BCC Chairman makes Official Inquiry

History just keeps repeating itself...only the names of the players change 

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle

Nothing ever changes in Clay County,  

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle

...what else may have taken place in the past at the SOE office.  It appears Ms. Kirkman may have forgotten some of the lessons learned while attaining her title of Certified Elections/Registration Administrator.  It's too bad that instead of going out in a blaze of glory, she'll be leaving with a tarnished reputation. 

Today's TU article seems to be at odds with the following link from 2003.  http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080603/nec_13188311.shtml

Dedicated elections officials such as Kirkman, Lewis said, protect the integrity of the nation's democratic process and give voters "assurance that the system is fair, honest and accurate." -- quoted from the 2003 article.

And I guess it's ok that Chambless is working in the SOE office on a contractual basis, because 3 others are doing the same thing?  I don't get that logic. 

Judy B.

Support the CTLAC: www.CTLAC.com

Hmmm! I had heard that Chris was working there as some kind of contractor but didn't think much of it at the time. 

Marsha;

I didn't read it as he was on the Canvassing Board but I could be mistaken. But be that as it may it certainly calls into question his statement I've heard on more than one occasion 'I had to resign to run'. It certainly is the truth but to me it implies that he was not working there anymore.

This could easily have been handled with a full disclosure statement. I think in the long run that would have been better than what I see here.

Of course it looks to me like ol' GB doesn't want Chris and he must not be real happy with the SOE, having just thrown her under the bus.

Mike Heemer

I added names in parentheses as to how I took that last line to read:  

Bush was also annoyed that, because of her (Kirkman's) Chambless endorsement, Kirkman asked him (Bush) less than two weeks before the primary to replace her (Kirkman) on the Canvassing Board, the panel of elected county officials that oversees the ballot counting process.

I don't see how it would even be legal to allow a candidate to serve on the canvassing board. If Mrs. Kirkman had asked Chambless to serve on the canvassing board I think Mr. Bush would be more than just annoyed, he would be making heads roll. 

As far as working in the office, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. He only worked for 22 hours. Was that all in one day? Probably over a few weeks time is a more likely scenario. Do you honestly think that he would be left alone or unsupervised or with access anything? I don't think Mrs. Kirkman is that stupid. After all, 12 years is a long time to prove yourself incompetent, and it ain't happened yet. 

Mr. Bush seems to throw a great many people under the bus. 

I don't think there was anything nefarious about him working in the office as a contractor. It just bothered me that from all I heard I was left with the impression that he was not working there.

A simple, I had to resign as an employee but I do work there a few hours a week as a contractor would have taken care of the whole thing. From what I've seen of Chris I don't know that it was intentional. Probably more of an unfortunate statement that left the wrong impression.

I wonder who GB wants in there.

Of course for GB to hammer the SOE for the error on the original CTLAC petition is a bit self serving from my point of view. She did everything correct on the second one and someone still sued over it.

Is GB unhappy because in his few months he is getting sued along with the rest of the BoCC? That isn't totally her fault. If I'm not mistaken the County Attorney looks those over too.

Maybe Roy has irritated more people than he thinks he did. One can only hope.

Mike Heemer

Marsha your information is wrong concerning Chris Chambless being on the Canvasing Board to count votes. I'd like to know who gave you this information. Was it debbie Ricks or Stephanie Thomas who want to discredit him. Maybe if you went to the Logic & Accuracy Test that took place last Friday, you wouldn't have made that statement. If you're so concerned about the election process where were you last Friday. If the other two candidates are concerned where were they. Call Judge Collins or Doug Conkey I believe they make up the Canvasing Board along with Ms. Kirkman and ask them who sits on the board. Instead of spreading mistruths go to the horses mouth and get the facts PLEASE! It's easy to sit at your computer and make up lies to further your cause Marsha. Why haven't you mention the law breaking of the other two candidates for not resigning their positions? They are the ones braking the law and should be prosecuted.

This is why politics never change in Clay County because you have people that sit at there computers and dream up things to hurt other people.  

Gambler, I think if you look at the punctuation used you will find Marsha was posing questions not statements of fact.  She even referred you to the area in the article she was having problems with, you jumped too fast.

In your blog, you suggest that perhaps there was never any wrong information given to the candidate or the citizens action group.  In the case of the candidate there are three sworn affidavits that were given to the Judge, he chose not to use them.  Since he stated unequivocally he would not use the affidavits, my opinion was immediately that he had made up his mind without hearing any evidence.  During the recess  I told both the Court Reporter and Marsha the Judge had already made his mind to deny any relief.  Affidavits are required by Florida and Federal Rules of Civil procedure when  Plaitiff is seeking an emergency injunction.  To state unequivocally that he would not even read them gave away his decision.

I want to make it clear that there were 3 SOE people there when the wrong information was given, they all were in agreement,  and the action taken was exactly what  I was told to take.  We were not up against a time crunch, we could have corrected any issue used to disqualify us if we received correct information.  However 36 days after being qualified  it was not possible to correct the misinformation.

I find it funny that a candidate for Judge who failed in his paperwork to identify what position he was a candidate for, when challenged 6 days after the close of the qualifying perior, the Florida Supreme Court was indignant about it, clearly defined it as a violation of due process and gave him the emergency relief is sought. Guess lawyers and Judges have different compliance standards than an ordinary citizen.

Anyway look at the question marks Marsha will defend herself better than I am capable, to me I read her blog as questioning what the last sentences in the article meant not accusing anyone of intentional wrong doing.

Mike & Clarity,

Thank you for your comprehension skills with regards to question marks, evidently Gambler missed that lesson.  Obviously the article lacks some "clarity" and that is why I had question marks, not believing the way it was reading to me.

Gambler you are just like some other people in these blogs who come in only on occassion and act as though someone has bestowed some elite qualification on you to question what people do, what right they have to say this or that, do this or that, think this or that.  To answer your question about where I was last Friday I was in Court with my Husband, my presence was entered into the record you can buy a copy of the transcript at the courthouse. 

I don't have to justify my existence nor my opinions nor my participation in this county or on these blogs to you or anyone else.  My social secretary doesn't mail out my agenda so you have not one single clue as to what I do and where I participate.  Come to think of it I don't have a social secretary so you are just SOL in getting a copies of my daily agenda.

NO ONE gave me any information about anyone.  I'm not a plant like some who magically appear when only certain names are mentioned.  I have no favorites in any of the races, I am trying to discearn who are the LESSER OF THE EVILS except for two.  Had Fred remained in the race I would have had a favorite, at least I know what his motives are. 

Only an IDIOT would say one thing and post a link to a story that would prove them wrong on purpose.  You must be kin to ByronM.  You lack the comprehension skills to realize I was questioning what was contained in the article and NOTHING MORE.

These blogs are FULL of my search for what is right and what is the truth and what is best for this county on a myriad of subjects.  Many of the things I've written about have nothing to do with goverment at all. 

I don't hide behind fictious names where I can throw judgement and decency to the wind and just let it rip because I can. Unless I am provoked, I try.....try to be objective while I am trying to find my own truth and allow other people to do the same. 

The only "political people" I support follows; I wholeheartedly endorse the CTLAC because they're a hard working group of people who have done nothing but try to make a better place to live and they're constantly being attacked and maligned by the people who disagree with what they do.  They cannot win on the merits so they stoop to name calling.

I also support Angela Corey WITHOUT RESERVATION.  How good an SA she will be, dunno but Harry Shorstein don't like her so that is a vote of confidence to me.  What little I have seen and read about her supports that, and what I have seen and heard of Jay Plotkin also supports that.

I support Mike Heemer for Chairman because while Rob Bradley is no doubt a "good man" I believe he's lost (if he ever had it) sight of the people of this county for the sake of business and development.  I just hope he doesn't wake up one day and look at what he helped create that his kids and grandkids will have to live with and go oh@$*%!

There you have the sum total of people running that I feel "good" about. 

This much I will say, the events of the last few months with regards to the SOE and the alledged (I've not seen it) public endorsement of a candidate by Barbara Kirkman rather makes me see the way I see the races for other offices.  Sometimes it's the people who are supporting the candidate that makes me realize I really don't want to vote for that person.

The person I deem to have the least amount of political baggage will get my vote, and it will in most cases be a reluctant vote because I'm not real impressed with ANYONE that I will be casting a vote for.....except Mike Heemer. 

Today's Times-Union story is typical of the last minute smear attempt by someone in public office for their own good. Obviously, someone out there is afraid of Chris Chambless, and is trying to use the media to hurt his campaign by first hurting Supervisor of Elections Barbara Kirkman.

Plainly put, George Bush is one of Clay County's most prolific blowhards, who has never run away from a television camera or reporter willing to record or publish his thoughts. For the moment, he's looking to improve his position at the expense of Barbara Kirkman, one of Clay County's most honorable public servants. Everybody seems to be trying to destroy Mrs. Kirkman's reputation for their own gain (or, as a coverup for their own ineptitude). Some will say this just the norm in the rough and tumble world of Clay County local politics. That may be so, but it's really a shame. Look at all of the television and radio ads Mrs. Kirkman is running trying to make sure every voter is enfranchised and able to vote this summer and fall. She could easily just sit back, make little effort, and let the campaign season come to a close, and her career in public office end peacefully.

No, that isn't her style. She's trying to make sure every voter has full access to the elections process.

As for her endorsing Chris Chambless as her successor, since when, if you become and elected official, you give up your right to free speech? Here in Northeast Florida, local politicians endorse each other on a regular basis and no one says anything, because it's legal and honorable. Dorothy Holt and Barbara Kirkman worked tirelessly cleaning up the Supervisor of Elections office after the Good Old Boys (you know, the one in particular which left office under a huge black cloud) were voted out in the 80s. Certainly, Mrs. Kirkman wants to leave the office in the hands of someone who will carry on their tradition of bi-partisanship and running a good office. Just because Fred Catchpole couldn't take the time to read the election laws like every other candidate, and then not take ANY personal responsibility for his actions, Barbara Kirkman is being smeared. As far as the other lawsuit is concerned, well, it's all about dirty politics, not about following the law which the Supervisor of Elections must do.

The issue of Chris Chambless working as a temp employee in the Supervisor of Elections office is a non-issue. It's being done elsewhere in Florida and not being challenged because it's legal. What could he do to influence how a vote comes out? Rig Machines when nobody's looking? Such silliness. Since the Supervisor of Elections office has one of the smallest permanent staffs of all of the constitutional offices in Clay County, and since Chris Chambless resigned to run, and, thanks to the combined ineptitude of Fred Catchpole not bothering to read election regulations, and one of the Supervisor's employees obviously having a very bad judgement day when accepting Catchpole's illegal check, two people are missing from the permanent staff. Only a fool would try to bring someone from the outside at the last minute and try and train them on the hundreds of laws and details which are essential to running the Supervisor of Elections office. If Chris Chambless could help in the process without compromising the process, what's the problem?

Has anyone read the mailout which arrived from Chris Chambless? He's been endorsed by EVERY supervisor of elections in Northeast Florida. Do you think these people would all put their reputations on the line for someone in another county if he wasn't the right choice?

George Bush's rather lame attempt at the last moment to interfere with the race is so very typical of Clay County politics. Most likely, most people today just read the article in the Times-Union, shook their heads, and went on about their business. That's what everyone should do.

Barbara Kirkman has the right to publicly endorse a candidate, and she exercised that right by endorsing Mr. Chambless. In doing so, she stepped down from the position on the canvassing board.

At first glance it may be hard to understand what went on, but from a legal standpoint those actions are not wrong. I'm not completely sure of this...but didn't the SOE prior to Kirkman publicly endorse Mrs. Kirkman? I'd like to know whether or not that's true.

It sounds to me like everything that was done was legal, and that Mr. Bush must have a "horse in this race" because he's complaining that something illegal was done.

Just my 3 cents 

I am speechless

I stand by my belief that both Gambler & Gulfwind are the same person, they come out only when Chris Chambless is mentioned, they both appear to have inside knowledge and Gambler even identified a possible position in the archives.  It is interesting to note I once asked Gambler to elaborate on why they felt Chris Chambless was the best person for the job and there was never a response.  It just lends credibility to the fact that I have no favorites and have been trying to only generate discussion with regards to the SOE's race.

What Gulfwind has done is actually speak untruths.  They've written only two blogs themselves, both against Debbie Ricks.  Their entries into the threads about Freds lawsuit not only shows an in depth knowledge of the activities of the SOE's office but on 08/01/08 the day that suit was filed they said in an entry titled "Why does it matter who says what" Look in that entry and you will see Gulfwind denying that they even live in the county yet look how much they know.  Look above in this thread and Gulfwind talks about a mailout from Chris Chambless, are those things sent out of county?

Now whether or not you are a supporter to Chris Chambless who is over zealous, a relative, the Candidate himself I don't know.  The archives however show a very black and white proof of untruths and rather presents an individual attempting to mislead people.  With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Sorry, Marsha, you continue to be wrong. I have no idea who Gambler is (nor do I care, anyone who wants to be a blogger can be a blogger), even if we're two people who happen to have a much better grasp of reality than you do.

Yes, I do live outside Clay County, but, yes, I have followed Clay County politics for over two decades. And, yes, I do have many friends who live and work in Clay County. Say, have you ever heard of an electronic device called a fax machine? I have one of those, and so does one of my Clay County buddies who faxed me the Chris Chambless mailout. It's not very high tech, but it's efficient. My buddy thought I would find it interesting. I've also seen some of the other mailouts from Clay County. They all look about the same.

Since I don't live in Clay County, and can't vote in Clay County, you might say I have a much better overview of what's going on there, since I don't have anything at stake but a bet for a steak with a buddy on who wins. My buddy usually buys in these situations, because I've called correctly the last few elections.

gulfwind - bigmig

Must be a very interesting place this sleepy little hub of Christian Conservatism. We've got people from all over studying us.

We keep this up we'll be having paparazzi running amuck in GCS.

Mike Heemer

Your belief of us being the same person is your fantasy. I don't know who gulfwind38 is, but we do have a better grasp of reality than you.

I only blog when there has been an injustice to someones good name.

How can you not have a favorite in this race, your telling untruths about a candidate you don't even know. I'm only for candidates that have the experience for the position. This race only has one person with any experience and that's Chris Chambless and that's quite evident if you went to any of the forums around the county.

I speak against Debbie Ricks because she has no experience with elections. Has no knowledge of technology (by her own admission), and is trying to pass off Move The Vote as a state idea. Hello Barbara Kirkman and staff created it and then the other counties picked up on it and are using it. Since when does a teaching degree qualify you for the SOE. Would you hire a doctor to fix your plumbing in your house?

You need to read gulfwind38's blog again because you didn't understand about how he got the mailout. You have blinders on. Look at the second paragraph line 3 what comes after Clay County buddies

I don't even care about your husbands race. 

Your right Barbara was endorsed by the out going supervisor.

There is also 3 or 4 other counties around the state doing the same thing Barbara did for their assistants, because they are the most qualified for the position.

Marsha here's a blog except from a poll worker who visited in Clay County.

http://www.bobforohio.com/online_opinion/2006/feb/op2006-02-28.php

I'll admit I don't know much at all about the other 2 candidates, but I know that neither have as much experience as Chris in the election realm.

It also was interesting to hear the response to the question about internet voting...Chris seemed confident in the security of internet voting, while Thomas was against it and Ricks seemed a little hesitant. As a guy with computer background myself, I know that with the proper software and procedures, internet voting can be done securely and would save the county money for postage and such if it were used for overseas military personnel.

I can't say whether or not any of the other candidates aren't qualified, but I can say for sure that Mr. Chambless is the most qualified based on his time spent in that office and his knowledge of the election system.

G&G continue on with whatever you wish, people can decide for themselves whether either of you have any credibility. You both remind me of the Mike Taylor crowd who've been coming here for months.

The fact remains that Freds disqualification was being discussed at Republican Forums before he was ever even notified and at the very least that is very bad form.

PoliticalNewbie,

I wrote a blog last week about voting strategy and experience is certainly a factor but is it the only one?  Does a persons integrity, character not enter into it for you? An intelligent person can learn to perform tasks but is character and integrity not something that is either there or it isn't?  This is a general question not aimed at anyone in particular, contrary to popular belief with some I'm just like alot of people trying to figure it all out while not being sidetracked with smoke screens.

Even Gambler acknowledged back in March that the money trail says alot about a candidate. For me personally accepting donations from Lobbyists is the kiss of death.  I am still trying to figure out who I will vote for, neither Gulfwind nor Gambler are doing any service to Chris Chambless.  I'd not looked at his financials till they started.

I'm not impressed with Debbie Ricks either(as a candidate), for me she's got alot of political baggage. From what I can see Stephanie Thomas has the least amount.  All incumbants are questionable to me because I'd like to see the partisan network in this county broken.

Angela thanks for the link, I saw that a couple of weeks ago and is one of the reasons I question the integrity of the elections across the state period.  Florida has developed quite a reputatiion where elections are concerned.   

http://www.ctlac.com/  

If you take that article along with other experiences such as Fred's and the CTLAC. I think the least baggage would go to Stephanie Thomas.

I think they should put a sign on the door that says although we are trained, qualified and paid for our knowledge. All information received in this office should be deemed to be incorrect. Use it at your own risk!

Angela;

I'll buy that. Although I'm not sure I would apply that to all the employees there.

My experience with Scott Miller was great. He knew what he was talking about, guided my through the process and answered every question I had.

So far, I haven't been DQ'd, fined or been sent to jail. But then, he had the sense to say 'I don't know' a couple of times and did some checking of rules to make sure he didn't make a mistake.

It is too bad that some employees pick up the bad habit of not knowing when to say 'I don't know'. Some would rather BS you than to admit they don't know. They usually get that from the boss.

Too many times when dealing with government entities it is just a good old case of mind over matter. They don't mind because you don't matter.

Mike Heemer

Well maybe they should make them wear an individual sign. Because how is the average citizen or group asking questions suppose to know if what they are telling you is true or not. If you knew the answer then they would not be asking. I say it is airing on the side of caution. Warning You know like a sign that say caution slippery when wet! It don't mean you will fall but you should be cautions. You could fall!

I could buy that. It just seems strange to me that of all the candidates that got the correct information and had no troubles that suddenly Fred runs into the only crew that can't figure out the correct information between 3 people.

It just makes you want to sit back and say, 'Why him?' Was there some special reason, or did the stars all align just right that they all had a mental breakdown at the same time?

I just have never been a big believer in coincidence.

Mike Heemer

Marsha-

A money trail doesn't always equal political baggage.

If you look closely at the financial reports in this or any other race, it does show who gave what and when. I would think (in my non-political analyst mind) that when candidate Ricks loaned herself such a large chunk of change right off the bat that she was not expecting support from the "people". She has received 25 contributions from individuals, i.e. the "people". However, the other 2 candidates have only loaned themselves meager amounts (comparatively). Chambless has received 165 individual contributions, Thomas has received 2. To me, and again, I am not a political analyst, this speaks more about the candidates than anything else. Where is the support coming from? Looks to me like it is from a wide variety of places, not just from lobbyists, as you implied. 

Angela- 

I think that while you are entitled to your opinion, you might have crossed the line a bit there. I called the SOE to request my absentee ballot and was treated very courteously and quickly. Everyone makes mistakes. The person who made a mistake is apparently no longer there, let the SOE continue their tradition of service without making all the other employees pay for that mistake. 

Clarity,

I don't consider contributions Political Baggage.  To me PB is contained in your resume. Lets take Debbie Ricks for an example since this thread is focusing on the SOE race.  She's been Mayor of GCS, City Council, running for Committeewoman on the REC and I can't remember all what else.  The fact that people are willing to spend their own money on their campaigns doesn't matter to me.  .

I shouldn't have used the plural form of lobbyist when I'm thinking one in particular and certainly don't see anything that suggested anyone was completely funded by lobbyists. I don't like the influence John Thrasher has in this state.  He's involved at both the state and local level and most everything he gets involved in results in major profits for some and more burden to the taxpayer.....that's a pattern I see.  That ridiculous revokation of signature crap over HDA that was overturned in court had John Thrasher all over it.  So yes, when I see someone accepting donations from him it sets off an alarm.  Some will say $500 is no big deal but there are others who join him to add to it and the kitty grows and grows. 

Networking is a great tool until you use it in politics for your own personal gain and that is when it converts to the "good ole boy" label.  In my minds eye I see a circle of people who are determined to let no one else in because it will break the chain of political patronage. 

http://www.ctlac.com/  

The SOE's office is more than mailing out a ballot. They have lots of responsibilities to hold those hired and the elected position.

In the case of the CTLAC petition who was held responsible for that mistake. As I see it only the group that submitted the petition was held responsible there. If you will review the rules it is not a legal petition until she certifies that petition and puts a number on it. Did she do those two things? Was it a legal petition? Then who is responsible for that mistake. CTLAC took responsiblity for there part who took responsiblity for the SOE's part?

O.k., my mistake. I was perhaps reading more into your remarks than you intended.

I agree that if a candidate is funded mainly by lobbyists or lobbyist wanna-be's then there is a problem. I don't want any more puppets in office! I am of the mindset that one $500 check is no big deal, as you suggested. Money is still money, and in these days of $4 a gallon gas and $6 a gallon milk, I can't blame someone for accepting a contribution of $500 from anyone, I don't care who it is. I haven't seen any other names that raise a red flag with candidate Chambless. I did notice a William R. Lyons on candidate Ricks' report, and I was wondering if that is in fact the same Roy Lyons of CAN that we all disagree with here in Blogville. Is this a name change or a different person? Again, $25 bucks is no big deal, but I am still curious about a connection.

I too see a circle of good ole boys, some of the same ones that have been here for years. I am having a time trying to figure out 'the wolf in sheep's clothing' if you will, because some of the players seem to be in unlikely places.

I'll save that thought for another thread..... 

I know the office is much more than mailing a ballot. I do read. I was simply stating my personal experience with the office staff.

As far as the CTLAC's original petition debacle, I believe Mrs. Kirkman handled it as well as she could have, given the circumstances. I believe she did claim responsibility. She went before the BoCC and admitted there was a mistake. You said so yourself, that she was doing the right thing:

"I guess we will have to wait and see if the Commissioners are as much of a stand-up act and honor the voices of the people who signed those petitions as Ms. Kirkman is for going up there on behalf of those voters who signed those petitions."

And again here:

"I think Ms. Kirkman is acting under the advice of her legal counsel as the best course of action to achieve an equitable remedy to a situation that was a technical issue and was not discovered until the end of the process. To do otherwise would deny those over 5000 voters their voice in the upcoming elections. The Commissioners should move this to the ballot and give those over 5000 voters their voice in the upcoming elections.

I guess the true test of character will be on the Commissioners. Mr Smith has displayed his character in his efforts. Ms Kirkman will display her character in her appearance and the request for an equitable remedy. I guess we will see if the Commissioners display the same character when they appear."

If it were me, I would have done my best to avoid having to go before the BoCC. Mr. Bush, seems like he is just waiting to pounce on someone for any little infraction. And now you seem to be jumping right onto that bandwagon, IMHO. Why the change of heart? Is there more that you'd care to share? Not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to understand your logic.

I was researching this before I made my comments back to you, and I found a quote from you in defense of CTLAC:

I think it is important for people to base their decisions off information instead of emotions and can be better informed also.

Now, I admit that I don't have all the facts (yet), but I just found your quote to be a bit ironic. Emotions seem to be at an all time high during election season....

I think you're correct about William R and Roy Lyons being one in the same person, no clue as to why one is listed one way and the other listed another way. I don't believe however that he's a member of CAN (Clay Action Network), he has his own PAC, CPVR (Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights) although I think the only voters being protected are those that were in favor of the +2.

I'm having the same problems you are, the wolf in sheeps clothing, who is really wanting to win and who is there only to dillute votes or does it exist at all. I think the biggest mistake in considering who to vote for is under estimating the lengths they're willing to go to get elected.

It's not just the money from a lobbyist, they bring with them others who contribute and others who can do favors...you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.  Like I said before networking is great in business but when it controls the political scene I no longer see it as networking.

I wonder if there is ANYONE out there who was offered a contribution by John Thrasher who turned it down?  They're probably hanging out with the mythical Big Foot   To me it does matter who you take money from, just like it matters who I do business with.  I have turned down work because I felt like I was dealing with a slum lord or an unscrupulous lender/loan officer/broker.  That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally I'd like to see some election reform across the board, but that will probably happen right after hell freezes over.  Just imagine how different the whole election process was changed so money didn't matter. Each candidate with the same amount of press, signs, debates, that there were no advantages to be had. 

More then anything for this election season, I hope to see a record number of voter turnout to validate what I believe I am experiencing out and about talking to others.

Then again, the link put in by Angela about the 2004 election and people literally trying to run off with votes.....can't believe that incident didn't get more press then it did.  I'll be glad when next Tuesday is over...no doubt that opinion will get alot of support, especially from the Candidates themselves. 

 http://www.ctlac.com/

I think the person/people in Fred's case did the stand up thing and acknowledged the mistake. Evidently they took responsiblity. Fred took responsibility. They were removed from their job and he was removed from the ballot. Both have suffered a loss.

I think Ms Kirkman did the the stand up thing and acknowledged the mistake in the petition. Evidently she took responsiblity. CTLAC took responsiblity. They collected 5000+ additional signtures to not only honor the new signatures but the 5000+ people who were denied their voice due to Ms Kirkman's mistake. That was no easy task I might add. What was the consequences of Ms Kirkman's mistake?

I understand what Angela is saying about the petitions. It's the wording of the law for me.  It says once certified "it shall" be put on the ballot. There are no "if"s attached. I see no allowance for a petition to be withdrawn ONCE IT'S CERTIFIED but that isn't what happened.

I liken it to a false advertising scenario.  A sale happens at a store and items are physically marked with a sales sticker, sale lasts one week but ten days later someone finds an item with the sale tag still on.  It's the stores mistake and to not sell it at that price is false advertising.

I think what Angela is getting at about the SOE, yes she did verbally take responsibility, as a result there were consequences for the CTLAC and those citizens that signed those petitions. Where was the consequence for the SOE who failed to perform her duty within her own time constraints? Hadn't her time to find something wrong already passed?  What good is "certified" when hindsight is applied?  If there is to be strict compliance to the law then why wasn't the part that says "once certified it shall be put on the ballot"?  Those two words "shall be" are right there in the statute, and there truly is nothing that says "unless" or "if" behind it.  In legal terminology those are two very definite words put together for a reason. 

http://www.ctlac.com/

I meant CPVR and not CAN! Thanks!

Yea, verily! Get out and vote, Clay County! Don't wait until the last minute, something always interferes. Go vote now at an early voting site!

Yes, election reform is something I would like to see as well. If for no other reason than to clean up all these signs!  Maybe if there were laws about where and when one could put up political signs it would help. Oh but wait! There are laws already! Hmmm. What to do, what to do.....

I see where you are coming from, in the wording of the law. However, last time I checked, the SOE doesn't make law, they are bound by the regulations imposed on their office by the county, state, and federal government. Unless I am reading the older blog posts wrong, it appears Mrs. Kirkman's consequences were to publicly admit her mistake, and then do her best to help correct the problem. The new petitions were signed in record time, and the petition was approved to be placed on the ballot for voters to decide in November.

Again, I am still researching some of the legality issues, and not being as politically savvy it might take me a while, but I think that further consequences may be a moot point. Don't beat a dead horse and all. I do have a beef with the lawsuit against the CTLAC/SOE. What a waste of time and resources. Hopefully it will be dismissed.

I agree to a degree. The 2nd petition drive was successful, but how many oops does she get before there is a consequence other then an admission of wrong doing.  Over a decade ago I got a couple of tickets, I wasn't trying to break traffic law, wasn't even aware I'd done it but that didn't save me from the ticket.

I understand Ms Kirkman has been around for a long time and there are probably tens of thousands who think highly of her and since she is retiring maybe it's just better to overlook these things.  Then, when we get a new SOE what if they make some mistakes with some significant impact, do we overlook that because they're new, or because it was overlooked before?  It can create a pattern of acceptance that I don't believe elected officials should have.

I do agree the focus needs to be on what is in front of us that we can do something about, the election is upon us, lets not waste time with what cannot be changed.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Maybe with these past 2 issues, there can be some clarity (pun intended!) given to the laws and regulations out there. Election reforms even. Making the rules apply to everyone equally. Allowing for candidates that do not wish to take contributions to be able to do so, Giving instruction or setting rules when errors are made as to what comes next. These are all things that should be addressed, but let's keep it where John Q. Public can understand what is written and doesn't have to hire a legal interpreter.

This topic is still gaining comments

 Marsha -

I apologize for my slow response, but yes character and integrity are also important. From personal experience, Mr. Chambless has great personal qualities. I can't say anything bad about the other candidates, as I have only met one briefly and have not met the other.

 I would encourage any reading this to learn more about the elections office by becoming a poll worker. Not only can you assist in the voting process, but there's really much to be learned about voting.