Back to the Issues

Mike,

Thanks for trying to keep the focus on the issues.

It's all pretty simple for me, not complex at all. I am always for less Goverment,

I am never for anything that protects Politicians, if they don't do anything wrong and do their jobs they shouldn't need protection of any sort, the US Constitution protects us all equally.

I am for controlling spending, especially in this economy.  It is BS to ask the voters to pay for a perk they themselves don't have. Dental Insurance, health insurance, Life insurance.....for life?????????

Property taxes have been cut, revenues will be down even further from foreclosures.  When a home is in foreclosure no taxes are paid on it.  Have you looked at the number of homes on the market in Clay County?  Personally I don't believe what some realty sources are saying about it beginning to turn around.  I'm finding what looks to be activity "pending sales", but when you look at the fine print they've been pending for nine months or a year.  You see a listing that appears to be brand new yet when you investigate you find there has actually been four or five listings and the home has been for sale for well over a year.  There are some areas where homes have been for sale for 2-3yrs.

Common sense logic, now more then ever we do not need to be increasing the size of goverment, and the people who pay their salaries ought to have some control over just how much they get paid and for how long. 

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

I tried to write the blog to present the issues without showing any bias or stating any opinions. However, like everyone else I do have my own.

Number of Commissioners: 5 is working. Why do I need 7? To me it is as simple as that. I don't see anything two more can do for me. My vote carries more weight with my SMD Commissioner than it does with one that is selected by the entire county.

Pay: Obviously both groups think the current pay scale is too high. $37K and 60% are about the same amount of money. The difference is who determines when they get a pay raise. I trust two people with our household check book. My lovely bride and me. I want control over pay increases. I don't trust the state to determine how much money to pay them.

Super Majority: I really haven't made up my mind about the 60% for Charter changes. I've still got to give some more thought to that. However, I can see absolutely no good reason to have eliminating an elected position be any different than any other issue. They are all just as important as the other. They should all have to meet the same criteria whether that is simple or 60%.

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

I'm not solid in my feelings on that one either.  I understand their (CTLAC) reasoning, that the Charter should not be changed "capriciously", and I agree in theory.

You can look at it in a way that says it will make it harder to get amendments passed by Grass Root Organizations but I believe it will have the same effect on those that are created by the BCC and the CRC

I may be wrong but I believe it only takes 3 Commissioners to put something on the ballot and it takes only 8 members of the CRC out of 17 members.

I would say that it at least applies across the board, does not target one specific issue so it's hard to see any sort of agenda.  I know the CTLAC has been accused of slamming the door behind them but I don't see them doing that anymore then the CPVR is, not satisfied with merely having 2 more Commissioners but looking to change the Charter to protect those positions in the future.

I know one thing, I am going to be paying real close attention to who is on the next CRC.  The Commission appointed to review the Charter to make it better when they can get something before the voters so easily SHOULD NOT be used a political stepping stone into public office.

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

I agree, thanks for focusing on the issues, especially the 5/2 issue which is of interest to me.

 I'm not crazy about the less government mantra. I want good government, and if I have to pay a bit more to get it, I'm willin'. But thats just me...

I understand your saying you have more clout with your one dedicated commissioner. But you still need another two votes to get something done for your district. If we want to agree that the other four will always have the best interests of the entire county  in mind, I might be able to agree with just five. But what if your issue only helps one district. In a strapped economy I think you may have more difficulty in getting something done specifically for your district.

With the five plus two.. I agree you have more clout with your one dedicated commissioner still, but the two at-large would still be wise to listen to your concerns. If you can then win them over, you only need one more vote for a majority of the commission. 

Its easier to gain one more vote than it is to gain two. So I'd like a response that will convince me that this thinking is wrong. Put aside for now the issue of cost for the purpose of debate, unless that is your only point.

In my county, and why I first started paying attention to this topic, we have 7 district commissioners. With talk surfacing now and then about going to 5 district and 2 at large (obviously we don't have the same cost issue since we're keeping the overall number the same) One of those is saddled with the most economically area of the county. That districts interests constantly has to gain the support of half the remaining commissioners to get something done for them.

 Regarding pay.. if we can agree that 37KL and 60% is about the same (I trust you on that one...) I don't know who I trust more... Citizens tend to have a pretty negative attitude toward government workers and probably wouldn't be too kind in the pay raise department. Could be convinced otherwise I suppose.  I think the passage of amendment 1 shows that the population doesn't always think things all the way through. Strictly personal opinion there....

Regarding charter amendments... difficult choice. At 50% I tend to think it changes too often. 60% may even be too low. But I haven't studied this one as much so I'll punt....

If we cannot conduct the business of Clay County with a 5 member commission. Then that is due to the quality of people running the county (manager) and policy makers (commissioners). After all look at the amount of counties that have populations of over 250K and can run that county with a 5 member commission. Why quality of people running the county. Not the number of people running the county. Plain and simple.

I would say the United States Supreme Court would agree single-members districts is in line with, and expressed in Connor v. Finch 97 S. Ct. 1828,1834,(1977), a preference founded upon a judgment that single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation in a county.

If those 5 people are doing their job and the county manager is running the county appropriately then why do we need more Commissioners?

The money issues are a sure thing to me. There is no debate that revenues are down and will continue to go down for awhile longer, maybe as much as 5 or 6 years. There is no debate that school programs, social programs are being cut. There is no debate that whatever 7 Commissioners cost next year, 5 would cost less and the cost of 7 will continue to increase over the years as will the 5, especially if their raises are automatic based upon a state formula.

The theory that 7 is going to help me out more then 5 is based upon hypothetical situations. How do you debate hypotheticals in politics and come to any resolution? It is  going to depend on what it is I want, and how it relates to the rest of the county. It's going to depend on those individuals who are serving whether or not they listen or care. It's going to depend on who else has their ear on the opposite side of the issue and it's probably also going to depend on whether or not I contributed to their campaign funds, or whether I campaigned against them.  The benefit weighs on too many variables.

It was determined awhile back that neither side can prove what will truly serve the county best. One was never given a chance and the other is meeting resistance from being given a chance. What can be determined, the cost can be. 

I agree with Angela, if you have a BCC that is acting right it shouldn't matter if there are 5 or 7, and if they aren't acting right having 7 of them to deal with is just a 40% increase in aggravation.

http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov. 7 Commissioners or 5. I say the money is better spent somewhere else in this economy that isn't going to suddenly turn around.

I agree that is difficult to make my point without a concrete example and that we are then debating hypothetical situations, but  I think we can both agree that those examples would come along of issues that will primarily benefit one district over another some way.

I think that if 3 commissioners are accountable to every voter, you have a better shot at being heard and gaining a majority than if only 1 commissioner is accountable to the voter.

Regrettably I have no faith in any elected officials doing the right thing just because  its the right thing. Certainly many, if not most, do so.... but  in the end they will hold themselves primarily accountable to those that can get them elected. IMHO

Maybe we should pay them nothing and somehow make sure they cannot profit from having been a commissioner and we can then get the truly noble Cincinnatus type to hold office.

I've never seriously considered the extreme of paying them nothing, people can still profit from the position whether they're getting a salary or not, and I do believe that peoples time is worth something. The CRC isn't a paying job and look at the runs for office that have resulted, non paying positions have their benefits.  

To expand on your premise a little, lets take Keystone for an example. I don't live there but I am sure concerned about the drop in those water tables.  If the citizens of that district were trying to get something done to help them in that plight then I would be encouraging my District Commissioner to cooperate. I think it's the participation of the public that makes the difference and I think there are alot of voters out there like me.

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

You can take this to the bank: appointments to the CRC have, in the past, been whomever one large landowner and one lobbyist wanted appointed to that board.  Whether that continues or not depends on whether their candidates are elected to the BCC on August 26th of this year.

Wouldn't it be great if members of the BCC appointed 'just plain folks' to the CRC? What a unique concept. People with no axe to grind, no hidden agenda doing what is best for the county? I know, naive. But one can dream and hope. 

It just seems to me that the Charter really didn't need 'fixing' by diluting the Board with the addition of two more commissioners.

Some of the statements I've heard that are supposed to be positives in trying to justify this increase worry me. Let's forget about cost. Let's look at the opportunity for abuse.

Its easier to gain one more vote than it is to gain two. So I'd like a response that will convince me that this thinking is wrong.  

I can't tell you this thinking is wrong. And THAT is the problem. I don't want it to be 'easier' to get things to go your way. If it's not a good idea I want it to be as hard as possible to get it by.

It seems to me that there has been too much back slapping and scratching going on as it is. Why do I want to water down the process and let someone slide into home without anyone guarding the plate?

I wouldn't play poker with one wild card in the deck, why should I want two?  Two people in collusion could stack the deck to achieve nearly any goal they wanted and we would just be making it easier.

If everyone was pure of heart and purpose the +2 would be fine (other than the cost). But that is never going to happen. 

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

Well.... this point of yours comes closer than anything else to convincing me.... Heck, if everyone was pure of heart this topic would never have started.

I guess my only rebuttal might be that with the 5 + 2, you do still have people guarding the plate. If I start out with 3 votes, there are still 4 people guarding the plate. The only thing that changes is the amount of commissioners you need to convince.

 As to good ideas vs. bad ideas and getting them done... Its the same as this discussion, everybody has different ideas of good vs bad. 50% or 60% for a charter amendment. All I have is my opinion and what I feel is good or bad. I suppose only history can be the final judge of which ideas are good and which are bad.

You still need a majority of votes with either the 5 disctricts or the 5+2. So far, I still like the idea of some at large representation. It just seems the less "powerful" districts get a better shot.

The facts show as I stated above all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court would agree single-members districts is in line with, and expressed in Connor v. Finch 97 S. Ct. 1828,1834,(1977), a preference founded upon a judgment that single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation in a county.

If equal representation is the goal single member districts have been proven to be the most efficient means of securing that equal representation in case law. I have to base my opinion on court cases and common sense.

I have never seen any documents that would support 5 single and 2 at large would provide efficient equal representation. But if anybody has that I would like to review those facts. To date I have never seen that information. 

I believe that government works best for the people when it is the smallest it can be legally. Over bloated government is costly, ineffective, and against my principals.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court may think, many counties do variations of the 5 + 2, so it must work for them.

The fact alone that the Supreme Court may think it to be the most efficient method of securing equal representations means nothing to me. There have been other decisions of theirs I disagree with. Its originally an 1828 case! I'll check it out though. 

I don't know which is better, thats why I'm in this discussion.. to hear both sides even though at the moment I may favor one.

 You cite court cases, which I've already spoken of and "common sense". One persons opinion of "common sense" is hardly evidence based research that single district is better. 

I reject totally the idea that smaller government necessarily means better for the people. "small" government can be just as corrupt and inefficient as big government. What I want is good government, and as I've said before, I'll gladly pay for it if necessary to get good government. 

Angela

   The Connor v Finch I just found had to do with legislative redistricing issues and only talked about single member districts as opposed to multi member districts.

Any chance you can supply a link to the Connor V Finch you are referring to?

In government it is quality versus quantity too. Our history of problems in the county have come from the lack of quality people that have illegally ran the county. It would have made no difference if we had 5, 7 or 9 commissioners.

The Commissioners do not RUN the county. The issue in how the county runs falls right into the lap of the county manager. If he is a professional then he understands that and will abide by the laws as set forth in our Charter form of government.

All the commissioners do is make policies. It is the sole responsiblity of the county manager to implement those policies and run the county. Needing 7 people to make a policy in Clay County with such a small population is sad and does not speak for the county in my opinion.

After all they don't really make the policy they direct the county manager to have HIS staff research and bring back the recommendations to the Commissioners. Again we see the County Manager is the job that makes the county work. The Commissioners are then told you have option 1 or option 2 and they get to decide on the policy that they see best works. Do we really need 7 people to sit and listen to the County Manager's staff tell us what the options are and pick one. The county manager's staff should be professionals doing a professional job and trained experts in the field they work in.

The Commissioners do not need to be professionals in those fields to implement a policy based off expert opinions and I certainly don't see the need for 7 of them.

You can have corruption in a 5, 7, or 9 member Commission. Again the would be quality and not quantity. However the vast majority of counties in Florida have a 5 member commission. Until you start getting to populations of 1/2 million or more citizens.

A court case that extends all the way back to 1828 and you have no current case that would dispute those facts has to be grounded and based off the best information provided all the way up to 2008. How much better can it get than facts such as provided in that case.

I'm having a hard time understanding that question.

What would you call a single district that has 2 at large members who's encroachment in their district to dilute the will of that Commissioner. I would call that a multi district. After all they wouldn't need the votes of a single district when they could get elected based off the other 4 districts and enough special interest money.

I thought that was the issue we were discussing. Thus the opinion of the Supreme Court and the best means to achieve equal representation being single-member districts as they have determined. That was my point.

Courts offer opinions that we are all stuck living with, but they are  still just opinions and not necessarily good ones at that. Courts making political decisions are nothing new. In fact, courts have made many many bad  decisions over the years that have since been overruled by subsequent courts.

I don't know about your county, but here in my county the BCC sometimes overrules all the options presented  by staff and the county administrator.  Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

Obviously its quality over quantity. But that fact in and of itself does nothing to address whether 5 district or 5+2 is better. If your argument is simply that 5 is smaller than 7 and therefore better, then there is no point in further discussion. If however, part of your argument is somehow that single district is inherently better than 5+2 ... then thats the discussion worth having.  I'll try and find some time to do some independent research on my end to try and prove my point, which I admittedly haven't done yet because the debate was interesting in and of itself.

And since 1828 to my knowledge has not been overruled to determine any other formulation provided better equal representation than single-member districts. What else is left to debate?

Without a link, or me finding the original case on my own, I can't properly answer.

I would be surprised to find that the court case actually made a "ruling" that single member districts were the most effecient. My guess is that that was an opinion given in support of the eventual actual "ruling" in the case at hand.

If it were an actual ruling about single district representation, why haven't you, or whoever, simply gone to court to abolish 5+2?

Plus I'm not yet convinced the case you cite has anything to do with county government as opposed to state or federal government. It may be applicable, it may not. Do you have any other evidence that district is better than district plus at large?

I'm not finding much yet on district vs. district plus at large on the web.

But interestingly, I'm finding lots of sources for the problems inherent in single member district representation generally... 

I'll keep looking and try and resist the temptation to come back unless I do find something of value out there.

Found a good source that academically addresses the issue (absent cost)

If you want you can just read the opening and closing remarks, I haven't fully digested the whole thing but it does argue for district AND at large representation. Also it is concerned mostly with municipal councils, not sure if it could be argued to not be applicable to a county. Interesting reading though if you want to wade through it.

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~edelman/at-large.pdf

Thanks for the paper. I think it validates my points that very few have explored the issue of at large. This being due to the fact a preference founded upon a judgment that single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation in a county. As they say if it ain't broke don't fix it theory.

In the paper they discuss some of the normative arguments in favor of at-large representation. While these arguments have been found less credible of late, there has been a long-standing interest in at-large representation for both social and political reasons.

In the paper they go on to address the cost which has been discussed on here as well.

As noted earlier, at the federal and state level it has been decided, that whatever benefits at-large representation offers are not sufficient to outweigh the costs.

I have stated that at the right time given the county's increased populations of some of the larger counties in the State of a 1/2 milion it would benefit the county to have more representation. That's not the position the County is in at this time. Some of the larger counties with mixed representation also have many municipalities which we only have 4 if you included Penney Farms.

I think when we reach a population conducive to the need where the cost will be sufficient. At that time I think we should also have a better pool of candidates to pick from in the race.

Something is inherently wrong in a selected leader in my opinion.

bigmig;

Being somewhat anal I did read a lot of this. Not all mind you but enough to gather what I think is a 'feel' for the article.

I'm not sure I would use this as a basis to enhance your argument for the +2. There seems to be a lot of statements such as:

Ultimately, we will just have to take this assumption as a given, and recognize it as the cost of working with a formal model.

For me, any time I see a statement like that I think 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help'. This in my opinion is typical of what I consider another hack trying to sell his idea without presenting actual facts to back up his premise. 

The individual makes many such 'assumptions' and the article seems to be quite obviously about large municipalities. I'm speaking of cities with larger populations than our entire county.

I think I would argue that to make an assumption that it could be applicable to a county would be a stretch that I would not reach for.

Let's look at it this way. We're in the middle of the desert in Arizona. You can look out in the distance and see the reflection off the water as I describe the advantages of living on this wonderful beach. Ultimately we will have to make the assumption that the illusion of water is truly water. We'll just have to recognize that as a cost of working with a snake oil salesman.

As long as you don't try to get too close, or actually try to touch the 'water' everything is just fine. For me. You on the other hand are going to have a real issue with the reality once it sinks in that you probably shouldn't invest in any watercraft.

5+2 is an illusion of better.

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

bigmig9999:

You are right to be skeptical that the United States Supreme Court has said that single-member districts are the most efficient and preferred form of representation.  The case cited by Angela (actually its Connor v. Fitch, not Finch) has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.  The case talks about legislative reapportionment, like you explained.  The case was concerned with making sure that state legislative districts were comprised of equal populations.  The concern was diluting the votes of blacks by the district boundaries.  Equality of populations in districts is only relevant here if we want to argue that District 1 has more people in it than District 2.  Since that is not case, we can move on. 

Don't let your skepticism stop with her case law, be sure to apply it to the statistics provided in these blogs.  While it is true that the majority of counties in the state have five member commissions, the VAST majority of those five member districts are at-large commissions.  When you look further, there are only three counties in the entire state with populations greater than Clay's that maintain a 5 person single-member system.  When you consider Clay's population, some form of at-large representation is very consistent with other counties in the state.  The idea that adding at-large representation to our county is some radical move is not supported by the facts.  Actually, the CTLAC would put Clay in the minority state-wide of larger counties with no form of at-large representation.

Finder.. I admitted that the article seemed concerned with municipalities and I certainly don't automatically infer that it could be used as a basis for countywide bodies. I also think the article does show that more study is needed. But I did seem to get that the author felt  that both at large and district representation gives the voter more "power"  I really should sit down and reread it closely though before saying much more.

Angela,

  I'm not sure I follow about the "selected leader".  Does the Chair have some special powers that the other commissioners don't? Isn't he just one vote like everybody else. I remember this being discussed briefly in past posts, but I don't remember the details.  Are you referring him to being "selected" because he is unopposed? (if he is) or do you mean "selected" because people will be actually voting for the Chair?

Stan, thanks... thats what I thought I was reading also. and at any rate I certainly didn't see the specific words "single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation in a county." that Angela cited in that case anywhere. But I did notice a reference to yet another case where those words may be, although I haven't been able to find it yet.

Sorry to correct you but it is Connor v Finch. However the opinion notes racial or political elements of the population. The political element of many civil society organizations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry, who make better voting choices, participate in politics, and hold government more accountable as a result.

Given the tendency of at-large electoral schemes to unconstitutionally minimize the vote of racial or political elements of the population, and '[b]ecause the practice of multimember districting can contribute to voter confusion [and] make legislative representatives more remote from their constituents,' the Supreme Court of the United States has expressed a preference for single-member district plans. Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 (1977).

 This preference has been explained by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Wallace v. House, 538 F.2d 1138, 1144 (5th Cir. 1976), as follows:

The general preference for single-member district plans is founded on a judgment that the weaknesses of multi-member or at-large plans tend to impair fair representation and impede access to the political process.

Connor v Finch/Fitch whatever.....  speaks to the differences between single member and multi member district representations. Which has nothing to do with at large.

Wallace V. House was the other case I mentioned above that I couldn't remember off the top of my head. And I also couldn't find the text of that case at the time of my last comment. 

You seem to be taking verbatim text out of whatever you found... can you just cut and past the actual link where you found the text so I can read it for myself? Or i'll keep googling till I find it myself.

You didn't address your issue regarding "selected leader"... if you care to go down that road. 

Evidently you failed to read the part that say or at-large plans tend to impair fair representation and impede access to the political process.

It appears you are missing the most important point of the opinions that SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS are in the judgment of the court the preference. Not some math equation based off hypothetical arguments as finder eluded too.

I think you would need to live in Clay County to fully understand and appreciate the selected leader comment. However, a person who wins that position by default and the need for not one vote to be cast. Is in my opinion a mockery to the process of elections in our county. He has not been elected.

In non-Charter counties in the State of Florida, the county commissions are composedof 5 at-large commissioners, unless the county goes through a statutory process to opt for single member.  FS 124.01 I have a feeling that if the supreme court of our country made the firm determination that single-member is the only fair representation then our Florida legislature would not make the general rule at-large and single-member an optional process.  My guess is that maybe Angela is pulling quotes from voters rights cases that don't apply in our debate and certainly doesn't equal an official nod from the us supreme court.  The following case is a voters rights case where the justices discuss the fact that voters rights cases have pulled the judiciary into deciding how to maximize minority votes and caused them venture into political arenas where the judiciary should not tread. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (1994)It should be apparent, however, that there is no principle inherent in our constitutional system, or even in the history of the Nation's electoral practices, that makes single-member districts the “proper” mechanism for electing representatives to governmental bodies or for giving “undiluted” effect to the votes of a numerical minority. On the contrary, from *898 the earliest days of the Republic, multimember districts were a common feature of our political systems. The Framers left unanswered in the Constitution the question whether congressional delegations from the several States should be elected on a general ticket from each State as a whole or under a districting scheme and left that matter to be resolved by the States or by Congress. See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. It was not until 1842 that Congress determined that Representatives should be elected from single-member districts in the States. See Act of June 25, 1842, ch. 47, 5 Stat. 491.FN3 Single-member districting was no more the rule in the States themselves, for the Constitutions of most of the 13 original States provided that representatives in the state legislatures were to be elected from multimember districts.FN4 Today, although **2595 they have come under increasing attack under the Voting Rights Act, multimember district systems continue to be a feature on the American political landscape, especially in municipal governments. See The Municipal Yearbook 14 (table) (1988) (over 60% of American cities use at-large election systems for their governing bodies).That doesn't sound like a supreme court that has made the determination that fair representation only lies with single members. 

If I have failed to read anything, its because you haven't supplied a link, and/or I haven't found it on my own yet. Believe me, I'm looking for what you cite.

If you choose to discount my arguments simply because I don't live in Clay county, that is your choice.  but you have still failed to say whether or not you think a leader is being "selected" because he is unopposed, or because one of the at large seats is designated as the chair.

 I would argue that if "you" can't convince a relatively uninvolved outsider, who is only interested in the issue because it has come up in his locality,  as to the benefit of district vs. district plus at large..... you may yet have some work to do to convince clay county voters on the wisdom of your choice.

I  

Let's see an individual that is appointed to a commission (CRC) who helps craft a position. Then this individual lobby's the voters for that position. Then this individual get appointed on the commission (BCC). Then they get appointed vice chairman of that commission (BCC). Then they run unopposed for that position (BCC) and get appointed/selected by default for the position. However this individuals has never been elected for anything by the voters. The irony of things in Clay County a unique place with voting issues in Florida.

It is the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that a preference founded upon a judgment that single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation for racial and political elements. Many forms exist they have just determined that single-member district secure the most equal representation.

Florida has 67 counties of those 19 are Charter Counties the remaining 48 are non-charter counties with variations of single-members and at large. If you like I can list those too.

Florida's 19 Charter Counties- listed by county, population, and commission makeup. Information obtained from the Fl Association of Counties.

Alachua- 240,764  5 at-large

Brevard- 531,970  5 single-members

Broward- 1,740,987  9 single-members

Charlotte- 154,030  5 at-large

Clay- 169,623   mixed 5/2

Columbia- 61,466  5 single-members

Duval- 861,150  mixed (14/5)

Hillsborough- 1,131,546  mixed (4/3)

Lee- 549,442  5 at-large

Leon- 271,111 mixed (5/2)

Miami-Dade- 2,422,075 13 single-members

Orange- 1,043,437  6 single-members with a chairman

Osceola- 235,156  5 at-large

Palm Beach- 1,265,900  7 single-members

Pinellas- 947,744 mixed (4/3)

Polk- 541,840  5 at-large

Sarasota- 367,867  5 at-large

Seminole- 411,744  5 at-large

Volusia 494,649 mixed (5/2)

I'm still waiting on someone to provide court cases that state the at large is a more efficient means of securing equal representation in a county. Doubt I'll ever see those court cases and I think the point the writers was making in the only source that has been provided so far by bigmig. 

I think the voters in Clay County get the picture smaller government is the best form of government. Single members is just an enhancement.

Angela, your reliance on court cases makes no sense. Just because you allege the Supreme Court says single member districts are the most efficient... means absolutely nothing.  Your refusal to provide a link so somebody can read the case for themselves to see if its even applicable is telling. Not to mention there is a world of differrence between US House of Representatives reapportionment boundaries (which is what the court case cited was about) and County Government.

What is your list supposed to prove? I see many variations, nothing indicating which one might be "better" which is what this discussion is supposed to be about.

You continually revert to the smaller is better argument which means nothing. Smaller can NOT logically be inferred to mean better. It can be inferred that its cheaper.... but it can NOT automatically mean better.

And now you are changing the terms of the discussion, you are now stating that single district is more "efficient at securing equal representation" ... the original discussion was about merely "efficiency" and "better". I have never contended that 5+2 gives better "representation" Although I think it does. As a voter, with 5+2 I now have 3 commissioners representing me instead of 1... thats just math.

I have only provided one link so far...  and that was with about 15 minutes of research.

bigmig;

And now you are changing the terms of the discussion, you are now stating that single district is more "efficient at securing equal representation" ... the original discussion was about merely "efficiency" and "better". I have never contended that 5+2 gives better "representation" Although I think it does. As a voter, with 5+2 I now have 3 commissioners representing me instead of 1... thats just math.

What is your point other than arguing an issue? If 5+2 doesn't give better 'representation' then we are back to nothing but cost and we have come full circle around the bush again.

And as you stated that's just math. Of course the math has money attached to it rather than some philosophical debate that has one foot nailed to the floor and can go nowhere but in a circle.

No one seems to be able to produce any studies or facts that say 5+2 is better at anything but spending money yet they want to change to it. When those that don't want the change disagree with those promoting the 'philosophy' of 5+2 they want them to supply studies and facts that back up the SMD idea.

Seems like a double standard. Kind of like: Ultimately, we will just have to take this assumption as a given, and recognize it as the cost of working with a formal model.

I'm sorry, but the one article you presented was nothing more than a piece done to support one individuals 'model'. It presented no studies or facts to say that this model was good, bad or indifferent. It was just a model of how to set up a mixed group. 

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

yes, this discussion/debate is arguing the issue, isn't that the point?

You are cherry picking one sentence out of a 19 page study. OK... I'll cherry pick one:

"what I have presented in this paper is a positive model of an election that justifies a specific level of at-large representation as maximizing the voting power of the voters."

I concede the point that if cost is the only issue.... 5 single district is "better"

Although I have taken the position to further the discussion of favoring 5+2 I do so only to try and get the proponents to convince me that 5 single district is "better" So far, I haven't been convinced by an 1828 supreme court decision that may, or may not, be relevant to local politics.

I have yet to be convinced that having 1 commissioner representing me on a 5 single district commission is better than having 3 commissioners represent me on a 7 member commission.

BM,

You'll have to forgive me that I am just dazzled by your interest in our local politics when you claim you don't live here.  I wish I had that kind of time!!

You're sure going to alot of effort for something that doesn't effect you.

It was long ago established that there is no proof one way or the other which will work better for Clay County.  There are statistics on both sides of the fence for either one. Only time will tell on either one.  Personally I'd rather start with the one that is going to cost the taxpayer less money.

It's easy to be cavalier about the cost, no big deal, don't mind paying for better goverment etc etc etc when you have plenty of money.  You are obviously not fighting to keep the lights on and food in the house or the in excess of 120K a year for two more Commissioners is not a big deal to you. 

There are lots of places in the county where people are living in homes that aren't even worth 120K, and they're paying taxes.........and it's my personal opinion that if an elected Official has no regard for the poorest of it's citizens then they're incapable of looking out for the welfare of all it's citizens. 

Thats why what cannot be debated is the cost, now and in the future. 

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

First, lets be clear, the courts are not the ones who decide which form of government is best for Clay County.  They can tell us that a particular situation is unconsitutional or that an amendment violates statutes because it is, say, misleading, but the courts role isn't to tell people what form of representation they want.  That role belongs to the voters.

You can talk all you want about scholarly studies, etc., but the fact is that nothing will suffice for the bloggers who oppose the 5/2 form.  When someone produces a study to support the other side, then, not surprisingly, the source is biased or doesn't say precisely what you wanted it to.  On that note, since the CTLAC is the one overturning a vote of the people,where is their catalog of scholarly sources?   Gives me the feeling that nothing would be good enough.  Not a year of open meetings or a vote of the people. 

When information is presented that a county the size of Clay would be in the distinct minority of counties state-wide without at-large representation, then Angela replies that the real issue is having only 5 commissioners and single-member is just "an enhancement." 

When its made clear that the amendment is misleading and that the voters (including the proponents of the amendment) have no idea when it would be effective, then suddenly the new mantra is that the BCC will figure out transition and nevermind that we told voters it would be immediate.  In fact, unbelievably, the bloggers basically said "enough about that misleading stuff" lets talk about the issues.  Translation: that issue really makes us look like we don't know what we're advocating . . . quick, change subject.

I hear that the blogs want to hear from both sides.  Yet whenever someone challenges a bit too much for the "regulars" liking, then its time for personal attacks on candidates and sarcastic remarks about being "dazzled" that someone could care so much when they don't live here.

I don't think there is anymore that I can provide that would make any difference anyway.

First I cite a court case that determined in it's ruling that a preference founded upon a judgment that single-member districts are a more efficient means of securing equal representation. This has been upheld and continues to be cited in other cases today.

Of course no merit is given to the opinion of the court. Yet you asked the question in another post: If it were an actual ruling about single district representation, why haven't you, or whoever, simply gone to court to abolish 5+2?

A provision is made in our Charter that allows the commissioners, citizens, or CRC to present ideas to the voters. It is the voters who will decide what form of government they think works best for them. They have the right to factor in representation, cost, efficiency, the dilution of their vote in an at large scheme. Special interest involved in the candidates, reduced funds in the county coffers, and host of other factors. The voters will have the power to make that choice when it comes time to vote.

St Johns County (non-charter) had a 7 (5/2) member Commission. The voted for a 5 at large Commission. They then voted for 5 single member Commission. They then voted for 5 at large again. They had an opportunity to vote again for a 7 (5/2) member Commission recently that failed. They are in the process of giving the voters an opportunity to vote on being a Charter County. They have worked to vote out pro-growth Commissioners and other measures to ensure the most effective government for their county. I applaud their involvement in their government.

Bigmigg if you are having problems with your Commissioners overriding your County Manager and expert staff you may need to do some investigations in your own county. You may find you have some of the problems we did that prompted the FBI to come into our county.

However things in Clay County have become much more improved in our county without at large members. Simply because of the County Manager that runs our county and is paid as an expert to do so.

Mr. Littlepage visited our County Commission and he talked about the efficiency of our meetings. This has not always been the case but since we hired a professional County Manager it has been different. And not one selected/appointed Commissioner has served one day. Single members has started to take effect and if the process had been allowed to continue I think we would have an efficient means of securing equal representation in a county as well.

I liked the statement and that of one of the Commission members quoted in his article.

"The meetings are run efficiently. Objections are stated clearly. Decisions are made quickly.

As one commission member told me, it's a lot easier to reach consensus with five members than it is with 19."

So I hope the people will return the Commission back to 5 single member districts with a professional county manager to run the county and we can continue down the road of good government in Clay County. The past couple of years has been proof itself that we were working the system out without the need for additional government and at large representation.

Of course Kudos to the County Manager.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051508/opl_278971547.shtml

I have explained this before and I don't know why it would dazzle you.

I am interested in the  issue because it has come up in my county in the past and undoubtedly will again in the future. For that reason I entered the discussion to see if I could be convinced one way or the other. I lean towards 5 + 2 because so far nobody has convinced  me that having 1 commissioner out of five representing my interest is somehow better than having 3 out of 7 representing me.

You can believe it or not, but I live hundreds of miles from you in southern florida. I do research and analysis for a living so it really doesn't take up too much of my time to check in here occasionally and write a remark. You have no clue how much money I make and its lame to believe that I don't struggle to keep the lights on. I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck just like most in this economy... but I'm not scared of the word "tax" either.

 If you or somebody else would be so kind, I'd love to know how you came up with the 120K figure.

Lastly, its thinking of personal cost only that led us to the debacle of Amendment 1 passing earlier this  year.  If you want Clay County to operate like the state of Florida is now forced to operate, then by all means do government as cheaply as possible. That is why the cost of 5 v 5+2 is only part of the equation for me.

The court case you cited does not contain the words you quote and even if it did the court case was regarding legislative redistricting in a state and may or may not have anything to do with county government.

I have asked for a link several times in case I am reading the wrong court case. I've been pretty logical and reasonable here and I would gladly correct my mistake if I am looking at the wrong court case.

The BCC has every right to reject the recommendations of the County Administrator. It may or may not be smart to do, but its not necessarily illegal and not necessarily anything warranting an FBI investigation. Our County Administrator is very capable, and his advice should probably be taken more often than not. But BCC members will on occasion have their own agendas or their own opinions they feel strongly about.

I'll concede your point about consensus... certainly easier to reach with 5 than 19.  But there is not much difference between 5 and 7 on consensus building.

I will also concede that my county is different than yours in that concensus is not always the objective here. We have Republican and Democratic districts and concensus is not always possible or even always attempted.

Could you give us the name of your county. Is is a Charter county? What is your population? Do you have an adminstrator, county manager, executive, or chairman?

What is the make up of your Commission and how are they voted in to office?

I will say again our's is on the road of recovery without any at large members or the need for additional government. What other proof do the citizens need?

I will asked what can the 2 at large offer the citizens that 5 with a professional county manager and expert staff can't achieve in the county.

Even if you have 2 more votes it is so diluted with the at large scheme what difference does that make. After all they don't need your district when 4 others can get them elected. 

Bigmig, I don’t really care where you live if you want to converse and you have something to offer, it is a “world wide web”, so have at it.  You just might spark a notion no one had considered before on any number of subjects discussed here.   

If someone from another Florida county came on here and said we had a single member district for x amount of years and this is what happened or we had 5 at-large members and this is what happened; that kind of comment would be helpful.   The suspicious nature of some of us would wonder why you would take the time to maybe try and change someone’s mind on the issue if the results of the Clay County vote won’t affect you in any way. That is probably what prompts the questions posed to you about why you care to comment here.

This comment made by you in a blog entry above: 

I lean towards 5 + 2 because so far nobody has convinced  me that having 1 commissioner out of five representing my interest is somehow better than having 3 out of 7 representing me.

A comment like that and earlier ones make be think that somehow the 2 at large commissioners will always vote for my issue and that would leave only one more commissioner, as you said, that I would need to convince.  To me that just sounds like these two at large commissioners will just be yes men, so what is the point?  If what my one commissioner is saying, together with all of the citizens that might show up at a commission meeting don’t convince the other commissioners that what I want a yes vote for is valid,  then it must not be good for the county, the county budget or the county’s future. If the Commissioners have all already made up their mind, for whatever reason, 2 more yes votes won’t matter versus 5, either way it passes.

How many people have to be on the payroll for someone to do what is right and good for the county, not what is good for the special interest of one commissioner or the special interest of who that commissioner is representing?

Read44; 

Thank you! It seems as if we've been so covered in minutia that we forgot to take into account that the two at-large might not agree with your idea. It's always been that you had your SMD plus the extra two working for you.

As you said, it could be that the two extra might be working against you or at least not agree with you.

bigmig;

What is the make-up of your BCC now? SMD, AL or mixed? You say it came up in your county but you give no indication as to the current make-up and how yours is doing? 

Care to elaborate on that for the huddled masses?

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

I'll give you the data, if you are really curious about which County it is you will be able to figure it out, I can't imagine how it affects the discussion itself though.

Population is probably around 1.3 million now

Charter county, 7 commissioners elected by district, chairman rotates between the 7. We have a County Administrator who serves at the pleasure of the BCC and has been here quite awhile now.

As I've said, the change to 5+2 has been brought up by my BCC as recently as a year ago. They talk about it, nobody seems terribly opposed to the idea, but by the same token it never picks up any steam either.

Your last sentence holds the most promise so far in possibly making me reconsider 5+2. I think whether or not my vote is diluted will depend on the makeup of the county.

In my county we are split with 4 democrat commissioners and 3 republican commissioners. If we went to at large, the 2 at large would usually end up being democrat commissioners depending on how the independants voted.

If I understand Clay County, all your commissioners are republican... absolutely no clue what that means to the idea of diluting the vote.

I think figuring out exactly how my vote may be diluted would be difficult to determine in each scenario, if its diluted at all.  By the way... things must get pretty boring in Clay County once the primary season is over :) Its' pretty much a foregone conclusion after that!

My initial thinking was simply that I have 3 commissioners to call and harass if I want to get something done instead of just 1. Admittedly I can always call all 7 if I want to, but not all 7 are voted on by me and there fore have less of an interest in humoring me. With 5+2 I have 3 who theoretically want my vote, or my money at election time. If I want to get my "issue" done I only need 1 more commissioner. Whereas in the 5 model I only have 1 commissioner who wants my vote or my money at election time and I still need to convince 2 others about my issue.

I'm not trying to change anybodies mind, I'm trying to make up my own. I'm more or less taking the 5+2 side for the arguments sake because other than me, Stan has been the only other one to offer an opposing view. I personally believe that honestly looking at both sides of the issue and being open to both sides is important before making up ones mind. Thats why I get bothered by simply using the smaller government is better argument. or the cheaper government is better argument.

I hope I did a slightly better job in my last entry in explaining what I mean about having 3 instead of 1. Of course all 3 are not necessarily always going to agree with me. But I start out with 3 that ostensibly are interested in my vote or my campaign contribution and will at least listen to me. It would  be nice to think that a commissioner who doesn't need my vote would listen also, and they probably would more often than not, but I don't have the same clout as one I'm actually voting on. Of course I could get around that vote issue if I make a large enough contribution to the campaign regardless of where I live.

Finder... I supplied the data above....   My county seems to plug along well enough. The one example that makes me think of the 5+2 is this one that is true in my county. There is one district that is far more deprived than the other 6. More  crime, less money, less infrastructure, poorer municipalities, large population etc etc etc.

The commissioner for this district starts out at a disadvantage in votes whenever she tries to improve this one district at the "expense" of the others. Thankfully we have some relatively enlightened commissioners so she doesn't always start out at a 1 to 6 disadvantage. But I wonder whether or not the residents of that district wouldn't fare better with 2 at large representatives also.

Likewise.. perhaps there is one district in Clay County that might start out with a natural disadvantage for some reason that might benefit with 2 at large commissioners. Obviously you Clay Co. residents know more about that and that is what got this whole thing started awhile ago and got me curious about it.

Perhaps this whole question is totally dependant on the makeup of each individual county. Is size the key, is income the key, is political party the key.... don't know... thats why I find the discussion interesting. 

I think it is a combination of all the factors. As I stated above, It is the voters who will decide what form of government they think works best for them. They have the right to factor in representation, cost, efficiency, the dilution of their vote in an at large scheme. Special interest involved in the candidates, reduced funds in the county coffers, and host of other factors. The voters will have the power to make that choice when it comes time to vote.

We had a district 1 issue in the county that would fully explain what the dilution of the vote can mean to citizens in any district when at large members are involved. They will understand what that means.

However the best proof is what has recently transpired in the county and the improvements without at large Commissioners and the positive effects that have happened recently. I think the biggest factor is the County Manager and that's the road to positive change and not the amount of Commissioners.

Big

You asked where the 120K figure came from. I believe Marsha was referring to the base salary of the commissioners. The base salary for one part time commissioner, is almost $62, 000, and will increase again per state formula in Oct. Yearly salaries and benefits for each commissioner, a part time job, is slightly over $90,000. Once vested and retired, benefits for commissioners and county employees continue for life. It's a sweet heart of a deal to be "adopted" for life by the tax payers. Big, your research will show you that we are the only county around us that does this.

Stan

I can well understand that you are not "dazzled" by this discussion. As a county insider, CRVR amendment proponent, and loyal to your CRC members, no one in this discussion expected you to be dazzled, nor is anyone surprised that your continued goal is to attack CTLAC and those that do not agree with you.

but that's OK. I've decided that I've shoveled enough sand against the tide.

I am curious though how you figure a county with 7 SMD wanting to go to 5+2 is the same issue we have. You stated that you are willing to 'pay extra' for good government.

5+2 = 7. You have 7 now. Where is the extra? Now if you were talking of going to 7+2 instead of re-aligning your 7 districts into 5 I might buy off on some of your stance.

Going from 7 districts to 5 with a population of 1.3 M seems to be an unlikely scenario for even the most incompetent bureaucrat.

I was mildly interested in participating in this debate until now. However, my BS meter just pegged. Therefore I must bid you adieu.

Good luck in convincing everyone that you truly don't live here and don't have a vested interest the outcome of these ballot measures.

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

If you read my last post you would see that I said the two counties are not the same. In fact I plainly said that perhaps the real issue for any coounty going to a district + at large representation might not be the scheme in and of itself, but might be more relevenat to population, or income, or politics or whatever the variable might be that proves to be key.

I live in Palm Beach County whether you choose to believe it or not. Y'all seem to be heavy into the conspiratorial thinking... do I need to give you my phone number or would you then accuse me of going to palm beach county and acquiring a phone just to keep the "ruse" up?

My stance has nothing to do with the total number of commissioners, it has to do with how many of them I can get the effective ear of...  whether or not I, as a voter, am better served with one district ear, or one district ear plus two at large ears.

Incompetent bureaucracies abound, whether or not Palm Beach County ever chooses to go from 7 districtwide to 5 + 2 remains to be seen. Perhaps thats why its never gone beyond the talking stage here.

Re Big Bucks:   My original understanding, which is weeks old now, was that although the number of commissioners was being increased... the salary was lowered so that the total salary for the 7 was the "same" as it was for the 5.  I know that that will not include benefits and I suppose additional staff and supplies... so my question is is the 120K figure the additional benefits staff and supplies? Or was I wrong about the salary question?

Stan,

As of the time you last posted I can see no personal attacks on anyone. I saw Angela spell out a portion of Rob Bradleys rise to fame, but since what she said is a fact I hardly see how that is a personal attack, it was just connecting a very few dots.  So far as my statement about being dazzled, it was not intended to be sarcastic even if that is how you interpretated it.  I could have used "curious" "suspicious" "odd"...dazzled seemed to be the least "critical" of the choices.

I've openly admitted on a number of occassions that there is NO PROOF that either scenario is better so far as what can be accomplished with 5vs7. Others "on this side" have also admitted the same.  I've never seen that same admission coming from opposing views. I've debated on a financial viewpoint and your side says "put that aside for a moment", I've debated the hypotheticals that BigMig put forth, and with that there is no resolution either.  Too many variables to substantiate that 7 Commissioners will give us any better representation then 5.  That all depends on the candidate or the Commissioner and what it is I am trying to accomplish.

BigMig,

I don't recall a real explanation of where you are and why you're interested, I only recall an admission that you don't live in Clay County but are interested in the process. If I overlooked something I apologize. Looking at other counties in the state for what they have vs what they don't have and how it relates to other counties is of course good research and can provide something more to consider.  It's my understanding that there is only one other county in the state that is comparable to Clay County who has that many Commissioners, the rest of them are all much larger counties with very different metroplitan areas and/or a lack of them.  I do think however that there is virtually no real comparison in a county of over a million people against a county where there is not even half a million.  It's like comparing regular size apples to crabapples. 

If what Pioneer says is true about the 62K being salary only and the entire package in fact is closer to 90K then that is 180K a year starting out for two more Commissioners, and that isn't chump change when you consider how some taxpayers live.  It was your own statements that lead me to believe you were not struggling financially, it was an observation, not a lame attempt at anything.  

It was just a few weeks ago that the Founding Father of the CPVR in one evening lambasted the CTLAC for applying for a waiver that relieved them of paying $500 for the signature verification of petitions yet in the same evening told us that the money spent for these two more Commissioners is only "pennies a day per voter"  If $500 is something to bitch about then I think 180K a year is a Kings Ransom to bitch about. You can't have it both ways.

I voted against Amendment 1, I did so believing it would create more problems then it would resolve.  It is the passage of Amendment 1 and the realities of the economy and the housing market that has me concerned about how far down revenues are going to go and how the County needs to tighten it's belt, not be looking for ways to increase overhead.

Both you and Stan are right that I am never going to change my mind, not just because of the money which again cannot really be debated, it is what it is.  I choose to take that stand because it's something simple other people can relate to.

The real nitty gritty of it all is I believe there is movement afoot that has been working for a few years now.  I believe Lobbyists and big business and others that are involved in county goverment are trying to set the county up for total control where they can come do what they want and then leave with nice fat profits, and they are using the BCC to get it done along with the legislature in Tallahassee. I believe that there are people both within local  and state goverment and some attempting to bully their way into local goverment that are going to sell the county out.  Had the housing market not bottomed out and had property taxes not been cut reducing revenues they probably would have gotten away with it and they still might because there is reason to believe that they play by only one rule, and that is that the end justfies the means. I probably wouldn't even have started paying attention if were not for the personal behavior of a few that are involved. All of that is hard to debate though, it's all a matter of viewpoint, information and intent. 

I believe this is all connected to the Beltway, we've got a former Commissioner who has set himself up as the local cheerleader to help make sure those that will financially profit the most from this beltway don't have to pay taxes.  The impact fees will be next to go, and then I see the BCC pulling their objection to draining the St Johns because that's a sticking point for further development further south.  I don't care about all the crapola about how the beltway is needed, they're willing to tear down a bridge in order to force people to use the toll road. 

I like Tom Platts viewpoint that sometimes you just need to take care of what you already have and make do with the same.  THAT IS THE SORT OF COMMISSIONER WE NEED!

The state goverment has slashed over 300 million from education, and yet they're going to consider giving up revenue why.....so someone else has a larger profit margin.  They've ceased to fund the restoration of the Everglades, the aquifer is being drained, there are frightening issues looming with natural resources.  I hope people get involved and the beltway project sits on the shelf for the next 20yrs. 

So, in closing there are layers of why I believe what I believe and why I feel the way I do.  If the people truly want 7 Commissioners the the CTLACs amendment won't pass. I really don't care that it was voted in in 2006. Supporters of the CPVR have admitted in these blogs that they believe the voters are stupid, and maybe that is how they achieved their victory the last time......I really don't know.  I just know I voted against it because I always vote for less goverment. 

Between now and election time I will continue to encourge people to go the SOE website and look at the campaign funds and follow the money.  Look who has the most money and look where it came from and then decide for themselves.

This is getting to the point where all threads go regarding this issue, there is nothing more I can add, I can only repeat but there are new readers and new members everyday so someone is always seeing it for the first time. 

Finder said it best so at this point I will follow his lead for the moment and just bow out of this particular thread.  My firstborn is coming home with my Grandchildren, and Grammy has things to do!

I guess the CTLAC's latest theory is that the County Commission is running smoothly because SMD's are working.  Strange argument. Three of the five sitting commissioners were elected at-large.  And, the District 2 single-member commissioner was voted into office after huge dollars were contributed in that single-member election.  In fact, that single-member commissioner raised more money than has been raised by any at-large commission candidate this election cycle.

It is ironic, however, to hear Angela heralding the good workings of our County government.  She must have had to swallow hard before writing those statements.  They ring a bit hollow though after a year of negative, conspiracy theory attacks.  I mean, just a couple of months ago, you thought the scandal of Clay County rose to the level of seriousness of the 9/11 attacks.  Now you sing their praises. Well, if nothing else, you're entertaining.

Yes, Big, you are right to be a bit confused about the salary issue.  Not sure what proponents of the CTLAC feel they have to gain by purposely obscuring the issue, but the fact is that the salary reductions for the commissioners have already been voted on the people and will be effective in Nov. 

Pioneer, I certainly don't expect you to agree with me.  After considering the issues, I think its clear that I sit on the other side of the fence.  Yes, I supported the CRC plan and the people who voted on it.  I guess your attack is that I sided with the majority of  voters in Clay County. You got me . . . that's an indictment I can live with.  

Marsha, just posted then read your last blog.  You actually laid out where you are coming from better than I have read here.  I can honestly say that I have a better sense of your motivations and concerns.  Thank you.