Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/09/1999 S (EAC Appointments) AuHust 9, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, AUGUST 9, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of ZoninH Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in a SPECIAL SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter (via speakerphone) ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Monday, August 9, 1999 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETI~TIONS'. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. County Attorney opinion regarding appointments to the Environmental Advisory Council. 3. Appointment of member(s) to the Environmental Advisory Council. 4. Adjourn. 1 June 8, 1999 August 9, 1999 Items #2 & #3 RESOLUTION 99-336 APPOINTING JOHN CARLSON, J. RICHARD SMITH, JOHN P. DI NI~NZIO, AND JAMES MCVEY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY CODI~CIL - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order this special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. It's hopefully a brief meeting for the purpose of appointing the balance of the members to the environmental advisory council after receiving some legal advice from the county attorney's office clearing up some questions that we had on Tuesday. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if you'll just pause for one second. Can you hear him, Jim? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Barely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So speak up as loud as you can because we have Commissioner Carter here on this fancy speakerphone thing. MR. MANALICH: Can you hear better now? COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's better. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's better. MR. MANALICH: Real briefly, Chapter 112 -- yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. First of all, don't we need to declare an emergency to have this meeting? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. No, you don't have to declare an emergency. Under the County ordinance governing administration of board proceedings, the chair of the commission may call a special meeting at any time. This is a special meeting, and it has been duly noticed. I appreciate your question, so we can place this on the record. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Now, Ramiro. MR. MANALICH: Well, hopefully -- and I'll answer any questions as you deem fit, but just in general terms, Chapter 112 is primarily focused on economic gain or detriment as far as the conflict rules, and you have essentially two rules. One is the voting conflict rule, and the other one is the rule governing member participation on panels or advisory boards based on whether you have a recurring conflict or conflict which interferes with your ability to perform your public duties. Our conclusions on these individuals that were applicants today is that there is no way just on the basis of a resume that you can categorically disqualify individuals without knowing the particulars. There may be a lot of these people -- for example, some of the land use attorneys, when they applied, that raised an initial concern, but we've received correspondence from them when we informed them of the rule saying that they would avoid conflicts in the cases they take. So, that's why it's so difficult on resumes. So, basically, our advice on this group of folks is given that the ~AC passes on a number of items, many of which would not be, I don't think, directly affecting these individuals, you would be able to appoint any one of these individuals, and they would then have to consult with us to avoid any conflicts arising. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There had been a question about philosophical conflicts. Is that -- has everybody gotten that Page 2 August 9, 1999 resolved to their satisfaction that, for example, using, because he's in the audience, if Mr. Simonik wanted to apply for this committee despite the fact that he's a 9aid employee at the Conservancy, could he sit on this committee? MR. MANALICH: Well, mere partisan~or philosophical-viewpoints do not serve as a bar under Chapter 112. However, with him or anyone else, whatever side of the debate they are on, you have to analyze whether they have, as a result of their employment or contractual relationship, any potential gain or loss from their activities on whatever board you appoint them to. CHAIRW0~h~/~ MAC'KIE: So if, for example, his contract said, get a lot of good environmental laws passed, then you get a bonus, then he would have a continuing conflict. MR. MANALICH: That would certainly, in my opinion, disqualify that person. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if he didn't have something like that, what if it's just, we think you're a great employee, and you'll continue to be, you know -- we'll think you're great? MR. MANALICH: At first glance, that would not be a problem. Again, you know, even with the charitable organizations, one of the things you'd have to look at is, are they engaged in any activities which as a result of that employer contractual person being on the panel, will that in any way result in any economic gain or loss to the organization as a result of their votes? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So -- MR. MANALICH: It can't be remote or speculative. I mean, there has to be that linkage. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, for example, if the Conservancy owned a piece of property -- I apologize, Michael, but I'm just going to use you for an example. If the Conservancy owned a piece of property that would be affected by a decision and Mr. Simonik were on the board, he would have to abstain? MR. MANALICH: He would be -- I think the best advice for him would be to not vote on that matter because of a potential conflict. Now, I think you can even take that broader, and that is, for example, if you have a public interest organization that has a program of acquiring lands to set aside and preserve, for example, that comes to be a bit of a concern. Now, I happen to have had that conversation with some of these representatives just in a hypothetical basis, and the response that I received factually was, well, we can show you around the country where instead of depreciating the values of those lands, it's actually increased it, making it harder for us to acquire. So, that's why it's very fact driven. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: When I -- when I looked at that, I remember Neil Dorrill explaining to me his IBM theory of the conflict law, and it was if I own stock in IBM, can I vote on a decision for the County to acquire computers from IBM, and his analysis is that that was too remote -- COMNi~SIONER CONSTANTINE: It depends on how much stock. CHAIRa~k~/g MAC'KIE: It depends on how much stock, but assuming I just owned the amount I can afford, which is not a lot, then that does not rise to the level of a conflict that would allow me to or cause me to abstain. MR. MANALICH: In general terms, no, because the business associate -- you're prohibited from voting on anything that will inure to the special gain or loss of a business associate, and although Page 3 August 9, 1999 ownership can create a business associate relationship, when you have- shares of stock listed on a national or regional stock exchange, that is exempted from the law, but, again, that's in general terms. I mean, we still have to get specific because there might be situations where your ownership, if it's large enough in IBM, I don't know if Neil ever approached that point or not, but could still, under the -- perhaps create some problems. I mean, these are sensitive fact specific analyses, but I hope that helps to clarify it a bit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there other questions, board members? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, given that explanation, then how does that relate to the people who recently resigned from this committee? MR. MANALICH: Well, that was a little bit different, Commissioner, in that that was a situation where all of those people were -- they were working for firms that were bringing on a regular basis petitions for review by that EAC, and clearly you cannot -- it is under 3137(A) a conflict to be presenting matters before the panel which regulates the subject matter, and petitions of that type are of that nature, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, but my -- my -- the thrust of my question is, why can't they simply remain on the committee but not participate in those particular items? How did we determine that they were going to be with a recurring conflict then and have to stop? MR. MANALICH: Well, my understanding was twofold. One, that some of them chose to not continue because of the loss of business that they would experience. Number two is that it was anticipated that this would be a recurring matter, that this would be happening all the time, at almost every meeting, because the firms that they work for were very involved in those types of projects. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess, while we are asking the hard questions, the one that I wanted to understand too is what was the advice that you gave the planning commission about the three members who are representatives of large property owners? How does this all affect them? MR. MANALICH: Well, on that matter, it had to do with them being able to vote or participate on -- and Ms. Student is a little more informed as to the exact parameters of the subject matter, but it was basically -- I believe it stemmed from the governor and cabinet and density reduction, et cetera, that affected very largely the areas that they had primary ownership or interest in through their principals or themselves, and what we advised them was that they could not vote because it would inure to the special gain or loss of the land holding interest that they either held or were representing, but under the conflict law, they still could participate because the planning commission, like the EAC, has a number of matters that come before it, which weren't just this one. This is just one of many matters that come before the planning commission where those three people would not be affected in the value of their holdings or who they represent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, that would be an isolated conflict as opposed to a recurring conflict? MR. MANALICH: Right, and you are allowed to participate even if you don't vote. CHAIRWOMA~ MAC'KIE: And I guess ~- I'm sorry because I didn't Page 4 August 9, 1999 ask you these questions ahead of time, but what about, for example, the technical working group and other groups, Ms. Berry's committee, do they have these conflict issues? MR. MANALICH: Well, I guess we would need to analyze -- obviously, today, mainly we are lookings'at'the EAC,~but we would need to analyze their -- the subject matter over which they're going to act and who would be the applicants involved. That may be a little bit more problematic because theirs, as I understand it, they are focusing more on a specific topic. I mean, the EAC and the CCPC have a broad range of items that come before them. Here, we have a more narrow mission, but it is broader in the sense that they are looking, as my understanding is, countywide as opposed to any particulars of the county, or, David, correct me if I misunderstand that. MR. WEIGEL: I think you're doing fine. MR. MANALICH: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions, board members? That one, I guess, we'll just have to explore more fully as we go forward. MR. WEIGEL: One note I might make, really more for the record and for the public than for the commissioners, and that is that the review that the county attorney's office does on these subjects, whether it is the CCPC, EAC or for other committees, that ultimately, we interact with the appointees that the board may put on these committees so that those appointees in an informed way can recognize the statutory issues and potential prohibitions that may affect them. It is not particularly a question of the board removing people from a committee because they have a conflict, although that is always the option of the board, and if a record of occurrences came to light to the Board of County Commissioners, they might be advised by the county attorney's office to look into that and make a determination, since any member of any committee serves at the pleasure of the board, but ultimately, if there were to be a violation of an individual committee member of the conflict laws under Chapter 112, it will be a committee member's responsibility -- (Commissioner Carter gets disconnected). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whoops. MR. WEIGEL: Do we still have him? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently, Commissioner Carter is not impressed with that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, we still have four out of five, which is just fine, but at any rate, it would be a committee member who would have the potential for a risk of running afoul of the law. It's not a question of the Board of County Commissioners, either individually or collectively, running afoul of the conflict law in regard to the individual interactions or holdings or benefit or detriment that may come to affect an individual committee appointed, and, again, we've tried to take great pains to provide the earlier June 1, 1999 memo of the cotulty attorney's office to the committee members and to applicants to these committees so that they come into this knowing and in a pretty eyes wide open fashion what the issues are about in this regard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before we move on to the next agenda item, are there members of the public -- we didn't have a registration -- who wanted to speak on this particular item? Okay. So, if it's okay with the board, we'll move on to the Page 5 August 9, 1999 second -- MR. MANALICH: One other thing I would add would simply be that in talking with the commission of ethics' attorney's staff, what they said in this area that you're asking about is that -- you know, the issue seems to be whether there is an economic connection that a particular appointee will have to semi-specific matters coming before the board. The more broad -- what I mean by that is the broader the topic, the broader area affected by the topic, the potential for conflict reduces. The more specific the topic, the greater the economic connection, the greater the potential for conflict. CHAIRWO~N ~AC'KIE: Sort of like the IBM stock question again. I mean, it kind of analogizes if it's a big broad question. I'm glad I'm not the one having to decide. Board menlbers, ready to move on? Oh, you do have a registered speaker on this topic. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Simonik. MR. SIMONIK: I guess I want to speak on Number -- Item Number 1 rather than 2. Michael Simonik with the Conservancy. COMMISSIONER ~AC'KIE: Aren't you going to say you're here on behalf of our 5,000 member, blah-blah-blah? MR. SIMONIK: Five thousand five hundred family members which equates to over 10,000 people in this community. I like to add the 10,000 too. Those are family members. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, there's 190,000 that are not members? MR. SIMONIK: There's probably -- we probably have more dues paying members than elected U.S. county commissioner. That's the way I think of it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's probably true. MR. SIMONIK: I wanted to hopefully try and ease your mind by bringing you some information when you go to select candidates for the EAC, if they're associated with public interest organizations, and I'll name Ed Carlson because he's on the list, and he's similar to someone like me. I have not applied for the EAC, but I wanted to -- and Mr. Weigel can tell me if this is on track or not or tangential or if it has anything to do with this, but about two months ago I wrote to the commission on ethics in Tallahassee and asked them a question and asked -- requested a formal opinion on my question, which was, if I sit on the Naples City Council, if I run for Naples City Council and sit on City Council and work for the Conservancy at the same time, do I have a conflict of interest? Will I have to either quit my job or not run for City Council? Can I do both was the question, and can ~- also, can the Conservancy come and lobby the City Council on items that are not our own petition and can I sit on the council and vote on those items being lobbied on by our president but not by myself? The answer which I'll give to Mr. Weigel, and maybe he can make copies, is that I have no apparent conflict of interest to be a city council member and to work as the vice-president of the Conservancy, as an employed member of the Conservancy, unless we become a petitioner. So, if we have -- if we lobby the city council and I sit on there, I can vote on issues that we are lobbying about that we are not the petitioner, for instance, Hamilton Harbor. I could have voted on Hamilton Harbor while Dr. Guggenheim was lobbying against it, and he would probably assume that I'd vote no. So, it was funny because I was talking to Nancy about this last weekend, Mr. Norris has said that I shouldn't be on the EAC because I Page 6 August 9, 1999 would just carry water for the Conservancy, so -- and she said, I -- I not only can carry water for the Conservancy, but I can drive the City's water truck. So, I thought that was a pretty interesting way to look at it, but ~- and they cite a case, and maybe it was brought up by the attorneys here, but they cite~a=case that~found me not having conflict of interest if I sit on City Council and work at the Conservancy. The director of -~ CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me just a minute. Jim? VOICE FROM SPEAKERPHONE: I have him on the line. Here he is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Jim? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. Glad we got you back. Michael Simonik is talking to us now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. SIMONIK: The case they cite is a conflict of interest case from 1989, and the director of the Chamber of Commerce, the executive director, paid director of the Chamber of Commerce in Miami, Dade County, was elected to city commission, and he was able to do both without any conflicts as long as the chamber did not come forward with a petition for the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of Commerce continued to lobby the city commission, and he sat on the commission and voted on those items. That's what I understand from all this. I'm not an attorney, but I just wanted to ease your fears because there is that level of how much economic gain you get in a public interest group working for them, and I don't have a contract that says I make any more money if we preserve more land. My contract just says that I work for our mission statement, which is leading the challenge to protect and sustain the natural resources of Southwest Florida. So, that's as broad as my contract is, is to work for that goal and that mission, and it doesn't say anything else about things that we do. I guess if -- I would switch it around, because a lot of people think that we would have economic gain if the commission always voted environmentally on the basis that we would think would be the environmental vote. I would say it's the exact opposite. If all of the votes were environmental votes in this county, I might not have a job. So, flip that around because -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. You're giving incentive -- MR. SIMONIK: So, when you start voting, you may get rid of me, but that's the way I look at it. People want to become members because there -- there's an interest for us to be out there because not all the votes are always environmental, and people want something different than we're getting and what's voted on in county commission. So, I look at it the other way, is that by having growth happen the way it's happening and people being worried about it, that's job security for me, and that's the economic gain to me personally. I'd lose my job if everything was fine in the county. So, that's what I wanted to say, and I'm going to hand this -- maybe it doesn't matter in this case, but I just wanted to give that to you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, thank you, because it is good information. It actually puts the question more directly, even than the one we're asked, which is can you be on an advisory board. Not only can you be on an advisory board, you can be on this county commission. Page 7 August 9, 1999 MR. SIMONIK: I could be on the county commission. So, I~m thinking of moving maybe to Marco Island. MR. MANALICH: I haven't reviewed that precedent, but I think that's reaffirming what we told you earlier, which is it's not looking to the political or philosophical position. It's looking to the economic gain or loss connection. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's good. Maybe it will help clear up some of the confusion we've all had. Mr. Hill, would you like to speak? We'd love to hear from you. MR. HILL: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. William Hill, chairman of the Environmental Advisory Council. I want to thank the council for calling this meeting and reconsidering the question of appointees to the EAC. I urge you, obviously, to complete and fill out our board because we do have some very critical issues before us, and I think we need a full complement of technical advisors on the EAC. I would like, with your permission, to ask a question concerning a discussion earlier about conflicts and also to Commissioner Norris' question concerning the resignation of the five members from the EAC. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. MR. HILL: One of the items which they understood to be a problem was the fact that not only would there be potentially recurring conflicts with their corporations or companies that they advise, but as I recall, they thought that their company could not even come before the council with the petition, that, indeed, it had to be presented by a third party. Now, that may have been a misunderstanding on their part, but that was the major item that led to some of them resigning. The other question I have is in our discussion earlier today, the question was a matter of voting. They felt on our council that they were not only recused from or must recuse themselves from the voting, but they could not participate in the discussion, and that, I think, is a major item that I would like to clear up for the future. If a member of the council has a potential conflict, is he only disallowed to vote as opposed to discussion on the matter, and I address the county attorney's office on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the question is -- MR. HILL: Thank you very much for the opportunity. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Thank you for being -- and may I just ask you, in your question, does that -- do you mean if an engineering firm -- (Commissioner Carter gets disconnected). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: High tech., who knows. If I sat on the Environmental Advisory Council and had a law partner had appeared in front of the council, the question is, could I discuss? MR. HILL: That's correct, yes. It was the opinion that the council had on the basis of the correspondence from the county attorney's office that they could not discuss as ~ell as could not vote. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, and then we'll hear from the county attorney. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As described by Mr. Hill, that's the reason for my concern when this was on the agenda Tuesday, is did some of or all of the people who resigned from the commit -- or from the council do so with false information, with inappropriate information, Page 8 August 9, 1999 and that was where I worried about us making those appointments befor~ we had that answer, and it sounds like some of them may have, and if that's the case, then my worry is what if they are still interested in doing that, in participating, resigned thinking that they either couldn't do it or that their companies~--would-somehow~be hand -- have their hands tied. MR. MANALICH: Well, the answer that we provided to those questions was first that the individuals -- these were, again, individuals who they themselves or their companies had petitions that were going to be reviewed by their board, the EAC. Our opinion was and continues to be that, number one, the individual had a conflict; number two, that his company, his or her company could not come before the board and present that petition. A third party hired by the client would have to bring that petition. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, it sounds like that was a correct understanding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they didn't participate -- I mean, that's directly contrary to what Commissioner Mac'Kie just said, is if she had her law partner, they could come, and they -- she could even participate in the discussion. You're now saying no, they couldn't; they would have to get a third person to come present it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, actually, mine was just a question, because when I decided to run for county commission, one of the commitments I made was that no law partners of mine would ever come before the county commission -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- for that exact reason, and I think that's what they are saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to get -- what you've just said seems contrary to the example she just used, and I know, I don't think yours would anyway, but -- MR. MANALICH: My understanding is that -- Marti, you've researched this, but I believe that there are opinions that affect law firms which indicate that law partners cannot present petitions before their partner sitting on a board. MS. SCUDERI: Right, because it's the same thing as presenting to your own board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You need to come to the -- or Ramiro, you can just tell us what she said. MR. MANALICH: Well, I mean, essentially, I think it's -- what we're saying is consistent, that is, a law partner cannot bring before another law partner sitting on a board a petition. Likewise, these -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if that partner recuses themselves? MR. MANALICH: Well, that -- yes, that partner cannot vote. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, but if the partner says I've got a conflict, it's up and watch out. MR. MAND~LICH: That wants to participate? CO~]KISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't my question. MR. 9~%NALICH: Oh, no, they can't -- no, I don't think -- they cannot bring the petition, period. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's important. MR. WEIGEL: And we can explain that in the sense that with the discussions we've had, particularly with the attorney with the commission on ethics, and we also spoke with the attorney general's Page 9 August 9, 1999 office, part of their discussion was that by virtue of a committee member having this employment affiliation with a presenter, ostensibly on behalf of a client, that the presence of the person of the committee member with that relationship may affect the other committee ~members also and ......... CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, you guys would vote for my petitions if my friend showed up, right? I mean, it's not particularly logical, but, apparently, it is the rule. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give me the real life example then where -- because you've said they could participate in the discussion; they couldn't vote. Well, under what circumstance would they be able to participate in a discussion but not have a -- you know, not have a conflict so strong that their business affiliate couldn't participate? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Let's go directly then -- we'll go directly to the CCPC example, with the three parties that have some property interests. The discussion of the item itself, regardless of the presenter, is one which either potentially inures to the benefit or detriment of those three parties involved because it directly affects their land and their land is a high -- a relatively high percentage, and it's a low threshold that's all that's necessary, but theirs is significantly over the threshold of percentage of conflict based upon the ethics commission's opinions that have previously been rendered. Therefore, regardless of who is the presenter, it's the issue itself which prevents them from going forward. Yet, the ethics commission has told us that they themselves, if they file the appropriate disclosure fOrm, may, in fact, participate in the discussion. Let me give you -- it's curious, but these are the very examples we worked with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems funny that the -- curious is a good term. It seems funny to me that the state would interpret that that would be less of an influence on the process. They may have some property or somehow be related to it, and they can get involved in the discussion and try to sway the discussion, but if someone who works in the same company, and we talk about law firm and partners, but, I mean, if you go to some of these engineering firms, they have hundreds of employees, but if one of those other hundreds of people show up, that's too strong, and that doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense. MR. WEIGEL: That's a very good point. Where I -- I'll let you get in in a second, Ramiro, but where I mentally distinguish this is, is apparently where you have a paid clientele coming forward before the committee, for instance with the EAC members previously who their firm, whether -- the committee member themselves are not representing this person, but their firm brings someone in and comes before the committee on a specific project, the remunerative factor apparently is somewhat elevated in review as opposed to the mere more esoteric concept of the CCPC members where they have a property interest, it will be affected, their specific property is not a developmental project or petition immediately before the Board of County Commissioners, but their property, along with a larger sector, will be affected. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris, and then Ramiro. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just make sure we're clear. Let's say someone from Wilson, Miller, for example, is on that board, then nobody -- Wilson, Miller as a company cannot bring a petition before the board; is what you're saying? MR. MANALICH: That's correct. Page 10 August 9, 1999 Now, the distinction we've -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can see why they got off the board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. That's right. MR. MANALICH: The distinction that we were making though between the CCPC participation versus the EAC~no~participation is that in the CCPC context, it was a broad policy ty~e matter, not a specific petition that they were discussing. In the EAC context, it was, as David said, a paid client for a specific project, a direct nexus. Frankly, in that one, you could argue whether they could participate or not, but our advice was don't participate because the likelihood of a complaint is far greater when you're dealing with narrow, specific items about a petition versus a broad 9olicy discussion, and that's why -- where we drew the line, and we told them our advice is you not participate in that context. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, that's a tough question. Any other comments or discussion? MR. MANALICH: I mean, I think -- if I would emphasize one thing here, is that we in the county attorney's office are trying to apply the law neutrally here regardless of whether the applicants are one side of the question or the other. We're trying to advise you in a manner that gives you the maximum flexibility under the laws to the range of appointees that you can give, because I think that's what everyone is desirous of, but mainly 112 is focused, not on philosophical, but on economic nexus of private special gain or loss. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other questions? *** If not, we can move on then to the next item and the last item, which is appointment to -- we would have four additional members; is that right, to appoint to the Environmental Advisory Council? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We appointed Michael Coe before -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Having appointed Mr. Coe or Colonel Coe, I would -- just want to jump in and say how thrilled I am, frankly, that Ed Carlson is willing to give his time to this. He -- he knows more about these NRPA issues than anybody else I can think of, and that's one of the most important things they're about to do, and generally could not be more qualified, so it speaks for itself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to nominate J. Richard Smith who is in Golden Gate Estates and, obviously, an area that will be impacted; all kinds of decisions they're making. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thanks, Tim. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I've got another person who looked ~- and I don't know this person, but John DiNunzio who is a conservation club -- who's a sportsman, those, you know, people who are out in the field using these areas that we are trying to preserve, they -- the hunters and the fishermen and that kind of stuff, that fact that he represented that group looked to me to be a qualification that would be worthwhile. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also like James McVey. COMMISSIONER BERRY: McVey. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, is that good? He got you every time there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, he speaks faster, you know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, we have Ed Carlson, John DiNunzio, James McVey, and was it Richard Smith? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any -- do we need one more? Page 11 August 9, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To approve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, would you make that a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that a motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I get a second? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. MR. WEIGEL: For the record and for my record, is that three or four persons that you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was four. We'll do it again. MR. WEIGEL: Michael Coe was -~ COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wait -- do we get a total -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He was done Tuesday. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we get a total of four or a total of five? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We get a total of five, including Colonel Coe. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, well, then we've got one more to go. MR. WEIGEL: I've just heard three today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Here's what I've got. Ed Carlson, John DiNunzio, James McVey and Richard Smith. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that your motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is my motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I've just been given a number for Mr. Carter if you wish to call him back. Evidently, he's been cut off again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. How would I do that? Oh, I guess you don't want to announce his phone number, do you? MR. FERNANDEZ: It wouldn't be a good idea. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You have to do nine first. Here, let me do it. It's a girl thing. Somebody sing the Jeopardy theme. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I beep, you beep. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was trying to put my hand over it before they announced where he was. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does everybody know where Jim is? (Gets Mr. Carter back on the phone). COMMISSIONER CARTER: Hello. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hi, Jim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Hey, we've got this five hundred million dollar organization that might be able to get a conference call to work. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We are trying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Line of the day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Efficiency at its highest. We have a motion and a second on the floor, Jim, unless you have questions. At this point, we had a motion for Ed Carlson, John DiNunzio, James McVey and Richard Smith as nominees -- the four additional positions on the Environmental Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's three out of the four that I had, so I'm okay with that. The only person I had put there was Page 12 August 9, 1999 Ashley Lupo. She was from -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- Marco, and she was a marine biologist by background, but I can go with the others. I really don't have any problem with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC~KIE: Okay. All right. Then we have a motion and a second. Ail in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes unanimously. Page 13 AU6 - 9 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-336 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, on January 27, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted Collier County Ordinance No. 99-6 creating the Environmental Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 99-6 provides that the Environment Advisory Council shall consist of 9 members; and WHEREAS, there are currently vacancies on this board; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following members are hereby appointed to the Environmental Advisory Council, with their respective terms of office as follows: MEMBER CATEGORY TERM EXPIRES John Edwin Carlson Technical Advisor April 30, 2003 J. Richard Smith Technical Advisor April 30, 2002 John P. Di Nunzio Non-Technical Advisor April 30, 2003 James L. McVey Non-Technical Advisor April 30, 2000 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: August 9, 1999 ATTESTs:, ~. · BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Q'.W:I~d 3~1 ~OCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ ., .', ...... .,..,, '~.':' ,%4 , .',, ~' h~~~ 'APO~Oved.as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel ~.) County Attorney DCW/kn:h;public;kay, advisory boards August 9, 1999 No further business, we are adjourned. Thank you, Jim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's been a pleasure talking with you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, no doubt. Thank you. Bye. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:40 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF / SPECI L DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTRO , ' DWIGHT ~E. BROC~ CL RK preset%ed or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn Breehne Page 14