Keeping It Simple, Part II
or, The Other Amendments Possible amendments to the Clay County Home Rule Charter, our local constitution, get discussed frequently here at MCS. No one, though, has brought up two proposed amendments making the petition-signing rounds, even though the petitions were initiated by Citizens for the Protection of Voters' Rights, a political action committee whose formation was announced on this website. One of CPVR's proposals affects the formula used to determine County Commissioners' salaries, establishing equal pay for all Commissioners, including the new four-year chairman, assuming there is one after the election. The second proposal would require a two-thirds majority, instead of the current 50 percent, of voters to approve any change that would eliminate an elected position in Clay County government. Those two proposals are in direct conflict with the two amendments sponsored by Citizens for Term Limits and Accountablity Committee that are already certified and will appear on November's ballot. This is another example of why this year Clay County voters will have some real choices to make. Because the broad topics of the amendments proposed by those two local political action committees are somewhat similar, let's compare them.
Commissioners' Salaries: Both of the proposed amendments call for bigger pay cuts for County Commissioners who are already scheduled for some sizable pay cuts. Right now, the five members of the County Commission are making a little over 60K (plus some pretty decent other benefits) in an annual salary based on a formula straight from a Tallahassee government office building cubicle. The formula includes automatic pay raises based on the county's population increase. Two years ago, though, voters approved an amendment to add two at-large seats to the County Commission. That amendment called for the total salaries of Commission of the seven members to remain the same as the five. After this November's election, Commissioners will begin drawing only five-sevenths of that current 60K-plus, somewhere around $43,000. Plus, of course, the annual population-based pay hikes. The current CPVR amendment proposal would make the salary 60 percent of the rate (60K-plus) currently used, instead of five-sevenths. That would be about an another 11 percent cut from the pay cut set at 43K. If this amendment passes, County Commissioners can expect a salary somewhere a little more than 36K. That puts it right in the ballpark with the CTLAC-sponsored amendment, which calls for a salary of $37,000. So what's the difference in the two? The CPVR amendment is based still on a percentage of the state formula and would still provide for annual raises as long as Clay County's population continues to grow. The faster the growth, the bigger the automatic pay raises. The CTLAC proposal is a little more traditional. If County Commissioners think they've earned a pay raise, they'll have to go to their boss and ask for one. Any pay hike would have to be placed on the ballot and approved by Clay County voters.
Super-majority Amendments: Again, the proposals from CPVR and CTLAC have some similarity in that each calls for an increase from the current 50 percent of voters needed to approve an Amendment to the Home Rule Charter. CTLAC's amendment would establish a 60 percent threshold (the same percentage of voters required to approve an amendment to the State Constitution) for passage of any and all Charter Amendment proposals. CPVR's amendment would establish an even higher threshold (66.6 percent) for voter approval - but only for amendments concerning one specific issue, the possible elimination of an elected position. All other possible amendments would need only the current 50 percent plus 1 of the voters to change the Charter. Sounds to me like the Citizens for the Protection of Voters' Rights' amendment proposal is more concerned with protecting the number of elected officials than voters rights. This proposal is designed to muddy the waters if CTLAC's proposal to stop the two at-large seats from being added to the BCC is passed by voters. Just imagine. If both the CPVR amendment passes (with 51 percent as currently required by the Charter) and the CTLAC amendment to eliminate the at-large positions also passes (with more than 50 but less than 66.6 percent of voter approval), there's 99.9 percent chance that the number of County Commissioners won't be determined by voters, but one single person wearing a long, black robe and swinging a gavel. And a 100 percent chance taxpayers will foot the bill. Hopefully, if these two CPVR proposals do reach the ballot, voters will recognize the differences, support CTLAC's "Keep It Simple" amendments, and vote no on CPVR's convoluted "State Formulas and Special Case-Only" pair of proposals. Michael S. Mann
Related: OneMann's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: BCC Chairmanship | Charter Amendments | government
Submitted by OneMann on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 2:13pm.
Finder, it seems like you've got a pretty good grasp. Suppose we have enough people out there willing to donate to the justice system and think it would be more fun to cause a ruckus than actually decide which of the four or five amendment proposals make the ballot. Let's say all five amendments pass. If two new Charter Amendments are passed that establish two different means of determing the BCC's salary, how in heck is Fritz Behring gonna know how to make out the Commissioners' paycheck? Suppose 65 percent of voters decide to vote again government growth and vote in favor of CTLAC's amendment to not add the at-large Commissioners. But 50 percent plus one of the voters pass the CPVR's proposal. How the heck is Fritz gonna know how many chairs to make available for meetings of the County Commissioners? Could 50 percent of the voters become more litigiously-important than 65 percent of the voters? I don't know, but it won't suprise me a bit if that question gets answered in court. That's why I hope voters will realize how important their choices are this year. Michael S. Mann michaelsmann@comcast.net
Submitted by finder on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 2:52pm.
Darn!!!!! I was hoping you were going to tell me I was dumber than a stump and had totally misunderstood what you had said. This is NOT going to be simple if all the petitions get approved to be on the November ballot. Actually it could be absolutely disasterous. Could 50 percent of the voters become more litigiously-important than 65 percent of the voters? I guess that depends on how much money you have and who is backing you. 'And that's all I've got say about that'. Forrest Gump. Mike Heemer
Submitted by Marsha on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 4:28pm.
Thanks Mike for splainin all that, it's kinda like trying to find Waldo or when you see those pictures that at first glance look alot alike but there are subtle differences that change the picture. I'm not for anything that is going to make it harder for me to unload a Goverment Job in the County. This is an awful lot of effort for a Ceremonial Position. I'm not for continuing to have a pay scale that goes up with growth, it's not like a Commissioner actually gets out and makes personal contact with the population, so the more people the harder or more time consuming the job is. That's an incentive I would like to see stopped. Other Goverment employees mainly our military get a cost of living increase, so do those collecting Social Security. If it's good enough for our troops and our retirees I think that it's good enough for the BCC. Thanks again Mike, I was wondering what those mysterious petitions were all about. People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 2 users and 129 guests online.
Online usersRecent comments |
Ok OneMann;
I told myself that I was going to stay out of this after having made somewhat of a fool of myself last week, but I have GOT to ask some questions. Actually I'll make some statements and ask if I'm correct in my understanding.
1. Right now all we need is 50% + 1 vote to change the Charter. CTLAC wants to change that to 60% and already has a petition that has been approved so that will be on the November ballot. Correct?
2. CTLAC has a petition already approved for the November ballot that will cut BCC salaries to $37K plus the benefits and that salary can only be changed by approval of the voters. Correct?
2A. Would any subsequent change in salary require 50% + 1 vote or 60% if that proposal passes?
3. CPVR is trying to get a petition approved to make the BCC salaries 60% of current state formula but keep the automatic raises. Correct?
3A. What happens if both of these proposals were to pass? That is NOT such a stupid question considering how well some people read a ballot.
4. My understanding of what you are saying about the dropping of an elected position is this:
We will elect two at-large commissioners in November.
Assuming the CTLAC petition gets on the ballot, we could eliminate those positions with a simple 50%+1 vote majority.
Assuming the CPVR petition makes it to the ballot and passes, it now says that the elimination of the 2 at-large needs a 2/3 majority vice the standard 50%+1 vote as it is now.
Again, both of these amendments could pass (with less than a 2/3 majority) and then we would be sucking sewage and have to rely on some Judge to tell us how it is going to be. Is that correct?
I know this just restates (or I hope it does) what you said but I want to make sure that I truly understand what the heck is going on.
If all of these get approved and end up on the ballot it will be a real mess. No wonder the average citizen is confused when they go to the polls.
This could end up being anything but simple. You'll need a Magellan GPS to figure out where the heck you are heading.
Mike Heemer