Open and Absent

Mike,

Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in a day and as I'm hosting 80 people for a reception tomorrow evening, my energies have been directed elsewhere.

It's not that I didn't want to be there. I would have attended if it had been at all physically possible. Keystone is a long way from Fleming Island and I had attended the FI  Republican meeting on Monday.

If I had been able to attend, I would have asked these questions (based on this and prior blogs I haven't had time to respond to):

1) My knowledge of the third amendment (to remove the 2 at-large members) is that the effective date is the day of the election. If that's true for this amendment, then what is true of the amendment to reduce commissioner salaries? Is it effective the day of election, too?

2) Based on that answer, then I have to follow up to ask CTLAC if the effective date of the 60% amendment is election day, too? They thought enough of the 2 at-large to take it away as soon as it was voted on. Did they think to make the salaries and 60-percent amendment effective the day of the election just like that one? Hmmmm, probably not. It wasn't a part of their agenda.

3) I have to go back and find where you stated it Mike, "There is no evidence that a seven-member County Commission will better serve the citizens of Clay County.  There can't be because all that can be offered is theory, supposition and opinion.  There's also no evidence that the current system of five members, one elected by each of the five voting districts in the county, would serve citizens better."

If that's true, then the most prudent course of action to protect and honor Clay County citizens is a blended form of government: 5 single districts and 2 at-large memberships. It's the best of both worlds.

Karen Lake

Mike,

I feel for you and your group. You have a hard row to tow. Basically, you have to convince people to let go of their right to vote for a Chairman and an at-large representative. Their single-member representative may, or may not, listen to them. Oops. Oh well. He or she doesn't like your issue, you could always write letters to the editor.

Karen Lake

Karen, you know that CTLAC is not my group and that I'm not associated with that or any other political action committee. Hopefully, you were just too busy prepping to play hostess to notice you missed the truth by about 180 degrees on that.

Everyone who knows anything about local politics knows Durwood Smith, of course. I've met a few others of the group, though don't know any of them closely. I've seen enough about them in public meetings to understand that blogging attacks on CTLAC's motives under the variety of usernames on MCS are about as close as that earlier 180-degree miss on the truth.

If you didn't have that drive from Keystone, (admittedly a tedious one twice in three nights for a mom and imminent-hostess) you wouldn't have even had to ask your questions. They'd have all been answered as a matter of conversation at CTLAC's Wednesday night meeting. I didn't take notes, but I'll answer them best I can for you.

Your Question 1. The proposed amendment to eliminate the planned expansion of the Board of County Commissioners will become effective upon passage. The amendment about County Commissioners salaries follows state law, which says a sitting Commissioner's salary can't be cut during a term. Commissioners Stewart and Conkey will continue to draw their $60K-plus salaries until their terms end in 2010, whether the standard BCC salaries are reduced per the previous Charter Review Commission-sponsored amendment or CTLAC's proposal.

In fact, under the CRC's pay cut plan, members of the County Commission will still be in line for regular October pay raises as long as they can keep the county's population growing. CTLAC's proposed amendment would establish the annual salary at $37K and any increase would have to be approved by a vote of local citizens, not that stupid bureaucratic formula from Tallahassee.

Your Question 2. Assuming that answer would spur your need for the follow-up, the answer would be no. The amendment that would require future amendments to the Clay County Charter to be approved by 60 percent of voters instead of just a simple majority will become effective, if I remember correctly, at the next county election. But if it had been worded differently, to become effective immediately upon passage, what difference would it make?

It will become practical law as soon as the final ballot is counted, but there's nothing to effect until there's an election. Or are you suggesting that it should somehow be applied retroactively to change the results of previous elections, or even the election in which it's adopted? Here I'm guessing, but CTLAC might have thought about that somewhere along the line, realized how ridiculous an idea it is and didn't see a need to include it as part of their Wednesday night agenda.

Your Question 3. (I hunted and hunted for a question in here, and it doesn't have anything to do with CTLAC. But since you would have "asked" at the meeting if you weren't too busy in Keystone, I'll respond for you.) Again, common sense would dictate a flaw in logical premise of your "question."

If there is no empirical data to prove A, and there's no empirical data to prove B, that does not prove anything about C, much less the fact that it is "the most prudent course of action" or "best of both worlds." In this specific example, your C is just like A and B and every other letter in the alphabet of theories about how government should be structured. Just another opinion, impossible to prove.

One thing you got right is that I have a hard time ahead of me between now and Election Day. I'm running for County Commissioner against your very well-financed former CRC buddy, and it's tough running a campaign about issues instead of letting it turn into a contest of who can afford the most signs at intersections or a whizzin' contest with attack dogs.

You did that 180-truth thing again about me having to convince people how to vote on the any of the Charter amendment proposals, though. That's CTLAC's chore. I've got opinions about each of the amendments, though, an usually happy to share them.  I've got opinions about lots of things.

One opinion is that we should dispense of the "if your single-member district commissioner won't listen to you, you're screwed" argument. Anyone, regardless of their level of satisfaction with their particular district's elected representative, has the right to appear before and address all five of their County Commissioners at any regular BCC meeting.

Besides, Karen, suppose a year or so from now you have some issue that concerns the County Commission, but you're not happy with your district rep's response. If you come to me about it, do you really think I'm just going to say "Oops. Oh, well." and tell you to go away? That I couldn't care less about you and your issue concerning the County Commission because you're registered to vote in Keystone Heights and that isn't in District 3; that I'm only concerned about the issues of government that are specific to my relatively small number of Clay County citizens who actually voted for me?

Geez, that's an awful jaded opinion of how County Commissioners will act in the absence of two more commissioners elected at-large.  I sure hope, for all Clay Countians' sake, it's not an opinion borne from witnessing the actions of your own political buddies.

Michael S. Mann

First of all.......touche'

Out of everything that you said I have one single question, actually it's two.

1. Are you kidding me?

2. There is actually a bonus or pay increase for the BCC if they keep the county growing?  There is actually motivation for the BCC to increase their own personal wealth by supporting what amounts to development?

Forgive me, there's a third question

3. Are you kidding me?

Marsha:

Your Question 1. It's a joke, Marsha, but nonetheless true.

Your Question 2. Salaries of County Commissioners are currently determined using an equation formulated in some cubicle in a Tallahassee office.  The pay raise-through-growth plan was actually developed for Florida's counties that do not operate under a Home Rule Charter.

Charter counties, like Clay, give citizens the right to make decisions like how much they want to pay their Commissioners and when, or if, their salaries should get a bump or (please not until my term is over) decrease.

Even though the Amendment local voters passed in the last election calls for County Commissioner salaries to become 5/7 when two at-large Commissioners join the Board, those 5/7-paychecks will continue to grow right along with the county's population.  In other words, unless voters adopt the new amendment establishing the pay scale, our Commissioners will reap greater personal financial reward by continuing to mismanage the county's biggest problem - growth.

Your Question 3. C'mon, Marsha.  You gotta be laughing by now.

Michael S. Mann

Marsha,

Yes, Mike is right and it's what the CTLAC has been preaching for years. Commissoner's salaries are based on a state formula, the main component of which is population numbers, and the commissioners are the ones that make the decisions about population growth. This provides for automatic pay raises.

The significance of the CTLAC amendment is that it gives citizens control over the salaries of our part time commissioners. We are a Charter county and have the right to set our own salaries.

I had NO idea, and I bet there are a gazillion people out there like me who were unaware of this.

I understand the motivational forces in private enterprise that would do such things, but Goverment Officials?  How can they represent the people if they have an incentive for personal gain?

In my profession, I would lose my license if I got any sort of financial compensation off a real estate deal other then the payment for the report.

It's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

I was speaking to someone over the weekend about the whole pay incentive issue I wigged out on earlier in this thread.  I was told that the BCC aren't the only ones who are paid this way.  School Super, Board Members, Principals etc.  If that is the case, then if its wrong for one, it's wrong for all and I now don't know how I feel about it but I am going to figure it out. 

Mike, Pioneer, were you aware of this?

I'm not certain about the salaries of School Board members or principals.  The salaries of Clay County's constitutional officers, though, are based on that state guidelines that reward population growth.  One, the Superintendent of Schools, also receives a substantial increase over that state-recommended amount.

Unfortuntely, public officials aren't required to have a license that could be revoked in cases of obvious conflict of interest.

The County Commission is the government board that is supposed to manage growth.  Do a bad job, get a pay raise.  Do a terrible job, get a bigger pay raise.  The other government officials aren't in a position to manage growth, but each has to respond to it, no matter how ill-planned.

Michael S. Mann

Principal salaries are not determined by state formula, but are at the discretion of the superintendent and approved by the school board.

While school board members salaries are determined by state formula, our Clay County board members amended theirs slightly so that they would not be making more than a beginning teacher.

Mike, I follow you on the first question. I knew the answer to this one but it didn’t occur to me in my “busy-ness” state before the weekend. Your response to the second question:

Your Question 2. Assuming that answer would spur your need for the follow-up, the answer would be no. The amendment that would require future amendments to the Clay County Charter to be approved by 60 percent of voters instead of just a simple majority will become effective, if I remember correctly, at the next county election. But if it had been worded differently, to become effective immediately upon passage, what difference would it make?

It would have been huge had CTLAC decided to make the 60-percent amendment effective the day of the election as they did the reduction in the commission by the at-large positions. A 10-percent margin is a 20-point swing and that’s huge for an election. I’m sure they understand this.It’s not – as you suggest – a ridiculous idea to hold them to the 60-percent amendment the day of the election. If they were confident this amendment was going to pass with flying colors, then why didn’t they hold themselves to the same higher approval standard it will take others to meet after the election is over?

It appears they want to dictate public policy without being subjected to it themselves. It appears they want their cake and eat it too.

It will, I daresay – be interesting to see what future charter amendments these folks come up with because they stand the risk of losing anything they put in front of the voter, too, going forward. Because there is not a groundswell movement for any of these three amendments, I daresay, all of them will have a harder time this election cycle simply because there’ll be more people who vote who don’t understand the issues.

That could be a plus or it could be a minus. I guess we’ll see.Mike, you said:

If there is no empirical data to prove A, and there's no empirical data to prove B, that does not prove anything about C, much less the fact that it is "the most prudent course of action" or "best of both worlds." In this specific example, your C is just like A and B and every other letter in the alphabet of theories about how government should be structured. Just another opinion, impossible to prove.

Here is some data, from which you can draw your own conclusion. CTLAC has said that single-member districts will make running for office more available for the “little guy.” Single-member districts will hold down the cost of campaigning. You and others, have also said, “Why didn’t the CRC let single-member districts have a chance to work?”You’ve said that as a county commissioner, if I have a problem which my commissioner is not compassionate to, you’d listen to my complaint. To the former, more power to you Mike. But even today, it’s not happening. Many times commissioners on the dias will defer an inquiry to the single-district commissioner. No one wants to get involved in another commissioner’s territory.

If you put that out to Commissioners Conkey, Bush, Bradley, Stewart and Rutledge, I’m sure they’d all tell you that’s true. They do not step in when there’s a complaint in another district. Even after an initial complaint has been made.

I think you’re being very naïve in an effort to sway opinion toward single-member districts when they, in actuality, are meant to be divisive and territorial. That is the unintended consequence of single-member districts.

Single-member districts cannot be all things to all people. It doesn’t solve all of the problems in the county. For me, it’s not the final format this county needs as a government structure.

Here are the numbers: 2006 Election Cycle (first cycle of single-member districts):

There were 7 candidates for Commission District 4 in 2006. (These figures are as of 8/31/06)

Noakes received 158 votes and spent $8,209 which equated to $51.96 per vote.

Scotty Taylor spent $19,349 and garnered 869 votes for $22.27 per vote.

Rick Bebout got 619 votes and spent $11,832 for $19.11 per vote.

Chereese Stewart spent $18,611 and got 1,241 votes. She spent $15.18 per vote.

Trott got 254 votes and spent $1,241 for an average of $4.89 per vote.

Steve Allain spent $452 and got 549 votes for $.82 per vote.

In the School Board race which was countywide (at-large):

Dr. Simmons spent $16,237 and got  5,264 votes for $3.08 per vote.

Leslie Dougher spent $25,000, received 8,500 votes for $2.94 per vote.

Incumbent Lisa Graham got 13,751 votes, spent $31,444 which was $2.29 per vote.

Incumbent Carol Vallencourt got 11,427 votes and spent $20,000 to retain her seat at $1.75 per vote.

Charlie Van Zant, the absent school board member, got a whopping 14,321 votes. He spent $22,000 which was $1.54 per vote.

Janice Kerekes spent $3,671, got 5,428 votes for $0.68 per vote.

Karen Lake spent $2,760, received 8,200 votes for $0.34 per vote.

The moral of the story? Single-districts spend more money on less votes than do at-large districts. When you run at-large, there are more people to spread campaign dollars through.

It goes back to accountability. The more people who vote for you, the greater the level of accountability. It's not "feelings." It's not "perception." It's the numbers.

Spread the numbers over a bigger population and you have greater accountability.

Karen Lake

Karen, the sponsors of the Charter Amendment that would raise the requirement for approval from 50 to 60 percent understand how it will affect any of their own future efforts.  It was discussed at last week's CTLAC meeting.

Durwood Smith said this: "If it's a good Amendment, it will pass."

I'm still struggling to understand your concern with the effective date of that particular Amendment.  If it becomes effective immediately, that will be when the election results are certified by the Supervisor of Elections.  You make it sound like, as soon as that's done, the Supervisor would immediately turn around and apply it to that day's Amendment proposals to see if they meet the 60 percent requirement.

Suppose the percentage Amendment draws 55 percent of the vote.  Under your scenario, Ms. Kirkman's crew would have to pass the Amendment, apply the new standard retroactively to Election Day's results, and void the Amendment because it didn't pass by 60 percent.  That, of course, re-establishes the 50 percent requirement for passage and means the Amendment wins again!  But that forces another retroactive application, and it loses, which means the old stand is applied and the Amendment wins again!  Pretty soon, somebody would figure out your theory of how the Amendment should become effective creates a problem that CTLAC's version doesn't.

It will become effective at the very first opportunity available, the next election, so can we stop trying to confuse the discussion of that Amendment with talk about effective dates?

As to the arguments about single-member district elections, a single sample from a county in transition from at-large elections isn't enough to establish a trend, much less proof that it doesn't work.  Cost-per-vote stats are interesting and reflect a multitude of things, none of which change the fact that district races are cheaper to run than at-large races.

The cost of at-large elections is big and getting bigger, giving an obvious advantage to candidates whose campaigns are financed by big-money local special interests' network of contributors, or out-of-towners collected and bundled together by lobbyists.

That same, ready-made campaign contribution list gives an advantage to candidates in district races, too, but candidates who couldn't tackle a county-wide bare-bones campaign might give it a shot in a district race.  Shoe leather and face-to-face contact with voters is a lot less daunting when you've only got to knock on 20 percent of the county's front doors.

Elections shouldn't be a race to raise money, because that doesn't prove a thing about a person's potential performance as an elected official.  District races are the best way to encourage a variety of candidates, not just those with access to bundles of big money, to offer their service to the people of Clay County.  A variety of candidates will offer voters the opportunity to choose a representative who will help change the "we serve growth" attitude of local government back to the "we serve everyone" that doesn't forget regular folks.

The district territoriality practiced by County Commissioners has always existed, whether Commissioners are elected only by the voters of their districts, by all Clay County's voters, or appointed to a vacancy by the governor.  It's common government practice, and manners, that one Commissioner defer to a concerned citizen's district representative.

But your example is about someone who has gone that route and seeks to address a Commissioner other than their own.  Even in the absence of finding a sympathetic ear based on traditional practice, the ultimate remedy is being able to address them all at once.  That won't change because there are no at-large members of the Commission.

The traditional territoriality should absolutely end at the point a citizen appears before the full Board.  If an issue is raised, it should be decided on its own merits, not the opinion of the district Commissioner where the issue originates.  At that level, a person should be a County Commissioner and use their own best judgment.  If not, they aren't doing their jobs.

Michael S. Mann