CTLAC: Impatience causes confusion

I would have to disagree again. First the FSS provides for the voters to have a 5 or 7 member commission. 

The statute provides the provision for a citizens petition or the Commissioners to place an amendment on the ballot to reduce the size of government. All legal and allowed for by the FSS. The legislators had the intent in mind when they crafted the FSS.

I see a citizen's group that is for less government and not more government.

The petition does not provide for a transition because that is the job of the Commissioners to provide for an orderly method of transition FSS. The petition can only cover one subject and it is the job of the Commissioners as required by law to make a method by resolution of an orderly transition.

The CTLAC can only submit a petition. The voters by signing the petition by now close to over 10,000 have requested this matter come before the voters for a vote. The voters then will have an opportunity to either vote yes or no for less government. I hope they make the choice for less government. I know I will vote for less government.

However, the method of transition will be the responsibility of the Commissioners who are the governing body of the county and are required by law to be specific when they craft that resolution.

The new positions were staggered but the electors voted for a 7 member commissions in 2006. As well they can rethink that position and vote for a 5 member commission all legally allowed by law. Which I hope that is what they decide in the 08 election. We certainly cannot effectively run government with 6 Commissioners but could cause our government to come to a halt.

However because the positions are staggered that should not be held against the CTLAC because they support less more effective government in Clay County. And I would totally disagree that the citizens being allowed to participate in that government by being able to submit petitons to the voters causes any problems. They have followed the laws as defined in the FSS.

As usual all debates seem to turn into another attempt to bash a citizens group working for good government. I think as I often hear Durwood say there is an element in the county that does not want the people to have any say in their government. They certainly can't agree with their great ideas such as term limits, less government and other ideas. So they attempt to bash the group. I think I just saw this in another blog where Ms. Padgett was accused along with the CAN group.

I don't see any confusion here just an opportunity to revisit more government versus less government. I will be supporting less government. I would like to thank the CTLAC for all the hard work that has gone in to this opportuntiy to revisit this subject.

Stan24,

Clay County voters ovrwhelmingly adopted 5 single member districts BEFORE the CRC proposed adding the 2 at-Large Districts.

Why did the CRC not give the 5 Single Member Districts a chance before proposing an enlarged government bureaucracy? 

You need to give credit where credit is due!

Stan;

How confusing can this be? Do you want 5 or 7?

The group that claims to protect the people is trying to overturn a 2006 vote of the people with an amendment whose effect is unknown even to them.

The effect is pretty easy to see. Is our government at a standstill now? It seems to be doing just fine with 5. Why do I want to add two more? The more people you add to a committee the less effective it is. Too many cooks and all that. What you get is watered down ideas progress.

Stan, 'figuring out how to accomplish this' is what we pay them for. It didn't take them long to figure out how to add 2 more seats.

Stan, despite the best efforts of a select few who want to perpetuate the illusion of confusion (hey I like that one), it is NOT. Take a look at the new blog. It is really a straight forward decision making process.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

If the petition passes we have 5 rather then 7, doesn't take rocket science. If this is going to bring the county to it's knees then we have far larger problems.

Like so many other blogs, you're making this about a group and not the issues.

Now, on that theme of group criticism I have a real, not imagined problem with the CPVR. "Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights"  Their first two actions:

1. Protect elected officials with a required 2/3 majority/super majority/67% to get rid of them. 

2. Retain the state formula for their pay and benefits increases which is based on growth, regardless of whether its responsible growth or not. 

How does either one protect the rights of the voter? 

If this group was a business I'd file a complaint with the BBB for misrepresentation.

http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov. 7 Commissioners or 5.

Does the P in CPVR stand for Protection or Prevention?

Stan, as I mentioned in another blog, what's going to happen has already been preliminarily researched and decided by the people in charge of implementing the legal procedures of any amendment's passage.  Right or wrong, what could or should happen, that's the process that will take place unless something happens between now and the first BCC meeting after the election to change it.

I too am one of the people that thinks citizens would have been best served had the previous Charter Review Commission had allowed the recently-adopted single-member district format more time to prove, or disprove, its value before suggesting a change.  The impatience you cite in CTLAC was necessitated as a response to the impatience of the CRC to "enhance" a system that didn't have time to show that it needed any enhancement at all.

Marsh and Republican, it wasn't a miraculous and immediate epiphany because I've given it considerable thought since the formation was announced on MCS, but I think I've finallly figured out that "protection" question in Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights.

They aren't protecting the rights of this year's voters or future voters.  They are dedicated to protecting the rights, or at least wishes, of 25,000 or so voters in 2006.  Next, I expect them to sponsor a Charter Amendment that will allow George and Christy to keep their seats on the BCC, because those same 2006 voters' rights are being violated by Bush and Fitzgerald's term-limited retirements.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

So then it's an organization protecting a select group of voters, the ones that voted in favor of 2 more Commissioners in 2006. They could have put that in their title and saved alot of confusion "Citizens for the Protection of selected Voters Rights from 2006" or "Citizens Protecting the 2006 elections" just to name a couple.

Regardless of the reasoning the name is still misleading to me.

http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov. 7 Commissioners or 5.