Planned referendum may be stalled

Oops!

I'm not making a for or against statement on the referendum but doesn't this seem just a bit silly?

I mean we're not talking "War and Peace" here folks.

Mike Heemer

Bloggers:

Here are the facts:  The CTLAC's first draft of the petition was rejected by Kirkman because the summary exceeded the 75 word limit.  The Ballot Title was fine in the first draft. When they submitted their second draft of the petition, they fixed the problem with the summary but they changed the title. The new title in the second petition had too many words (23 as opposed to the 15 maximum).

Understandably, Supervisor of Elections Barbara Kirkman only looked at the part that she asked them to fix when she looked at the resubmitted petition.  So this was CTLAC's fault, not Kirkman's fault.  Kirkman shouldn't beat herself up.

Imagine if the CRC had a flaw in their proposal.  Or Roy Lyon's PAC had a flaw in its proposal.  If those proposals were allowed to go forward, the CTLAC would be crying foul and saying "good ole boy" politics and insisting that everyone follow the rules.

As I understand it, now they will be asking the BCC for leniency and favoritism and blaming this error on Ms. Kirkman.

I've got a great idea, let's everyone pay their taxes on April 18 since we don't have to be that picky. Or like the Dems of 2000, let's change the rules of the game as we go along.

Ultimately, it is the CTLAC's responsibility to follow the law.  They know the rules and they didn't follow them.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country?  Why are they blaming it all on the Supervisor?  Why is it always the government's responsibility?

Karen Lake

I'm surprised that as particular as the group is about details and following the letter of the law that they let this happen.

As silly as it may sound to revoke the petition for a technicality, I have to agree with Karen - heaven forbid the shoe was on the other foot.  You'd be able to hear the screaming and hollering all the way in Clay Hill.  What happens next is going to challenge a lot of peoples' true character.  Do you really believe all groups should be treated equal, and that all groups should have to follow the law, or only when it is the "other" group?  Hmmm.

Now THIS is going to be interesting.

I'm only going to say this about my first response. Oops! Open mouth insert foot. Didn't think about this very well. I'll have to blame it on the great Mexican food I had for lunch. (Best we've had since we left SD.)

In my semi defense I thought it was like 2 words too many. However, in accordance with the law 2 too many is just as bad as 8 too many.

Perhaps there is some good news if it is dropped. It would give us a chance to see how the new 5+2 works out. It might give the voter a better idea as to how they really want to see BCC membership.

Now I'm going to back out of the line of fire and shut up. But I think Bax is right. Though interesting may be a bit mild for what this is going to be.

I wonder how our unopposed candidate for Chair will handle this live grenade.

Mike Heemer

Bax and Mike H.

CTLAC has approximately 66 days to collect 5,500 new petition signatures if they want to get it on the ballot. June 7th is the deadline.

I agree with both of you...it's going to be just a little more than interesting. I just wish I had a live feed of Tuesday's BCC meeting!

Karen Lake

Too many words--ironic. 

Another irony, this is the PAC that has accountability in it's title.  If they did not follow the letter of the law/ordinance/statute they (CTLAC) are the ones to be held accountable.  It should not be passed off to the SOE or anyone else.  

I think they have to have the petitions in AND verified by the deadline,  The usual "kick out" is 10% so if they need 5500, they will have to collect 6050 and that is 92 a day. Unlikely, but I wouldn't count them out yet. We will see how many real supporters the CTLAC has, the re-signing effort is going to take a bunch of "worker-bees".  Even as persisitent as Mr. Smith is, he is going to need help if they are to pull this one off.

Key,

I am going to tape the BCC, although it might be worth a day's vacation to have a front row seat.  It ought to be a barn-burner.  Wonder if good ol' George is going to pass the hot potato gavel on this meeting?

I think the lawful authority here would be the Supervisor of Elections. If she gave the lawful authority for the group to collect signatures then it should be accepted. She has the ultimate authority granted and vested in her by the laws of the State of Florida to receive these petitions, review them for the lawful requirements, and then authorize them for circulation. All of which she did.

Just because the SOE did not fulfill their lawful requirement to review the ballot in its entirety but gave her lawful authority that it had met all the requirement should not deny the group the right to have their petitions placed on the ballot. Because she waited until the signatures had been collected and then goes oops I failed in my duties.

I think the most important factors which would be supported in a court of law in a situation like this would be (1)Was the summary misleading to the people who signed that petition. (2) Did it contain one subject as required by law.

I would venture to say most people do not sign a petition because of the title of the ballot.

I think the questions should be were the voters who signed those petition mislead in any way and did it contain more than one subject. If those lawful requirements are met then it should be allowed.

I have reviewed the petition and I think it meets both those requirements. I am glad to see Ms. Kirkman plans to appear at the Commission meeting and take full responsibility for her position as the lawful authority.

Kudos to Ms. Kirkman.

I've never been a supporter of adding the two at-large seats to the County Commission, but I am a stickler for following the rules.  CTLAC's petition drive didn't meet the rules and its proposal won't be on the ballot.

But CTLAC's not asking the County Commission for leniency or favoritism to overlook its mistake, as was suggested.  What will happen Tuesday is the Supervisor of Elections will appear before the Board and recognize her office's mistake in the process.

The BCC won't be asked to make a special exception for CTLAC and OK something improper for November's ballot.  It will be asked by Mrs. Kirkman to recognize the wishes of the 5,000-plus qualified voters who signed petitions and were affected by her office's role in certifying something that should have been invalidated - and consider using its own Charter-granted authority to place the proposed amendment on the ballot.

Mrs. Kirkman is not being blamed or used as an excuse by CTLAC.  Having spoken with two of its members this evening, they both repeatedly made that point, and complimented Mrs.Kirkman for her Tuesday plan to seek an equitable remedy.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

I guess we will have to wait and see if the Commissioners are as much of a stand-up act and honor the voices of the people who signed those petitions as Ms. Kirkman is for going up there on behalf of those voters who signed those petitions.

The peoples voices should be heard and the Commissioners should honor those signatures.

If the petition was not misleading and was clear on the intent then the Commissioners should put it on the ballot for the people to vote on in the upcoming election.

How did this happen? Was an attorney or someone with experience in this area involved in writing the doucment? I bet there are some sick folks out there that are scrambling.

The Supervisor of Elections has an attorney. I don't know if they were consulted before the authorization or after they detected the mistake.

Angela - you know how much I've come to appreciate our conversations here, seriously.

For just one second, let your imagination wonder how this would be perceived and commented on if, IF, it were a proposal that the CTLAC were opposed too, and the BCC intervened to let it move to the ballot with some technical flaw.

Every current, past, and future government official would be called every dispicable name known to the English language.  And then some.  You know it, and I know it.

I agree with clayvoter - we're about to see what the definition of Accountability really is.

Mr. Smith is an honorable man.  He has busted his butt to get this issue on the ballot.  Even though I disagree with the proposal, these are unfortunate circumstances for them.  But - what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Baxley I always appreciated our conversations on the blogs as well. Just because we don't agree on some things doesn't mean we can't discuss issues in a civil manner.

You are right Mr Smith is a very honorable man. He is on the top of my list of honorable men. I don't think what he is asking for is his petition (CTLAC) to be honored by the Commissioners but the same thing Ms. Kirkman will the wishes of over 5000 voters in Clay County who signed that petition. 

What we are talking about here is a ballot title. The summary met all the lawful requirements. It was clear, complete, and did not mislead any of the over 5000 voters who freely signed those petitions.

I have seen the Commissioners freely accept the petitions of citizens in a neighborhood to get golf carts in their community. They collected petitions at Annabelle's rally for the freedom of speech sign. The Commissioners have agreed to review the sign ordinance because the people spoke. Golf carts have been approved in neighborhoods because the people spoke. They honor speed limit changes and a host of other things. Those signatures are not required to be certified.

I believe the over 5000 voters who have signed a petition should be granted the same as the people who signed the petitions for the above.

I could not even imagine the Commissioners who would vote on a golf cart and then turn around and deny an equitable remedy for over 5000 qualified and certified signatures of voters in the county. The Commissioners don't even have to agree with the petition but they should honor the wishes of those over 5000 voters. 

I think Ms. Kirkman is acting under the advice of her legal counsel as the best course of action to achieve an equitable remedy to a situation that was a technical issue and was not discovered until the end of the process. To do otherwise would deny those over 5000 voters their voice in the upcoming elections. The Commissioners should move this to the ballot and give those over 5000 voters their voice in the upcoming elections.

I guess the true test of character will be on the Commissioners. Mr Smith has displayed his character in his efforts. Ms Kirkman will display her character in her appearance and the request for an equitable remedy. I guess we will see if the Commissioners display the same character when they appear. 

...if Commissioners allow this to go to the ballot on a technicality? What kind of precedent would that set? Do you think they would purposely flirt with a lawsuit?

The only "remedy" for the SOE and the BCC is to follow the law. Only then, will everyone be held accountable.

Karen Lake

I think some here are missing the point.

The SOE will not be asking to place the CTLAC's petition on the ballot.

But to use the power of the Charter government and have the Commissioners put their amendment on the ballot and honor and acknowledge the wishes of the voters.

We have 3 ways under our Charter form of government to have amendments placed on  the ballot. (1) The Commissioners (2) The CRC (3) the citizens.

I think the voters (well over 5000 qualified and certified) who signed that petition have spoken and the Commissioner should use their power to put it on the ballot.

Just because the CTLAC and the SOE did not notice the mistake until after over 5000 voters spoke and then to deny those over 5000 people the opportunity to be heard at no fault of their own should be given the opportunity.

How can people file lawsuits when the Commissioners have the legal right under the Charter to place amendments on the ballot? All they need is 3 of the 5 Commissioners to agree to place an amendment on the ballot. They can agree to place any amendment on the ballot.   

I think it is admirable for all those involved to admit and accept the mistake. I think it is equally admirable for the Commissioners to accept the wishes of over 5000 voters and retify the situation by the legal remedy provided in the Charter and place the Commissioners amendment on the ballot which will reflects the will of those voters.

If you follow the law in this instance, no matter how honorable the people are, the Supervisor of Elections didn't catch the mistake. The Supervisor of Elections should resign.  People who handle items of such importance are held to a higher standard.

If you don't think the SOE should resign, then you must allow the CC and SOE to come to an amenable solution to this issue.   In the last few years, voting just seems to be an issue that Florida is certainly challenged to do correctly.  That is why we have judges to interpret the law as how it pertains to each individual case.  If you followed the letter of the law each time, you wouldn't need the judicial system.  We would have a Judge Dredd society.

OK new guy on the block here with an outsider's view.

1. From what I understand the SOE is resigning. Or at least not seeking re-election.

2. CTLAC did not follow the law twice when presenting their petition for approval.

The first time it was presented to the SOE they had too many words in the description. To me that says they didn't do their homework.

They were told everything is OK except the description.

They change the description to meet the correct word count but want to make sure some of what they took out is still on the petition so they add something to the title. Again they did not do their homework.

They bring it back to the SOE to have the words counted in the description and don't bother telling anyone they changed the title.

For a third time they did not do their homework. They didn't know how many words they could have in the description or the title. Not a glowing report from my perspective.

3. The 'voters' have spoken is a true statement. They voted for 5+2 with a margin of 68% if I remember the number I read correctly.

4. The 'voters' that have 'spoken' for the new ballot measure only equal 5%. Not much of a majority.

5. Now they want someone else to do their work for them by having the BCC put the measure on the ballot. I just don't see how that is ethical. Why would the BCC want to skirt this issue when the previous (5+2) was done legally and was passed by a majority of the voters?

Mike Heemer

Whoever authored the document must not be familiar with tools in Microsoft Word. It has a word count function.

The SOE is the last stop before legal authorization is given. It is their job to make sure everything on that petition is legal and they have an attorney to consult if they have any questions.

This situation may have helped in her decision to not seek re-election because I'm certain this situation would have been used against her in the process. I'm certain she has known about this for a while and has been working with their legal dept on how to best remedy the situation.

The Charter allows amendments by a certain number of electors in the county. That required legal number of voters has been met according to the laws as determined by the Charter.

If they required a majority of the voters to place an amendment on the ballot we would have no reason to vote. This only puts it on the ballot it doesn't determine if it is the laws.

The people being denied here are the over 5000 voters who would like to see the issue come up for a vote. It doesn't make it the law until the entire electors in the county have an opportunity to vote on the matter.

I'm confounded by some of the bloggers comments at times.

Barbara Kirkman is an outstanding, above board servant to this county. People make mistakes. She is doing the right thing by addressing the BCC on Tuesday. But someone has to start calling for her resignation. Give me a break. If there is anyone here who works or has worked and never made a mistake, then I'll eat my hat!

Don't start yelling for the SOE to resign. That solves nothing. By the way, she's not running for re-election but not because of this incident but because she's ready to retire.

I agree. A mistake was made and after a review of all the relevant facts by the legal dept. of the SOE. They rendered the opinion the best way to remedy the situation was to seek an equitable remedy by the Commissioners.

We all make mistakes if we didn't we would be perfect.

The only thing being determined here is how to best fix that mistake without making more mistakes.

That would be have the Commissioners put the amendment on the ballot and let the voters decide the fate.

If the voters decide the 5/2 they voted on before is what they want then it will remain. If they decide the 5 commissioners is what they want it will be changed.

The Commissioners will not be changing any laws in the county it will be the voters that will decide in the elections.

I think all parties have acted with honor and it will now be up to the Commissioners to act accordingly.

I don't even think this should be hard for the Commissioners to make a decision. Put it on the ballot and let the voters decide. Then it takes it out of their hands. Why should they care how many Commissioners the voters decide they want?

Cookie;

My point exactly. She announced that she wasn't running quite some time ago. She has served and served very well from what I understand. Has she known about this for a while, who knows? But I'm pretty sure she could have weathered this storm is she had wanted to run again.

You must understand that Angela does not like the 5+2 and is not going to be happy about anything that thwarts the effort to get this petition or amendment on the ballot.

My feeling is it doesn't have a snowball's chance in a Florida August of being passed if does get there but we'll have to wait to see how this plays out.

Mike Heemer

I never said the SOE should resign that was never my statements. As a matter of fact I said she has acted in good faith and after she discovered the mistake requested an opinion from the legal dept about how to best fix the situation. She is doing as she has been advised. I don't see anything here that would determine she has acted any other way.

That will be for Mr. Bradley to determine if he seeks self interest or the interest of those 5000 voters who signed that petition. It will be interesting to see which way he decides.

Angela;

You are joking right?  Why should they care how many Commissioners the voters decide they want?

Let's see - Rob Bradley is the commissioner for District 1. He would be up for re-election to that post this year but has decided to run for the new 'Elected Chair'.

He is running unopposed for that seat. If the CTLAC amendment is NOT on the ballot he will be the newly elected chair for 4 years.

If the CLTAC amendment IS on the ballot he could be elected to the chair and find his position deleted.

You think this is a walk in the park with no ramifications? Should Rob recuse himself due to a conflict of interest?

Mike Heemer

Commissioner Bradley is not the elected Commissioner for district 1. He was selected for that position by the Governor. When being selected those people should not use that position to be given an unfair advantage. So I don't think he would or should be coming up for re-election for district 1.

Angela,

I'd like to jump in here and make several distinguishing points:

1) You argue that the BCC will be disenfranchising 5,000 voters by not putting this on the ballot.  But what about the rights of the rest of the citizens in the County, including the rights of people who purposely didn't sign the petition?  They deserve to have the election process honored, respected and followed.

2) The way I understand the Charter, the BCC doesn't have a mystery power to place legally insufficient amendments on the ballot even if the proponent is very sorry.  Mike Mann says that the BCC could use its "equitable" powers.  Usually, when one sees equitable powers being invoked the person seeking equity comes to situation blameless/harmess/a victim and because of circumstances outside their control, they have been wronged.  That circumstance does not exist here.  CTLAC has been through this process before (i.e., they can't claim they lacked knowledge or weren't told), they know the rules (i.e., this was not a surprise or a change in rules that was sprung on them), they had time to remedy the situation by collection more signatures (i.e., they had an legal option to cure their mistake).  They are not in a position to demand equity.

Sometimes, being "accountable" is alot of work.

Karen Lake

Angela;

Actually neither Cookie nor I attributed the 'she should resign' statement to you.

What you think about the District 1 election is irrelevant. The fact is that District 1 is voting for a Commissioner this year. The fact that Bradley was selected rather than elected is not germane.

As a citizen he could just as easily have decided to run for District 1 instead of the chair position.

The issue still remains. He could be asked to put something on the ballot that could let him be elected to a position that does not exist.

This is certainly going to affect the dynamics of the situation and the BCC.

Mike Heemer

finder,

You're all over it. The subject matter of the amendment doesn't really matter. What matters is if the amendment meets legal standards to be placed on the ballot. The members of the BCC (including Commissioner Bradley) will be making a judgment as to it's legality not the political implications of the measure.

Unless told by commission counsel otherwise, I would look to Commissioner Bradley voting on this matter. In my mind, there is no conflict of interest here.

Karen Lake

Wouldn't that be funny, at least in some perverted sense.  Commissioner Bradley wins the chiarmanship position and on the same day, clay countians vote to eliminate the position, then what happens, some citizens voted to put him into office and other citizens voted not against him, but to eliminate his post?

Points

No one will take away the rights of anyone who voted for this in the prior election. They will have the same rights to return and vote again. They will also have the right to voted against the decision they made in the last election. That will be the choice they have when they walk in there to cast that ballot. I don't think getting an amendment should require every person in the county to decide to bring the matter up for a vote. I don't think it requires 5 Commissioners, or all of the members of the CRC. Each has its own requirements. I think the required number of voters have asked that it be allowed to come up for a vote and I think the Commissioners should honor those voters by placing it on the ballot. It will pass or fail on its own merits.

I think that a mistake was made in the process that is very clear. I think the SOE has determined after consultation with their legal dept and has been given the advise as the best way to handle this was to asked the Commissioner to honor the voters (over 5000) who signed that petition. The voters that signed that petition are the ones that are harmed. She will not be asking them to put anything legally insufficient on the ballot. But to use their power under the Charter to place their amendment on the ballot which will honor the wishes of those people who in good faith signed that petition. When signing that petition they had no way to know the SOE authorized that petition and it was not legally sufficient. So why should they be harmed.

Finder maybe because you are new to the area but when the Governor in the State selects a person it is for the sole purpose to fill that position until the rightful elected person is either cleared and returns, or until the term expires. After contact with the Governor's Office they stated they pick people based off certain criteria a one being not running for the elected position they are being placed in to give an unfair advantage.

I think the State of Florida finds the system works best when the voters are allowed to elect their officials and not to be in the position to select our leaders. They also do not support people they select then turning around and running for that position with the unfair advantage.

I'm not a big fan of Mr. Bradley running for the position that he worked for on the CRC to get placed on the ballot and then turn around a run for that position. That would be another blog.

I do think this will be a test of for him and who's interest he feels should be honored here.

I think the people who are getting lost in the mix is those that have signed the petiton.

The Commissioners will not be voting on any petition but be requested to honor those voters by placing an amendment on the ballot that respect their choices. The BCC has the power to place an amendment on the ballot. It will be their amendment not the CTLAC's but the Commissioners amendment. It will be a legal and binding amendment and it will honor those who in good faith signed that petition.

Then it will go to the people and all can decide at election time if they want to vote yes or no.

Before too many things get repeated often enough that folks take it for truth, the BCC will not be asked to make a legal judgment on the validity of CTLAC's amendment proposal.  That judgment has already been made in the Supervisor of Elections Office.

Mrs. Kirkman will present the facts of her office's actions, and remind the BCC of the options available to remedy its mistakes.  One of those is for the BCC to place the issue on the ballot.  Giving retroactive approval to an invalid petition, even one certified by the SOE's Office, is not one of those options.  If the 5+2 amendment reaches voters this year, it will be the BCC's proposal, not CTLAC's.

The topic of the former proposed amendment should have nothing to do with the BCC's decision, however, when the issue reaches the BCC Tuedsay afternoon, Commissioner Rob Bradley will most certainly have to recuse himself.  He has a personal financial interest in the Commission's decision and, therefore, a direct conflict of interest.  Voting on the issue, even discussing it on the BCC floor prior to a vote, would violate state law.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Angela,

As in other cases, continuing to post entries in the face of logically disputed claims,  still doesn't turn water into wine.

I would (logically) dispute your claims that 5,000 peoples' wishes will have been overturned if the BCC doesn't move the amendment to the ballot and the reason I dispute your claim is that those 5,000 people probably wouldn't have signed that document if they knew there was a technical error in the petition and it was the amendment sponsor's fault they signed something that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Again, it doesn't have anything to do with "required number of voters." The petition didn't meet legal requirements therefore the signatures are null and void whether they collected 5,000 or 5,000,000. The signatures were illegal when they were collected therefore there are 5,000 illegal signatures.

It's not a numbers game. Restating it for the purpose of making the argument is mute.

Karen Lake

I think you are right key none of those people would have signed that petition if they thought it had a technical error in it. They would have been signing the one they knew did not, so it would be legal. I don't think the CTLAC would have spent all that time collecting signatures if they knew it had a technical error either. I don't think the SOE who authorized them to use that petition would have done so if she would have caught the mistake.

I agree. I think everyone here acted in good faith which includes the SOE, CTLAC, and the voters who signed that petition. However a mistake was made and it is not legal and they will not be voting on that matter. No one can make it legal not the SOE or the BCC.

The question before them will be is how do they offer a remedy. That will be at the request of the SOE, and the request of the CTLAC on behalf of all those voters.

I think that is the question the BCC will have to answer and that will be based off the facts that are relevant to this matter, and how we got to this place, and the best way to honor those voters all who acted in good faith.

That option have it placed on the ballot as an amendment proposed by the Commissioners and up for consideration of the voters come election time. Then no one will be harmed. Everyone can vote and it will pass or fail on its own merits.

I believe the 2 at-large commissioners were approved by 52% of the voters, not 68%.  Also, 64% of the voters approved the 5 single member districts (CTLAC petition), after which the CRC determined the voters didn't realize what they really needed, so put the 2 at-large positions on the ballot.  Then they lobbied heavily for it to pass and it did, by a whopping 2 percent.

Some of you make it sound like the CTLAC did this intentionally and deviously got it past the SOE!  I expected the gloating and snide remarks would come from certain members of this blog, but am surprised at some others.

I'm outta here!

Angela;

After contact with the Governor's Office they stated they pick people based off certain criteria a one being not running for the elected position they are being placed in to give an unfair advantage.

I knew I would learn something new here. I did not know that. However, I do have a couple of questions. Doesn't this imply that any incumbent has an 'unfair advantage'? Is it illegal for that person to run for the position? I can see where it certainly would be unethical to do so but is it actually illegal?

One other question based on your last post. The Police have a murderer in custody and he confesses. They take him to trial and the Attorney says 'Oops we made a mistake, we did not read him his rights before he confessed but it was an honest mistake so Judge can you just let this confession be entered into evidence anyway'? 

Do you think that the state should have that right? I mean he's the Judge he can do that right? I think the Judge is probably going to go with the point of law don't you? 

This is certainly not a 'simple' problem is it?

Mike Heemer

I never asked the Governor's Office if it was illegal but they did state when a position comes open because an elected leader has been removed (charged with crimes) they review the applications submitted and makes that choice. They do no like to be in the position to select our leaders and go through the applications in an effort to just fill the position. I would consider it to be unethical to go against the reason you were selected and knowing that information going into the position and submitting your application and then turn around and run for that position. But then who would want an unethical leader from the get go.

If the incumbent was elected then it is legal for them to run again. Unless they are termed out of the office. Then it would be illegal. The incumbent usually has an advantage but because they were elected by the people it shouldn't be consider unfair. They just have a record to run on in the election.

Now we are off to another subject. You would not believe how many times your senario about law enforcement happens. Generally when they confess it gives the investigators the means to find the evidence to convict the criminal. That generally happens in the discovery part of the investigation. I have seen many confessions that have been thrown out and the criminal still convicted.

I don't think the SOE, CTLAC, the voters, or the Commissioners like being in this position.

I think they have to decide now what's the best way to fix the problem. I think they are all taking the right path so far. I think every one has acted in good faith. I feel for all that are involved.

We shall see how Tuesday goes and make the final determination after the meeting. It should be interesting.

Sunflower;

I don't think that anyone indicated that CTLAC did this on purpose. Why would they? They got the number of verified signatures they needed, why would they want there to be problems?

Now there may be a few that are happy to see these issues come up in the hopes that it won't make the ballot but I see nothing wrong with that. They were hoping that they would never get enough signatures too.

As to the lobbying, I think you may have an issue with that statement. Of course the CRC lobbied heavily. Just like those that were opposed did.

The CTLAC has been lobbying heavily for months to get this on the ballot. If it does make it they will lobby even heavier to get it to pass. And I'm pretty sure they would be tickled pink to get a 'whopping' 2% pass. I'll bet they wouldn't turn it down just because it wasn't more. Actually they'd be happy with 1%.

That's just how things work.

As an old curse goes: 'May you live in interesting times'. And I don't have clue where this came from or I'd give them credit.

I think this is what is called a good old fashioned conundrum. It is going to test the judgment, resolve and patience of a lot of people.

I may have to have a CO2 cartridge standing by to cool off my screen no matter which way this goes.

Mike Heemer

I signed the petition in the Publix parking lot on CR220.  I think it is obscene that we pay the county commissioners what we pay them for a PART-TIME job.  Anyone who says it is a full-time job hasn't seen the commissioners work another full-time job.  I heard one gripe about having to take time off their full-time job just to attend meetings that are in the middle of the day.   Why don't we have those meetings in the evening when normal people are off work?   It is all about gravy, pure and simple.  Why do we need 7 people to make bad decisions when 5 have been doing it for years.  The package the county commissioners get is so sweet that Splenda lusts for the sweetness of the deal.  They get retirement paid, health insurance paid for their entire family and a whopping good salary to boot.  I won't even go into the additional allowances they receive.   How many people in Clay make what those guys do in their full-time job??   Anyone who thinks two additional county commissioners is an advantage is off their proverbial rocker.  I don't care if you elect 15 of those guys, you aren't going to solve the problems that exist in Clay today.  Clay is a wonderful place to live, as long as you stay out of the politics that govern.  

Maybe I don't understand this issue fully, I don't know.

But if the majority of the folks in Clay dislike the way the powers at be a running things, would'nt the folks just vote them out anyway? Rendering this a moot issue.

Now if the majority of the folks like what the powers at be are doing, would'nt this legislature circumvent what the majority of the people want.

The Clay County Democratic process should handle this issue at the voting booth should'nt it?

I am sorry, I just don't get it 

TRUTHHURTS

Mike Mann,

I want to be sure I understand what it is that members of CTLAC want to happen:

1) CTLAC wants the BCC to passthrough an amendment to the ballot removing the two at-large positions.

2) CTLAC wants the BCC to do this because in their haste, they did not perform their own due diligence ensuring their petition was legal.

3) CTLAC cites the fact that since 5,000 signatures were collected, it is a compelling reason for commissioners to honor what CTLAC has done.

I know I'm paraphrasing but I think I'm pretty close to understanding what they want to happen. I've asked myself a couple of questions this afternoon, "Why would members of the BCC decide to do what it is that CTLAC wants them to do? And why wouldn't they?"

The most compelling fact that jumps out at me is this: CTLAC wanted and achieved single-member districts in this county. I believe on Tuesday, their membership is going to learn - firsthand - that single-member districts are not the "be all" and "end all" of governmental formats simply because, what would possess five single-district commissioners to want to voluntarily change the balance of power and share territory with two other commissioners?

Secondly, why would the BCC passthrough a measure that is a "do over" amendment? In 2006, over 25,000 people elected to add two at-large positions. What CTLAC's membership is suggesting is that these 5,000 signatures are more important than the actual votes of all the people who cast a ballot in the election. Maybe it's me, but that comes across as arrogant especially when the campaign is directed by six or seven individuals in the County. If it were a burning issue in the County grounded in a mass grassroots effort? Maybe. But this is a measure we've already voted on and I think it bears repeating again.

I don't normally like to split hairs, Mike but I'll make this point on another issue. You may want to check with the SOE and find out if Commissioner Bradley has qualified for his seat. He filed for the position but I don't know that he's qualified and therefore in conflict with any issue. Until he qualifies and the deadline to file has passed, I don't know that your statement is true or my statement is true. Hopefully, County Attorney Mark Scruby will shed some light on the subject if it comes up.

Karen Lake

Key, I get where you are coming from until you get to your rational of whether or not Bradley has a conflict of interest..

Come on, are you kidding? Splitting hairs about whether he is qualified when the qualifing period insn't until June?  He is running for one of the positions that will be directly affected by the petition. His intention to run is every bit as important as the actual filing/qualifying as far as his recusal or lack thereof.  I would be very disapointed if he does not recuse himself from both the discussion and the vote.

clayvoter,

If CTLAC can justify the BCC moving their illegal amendment to ballot, I can justify splittin' hairs, southwest Clay County style.

Karen Lake

Karen, you'll have to ask a CTLAC representative the specifics of what that organization wants to happen.  I spoke to some of its members on the phone after I read your initial comment in this thread, to let them know that if the situation was as you had portrayed it I would not be supporting any effort to have the 5/2 issue appear on this November's ballot.

After discussing it first with them, and finding out some more of the details at the Supervisor of Elections Office yesterday morning, I'm comfortable with the course being taken and with how I explained it earlier in this thread.  And content to wait until Tuesday afternoon, when Mrs. Kirkman will appear before the BCC.

We'll also have to disagree about what role Commissioner Bradley will have when the issue reaches the BCC floor.  You don't see a conflict worthy of meeting FS 112.3143 requirements for abstaining from the discussion and possible vote that will be required, while I do.  It's not up to us to make that decision, but there's plenty of expertise available to help reach the correct decision.

First, there's County Attorney Mark Scruby and his staff.  And, of course, Rob is an attorney with experience in government law.  I imagine he might have even had to render his opinion of that state statute for members of the town councils in Orange Park or Keystone Heights.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Mike I think you have an excellent perception of the matters concerning the stalled petition. Thanks for taking the time to do the research.

In a story written today in the MCS newspaper it states: "Kirkman notified the commission on Feb. 26 that the committee's petitions had the required amount of registered voters, but the commission has not yet put the referendum on the November ballot. Despite the title error, commissioners can still put the issue to voters if they choose.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/040408/nec_264361757.shtml

It should be the duty of the Commissioners to listen to the voices of over 5000 registered voters in Clay County.

We shall see on Tuesday.