The DebateHello everyone it has been a while since I have written a blog, but I will gladly join in. I would like to thank the CAN for putting on the debate in the interest of the people of Clay County. I would like to answer some of the questions that have come up on the blog. That I did not seem prepared, I……… had no idea what to expect and did not have the questions in advance. Some of the questions such as the one on cost of a campaign, I did not do a good job replying. If you have never been involved in a campaign I was very hard to follow. Money is important but not the most important thing whether it’s a local or state issue, the CTLAC would have you believe money is the only issue. A successful campaign is more than money,it is work, work, work. You have to walk the neighborhoods, make the calls, etc., etc. Locally we have had candidates win with little or no money, in fact just recently in St. Johns county a CC was elected that did not raise anywhere near the money the incumbent did and the incumbent lost. If you look to Washington State there is a lady running that has nothing and is second in the polls. There are many other examples. Speaking of St. Johns County they followed the proceeding of the CRC very closely and they are currently trying to become a Charter County such as ours. It was interesting that one of the bloggers noted that they did not want a 5/2. It would be nice if he or she also noted that St. Johns voted in 5 single member and two years later voted out single member and went back to 5 at large because it gave the citizens more say in their gov't. The CC is now 100% accountable to people. This is what we had until the CTLAC went to work to limit the accountability of the people of Clay County to just one CC or 20% of the people that make decisions for us. I have been citied for supporting bigger gov't. What I, as part of the CRC, was trying to set up was a gov't where the people were in control, where the people had more people to call or complain too that were also accountable to them. Under the 5/2 the people have 3 people in which to say I won't vote for you if you vote a certain way on an issue. Under single member you only have one. It has been a while since I was involved in a debate such as the one the CAN hosted and I can assure you that the next one will be just as much fun and I look forward to it. Oh, just a side note the petition process is difficult, they must be written and abide by all the laws, I have noticed some real problems with the petitions of the CTLAC, story to follow later. Roy Lyons
Submitted by wainmed on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 8:11pm.
Roy, Enough of the cheap shots at CTLAC. You stumbled in your answers which made you look like you were being evasive or strecthing the truth or bending the facts. If you know of the CTLAC's not following the rules or law, don't leave it hanging present the truth which is factual and backed up with statues, court decisions. To tell you the truth I'm having a crediablity problem with CPVR and the way it is attacking the CTLAC. All I want is the truth from both sides and let me decide who has earned my trust therefore, my support
Submitted by finder on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 5:36am.
Roy; I was going to let you slide till I really read you post and digested the last statement. The more I read and hear from you the more you and CPVR irritate me. Once you stepped behind that podium and picked up that mic you pretty much became a public figure so I don't feel all that bad about pretty much telling you what I think. Though this one will be watered down from what I'd really like to say. Had you spent some time preparing your opening remarks you might have sounded more like a public speaker than an egotistical blow-hard. You spent more time blowing your own horn and throwing rocks at CTLAC than you did stating any pertinent facts. I for one don't care how many places you retired from, how many Republican whatevers you served as or how great you think you are. The great part of this voting thing? No matter who or what you are, everybody gets one vote and they all count the same. You are being very generous with yourself when you imply that you participated in a debate. Jane's attitude, comments and demeanor were consistent with a debate. Yours on the other hand were more like a sixth grade playground argument. For a while there I thought you were going to break out a ruler to try to prove your point about how great you are. When the questions got tough you consistently fell back to your rock throwing defense. You fumbled the ball every time it was handed to you and then tried to blame the CPVR shortcomings on someone else. You couldn't explain why when the CRC said that it would be unreasonable to pay the CC less than the 70% and 80% (for the chair) that you suddenly decided that 60% was OK. I'll tell you why I think that is. That % brings the salary in line with the 37K that CTLAC wants. Now you can tell everyone that CPVR is virtually the same as CTLAC. You see that is where people like you irritate the crap out of people like me. I don't like people treating me like I'm an idiot. Roy 7 times 37K is a lot higher than 5 times 37K. 7 benefit packages cost a lot more than 5. An automatic pay raise every year costs more than a raise only when the voters say so. That pig just ain't gonna fly. I could go on but why belabor the point. You didn't do well Roy. The problem is that you looked, acted and sounded just like what you were selling. And Roy, it smelled a lot like the stuff that came out of the spreader I pulled behind the tractor I used to drive on the farm. Oh, just a side note the petition process is difficult, they must be written and abide by all the laws, I have noticed some real problems with the petitions of the CTLAC, story to follow later. Roy, that is so grammar school. Neener, Neener, Neener I know something you don't! If there is something wrong with them be an upfront kind of guy and point it out. But then, perhaps that is a course of action unfamiliar to you. This just adds to the growing sentiment that CPVR will do anything to win. Now that begs the question win what. That Chairman seat is looking awful important right now. You and your crew are trying way too hard to win a strictly ceremonial position. You may want to do some research on what Lincoln said about voters. We aren't nearly as stupid as you think we are Roy. Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov. Submitted by Angela on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 12:34pm.
Mr. Lyons I was the one who brought up the St Johns County refusal of additional government. They voted in single member districts then changed back to at large district. Then they wanted to add additional government, which they refused. St Johns County like Clay has had some issues with their government. As has been said on here many times government is a work in progress. I think that was one of the reason they voted a pro-growth Commissioner with the huge war chest out of office. Like many of us we are in search of accountability in their government. They have tried several different senarios lately in hopes to fix some of the problems they have with their government. I applaud the voters for being involved in those choices and what works best for them. I guess they weren't impressed with more government but like most of us in Clay County. Who would like less government but more accountability. However, your proposed admendment would remove the power of the voters to try different senarios because of placing an undue burden on the voters by having to meet the 2/3's standards to remove an elected position. Which I find personally offensive for many reasons. If our goal is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people then I don't see where you undue burden fits in that senario of removing elected officials. Which even goes against your work on the CRC to have the next CRC group go into depth to explore and investigate the possiblity of having certain constitutional officer come under the Charter. That was due to problems by the Sheriff in the county. This would be a job better suited to the CRC who has access to more funds than most citizens group to undertake that project. St Johns County voters have the ability to add or remove by the voters. You proposed amendment makes that harder for Clay County to achieve by placing an undue burden on the voters. I hope they see what is being taken away from them by your amendment. It certainly isn't protecting their rights. People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 2 users and 205 guests online.
Online usersRecent comments |
Thanks for the input at last night's debate.
Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.