BCC

One of the things that wasn't covered in the CAN Debate last week is something that I am very curious about.  It's the last paragraph of the Petition sponsored by the CPVR to increase the requirements to do away with an elected position to a Super Majority Vote. I've read it several times and to me it basically will wipe out the CTLAC Amendment provided it gets on the ballot and it passes.  I am interested in anyone else's interpretation on what this paragraph means.

"This amendement shall be effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Clay County, and shall be effective as to any question on the November 2008 general election ballot and thereafter"

Last night I attended the Debate sponsored by CAN (Clay Action Network) between Jane Padgett of the CTLAC(Citizens for Term Limits and Accountability) and Roy Lyons representing the CPVR (Citizens for the Protection of Voters Rights) over the 5+2 issue. 

I would like to Congratulate Jane Padgett on what I believe was a job well done.  In spite of the criticism of the group itself in opening statements  Jane stuck to the merits of the issues brilliantly and with extraordinary class.  When she was asked questions that either came from emails or those in person in the audience I was impressed with how well she focused and answered the questions asked.  The CTLAC was well prepared with a handout that explained why they have pursued certain petitions, and what their reasoning was and as time permitted in her opening statement went over the handout with the audience. 

Angela, the policy link you provided ONLY pertains to department and divisions under the jurisdication of the Clay County Board of Commissioners.

As you pointed out, the Clerk of the Court is a constitutional officer and not under BCC jurisdiction.  Each constitutional officer is responsible for the operation of their office in accordance with their policies and operating procedures allowed by law.  I'm sure each county constitutional officer knows exactly what the law is pertaining to their office.

They call him "Easy" according to his car dealership commercials, but that didn't fit earlier this week.

Ronnie Robinson didn't need his brother-in-law Ricky's help to bite a couple of butts at the County Commission's Policy and Rules Committee meeting Monday. After hearing Code Enforcement Director Bill Bodenweber question the patriotism of car dealers during a discussion about the county's sign ordinance, Robinson got hot.

He questioned Bodenweber's professionalism and accused him of harrassing certain businesses. That bite must have felt good, because then he took a chunk out of County Commissioner Doug Conkey.

Assuming I have the option on November's ballot, I'm going to vote in favor of eliminating the scheduled expansion of the Board of County Commissioners by two seats at-large.  The reasoning behind that decision is based not only in theory, but the practical evidence evidence offered by  comparing two County Commission races this year.

One is an at-large race, while the other is a district race.

Rob Bradley is running for the chairmanship, one of the at-large seats, and is unopposed. Didn't start out that way, though.  He wasn't even the first person to start running for the position.

Someone sent me an e-mail that referred to an argument often used against the current five-member County Commission, where each member is elected only by the voters of their district, and in favor of the planned expansion that will add to new members to the BCC, each of whom will be elected by voters from the entire county.

The e-mail cited arguments that make claims I've been referring to as the Single-Member Representation Myth.

Supporters of at-large elections say County Commissioners who are elected only by their district voters won't be concerned with issues facing Clay County residents who can't vote for them. That because they are elected only by the residents of their individual district, they have morphed into being only District Commissioners, not County Commissioners. That their duties and fields of concern have been cut to one-fifth of what they were when they were elected at-large.

While some may resort to tactics from the seemier side of politics to inhibit open political discussions here on the MCS website, we shouldn't let things like multiple-blog-topic hijack attempts succeed in deterring our exchanges about the issues facing Clay County residents in 2008.

Voters shouldn't forget, and we shouldn't be prohibited from debating, the many separate issues that combine to present local voters with an extraordinary opportunity to make extraordinary change in their government. This year, voters will likely decide:

If they want one unopposed candidate to serve as chairman of the County Commission for four consecutive years;

Today was the deadline for all local candidates to file their quarterly campaign financial reports. Most have already been posted on the Internet. Maybe they did the easy ones first because mine's pretty short and it's online since early today. Anyone interested can check out the individual reports at the Supervisor of Elections' website: clayelections.com.

Those of you who scan my personal first quarter campaign report and are familiar with a new state law that took effect Jan. 1 will notice a problem. I have listed the only two people who made contributions between the first day of January and the last of March. Both handed me hundred dollar bills, one in February and one in March. It wasn't until I attempted to file my report in April that I was reminded that the new limit is now just $50 for cash donations. Oh, crap.

As expected, the Board of County Commissioners officially rejected a proposed Charter Amendment for inclusion on November's ballot. The amendment, sponsored by Citizens for Term Limits and Accountability Committee, called for the elimination of two at-large seats scheduled to be added to the BCC.

CTLAC's petition had been certified by the Supervisor of Elections Office, and the group collected and had varified more than 5,500 signatures of Clay County voters who wanted the issue to go to voters in November. After that, though, it was discovered that the title of the proposed amendment contained more words than Florida Statutes allow.

Remember the first time you got handed the car keys and had a little cash in your pocket? Felt pretty grown up, didn't you? How about when you first turned 18 and all of a sudden you're able to make your own decisions, except whether or not to buy a beer? At 21, though, even the choice of beverages becomes your own, so that must be what grown up is, right?

That's been one of the flaws in local growth planning, one of the biggest reasons we're stuck in the state's longest commute on decaying roads. It's always a plan to get us the next few years. It's time to start planning from a different perspective, not like parents absolved of legal responsibility for what happens after an 18th birthday party.