5+2 Followup

Mike M.

I'm sure you and others supporting the petition's movement to the ballot are disappointed. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd be disappointed too but I also recognize, I probably would not have asked for the remedy from the BCC. I hope that I would have taken the hit and turned to all the people who worked hard to gather signatures and said, "Let's do it again." Going to the BCC would not have been an option.

What we're talking about here is setting a precedent of demanding that our Board of County Commissioners be a safety net when errors are made. Being a safety net is not part of their responsibilities and based on the fact that it was a 5-0 vote, I think all of them recognized - implicitly - what they were being asked to vote on. (Maybe that's why there was less discussion about the "equitable" option presented by Mrs. Kirkman.) They saw the option as being preferential and if you step back and look at it Mike, it was.

Commissioner Stewart cited the equal and fairness issue as the reason she made the motion to deny certification. It was, as a friend said to me at the meeting, cut and dried.

Karen Lake

I think Key is dead on target here.

This outcome was very predictable.

TRUTHHURTS

I am not disappointed that the petition did not get accepted by the BCC because as it was discussed that would illegal. I think I've seen enough illegal activity in Clay County in the past.

I think the steps that the CTLAC need to follow now is to appear before the Board representing over 5000 voters and asking to have this issue placed on the ballot by the Commissioners.

I think it is an important issue to many in this county and I think many would like the opportunity to be heard.

I wait eagerly to see the positions of the Commissioners when the item is requested to be placed on the ballot by the Commissioners.

Angela;

I'm confused. Weren't the Commissioners just asked to put this on the Ballot? Didn't they already say no?

Perhaps there is some subtlety here that I'm missing but I can't see where the CTLAC coming to the board is any different than what just happened today.

I'm not making a judgment one way or the other as to whether it should make it to the Ballot, I'm just trying to understand what you think is different and why the board would reverse itself. 

Mike Heemer

Angela, I've been told that CTLAC intends to reword the petition properly, and go out in search of another 5,500 signatures before a June deadline. 

Truth Hurts, nothing that happened today should have surprised anyone.  We all knew last week that the CTLAC petition was technically illegal and would not be approved by the BCC.  In fact, no one even asked or recommended that the Board approve something that didn't meet state requirements.

The only question was whether or not the BCC would consider using its own authority to put the issue before voters.  It was a little disappointing to me, as a proponent of the proposed amendment, that it wasn't discussed.

This situation reminded me of someone who buys a piece of property, gets a building permit and constructs a new house - only to then have the county come back and say the building permit should not have been issued.  Today's ruling was like the County ordering the new home be razed without even trying to find an equitable solution to government's own mistake.

But CTLAC's decision, to go through the process again despite the fact that a government error contributed to its mistake, will remove all the "special favor" or "illegal process" talk from the debate and let people concentrate instead on which form of government they think will best serve Clay County.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Mike H.

The BCC denied a certified petition to the ballot because it was illegal. If I'm hearing Angela correctly, the next campaign for members of CTLAC will be to lobby commissioners to place it directly on the ballot themselves. I would not expect that campaign to be successful either because:

1) To do so would be for the BCC to invalidate 2006 election results where 25,000 voted for the 5/2;

2) It would be a misuse of power to promote an amendment to the ballot they do not strongly recommend;

3) They are not a safety net for others' mistakes;

4) It would still be treating one small group preferentially.

I don't think Commissioner Stewart's comments were emphasized enough when she drew the parallel that as a candidate there are two ways to qualify: collect signatures or pay the fees. The signatures on those petitions and the citizens petitions mean much the same thing: OK, we'll put it on the ballot.

It is not, however, a glowing endorsement nor a vote for a candidate or idea. So while there may be 5,100 signatures - that doesn't parlay into 5,100 votes. In fact, I wish there was a way to discern how many actually would vote for the amendment. There's not.

But 25,000 people voted for the 5/2.

I find it very hard to imagine a scenario where five elected officials turnover the results of an election because five people want them to. That just doesn't seem reasonable or feasible.

Karen Lake

They can not put CTLAC's petition on the ballot that would be illegal.

When taking the vote Commissioner Bush clarified this was a vote only to allow the petition and it being placed on the ballot.

Many people petition the Commissioners to make ordinances (laws) that allow them to do certain actions in the county. Such as petitions to allow golf carts, review of the sign ordinance, speed limit changes in neighborhoods.

None of those petitions are required to have a certain number of words in a title, certain number of words in a summary but a desire from a number of citizens in the county requesting an action by the board. They are not required to be registered voters.

The petition is not valid by law. But the request of over 5000 people who have made their desires known that they would like to have this issue placed on the ballot is valid in any form.

The petition denied today allows citizens groups to place them on the ballot and as it stands currently will not be on the ballot.

However the Commissioners can place amendments on the ballot. The Commissioners just need the request of citizens and their desire for them to place this subject on the ballot. I think there is no misunderstanding that over 5000 people in our community have asked for this to be placed on the ballot.

I think you remember the issue of liquor sales on Sunday and the time change and the request of a few citizens in the community.

Commissioner Bush wanted to honor those few people by placing a straw ballot and let the citizens decide.

Why should he deny 5000 people their request to have this item placed on the ballot for the citizens to vote on? It is not required to have a formal petition to request an action just the desires of the citizens. I think their desire is clear they want to revisit this issue.

I think the CTLAC should work to get the petitions done again and at the same time lobby on behalf of 5000 voters the opportuntiy to revisit this matter by their legal authority.

I watched the "rerun" of the meeting. 

I don't see that the commissioners had any choice but to recognize the petition as illegal.  The attorney who spoke during public comments explained the law quite well.

I feel bad for the CTLAC because of all the effort to collect the signatures.  However, the CTLAC is the first to cry foul if they think there is any special treatment being handed out.  Also, if you are "watchdog" group you would think they would be absolutely certain that the first "dawgs" they are watchin' would be their own.  They are a very hard working group that is always looking at every last detail It was refreshing to see that the CTLAC did not cast any blame on anyone else. 

It will be quite a feat to get 5200 +/- signatures by June. I was one of the voters who voted NO to the addtional seats but the BCC would be foolhardy to place it on the ballot after 25,000 peopls voted YES.

I think they collected those signatures (5000) in about half the time they are given by law.

I think they should have no trouble getting 5000 more. Even more encouraging is after 10,000 signatures have been collected. It should give great hope to those of us who do not feel the 5+2 is what the county needs at this time at the polls.

I'm certain the voters would rather see 2 teachers keep their jobs instead of 2 new Commissioners with the current budget restraints.

As Islander says who needs 7 people to make bad decisions when 5 are doing a fine job at the present.

Everyone who reads the blogs should contact the CTLAC by email and request a legal petition. Claycitizens@claycitizens.com

I was also glad to see CTLAC not place blame and Ms. Kirkman to acknowledge her role in the process.

I admire the CTLAC for wanting to fight the good fight for what they beleive in, but I just don't think they are going to get anywhere on this issue. As I stated before I think the outcome is very predictable and will simply not go anywhere (even if it gets on the ballot). Yet I do beleive in, and respect their right to the fight.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong

TRUTHHURTS

Mistakes were made by both the CTLAC and the Supervisor of Elections Office.  The BCC had no recourse but to deny the petition as it was illegal.  However, the BCC did have the option to put the amendment on the ballot themselves and let the people decide.  

Key, in your response to Mike M. entitled, ' Setting a precedent' ........first paragraph, you state you probably would not have asked for the remedy from the BCC, that you hope you would have taken the 'hit' and turned to all the people who worked hard to gather the signatures and said, "Let's do it again."  Going to the BCC would not have been an option.  You make it sound like it was the CTLAC who brought this issure before the BCC, when in fact (if I'm not mistaken), it was Mrs. Kirkman who brought it before the BCC in an attempt to find an equitable solution.  I don't know any of the CTLAC members personally, nor Mrs. Kirkman, but Mrs. Kirkman certainly has earned my utmost respect .......... she did present an equitable option, which the BCC chose not to even discuss.  I wonder why?

Whether it be a 5 or 7 member BCC in the future, I just hope they will serve the citizens of Clay County in an 'equitable' manner.

Stryker

Angela;

I'm not sure that there would be 10K signatures if they can get the required number by the deadline. I'm sure many would be doubles but I understand what you are saying. It certainly would seem to be a pretty solid indication that people want it on the ballot. But as Key said, that does not mean that everyone that signed the petition would for the change back to 5.

Perhaps a 'straw' vote like the one for beverage sales would be an option.

Thanks to all for the input. As I've said before, this is going to be interesting to watch. Some good decisions made and some that could have used at least a little more thought whether they were right or wrong.  

Mike Heemer

stryker,

I think this group would have earned a great deal more respect (in the eyes of the public) if it had not shown up at the BCC meeting supporting Mrs. Kirkman's remedy. The mistake on the ballot title was their mistake...Not the SOE. It should never have made it to her office for certification.

Somebody had to know there was a change in the title from the original version.

If and when somebody takes responsibility for that change, then there's no reason for a remedy. It's simply a do-over.

Mrs. Kirkman has been extremely apologetic and conveyed that her office has put in place procedures that will prevent this from happening in the future.

Why the BCC didn't discuss her remedy at greater length is because (I believe) it wasn't the question in front of them. The question in front of them was, "Do we pass through an illegal petition to the ballot?" The answer was (5-0), "No."

Then there are all of the reasons stated above that would probably deter a commission from touching the subject.

Karen Lake

Finder I'm certain some signatures will be repeats that signed the prior petition and they feel this matter is important. Others will be completely new people that did not signed the prior petition.

I think this gives them a better opportunity to talk with voters in the community because they are out there collecting those signatures one on one with the voters.

Most people don't get involved with all the pre-election stuff until you get closer to election time. This gets them the opportuntiy to work their petiton on the ground level during this time when people are making their decisions and paying more attention. This put them closer to the actually elections and the subject fresher on people's minds. I think this presents an opportuntiy to reach more voters.

It is always alot of work to gather those 5000 plus signatures but it does give them a pulse on the community and contact with many people who never even contact their elected officials or have ever been to a public meeting.

I will say if any group can collect 5000 plus signatures in the time limits remaining. They are the group with the skill, knowledge, and workers to make this happen. This running up to the deadline will give them better exposure in the community and may work in their benefit come election time.

It will be interesting and I wish them the best. I have never worked on a petiton for any reason with any group, but after this I have been inspired. So has many of my friends.

When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.