Charter review board will meet with county attorney to consider clarifying home‑rule language after COVID-era EPG concerns

Charter review board member Miss Hall urged the Hillsborough County Charter Review Board on May 13 to amend charter sections 2.01 and 9.01 to remove legal ambiguity she says left the county vulnerable during the COVID response.

Hall said the changes are meant to "clarify and align 2.01 and 9.01 in our charter to ensure that they reflect the constitutional structure we are bound by, to protect the county's lawful autonomy and prevent costly litigation by legal ambiguities." She told the board the Emergency Policy Group or EPG formed during the pandemic "was formed outside the authority granted in our charter" and that ambiguity in those sections allowed it to operate "in a legal gray area."

The county attorney, Mary Helen Farris, said her written memorandum to the board "just sought to outline that I don't think there's any confusion," and offered to meet with Hall to review language. Farris said some entities predated the 1968 constitution and that the Florida Supreme Court in 2017 had, in her words, "said that they would stand against the charter even though they weren't approved by the voters" for those older creations. The board accepted Farris's offer to meet with Hall and directed the two to try to resolve differences before the June meeting.

Board members debated whether to move forward with Hall's proposed amendments. Charter Review Board member Miss Latham said she did not "feel it is necessary" and called the proposal "a solution in search of a problem." Latham moved to reject the proposal; Miss Carlton seconded the motion. After additional discussion and the county attorney's offer to meet with Hall, Latham withdrew the motion and the board agreed to defer final action to the June meeting while Hall and Farris confer and bring recommended language back to the board.

The debate centered on two competing positions: Hall's view that clarifying language would protect the county and taxpayers from future legal challenge and overreach, and other members' view—backed by Farris's memorandum—that the present charter and existing law are not ambiguous enough to require amendment. Board members said they wanted the issue resolved quickly so the board can prioritize other items for possible referral to voters.

The board did not vote to adopt any charter amendments at the meeting. Instead it scheduled the Hall–Farris meeting and asked staff to provide any resulting drafts and materials to members in advance of the June meeting so the board can consider a final recommendation.

A procedural vote earlier in the meeting approved the April 8, 2025 meeting minutes on a motion by Miss Hall and a second by Miss Duroche.

Less critical items carried forward included scheduling and time management guidance for upcoming meetings so the board can focus on items it expects will require multiple sessions.

The board will revisit sections 2.01 and 9.01 in June, after the meeting between Miss Hall and Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Farris.