Pact Formed - Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights

Asking for political donations on MCS is a classy touch.  Somehow, Roy, I don't see this particular PAC having to worry much about raising enough money to "educate" everyone. Dial 1-800-LOBBYIST.

Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights is a nice title, though my first impression was it sounded a little like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the ACLU will be coming to Clay County.  I think those folks are busy protecting other kinds of voters rights.

When you solicit MCS blog readers to donate to the education you could provide for them right here for free for Citizens for the Protections of Voters Rights, just what particular voters rights is your PAC protecting?

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

I think I may need to go back to my English comprehension classes for some refresher training.

I just don't see how you going out to tell anyone that is willing to listen to your explanation of why you don't like these amendments is protecting my rights as a voter.

Would you care to elaborate on that, or do I need to make a donation first? 

Mike Heemer

One Mann, As you already know, we will find out who wants to protect who from what as soon as the first financial reports are filed by the PAC.  It is much more of WHEN we find out than WHO we will find out. Anyone who follows Clay politics can probably already name the "usual suspects".  Call me Pollyanna, but wouldn't it be grand if each voter decided on their OWN what was in their best interests? From the BCC all the way to the Prez. money (or lack thereof) is a drving force.  This PAC will be no different. 

I know my grammar, spelling and proofreading are poor, but I did catch the PACT rather than PAC in the title.  Freudian slip by the poster?

Thanks Rlyons for providing information to the public about a newly formed PAC.  The blogs is a great place to reach citizens who are concerned with their government.

OneMann, wow. . . you really came out swinging on this one.  A much different tone than the recent blogs about civility on this website. 

I think at least 52% of Clay County would say that a voter's right to vote for three of their Commissioners, including the Chairman, is a right worth protecting.  A PAC so-named to protect those rights seem only fitting. 

It is obvious that you don't give validity to the rights of voters which currently exist in our County Charter.  You go so far as to invoke the name of black civil rights leaders to belittle the importance of this group's work.  I can only hope that if you are elected you will honor ALL the rights and privileges granted to the citizens of Clay County, including the ones that you don't agree with personally. 

Also, the notice that donations would be accepted was, obviously, to raise money to spread the information to places other than blogs.  As you understand from your own campaign, it unfortunately can cost money to spread your message to the citizens you are trying to reach.  Mike, your campaign website may as well be the MCS blogs - so the idea that this PAC couldn't use MCS for its efforts doesn't make any sense.  The PAC came to the blogs for the very purpose of giving out informatin "free of charge."  Until now, I thought sharing community information was why we were here. 

Upon reading about the newly formed pact, which has given me great concern. A pact is an agreement between 2 nations. Now we are considering an elected leader of Clay County by default or with no challenger. With our pact with another nation established I can only think of Iraq where the leader had no oppostion. Have we now changed the name of our county to Bagdad, Fl with our sole elected leader? His vision of our future? His sole leadership? All we need now is a 99.9% voter turn out and we will equal them.

I sure hope Bush doesn't hear about this he may take out our county.

I like this statement, "This issue is not a political party issue, but an issue concerning good government in Clay County which will lead us into the future."

If that is true, this is a path I would rather avoid in a democracy with a supreme leader.

I think I'm still missing something here.

How did being able to vote for three commissioners suddenly become a 'right'? It sounds to me more like an opportunity. If the CRC had put forth having only one 'at-large' or not having an elected chairman would our rights have been abused because we couldn't vote for 2 'at-large'?

How about my right to vote for Pizza (flown in from NY) and Diet Pepsi being served at BCC meetings? The only 'right' here is the right to vote. What you can vote for is determined by people exercising that right to vote.

I understood perfectly the reference to civil rights leaders. The initial blog makes it sound like life as we know it will be over in Clay County if we don't support this new PAC and we need to call in the big guns to make sure that doesn't happen.

I have no gripe with people forming PACs and doing business they think needs to been done. What I have a problem with is those groups standing on the street corner telling me how bad life is going to be if I don't follow their philosophy and how much they are doing for me, the poor down trodden voter.

And oh by the way, could you give me some more money so I can do this again tomorrow? This in my opinion is a whole lot different than asking for donations to help in running for office. Notice I said ask for donations, not sell your soul and the office you are running for.

Don't blow smoke in my face and tell me it's fog. This is not about voters rights. It is about not wanting someone to vote yes on three amendments that may make the November ballot. Just tell it like it is and don't try to hide behind some title that makes sound like something it isn't.

Here's an idea, use the new Thrasher move. Send out letters to all those people that are signing the petitions, tell them how stupid they are for believing all the trash this other group is putting out and get them to revoke their signatures. Then the amendments won't make it to the ballot and we poor voters will be protected from these monsters that are trying to step on our rights.

Actually I thought OneMann was being pretty civil and quite humorous.

Mike Heemer

Gee, Margo, I thought I was quite civil, and at least a little bit funny, especially considering how tacky and out of place I feel asking for donations for political education (which really means buy advertising) purposes really is here at MCS.

Since I have a memory that stretches back into the '50s and '60s, when fighting for "voters rights" often involved things like bigotry, murder, kidnapping, assault and unwarranted jail time, this new PAC's name caught my attention.  Really, it has absolutely nothing to do with which side of a local political issue the PAC supports.  The name's just funny in the historic context.

"It is obvious that you don't give validity to the rights of voters which currently exist in our County Charter."  Can't figure out how you reach that conclusion, Margo.  We've got some elections coming up this year.  I eagerly awaiting the voters' decisions.  Seems like you and the new donation-seeking PAC are arguing against the validity of rights under the Charter.

One of the rights granted by the Clay County Charter is the one that says regular folks can initiate a proposal to amend the Charter.  That's what will be on the ballot this year.  Despite that guaranteed right, you seem to think we should be stuck with the 2006 vote, invalidating voters rights to make another decision in 2008.  It is a new time, with new perspectives provided by the experiences of the past two years, new issues on the ballot and a whole new election.

Now, if Lyons, his buddy John and the Citizens for Protections of Voters Rights want to include that as part of their ad campaign, I might chip in.

Michael S. Mann

1.  The Florida Div. of Elections does not show there is a PAC for CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF VOTERS RIGHTS. 

2.  The address/telephone number of this mysterious PAC is the same as the REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CLAY COUNTY.

OneMann, the initiative process is part of a democratic process that, albeit imperfect, has served our country well.  Nope, I don't have a problem with the initiative process. In fact, the initiative process resulted in a form of government that I think is good for Clay County.

Finder, one reason we have a Charter, state constitution, etc. is to protect the rights of the people.  The contents of the Charter comprise minimum rights you have as a citizen in this County.  If the Charter provides that you get to vote for three commissioners, then those are your "rights."  If the Charter didn't mean anything, people wouldn't try so hard on both sides to amend the Charter.  So yes, you have rights.  No, not rights to pizza from NY, (although that would sound good at lunchtime).  Some people take those rights seriously and would work hard to preserve them.    

The PAC is not standing on street corners telling people how bad things will be.  Best I can tell, the PAC started about 24 hours ago.  The CTLAC is the group urging change to the Charter . . . or else! 

If this PAC feels strongly about the form of government that exists in our Charter, more power to them.  If people want to challenge the system by petition (also in the Charter), sounds great too.  It doesn't make either side evil.

Solo - I think we need another 'verily' statement on this one.  Include something about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - no donations needed to read/learn.

Maybe it could be the second act of our play!  This is really silly.

Thanks,
JudyB

Alabayea,

The phone  and address are the same because the organizer of this PAC was the Chairman of the Rebublican party in Clay County. The Republican party's PAC info isn't current as the law requires.  There is a new chairman, but I don't know his name.

Alabayea, the state just may not have had time to enter this new political action committee into its computer files.  Give 'em a break.  They're government workers, for gosh sakes.  And the similarity in the addresses of the local GOP and this newly-created educational PAC shouldn't suprise anyone.

The behind-the-scenes Clay County powerbrokers view a five-member County Commission, all elected from their own individual districts, as potentially far more difficult to influence.  The addition of two Commissioners (who must wage costly countywide elections financed by this same relatively small group) significantly increases the opportunity to exert that influence in county government.  And, of course, there's that new four-year chairmanship that, while in the hands of the benevolent may do no harm, is rife with potential for extending that back-room influence.

People in power do not willingly give it away.  That doesn't make them evil by any means, but that is why they want those two new Commissioners.

Of course, I could be wrong and if enough people reach into their pockets and donate, maybe I'll be taught different by those noble protectors of my rights.

Michael S. Mann

Margo;

Please, I don't need a lesson on the constitution. I asked a pretty simple question. How is this PAC protecting my rights?

The Charter says I can vote for 2 at-large (one of them to be the chair) and district 3 is up for election this year. No one is trying to stop me from doing that so I don't need protection.

The Charter says that citizens can put amendments on the ballot. CTLAC is trying to do that. If they succeed, then I'll be able to vote on them also. No one is trying to stop me from voting on those either. So again I don't need protection.

Call the new PAC what it is. It is a PAC to either stop the amendments from making it to the ballot due to not enough signatures, or stopping them from being passed if they do make it to the ballot.

Don't try to hide behind some OORAH protecting my rights rubbish. What they really want to do is to defeat the CTLAC initiatives. That is NOT protecting my rights as a voter. I have yet to hear anyone say that I can't vote.

Mike Heemer

What gives me concern and has not been discussed is the suggestion that the County Manager report to the Chairman.

In Jacksonville where they have a true Mayor he has oversight by the council such as the budget and other matters.

In Clay County they want to elect a weak Mayor who will also be his own oversight.

Now I have been attempting to see where that gives the citizens checks and balances but have fail to see how that would happen.

In the single member district all Commissioners are equal and hold an equal balance on the Commission and have oversight of the County Manager.

All discussions with the County Manager and an individual Commissioner including the new Chairman, whom he would directly report to, is not under the open meetings requirement.

The potential for back-room influences.

Maybe that's why they decided on the 2 additional positions. Instead of the suggestion for the voters to consider that they put in the Charter a mayor's position and one that we could vote on. One that would be truly responsible to the county as a whole and would have the oversight of the Commissioners. To ensure true checks and balances in Clay County's government.

Finder, perhaps I am not being clear.  Yes, the PAC does not want the CTLAC's initiative petitions to pass.  You are correct.  The PAC wants to preserve the rights of the voters and the system of government under the current Charter.  Noone is hiding the ball or hiding behind some "OORAH" of voters rights. 

I suppose people could say the CTLAC is hiding behind some "OORAH" of term limits and accountability rubbish in government when all they really want is single-member districts.  That wouldn't make sense either. 

CTLAC wants one thing.  The PAC wants another.  Its pretty simple.

Margo, you are being perfectly clear. I understood exactly what you said.

You just made my point. CTLAC wants one thing and the new PAC wants another. The issue is that neither one of their desires has anything whatsoever to do with protecting the voter's rights.

It is the voters' right to get amendments put on the ballot. How do you see this desire to subvert that as protecting my rights? What you are really saying is that the voters are idiots, don't know what they are voting for and should be stopped from voting on the amendments because you think that what we have now is the best way to go.

If the current system is best, then let CTLAC get their amendments on the ballot and let the voters decide. If the majority thinks the current system is the best it will remain so. If they do not, then it will change because they want it to. In the mean time you still haven't protected anyone's rights to vote.

I only have a right to the current system because it was voted in. If a change is voted in, then I have the right to vote for the new system in the following election.

This is really a matter of semantics, but I'm just hard headed enough that I don't want to let it go yet. This just sounds too much like 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help'. I'm from the PAC, I'm here to protect you. From who? Is some bad person out there trying to stop me from entering the polling place and exercising my right to vote for or against anything that is on the ballot?

You can call it a PAC for stopping CTLAC, you can call it a PAC to keep the idiots from changing the way it is, you can call it a PAC to whatever, but you shouldn't call it a PAC to protect voters rights because it does NOT do that.

Mike Heemer

I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is not a polticial matter. I am no longer the Chailrman of the Republican Party of Clay County.   You are correct it is right for the voters to express their own opinions.  Our only purpose is to make sure the voters are educated on BOTH SIDES of the issues and the facts of these three ammendments.

We challenge those opposed to what the Charter Rwview Commission and the voters approved to debate at any time or place.

And again, this IS NOT a Republican, Democratic or Independent issue it is for better goverment for Clay County to lead us into the future.

Rlyons

Again, the same question. Why put it under a name like Protection of Voters Rights?

Why not 'PAC for a better Clay County Government' or some such name? My guess is that 'Protection of Voters Rights' has a better ring to it and will make it more likely that people will donate.

I keep hearing about how the CTLAC is so dishonest and is not forthright in their communication. Your group doesn't sound like you are any better or any more honest in your approach.

And that is my vote! I don't like it one bit, no sir, not one little bit. Write that down as one against. 

Mike Heemer

One NO Corporal Captain.

lol 

You caught me! I forgot to give credit to one of my favorite MASH episodes. 

Mike Heemer

Mike H,

I think you're onto something. Maybe the Citizens for the Protection of Voter's Rights need to wage a reversal campaign and send letters to those citizens who have already signed petitions to place the removal of the two at-large candidates on the ballot, a la John Thrasher.

It could prove to be a successful strategic campaign initiative.

Political pundits understand that a larger, uninformed voting population come out for a presidential election more than at any other time. Where the 2006 primary turned out 20 percent of the vote, a 2008 general presidential race will turn out 70 percent of the vote. And they are largely uniformed. That means, they don't know their a** from a hole in the ground.

So many of them (as much as 40 percent of the electorate), did not vote in the 2006 primary that decided the addition of the two at-large members.

So along comes the 2008 General election and CTLAC has placed 2 (plus one coming) on the ballot where as many as 40 percent more of the electorate will be voting.

CTLAC understands the numbers, Mike H. They've placed these ballots before so many more voters who don't follow the MCS blogs. These voters don't care until the last minute what the hell is going in the U.S. of A. much less Clay County. If they can get it on the ballot, they know it'll pass.

BECAUSE A LARGELY UNEDUCATED VOTER PASSES AN AMENDMENT DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, MIKE HEEMER.

It just means that you can get anything passed in a General Election because the numbers are there.

What I hear you saying, is that you're willing to bank Clay County's future on a largely, uninformed voting population.

I'm not willing to leverge our future against such odds under any conditions. We need to know where we're going. Our quality of life depends upon it.

Karen Lake

Key;

I'm glad you said on TO something rather than ON something.

Don't misunderstand my comments about the new PAC. Whether I agree or disagree with their message I can respect their efforts. They (and you?) are at least involved and trying to accomplish what they feel is an important task.

Not having any real firsthand experience of 'how it used to be' I don't have much background to compare it to. What I do have is lots of information from the posts I've read here on MCS. There are lots of them that give both the pros and the cons.

As things stand now, I've pretty much made up my mind which way I think it should be and plan to vote that way on Election Day.

I hear what you're saying about our sometimes voters. Many are like 'Christians' that attend church on Easter and Christmas, figure that covers their obligation for the year and don't know Genesis from Revelations. Many of them just pick a box to mark when they walk into the booth having no idea what the heck they are really voting for.

This PAC understands that just like CTLAC does. Don't you think that might have something to do with the name selection? Heck they could have named it 'Voters against CTLAC Amendments' and gotten their point across right from the get go. With a name like that there wouldn't be any questions about what they were trying to accomplish.

I have no beef with what they are trying to accomplish. My beef is the title of the PAC. Is that picking salt out sugar, or as I used to say prior to trying to be at least a little more PC, picking fly sh.. out of pepper? Probably, but it just felt like a sharp stick in the eye when I saw the initial post on MCS.

My feelings on this are not just them. I don't like it when people or organizations cloak their agendas in fancy names that imply one thing when they really mean something else. I just take that to be deceptive at best.

Hey, if they think the Thrasher move might work go for it. Although I think it might be a little late in the game. Don't those letters have to be filed by the 28th of this month? It may also be a bit expensive. They probably don't have as deep a pocket as John had.

Mike Heemer

I don't need my voters right's protected and I find it insulting that some group thinks I do.  I was not for changing to single member districts, but we will never know if that would have worked or failed. I was not for adding two seats either. I think all this shifting of "power" is a waste of time and energy.  We have a lot of other problems that really need fixin' Do the subjects traffic and new property tax revenues come to mind? I for one am weary of the back and forth of the ammendments.

As far as deep pockets go Mike H. I think you will be surprised at how very much money they collect in a very short time. I bet it's money from many of the same folks that fought going to single member districts and that show up up on selected candidates financials.  What do they say...the usual suspects? Look at the old PAC, the new PAC and the local financials. Just connect the dots after the next reporting date.

Right now, I am singing off key "Money makes the world go 'round" from Caberet?? as I walk out the door for yet another dee-light-ful commute.

I couldn't have phrased it better, Key.

"So many of them (as much as 40 percent of the electorate), did not vote in the 2006 primary that decided the addition of the two at-large members."

I can't think of a better reason to sign a petition to put that amendment to eliminate two planned at-large County Commission seats front and center (OK, right after the District 3 County Commission race) on this year's ballot.  Another 40 percent of the electorate will be able to vote on the issue.

See, I think that's a good thing because I don't make the assumption that the 40 percent of new voters in this November's election will have any trouble distinguishing a personal body orifice from a hole in the ground.  That's the arrogant kind of perspective of the general public that permeates government and those who run it from behind the scenes.

It amazes me how often plain ol' regular citizens get called stupid.  Even more amazing is why it's so difficult for the people who call us stupid to understand why we don't like it.  If you can't convince some to quit calling you stupid by reasoning with them, asking them not to and then telling them not to, sooner or later you might have to man up and punch 'em in the nose.  That's called an election.

"What I hear you saying, is that you're willing to bank Clay County's future on a largely, uninformed voting population."

Even if I accepted that premise about how poorly each individual has prepared themselves before voting, I'd still rather bet on the commulative common sense of that 40 percent than invest the county's future in the hands of the same relatively small number of people who've been responsible for the county's past performance at managing growth.

If someone in that 40 percent of new voters who'll be looking at this particular issue want to cast their vote, they will be doing it based on whatever criteria works for them. To judge that from afar is incredibly insulting.  But, hey, us regular folks have been called stupid before.

Michael S. Mann

I read with much interest rlyons' formation of a committee to inform the unwashed masses of Clay County.  He states in the fourth paragraph of his blog "the other amendment being challenged concerns the  commissioners pay..." He goes on to claim the  opposition  to the Charter Review Committee's recommendation is to single out our commissioners and limit their pay.  The entire time Mr Lyons was lobbying to have the change from five to seven members, he kept insisting the current budget amount for five would simply be divided  among seven.   This would insure no  additional tax burden.   I questioned him regarding this at a South Clay Republican Club meeting and he assured me, and others present,  that to limit the increase in salaries was the Charter Review Committee's intention and their legal right under the Charter form of government.

This is the same man who assured the residents of the Ravines that their were many people waiting to gooble up the Ravines and reinstate the golf course.  There is no one interested in buying the Ravines.

I fully understand that we all have our biases, but to have recurring misinformation coming from the same source should make one question the original premise of the argument.  Could there be a hidden agenda?  The original premise here is truthfulness and honesty. 

Ann 

A little Friday afternoon debate with Mike Mann. From Webster's: 

Stupid-1:Very dull in mind 2: showing or resulting from dullness of mind.

Uninformed-1:not informed 2: lacking knowledge or information.

First and foremost, I have not and will not say someone is stupid, Mike. Especially a voter. There is a ocean of difference between not having the information you need to make an informed decision and saying someone is dull in mind. As an observer, I think it's fair to say someone lacked information to make a choice but is not OK for me to make a judgment about a person's mental capacity. I don't know what that is.

In your prior posting, you referred to voters as stupid, not me. I respect the voting public as I suspect in the next 10 months you'll learn to respect the voting public in ways you cannot understand today at the end of which time, you probably will not refer to a voter as "stupid" (even in jest). I am sincere about that statement.

Secondly, if you're going to place the amendment reducing the commission by two at-large voters in front of 40 percent of the electorate who didn't vote in 2006 then it's only fair to place the amendment which increased the commission by two at-large in front of the same voters and see which way that population decides to take the commission.

Come back to MCS in mid November and share with us your experience of non-informed and informed voters, Mike. I'll certainly be all ears and interested in what you have to say.

OK Karen, my feet are sore but my mind is still sharp, so I'm up for a Friday debate.

First, you're right.  Stupid was my word.  I guess I picked it to use, 'cause after years and years of hearing the folks involved with government talk down to everybody about how "uninformed" the rest of us are it just felt like we were being called stupid again.  My bad.

Second, c'mon, Karen, that's one of the silliest things I've read in a long time.  Fairness is playing by the rules.  The folks sponsoring the amendment to remove the two planned at-large commissioners are playing by the rules.

Heck, if you didn't like the rules, you were in a position to do something about it a couple of years ago.  Your Charter Review Committee could have recommended allowing a minimum number of years before an amendment could be altered in any way.  But, then, if that was the case we wouldn't be having this discussion about what to do with those two new Commissioners, would we?

Michael S. Mann

That's pretty funny, Mike. The only way I've been involved in government was to serve on a couple of volunteer committees. I don't think that constitutes being part of government. At lease let me pick up a paycheck or something...if serving on a volunteer committee is the only requirement, then you'd have to include yourself in the same group you're admonishing about - allegedly - calling people uninformed.

I'm involved. Yes. I'm engaged in the process. Yes. And luckily, so are you and Bill and many others.

Fairness is playing by the rules.  The folks sponsoring the amendment to remove the two planned at-large commissioners are playing by the rules.

If that's true for the group sponsoring this amendment, then it's true for the group working to keep them on. I hope you'll remember that going forward. The old adage, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander," applies. I hope I don't hear CTLAC cry "fowl" - oh whoops - "Foul" play in the days ahead.

Nice to see you're in a good mood this evening, Key.  Be a good night to hold this kind of conversation with our feet kicked up and enjoying another beautiful Clay County winter day's sunset, wouldn't it?  Geez, I love it here, and love my snow confined to postcards and the evening news.

I don't think anyone's accused the opponents of CTLAC's 5/2 Amendment of not playing by the rules.  If anything, I'd think it would be exactly the opposite.  The supporters of the two at-large Commissioners are the county's political movers and shakers, the folks who brought us to where we are today.  If anything, they're playing by the rules because they are the folks who've written the rules of the game.

Instead of continuing the debate on what did happen and why, and what should happen and why, and who did or should have done what and why (which is all pretty much a rehash of the same material by now), how about a change of pace to what it means in more practical terms?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, CTLAC's amendment fails to win the majority of votes in this year's election and the scheduled expansion of the County Commission continues as planned.  Rob Bradley is elected the first full-time, four-year Chairman of the Board.

Now, Karen, gaze four years ahead, to the end of the first term of the 5/2 hybrid Commission.  From your perspective as a supporter of that configuration of representation, what will be different or better in Clay County than if the Amendment to abolish the positions does win?  (I like Rob's sense of humor, so I'll give you that as a point in your favor.)

Michael S. Mann

Mike,

I agree, tonight's winter sunset was amazing. Perfect setting for a great conversation. Of course, out here in Keystone we watch the sunset and follow it up with a bonfire on the lake. It prolongs the conversation long into the evening.

Rob rocks! No doubt about it. (And remember, he's a freshman commissioner, he's bound to have some growing pains but the learning curve will be short!)

What I see is that for the first time in Clay's history, we'll be able to set an agenda and put a face and a name to important issues. The one uppermost in my mind is the withdrawal of water from the St. Johns. Outside transportation, I think this is a quality of life issue that needs all the muscle we can manufacture to compromise our way out of.

Here's the scene:

Two County Chairmen go to Tallahassee. They both deliver this message, "Look, science doesn't support this withdrawal." A rotating County Chair says it once and then comes home. Next year, a different chairman shows up that legislators haven't seen before. The next year, the same thing happens again. For five years in a row, Tallahassee legislators could deal with five different Chairmen (taking into account the re-election of county commissioners every four years and House of Representatives every two years. Senators have an easier campaign schedule). There is a disconnection, a discontinuity in that format.

A four-year chair has some leverage to deal. He/She says, "Hey look, this is my (along with many other county's) number one priority and I'll be back over and over again until you deal with me."

Legislators are human beings too and want to know who they're dealing with. Perfect example, it would have been nice at the most recent North Florida Regional Planning Commission Water Summit to have sent a four-year Chairman to represent the voters of Clay County. He/She could have delivered Clay's vision for the St. Johns River because 1) the vision has been established and 2) he's going to be around long enough to follow it through. Why?

We all elect him. He had to tell us that was his priority.

Rob's sense of humor is only surpassed by his intelligence, Mike. I'm sure he'll do his homework. He will have read the JCCI study I alluded to earlier today titled, River Dance: Putting the River back in River City. He will have talked to staffers at St. Johns River Water Management District to see where they're coming from. He will have gathered information from independent sources. He'll find out who has authority over the river. He will have made contacts in Tallahassee to further Clay County's cause. That's what leaders do. Leaders need time, Mike. Government runs by consensus. We have to give our Chairman time to do his/her job.

A rotating chair does not allow time for good leaders to do their jobs.

Much has been said and misrepresented about the two at-large positions (on both sides). I am a simple kinda girl. I like to frame things so that they make sense to me.

Here's my framework:

I want my single-district commissioner to have his/her hands on the pulse of my district. This is an elected official who needs to be able to tell you what roads need paving in their district, where the drainage problems occur or how residents feel about the heir exemption law. This person should know the nuts and bolts of their district and bring that perspective to the Commission.

I also want a couple of folks who are watching out for the county as a whole. Up north, you guys have a lot of paved roads. You also have a lot more traffic. (Truth be told, you guys have gridlock.) There are very few paved roads in McRae but garbage trucks are tearing up what's there. There's few transportation dollars and many, many needs. One rural district commissioner is going to have a hard time convincing four urban commissioners to spend a dime on unpaved roads when the money can be used to ease gridlock for so many more people in the north end of the county.

She/he has to get elected, too. If not her/him...someone else.

Two at-large commissioners understand this. Two at-large commissioners say, "We have to spend a something in McRae."

I truly believe things will work smoother in longevity with the 5/2. It's kind of like we get a chance to take a deep breath, exhale and say, OK, what do we need to do to get this county rolling in the right direction. That's what the 5/2 format means to me.

Thanks for the conversation, Mike.

 I wondered how long it would take Ann to get involved. I must let everyone know that   if I said the sky was blue she would say it was black.

Now to answer her. I did speak at South Clay Republican on this matter. I also said it was the intent of the CRC to lower the salaries of the commissioners. so there would not be the additional expense put on the taxpayers. We took the total salaries of the five commissioners and divided it by seven. So the salary package would remain the same. The only increase would be a slight bump for the Chairmen, to cover expenses and the benefits package for the two new commissioners. We did not hide that and I did not hide that at South Clay. Being a Charter County gives the County through approval by its citizens the ability to change the salaries of its elected officials. That again is no secret.

 I would like to know who the unwashed masses are that she is referring to. Is this her opinion of the majority of Clay County citizens? I am very surprised to hear a former elected official refer to the voting public in such a negative manner.

In regards to The Ravines, why this is even included in this blog is beyond me. There are people interested, if you remember the bankruptcy attorney mentioned one group and residents have received calls from other groups. Several groups showed up at the auction and there is at least one group working with the HOA Committee. I will assume you are just not informed rather than spreading false rumors.

Smile life is good

Rlyons

One of the positive things about having a Charter is the right to set Commissioners salaries. It's the right to limit their salaries and stop automatic raises.

This gives the voters control over their government and instead of automatic salary increases which increase with population. The opportunity to be involved in our government.

That's why I support the amendment being presented to the voters in the upcoming election because it returns that power to the voters. The taxpayers are the ones who pay the bills. They should have the right to the be involved in government and this amendment gives them that right.

It's just like a job, you perform better for your boss when you know he controls your pay raises. If you are going to get a pay raise regardless of your performance you can sometimes forget who you work for and why. Having to asked the voters for a pay raise would mean they have done a good job and asking for more compensation. Because if not, they know it will be voted down.

Thats all fine and good but lets stay focused on you allegations and proof from BOTH  sides of the tracks. Better yet as stated numerious times if you are REAL only concerned about issues go and speak to Msr. Goon face to face like an adult, you are redirecting the issue again. Stay on topic please

TRUTHHURTS

TRUTHHURTS;

You need to take your own advice and stay on topic. You seem to have run off the track and posted to the wrong blog. This one is about a new PAC that was formed and Angela was answering a post on that topic.

If you can't keep up, keep out. 

Mike Heemer

 Sir:

I may have posted incorrectly, and thanks for the friendly comment, my apology to you for making you annoyed (the feel I get from your tone). I did not see your Private property sign no trespassing, keep out police take notice.

My thought would be if did not pertain to the topic it would be obviouse it was an error. But thank you for pointing that out to me.

 I will try my hardest to not enter your property again.

TRUTHHURTS