th.)



Following my conversation with Ms. Platt this afternoon, I sent an email expressing my own concerns about the Auditor issue to a member of the County's Charter Review Commission.

They sent along a response which I excerpt here and agree with 100%:


"I believe this is an attempt by Commissioner Lieberman to undercut several of our initiatives, including the MTA. The Charter Review Commission took a leadership role on the issue of public transit and tried to fashion the strongest transit board we could under county and state law—I wish we could have done more. I hope you will join me in stopping any inaccurate estimate concerning the MTA from reaching the November ballot."


Exactly my thoughts!


Read the specific details of November's MTA proposal yourself at: http://www.broward.org/charter/pdf/res_001_mta.pdf


I spoke in favor of the MTA proposal at the last public meeting on April 9th, though the transcript is not, of course, 100% accurate.


Coincidentally, that very afternoon, immediately after I spoke, HB Mayor Joy Cooper, speaking on behalf of the Broward League of Cities she then headed, urged the CRC to defeat the proposal and NOT let Broward County voters decide the issue for themselves in November.

This from someone who is the mayor of a small Broward city that is the absolute epitome of South Florida's traffic gridlock.

A city that has nobody from it on either the Charter Review Commission or the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and whose own city hall never thought to contact the SFECC and request a formal presentation be made in its city in 2006 or 2007.


This, despite the fact that a future FEC commuter train might help Hallandale Beach more immediately than just about any other city in Broward County, and help reduce traffic along both 1-95 and U.S.-1 to points north and south, especially to downtown Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.


For those reasons and many more, I urge you to vote NO on the Auditor question in Broward's election tomorrow.
___________________________
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=30036&sid=9



This is from the June 10, 2008 meeting of the Broward County Commission.

Minutes are not 100% accurate.



115. MOTION TO CONSIDER adoption of a Resolution 2008-370 to place a proposed amendment to the County Charter on the August 26, 2008, Primary Election which requires the County Auditor to prepare a financial impact statement for all proposed Charter amendments. (Commissioner Lieberman)



ACTION: (T-5:50 PM) Approved. (Refer to minutes for full discussion.) VOTE: 8 – 0. Commissioner Rodstrom was not present.
______________________________

Item Number 115.COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Move 115.

COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN-RUBIN: Second.



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. Been moved by Commissioner Lieberman; seconded by Commissioner Wasserman-Rubin, I think?



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Keechl, followed by Commissioner Jacobs.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: A couple of questions. I like the concept, I understand the concept.

What I want to -- before I vote on this, I want to discuss two brief things. Number one, is there a legal ramification from the County Auditor or whoever is attempting to codify the amount, making a mistake?

And the second question is should it be the County Auditor as opposed to OMB, Kayla?

So I think -- I think that the concept is absolutely accurate. The whole idea behind this, obviously, as Commissioner Lieberman has said several times, is so that the people of Broward County know the financial ramifications of what they’re voting on. It’s just the unintended consequences of this I’m just a little bit concerned about.



MAYOR WEXLER: Okay. Commissioner Jacobs, followed by Lieberman. And please recognize, and my apologies, I know Commissioner Lieberman, this is you item that you brought forward. I’m excited about getting at the end of the agenda here. Commissioner Jacobs.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: You know, I forgot, too, and I would defer to the Commissioner that introduced it, because –



MAYOR WEXLER: I know, I just –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- I would want it if it was me, too, so.



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. I should have called on Commissioner Lieberman first.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: The reason this item is in front of you, as you may recall, the state has a provision where if there is a state Constitutional amendment, people should know what the cost is of what they’re voting on. That’s all this does. And, Commissioner Keechl, you raise a good point about OMB and the Auditor. I actually thought through that issue. The reason I thought about the Auditor is because the Auditor, I believe, is more independent and is perceived as more independent, besides actually being more independent. And so, if you want people to look at the number and say, you know, this person didn’t have a dog in this fight, but did the best job, I don’t think anybody can quarrel with Evan. We get Evan’s unbiased audit opinion, whether staff likes it or not, whether we like it or not. And so, in trying to see who the most appropriate party was, because Evan is independent, we just approved his five year contract and he’s here for five years, I wanted to give this as much independence as I could. And, frankly, it’s truly no different than the way the state does it. It’s not done through an outside consultant, it’s done through a state agency that provides that number.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: So -- so let me just follow up on that, if I may, Mayor. Under the state process, does it go -- does it go to Supreme Court for review for the accuracy? So what -- I just want to make, and I think we’re almost there, what happens is we have a ballot question and someone -- someone attacks it saying, the Auditor’s numbers were too low and therefore the people didn’t realize the appropriate financial ramification, or is that not an issue?



MR. NEWTON: It’s not an issue.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Okay.



MR. NEWTON: We haven’t come across any -- any case law wherein the estimate -- understand, it is an estimate –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



MR. NEWTON: -- was attacked as a reason for -- for –



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Invalidating.



MR. NEWTON: -- invalidating the –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



MR. NEWTON: -- ballot -- ballot initiative.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And every one of these items would say estimated impact. Because, as -- you know, as we know, we can only give our best estimate. Depending on how something eventually comes forward, it could be more or less, but at least it’ll give someone a basis. And, I guess because of Amendment 1 and everything that we’re going through with Amendment 1, and -- and I think it was Commissioner Jacobs, we were at a -- I tend to think it was Commissioner Jacobs -- when I had said something about if all of these people who are coming in to us now and saying don’t cut this, don’t cut that –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: -- wasn’t it you? I feel obligated to say to these people, did you not believe us when we said there was an impact? So, because the people have said less government, we want to know the cost, it just gives them the cost. And -- and for me, Evan’s the most impartial.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Commissioner Lieberman, just to close this out, I’m going to support this item. I just think that looking at some of the ballot questions that came out of Charter Review, I don’t know how Evan -- and he’s a very talented person -- is going to put -- and I’d like hear from you briefly -- how you’re going to put a number on some of these things.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: In some cases, he’ll probably do what the state says, which is indeterminate.



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Indeterminate. Exactly.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Well –MAYOR WEXLER: He can use those words. Commissioner Jacobs, and then I’d like Evan to –



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: That’s exactly what my concern was, because in my conversations with Evan, there are some things that are indeterminate, that we can’t really wrap our arms around, and there are some things that I have a concern that we may attempt to do that and be incorrect. And be perceived as -- as skewing it, even though he is our independent auditor.

And then, finally, the one issue that hasn’t been mentioned here, though, is does Evan feel he can do this? And in my conversations with him, he said, depending on the questions, he may lack the expertise in his staff to be able even -- he doesn’t have the -- the -- what is the word -- well, it’s late in the day; I’ve lost it. He may not have the subject matter expertise on his staff and -- and have to go outside.



So, in his budget, you know, how do we handle that, if it comes up? And you’re right. I mean, I have a list of -- where is it? Right here. The -- the Charter Review Commission questions, and, you know, some of these things, I wonder whether Evan’s going to be able to do that. So right away we’re looking at some issues.



And so, I guess, Evan, can you quantify whether, A, it should be you or the Office of Budget that should actually do this, in your opinion? And then second of all -- and do you have a list of the Charter Review questions that are coming up immediately?



MR. LUKIC: Yes, I have them.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: You do? Okay. Because I was going to carry them over there. Then there -- there are ten of them that I think we need to understand whether, if this passes, and I believe it’s going to, do you need additional outside consultants of some sort in order to be able to bring forth the recommendation on an estimate?



MR. LUKIC: I think -- I think -- I haven’t gone through the analysis of all of the questions -- some will be either the cost will be insignificant, and I certainly would have to work very closely with the County Attorney’s Office to be able to articulate our position, because you do -- words are very important in these things.



I am glad to hear that the word indeterminate was used by the state, because in some cases, the items before us, the cost would be indeterminate, and I wouldn't want the misuse of a word to discourage people, or influence people's decisions in the wrong way.

So it would be closely working with the -- with the County Attorney. Also the Administration, because the Administration, particularly the Budget Office, has resources I don't have. There may be occasions, and I haven’t gone through to look exactly, there may be items that might involve an estimation process that I don't have skills to do. In which event, I would have to have some outside help to do that. For instance, could involve some economic forecast or something like that. So those issues would be there.



I mean, I’m -- I’m willing to do what the will of the Board.

It -- it will be challenging, but I believe that with cooperation of the Administration and the County Attorney’s Office it's doable. So it’s -- it’s very -- one of the things we did discuss, it's much more akin to what the Budget Office already does. And I do understand your concern about the perception of independence, real -- real or perception.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: So, if, to follow up, the very first question that the Charter Review Committee puts forth is the transit -- what is it -- the Transit Authority –



MR. LUKIC: That’s correct.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- is that -- I mean, so, right off the bat, is that something that we have, I guess, amongst the three, is that something that you feel that you’d be able to quantify, or do you need to go outside?



MR. LUKIC: I -- I -- the way I would approach it is I’d first look at the item, I’d look at what the intent of the Charter Commission was. If I could determine if they had put some limitations on what was meant by creating the authority, I might be able to give an estimate. If they haven't, or they haven't defined where the --where they authority may go, it would be a question to talk about legal counsel is, and we’re simply talking about creating authority, and there may not be much cost to that, but long term, there may be a significant cost. It depends on how -- what the intent of the charter was and where the authority goes.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right. So in that case, because it would be indeterminate, would -- would it be deemed, I guess, appropriate to do that? Because are you talking costs near term or long term? There’s a lot of other questions out there when you start to answer this, and you’re putting this -- as you said, words matter.

So I guess I’m supporting the item, but my concern is that which Commissioner Keechl raised, which is even if legally we can’t --someone can’t go after us for saying the wrong thing, the perception that we skew it because we’re looking at it short term, long term, or however we choose to do that, I would think that we would, as a Board, want to err on the -- on the more conservative side of that. And if we’re not sure, and the Auditor and Attorney and the Office of Budget are not sure, that we err on the side of it’s indeterminate, and that we not shy away from the ability to sidestep that issue.



MR. LUKIC: Like I said, every issue from my office would be in consultation with the County Attorney, because it’s not a simple -- it’s not necessarily a simple indeterminate or non-indeterminate; it’s really defining -- making sure there’s a clear definition of what was meant by the -- by the Charter Review Commission, and what that would mean.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Okay. So, I guess, then, finally, as the item passes today, I would be interested in knowing that you take a -- just an interim look at it and just let us know if there are any of these questions that you think you need to go outside of existing resources in order to be able to make a determination.



MAYOR WEXLER: Thank you. Commissioner Lieberman.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Yeah. For me, I don’t see this much different than the way Evan does an audit. When he does an audit, he has to go meet with the department, he has to get data from the department, they provide him with invoices, they provide him with ledgers, they provide him with a ton of documents, which he then takes back and analyzes. This is the same thing.



It doesn’t concern me that he may not be a transit expert, because I expect that what he would do is ask the necessary questions to get the data in hand. And he’s got a range of things he can say. He can say “difficult to estimate,” “indeterminate,” “estimated between this range and that range.” But for me, it’s better than going to the polls and guessing. And since the state has already taken the lead in doing this, why would we not want to give our residents the same opportunity?



UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Keechl.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Commissioner Lieberman, I’m going to support this. but I have -- I have some concerns, and you haven’t alleviated them. To me, the -- our Auditor does a great job, but there are times when he audits things that -- that are not in his area of expertise, and we disagree with regard to what he is auditing. I think that some of these questions are -- and I think he’s being honest -- are outside his area.



Having said that, with the -- the concerns that we have expressed, I think the Auditor will be very careful with regard to the number he comes up with when he’s going through this process, working with the County Attorney. The more -- obviously, the more often we say indeterminate, the less it really –



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: It doesn’t –



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: -- gets us towards our goal.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: -- it doesn’t resonate with the voters.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: So, you know, we can do it. And I’ll support it.



MAYOR WEXLER: All right. Mr. Lukic. I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: I didn’t know he was (inaudible). I was just going to point out that some things that the Charter Review Committee, just because we’re on them, bring forth are so lacking in data, and -- and I -- at the risk of -- well, it wouldn’t be the current Charter Committee, but they brought forth something that didn’t have any real logic. It said -- used words like even the appearance of and things that even the County Attorney had difficulty quantifying what we should do. So that’s -- that’s my concern, Commissioner Lieberman.

I support the item. I’m just concerned that -- that -- that where we don’t think we can really iron this or lay this down, that we -- we stick on the conservative side of it and say we don’t know, it’s indeterminate.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Lukic. I’m sorry. I’m just joking.



MR. LUKIC: Just –



MAYOR WEXLER: Mr. Lukic.



MR. LUKIC: Just a point of clarification. With respect to -- with respect to auditing versus analyzing future costs. One is looking at -- and when we do our reports, we look at data and we look at existing information, prior history, actual financial information. What we’re looking at here is a little different. You’re really looking at forecasting. Forecasting and auditing are little bit different thing. You have less -- less concrete examples, necessarily. Some of it will be easy. If you’re -- if you’re going to add, for instance, there was a proposal in there for a while adding two Commissioners. That would be pretty easy to estimate what the cost of Commissioners are, because we simply take what the cost is today and -- and can forecast that out. There’s other ones that are much more nebulous in terms of the outcome, require different forecasting skills, and it’s not simply auditing. So I just make that point.



(COMMISSIONER EGGELLETION LEFT THE ROOM.)



MR. LUKIC: The second part is, it is extremely important about the legal side of it, to make sure that -- that we stay on the legal side. Having said that, you know, it’s not impossible. We can do it. Other people do it. I just tell you there’s -- it’s a little bit of different bent on -- on how things are done, from my perspective.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Mayor, I’d like to move the item, but I also want you to understand it --I expect that if this passes Evan would be getting numbers from the Office of Management and Budget. I mean, it’s really -- I’m not expecting him not to get information in before he puts the number together. So I’m going to move it.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Gunzburger.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: Perhaps a way to -- to do it on those that you don’t have an exact number, indeterminate, I don’t think, tells the voter anything. Because it could be as little as a hundred dollars, it could be –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: He could always put a range on it.



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: That’s exactly where I was headed.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Well, that’s what Evan said.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: That’s -- that’s -- he said –



COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: I -- I was thing, you know, put a range, between one and three million, that would get their attention, or whatever.



MR. LUKIC: The problem is in the details. Indeterminate, to me, if I can establish a range, I’ll establish a range. But when I conclude that it’s indeterminate, it’s because –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: It’s because you can’t figure it out.



MR. LUKIC: -- I can’t establish a range.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: Right.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: I would also encourage you to look to other counties that may have created the same experience –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And the state.



MAYOR WEXLER: -- for some data, as well, and –



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And the state.



MAYOR WEXLER: Yes.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: This is our model. This is not rocket science.



MAYOR WEXLER: Commissioner Jacobs, did you have a comment, or are you --



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: No, I’m just -- I’m really sensitive to the issue that -- that we not be viewed as trying to skew an outcome of a ballot question. And that -- that’s -- I’m really -- I just am real sensitive to that. So I think what Commissioner Lieberman has outlined is a way for us to get there. And, you know, at the risk of sounding repetitive, it’s, to me, taking a more conservative route on this issue, and I’m okay with it.



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And, Commissioner --



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: So, with that, do you have a second or not?



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: -- Commissioner, I have the same concern you did. I actually really gave a lot of thought to who should be generating the number to put on the ballot, which is how I keep coming back to Evan.



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: Right. But, you know, Commissioner, we do things that are so straight, and it is what it is, and it’s not anything different --



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: And some (inaudible).



COMMISSIONER JACOBS: -- and then they go and skew it off in another direction.



MAYOR WEXLER: We’re coming to the end here. Let’s not get all excited about --



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: Second.



(Inaudible cross-talk)



COMMISSIONER LIEBERMAN: I think the Vice Mayor second my motion.



COMMISSIONER KEECHL: (Inaudible.)



MAYOR WEXLER: She did. The item has been moved and seconded. I have no public speakers. All those in favor, indicate by aye. Opposed, like sign.


VOTE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

-------------------------------------