CTLAC refuses to answer questions from the taxpayers they claim to serve

Is there a letter or email or entry on a website from a member of this organization where they actually said they "refused" to answer?  Or is their silence being equated with a refusal?

Do they have an email, do they have a mailing address or phone number?  Have these questions been asked anywhere other then in the blogs?

I've seen the CTLAC out and about with their petitions and I've never felt as though I were being stalked, in fact they didn't even try to get my attention they were just there.

I don't know Durwood Smith, I just know he's a regular at the BCC meetings from entries I've read here.  If everyone gave his level of involvement Clay County would probably be a better place to live.

Anyone personally know Durwood to get him on the blogs?

Marsha: 

pioneer and rmachala both say they are CTLAC members.  Both were a part of the previous blog that I am discussing and, at one point, were engaged in the discussion on that blog.  Yes, I am equating their sudden silence when these questions were raised with refusal. 

Of course, if somehow they quit reading the blog and didn't see the questions, or they didn't feel comfortable answering the questions without talking to the rest of the CTLAC, then I respectfully ask them to pass on these questions and issues to Durwood or whoever is in charge.  

I guess you had a different experience with the petition gathering process.  My experience, and the experience of others I know, has been one where they approached the person and told them info that was, at best, inaccurate.

You are right Marsha, it would be nice if more people were involved and watched the meetings.  If more people got their info first hand, rather than through distorted filters, then we would all be better off. 

Marsha, just curious, did you sign the petition, and if so, what are your reasons for supporting the petition?

On a blog several months ago, someone claiming to be a memeber of CTLAC finally posted information about their next meeting with a date, time ad location.  Within a couple of days, a posting was made saying the meeting had to be rescheduled...and they have not posted anything since.

They haven't had a public meeting in years.  They won't have one anytime soon either.  The thing that makes no sense is that the press, including the Clay Sun, doesn't ask any of the questions that are being asked here.  

I have asked if anyone not just CRC members could answer what adding two additional Commissioners would do to stop corruption in the county. I have not had an answer to that question either. I have been asking that same question since they proposed them in the middle of the crisis we had in the county. I still haven't had an answer yet.

I didn't vote for two additional Commissioners because no one could answer that question.

The Non-Interference Clause and the Ethics policy I can understand but 2 additional people I couldn't understand why or how that could have prevented the problems we had in the county. 

I hope to have another opportunity to vote to have those positions removed from the Charter.

First, I am not a member of the above, however, I have friends who are.  They do have meetings.  Whether they are public or only open to members is unknown.

I do know they strive to provide accurate information.  Never before have I ever heard anyone accuse them of anything less.  In dealing with citizens, very often a person misunderstands what is relayed to them and interprets it differently. 

People are gradually figuring out what CTLAC is all about, and nore importantly what is is not about. The leadership doesn't want citizen participation for fear of losing control and having to share credit for what they do. Their motivation is not as honorable as they would like you to believe, and in retro-spect some of their accomplisments which many of us supported have done as much harm as good. You will NEVER see them have another public meeting and they can't handle scrutiny by the media

Margo, you are right about what I said about my encounter with the CTLAC.  I am confused by local politics and one of the reasons that I check in to MCS is to learn.  That is also why I would like to attend a CTLAC meeting to learn about them and their impact/contributions to local politics.  But they seem to be secretive which is a cause for concern (at least on my part) If you are really trying to help the average taxpayer, why wouldn't you be actively looking for help and support in trying to get out your message?  I STILL don't get it. I am not doubting the acuracy of what they are doing, just the secrecy.

For the record, I did NOT vote for the additional commissioners--and it had NOTHING to do with ethics. Ethics or lack thereof has nothing to with the quantity of elected officials, you need to look at quality-someones character and as some blogger says "follow the money" My vote had everything to do with letting the "new" single member districts run their course to prove weather it would work  well or not.   That is the same reason I won't vote to do away with the two new seats. Enought is enough--this single member-add'l commssioners--removal of new seats is starting to sound like a boys spitting contest on the sandlot (kids--something I know a BUNCH about) I remain, (mostly) Clueless in Caly

I did not vote for the additional Commissioners because unlike prior CRC's that had convened to propose amendments to our Charter. Did so directly from the results of  grand jury investigations.

I appreciated the work those members did to make us a Charter form of government and to take the power from the Clerk of Court which the grand jury stated had too much power in our county.

Then when the current CRC convened came out of those with 2 addtional Commissioners have not been able to show that those position would or will stop corruption in our government. Which had been the results of a grand jury investigation.

I am not for adding more parasites to the government payroll that I pay. I will vote to remove those position for that very reason if it is on the ballot. The "no more than necessary parasite government reform act".

I wonder how many experts such as witnesses or testimony would the people need to hear from to decide that term limits are not only needed but necessary. That is common-sense approach to government.

Single member districts are practiced all over Florida. Allen Watts the attorney that worked with the CRC was working with another county to impliment single member districts. I think in smaller counties such as Clay it is necessary. Again common-sense approach to government.

Just like counties with larger populations are better served with larger government such as 7 Commissioners. This is not CLAY COUNTY yet.

I haven't seen what the CTLAC has proposed and put on the ballot was harmful to the county in any way.

The people in the community seem to have a different view of the CTLAC than a small minority of the bloggers.

Clueless how many meetings did you attend that the PAC that raised 30k to have those amendments voted in or how many were advertised and attended by the general public that you are aware of or were noticed in the paper?

CTLAC is a highly regarded successful organization of private citizens.  Anytime you find private citizens who are willing to spend their time and money to promote things for the benfit of residents has to speak for itself.  Their record of success stands on its own. 

If you desire more information, what"s keeping you from calling Mr. Smith?  There's no better way than to start at the top. 

Angela, I did not attend a single meeting of the PAC. My life has been the stay at home soccer Mom type for years (A reason why I am clueless).  I am earnestly working to seek out information here at MCS as well as attending meetings, forums etc.  I do not have the facility for gathering public records/information that you do.  Actually I would guess that few are as good at it as you are.  So we gather information in other ways. 

I have been checking out the single member districts becuase of the petition to remove the not yet elected at large seats.

I am quite interested in the money trail of local candidates,  that information is easy to find thanks to MCS bloggers.We all form opinons based on different things but I like mine to be based on knowledge.   

Ala, Mr Smith is to be commended for his dogged determination and I checked his PAC's financials too. A huge precentage of their money is from Mr. Smith--again a reason to be commended.  He is putting in his money and time.

I am not questioning their results either, just their secrecy.

As far as contacting Mr. Smith, I have seen him be mean spirited when people don't agree with him in signing petitions.  On occaision, he has even been mean on camera during the BCC meetings. If I wanted an older man's (sometimes cranky) opinion, I could ask my husband.  (just weak humor)

I did email them about attending a meeting--no response. I think I citizen group is great, but I want to know more before I jump in.  Since Pi and another blogger (Machala?) are members why don't they just issue an invite to the public via MCS ? I just don't get it.

I remain, Clueless in Clay

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

I applaud your efforts to better educate yourself to be a more informed voter in Clay County. I have seen many on the blogs who state the same reasons for reading the blogs is to be better informed. Many on the blogs have alot of information to provide to the readers of the blogs.

That is one of the reason that I provide as many records as possible on the blogs so that people can see the information and make those decisions. I firmly believe the more information a person is exposed to the better decision they can make.

I agree a money trail will provide a road map for all those interested to see who and why certain people support certain candidates. Their history with the prior candidates, who were later elected, and who they supported, and that Commissioners individual record on votes and what they supported for the taxpayers as a whole.

I think what gives the best indicator in the additional Commissioners is the fact that one of the members of the CRC who proposed and supported that position. Then became a candidate for that position. He has no opponent and if elected would be by default. How sad is that for a small county working to get out of the appearance of corruption in our government.

People should remember that policies can be enacted by the Commissioners through ordinances or resolutions. So when giving a person the power of the Chairman's position they should remember he can obtain additional powers that just having 5 equal Commissioners could not have with ordinances or resolutions. Not all additional powers will need to be voted on by the taxpayers.

Clueless I never saw any public announcements or meetings for the general public to attend for the PAC that supported those amendments either. I guess those were done in secret too.

Angela,

"Then when the current CRC convened came out of those with 2 addtional Commissioners have not been able to show that those position would or will stop corruption in our government. Which had been the results of a grand jury investigation."

Members of the past CRC never claimed adding two at-large commissioners would stop corruption. None of us were naive enough to believe it would. I have read this from you on more than one occasion but it is not based on what actually happened during the review process.

We did say - and expert witnesses corraberated the fact - that adding two at-large positions creates greater accountability to a larger number of people. The more people who can vote in an election, the more powerfully accountable that election is.

That fact remains true whether at a local, state or national level. Just think if the entire state was allowed to vote in a Clay County race how powerful the outcome would be. Do they need to vote in a Clay County race? No. But I use the example to show there is power in numbers. Pure and simple.

The timing of the charter review was both fortunate and unfortunate. Yes, it came after a grand jury investigation which allowed the CRC to efficiently investigate those allegations addressed in the grand jury but it is also unfortunate because it was not our task to create "something" to prevent future corruption. No commission could ever offer a "fix" to achieve complete corruption-free government.

People are human beings and they falter.

Let me restate: The Charter Review Commission did not say adding two at-large commissioners would prevent corruption in government. We proved it brings balance to the single districts and accountability to Clay County voters.

Karen Lake

yes I understand just like Christy Fitzgerald who did not win her district but won off votes from the county as a whole. We see where that got the voters in the end. Even more reason to support the single district make up without the other baggage or as I call them parasites of the government.

That's just the kind of balance such as Ms. Fitzgerald that we are attempting to get away from for the good of the county.

After all if the additional positions stand one district could represent 3 votes of the Commissioners on the board. Talking about taking the rest of the of the county out of the mix. Where would accountability be in that vote.

After all no on has been held ACCOUNTABLE for anything that happened in our county and I don't see adding 2 Commissioners will change that either. What are they going to do arrest the 2 at large Commissioners and leave the other 5 in place. I hardly think so.

Angela,

The MCS site is a good example. Angela may be well known here by 200-300 people. But there are 114,000 registered voters in Clay County. If Angela wants to get elected, it doesn't matter where she lives. She better get on her running shoes because that's what it takes to get your name out there for people to recognize it. And once elected, Angela is still being held accountable by those same people who put her there.

Special interests exist inside single districts, too, Angela. They are not immune to manipulation and political maneuvers. It happens all of the time. Sometimes, it's a blessing to allow more than just a single district elect its representation.

I don't want to hijack margo's blog with this conversation. I'd like to hear input from CTLAC members too.

Particularly, in this election cycle, it appears CTLAC is dominating the ballot with amendments focused on taking away a popular vote from citizens and at the same time, governing Clay's charter by citizen petition.

As a result of their activity, it occurs to me that the citizen's initiative could be amended to require sponsors of citizen's petitions to hold public hearings throughout the county six months prior to being placed on the ballot, at their expense.

In addition, perhaps 5-percent of petition signatures need to come from each of the single districts. Why? This is not a game. It's a county's constitution and should be treated as such.

All of these avengeful amendments fly in the face of the sanctitude of the charter document. If CTLAC agrees the constitution of Clay County is the most important document in the land, they'd lay down their petition arms, too.

The more amendments they place on the ballot, the more abusively they treat our charter. Just my opinion. By the way, I feel that strongly about state constitutional amendments, too. I'll vote against them just to send the amendment sponsor back to the drawing board and do it legally, through the Legislature.

Disclaimer for the bloggers who read

Key was a member of the CRC who proposed that amendment.

Angela is not running for office. I am not a member of the CRC or the CTLAC.

Now that has been established:

As a citizen of the county just as most of us are I would like to say.

Key doesn't support the 60% vote to get something on the Charter or the Constitution of the State of Florida. As a majority of the Citizens of the State of Florida have voted on and agreed.

Yet you do support making it harder for the people who want to put things on the ballot. Just because it's on the ballot doesn't make it part of the Charter. Who are you trying to impede?

The voters make it the laws of the Charter and Constitution. Not the people who put the amendment on the ballot.

Maybe we should change the Charter to have the CRC memeber be selected by the voters instead of the Commissioners. I think I could stand behind that amendment.

As far as the Chairman's position I think the voters should consider the only candidate that is registered is an Attorney for Keystone Heights (contracted) and an Attorney for the Town of Orange Park (contracted). Lives in the Green Cove Springs district as the Chairman. Just something to think about when making a decision about if that position is really necessary and the power you want to give that individual.

I think as time has passed and we are better able to see as voters how the Charter government is run legally. I would urge you to think this proposal out to remove those positions and when the population has increased to the amount that would support additional government it can be re-visited at that time.

Something to think about in good old Clay County politics. With our no accountability government we have had in our County.

Angela,

No, no, no. You do not speak for me. I have never said I was against the 60-percent amendment. Au contraire, it's the only one that makes sense. I may vote for it.

Yes, after the abuse I'm witnessing, I support making it harder than gathering 5,600 signatures and throwing an amendment on the ballot.

Karen Lake, former CRC member

Still waiting for the CTLAC to answer these legit questions.  Still no answer.  A good question is what motivates Durwood and his 3 or 4 followers.  They must be doing this stuff with pure motives, right, why else would they do it?  I think Durwood and his buddies are motivated by the same thing that motivates alot of the politicians.  Ego and attention.  It makes them feel good to go out to dinner and get patted on the back by people who see them in the paper and on television.  It's really fun when you get called by reporters from the Messenger, Folio and Clay Sun and they only write nice things about you and talk about how you are just doing it for "the people" and you are sticking it to the "politicians."  The problem is the attention eventually ends and we all move on to more important things.  So the CTLAC has to create new issues to keep the attention on them.  So we get more and more petitions which keeps the spotlight on them.  Forget about whether the petitions are needed or not or whether it is good for us to be changing the charter every 2 years.  I'm sick of politicians with egos and I am sick of the egos with this group as well.   If the CTLAC really wants to help, then they should run for office, get elected and help fix our traffic problems.  

To all the bloggers please search in the box provided above for the blog:

CTLAC-please withdraw petitions- by our very own friend. Of course you have now changed positions. Maybe pesonalities on the blogs. Maybe users names. Something or other.

In the blog entry copied below, the underlined sentence sounds very much like an accidental endorsement of Hometown Democracy!  The more voters you have to convince or buy off for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the less likely uncontrolled growth is.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angela, two at-large will not prevent corruptionSubmitted by Key2life on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 1:05pm.         

We did say - and expert witnesses corroborated the fact - that adding two at-large positions creates greater accountability to a larger number of people. The more people who can vote in an election, the more powerfully accountable that election is.

Hometown Democracy and key's position on the 60 percent petition are all good topics for another blog.  Since I started this blog, though, I would like to keep the focus on the CTLAC and their answers to the questions and issues that were presented on this blog yesterday.

Margo, by this time it should be very clear you need to pose your questions to Mr. Smith for answers.  Just ask him and move on. 

Just OneMann's View on this blog, which I've enjoyed reading ...

I still don't understand what orginated the idea that a private political action committee's internal machinations should be open to the public.  I can't imagine our favorite local lobbyist and any of his PACs being expected to do what CTLAC is being asked to do here.  Of course, if his PAC meetings were public, maybe someone would have warned him in advance about how crooked he sounded in that Hometown Democracy letter he authored.

And frankly, what does the inner decision-making process of CTLAC have to do with the validity of its proposals?  Does the credibility of any proposal rise if the proposal were penned by a committee of hundreds, or fall if it's something Durwood first scribbled while sitting on a toilet?  After all, the proposal is what the proposal is, no matter how or why it originated, and it is the voters who will ultimately decide its fate. 

And, I don't want it to sound as if it's petty semantics, but I do need to disagree with one statement written earlier pertaining to the past Charter Review Commission's recommandation to add two at-large members of the County Commission.  "We proved it brings balance to the single districts and accountability to Clay County voters."  My potential pettiness is in the use of the word "proved,"

There is no way to prove a theory that one form of government is superior to another.  There are too many variables, including too many variables of human frailties, for anything in politics to be more than a theory.  The CRC offered evidence that supported its proposal to expand the number of seats on the BCC from five to seven, but it did not offer proof, something that simply cannot exist in the context of the assertation.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

CTLAC is not a government entity, therefore, meetings may be public and or private, as determined by the membership.  The best way to make a meeting private is to keep a low profile and notify your members only of any change in meeting time/place.   If you are curious as to what CTLAC is doing and you know a member, ask them when the next meeting takes place, and ask them to notify you if the meeting time/date is changed.

I don't have an issue with when, where, or how often they advertise their meetings.  What I care about hearing from them is what are their political actions, duh after all they are a political action committee.  If I agree with them, and I am asked, I sign their petition.  If I don't I simply say No thank you.  I have been asked, and I did sign a petition for them  on two occasions.

Simple as that.  Are we looking for something sinister here?

Sorry OneMann if I appear to have paraphrased you here, but I do agree with you!  

I just received an email from CTLAC, and it has the time and date of the next meeting, and what they are doing.  I signed up for their email newsletter and receive one every few weeks.  Below is a quote from the email:

 Our next membership/citizen meeting will be on Wednesday, February 6, at FL Island Library Meeting Room, at 7 PM.  Learn more about our projects and plans and make suggestions.  Everyone is welcome.  Bring other interested friends. 

 All I really wanted to know is when the CTLAC meets so I can attend.  If I can help with one of their projects, I will.  That's all I need.  I don't have an agenda or opinion, I am aware they do not have to be "in the sunshine" all I want to do is provide support if they have a issue I can get behind.

One Mann, I believe the numbers in their group ARE important, they can certainly affect (or is it effect?) change with more people--why wouldn't an organization want more help?

This blog sure went down a long road to get before I got my answer, thanks Islander.

clueless,

That's great news. I'm glad you got the answer you have waited so long for. I haven't checked my calendar but if I'm free, I'd love to sit in, too, to listen and learn.

OneMann,

I accept (yes, it was me you alluded to) your pet peeve over semantics. The CRC did offer substantial evidence supporting the expansion of the commission. No evidence was presented by CTLAC supporting a five single-district commission (we asked them to show us. It did not make its way to our public hearings...another one of those top secrets held only by the nucleus members of the CTLAC.)

read44,

On the contrary, HDA is an indictment of the pillaging of the state's Constitution through a petition amendment. When a group can't get things done legally, they resort to a Constitutional amendment to wreak havoc on public policy. I'll vote "no" on that principle, alone. Let's send Leslie Blackner back to the drawing board and let them do things without changing the Constitution.

margo,

I hope you continue to press for the answers you believe the public needs to hear. Evidently, it's working. We have a meeting date. Who knows, maybe Mr. Smith will be announcing his candidacy for District 5 at this meeting. He said he was thinking about running in the FI Messenger.

Karen Lake

Alabaya:  The CTLAC is on this website.  Why can't they simply post their answers for all the public to see on this blog?  I want everyone to see their answers, not just me.

OneMann:  That was a good post but I have to disagree. The CTLAC's whole argument, the one they make over and over again, is that they need to undo the changes proposed by the CRC and approved by the voters because the CRC hoodwinked the voters and the CRC should never have been trusted by the voters because it was made up of certain people (other than them) that they don't trust.   In other words, they are arguing against the people behind the ideas, not arguing against the ideas.  But when it comes to the CTLAC, somehow we aren't allowed to know anything about who they are and how they come up with these ideas and what experts they are relying on to come up with these ideaas.  Everyone knows who was on the CRC, all of there meetings were public and they issued a bunch of reports that talked about the experts they brought in and they explained their position and how they came up with it.  Is it too much to expect the same from CTLAC?   You talk about these other PAC groups and ask why we don't expect info from them.  I've got a problem with them too.  But I thought that the CTLAC was supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than those other groups, not just be secretive like those other groups.  It's kind of sad when the CTLAC's defense is:  hey, the other slimy PACs do it too.      

Islander:  Thanks for the info.  Apparently it took this blog to get them to hold a public meeting, but it looks like it worked.  Good for the public.  I hope the press shows up and asks real questions and gets real answers.  You ask if we are looking for something sinister here.  No, just looking for some info to help us all make better decisions for our government.  Really, I'm just trying to apply the same standard to this group, CTLAC, that they and their buddies apply to every other group or politician in this area.  Like has been said before, they shouldn't be defensive about it, every other grassroots organization I've ever seen would love this kind of attention.

Now I hope the CTLAC calls the press and posts blogs advertising this public meeting. 

Margo, stating that CTLAC is a registered political action committee and bound by the laws that govern such is not "CTLAC's defense," as you called it, but merely my perspective on this discussion you started.  CTLAC doesn't need any of my efforts to defend itself, especially since nothing written about them here needs defending.

Nor did I ask why more info isn't expected from other PACs.  They, too, are private entities not required or expected to open their inner deliberations to the public.  The point was that it's all just political rhetoric to ask for more openness than is required from CTLAC.

It seems strange that you want to change the rules for CTLAC, substituting instead the rules that applied to the Charter Review Commission, an official, appointed government body with an altogether different set of laws to govern its actions.  One is designed by law for its decisions to be made in the public, and one is not.  Attempting to equate them because both groups suggest possible Charter Amendment changes is oversimplistic and ignores what - and why - they each are.

And CTLAC is gonna hold a public hearing because of this blog?  Fairly arrogant assumption (similar to some I've made after seeing my own words in print,)  Nothing's been written here that would warrant anyone even getting dressed in the morning, much less planning and scheduling a public hearing in response.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Mike,

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the CRC and the CTLAC, those of us not knee deep in the political arena sometimes overlook or are unaware of such differences. 

Even after reading all the posts over the last year I still don't get why the CTLAC gets more criticism then anything or anyone else in here.  I see nothing bad in the papers, I see nothing negative on tv, just here.

Their group is very successful in the community, propose great ideas, and get them passed. They have earned the respect of the community. With the exception of what I called political groupies that constantly bash them on the blogs to attempt to discredit them. It doesn't seem to be working very well. As long as they continue to offer common-sense approach to government ideas they will continue to be successful.

Marsha, CTLAC gets the criticism because of its success!  Politics is always a big fight.  Those who have different opinions are always looking for something to make a public display over to discredit their opposition.

Look at it this way, anytime their name is kept in the forefront, its free publicity, good bad or indifferent.  Their record stands on its own and voters recognize and know it!

For the record, some the most heated and harsh criticism of the CRC and its individual members has come from members of the CTLAC.

Also, for the record, I appreciate and applaud the CTLAC and their interest in Clay County government.  Sometimes I agree with their position, and sometimes I disagree (I know verb, 0 right?). 

Personally, I have the utmost respect for Durwood Smith and hope that as time wears on me, I can maintain my vigor and enthusiasm for what ever it is that interests me.  He and his group operate within the law, and work to change things they don't like.  Just because he rubs certain people the wrong way - too bad.  As a member of the CRC, I was rubbing some people the wrong way too. If you don't like what the CTLAC is doing, get involved yourself and try to change things the same way they do.  That's what I'm doing.

This next part will definitely rub some people the wrong way - oh well.

Signatures collected for citizen initiative petitions should be required to be collected from each district.  If the CTLAC is so insistent on having the County divided into 5 single-districts, I don't understand why they are so against requiring petition signatures be collected in each of these single districts.  We have to elect our commissioners by district, but a citizen initiative that will affect the entire county can be authorized with signatures from only 1 of the 5 districts.  Seems inconsistent to me. 

Actually, I know exactly why they don't want it that way - it makes collecting signatures more difficult.  I see - "single-district" when they want it to be, but "at-large" when it comes to collecting signatures. 

Seems a little disingenuous to me.

The CTLAC is collecting signatures to overturn the two "at large" seats, so why doesn't it make sense to collect  "at large" signatures? 

Not trying to be argumentative or negative, just wondering why it seems disingenuous to you.  Seems logical to me. 

Thanks.

attend the February 6th meeting of the CTLAC? 

Stryker

Bax, it's important to remember the political climate in Clay County during the time period you and others served on the Charter Review Commission, because it explains some of the criticism lobbed your way by CTLAC and others.

I think issues should always be the subject of political debate, not personalities.  But sometimes personalities are forced into the conversation, and personalities were legistimately brought into question about the CRC.

CRC members were all appointed by the County Commission.  That BCC had already demonstrated its lack of concern for Clay County citizens by the appointments and hirings of two unqualified and grossly incompetent cronies to positions as County Manager and Director of Public Works.

There wasn't any reason to trust the County Commission's judgment at the time and, by association, no reason to trust their appointees on the Charter Review Commission.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Mike I think you make an excellent point. Judgment of the elected officials. Most of our problems in the county have all started with stunningly poor judgment.

Just like the email where Travis Cummings approached the county to solicit their insurance business while being the Chairman of the CRC. That by laws is per se a conflict of interest. However, it also shows to me a bigger picture which is lack of good judgment when making decisions. Something we don't need in this county, at this time, continued poor judgment. 

Just like the Shands Bridge which they have used poor judgment in my opinion. To destroy a perfectly good bridge to the detriment of the citizens as a whole. To pander to the growth industry by tearing down that bridge, and then charge the citizens with tolls for the use of the Outer Beltway. To me exhibits stunningly poor judgment to the detriment of the citizens.

I was told that I might find this "Blogging" experience entertaining, and I have,although I am not sure what real purpose it can serve as it appears as that there are discussions and point-counterpoints based on a number of half truths and mis-information. The most recent is the allegation that the shands bridge is a "Perfectly good bridge"; it appears that "Angela" has forgotten the survey performed by FDOT after the tragic accident a few years ago and the finding that the bridge was questionable, it is reaching the end of it's service life and would require millions of dollars to upgrade for a "Limited Access Bridge" with size and weight limitations. That is one example. Another mis-information is that the "Term Limits" serve the people, they serve the lazy, uninformed and uninvolved people who want change but are too lazy to vote! Term Limits are called votes! Does anyone remember the national effort a few year ago called "THRO" (Throw the Rascals Out). A national Durwood Smith organized an effort to literally "Clean the House and the Senate" unfortunately not completely, we still have Kennedy. It seems as though there is at least one person here who will take a few documents or descriptions of legal directives, and then put them out in their manipulated presentations to woo the bloggers with their expertise, why don't other bloggers get all  the information and tell the complete truth.

As for the PAC that others are referring to, the CTLAC, I see it as a selfserving group of Demagogues that are only interested in staying in the public eye and expect exceptional media coverage and dispensation by everyone because of their "Noble Causes". Don't get me wrong, dissention and involvment are necessary for a government to remain responsive and accountable to it's constituency, but the cause should be noble and should reflect the true needs/desires of the electorate. Has anyone verified that the peopple who signed each ballet amendament/initiative actually voted? it is easy to do, the PAC can get the voting records from each election and compare the names on the ballots to those who voted; I would be willing to bet, that there are less than 10 percent of the initiative signers who actually vote for the amendment after they signed for it; is it still a valid initiative? who is held accountable for that scenario? the PAC? The government is always held accountable, but the PACs can operate with impunity and have no real accountability.

I have had my entertainment and I feel it is like wrestling with a pig; you both get muddy, the pig likes it; and after a while no one knows the difference. 

As far as the Shands Bridge is concerned after the tragic accident because all roads have tragic accidents. They spent money on repairs and installing new railing to accomodate the citizens. It was also slated in the very near future for federal funding to rework the current bridge with allocated funds. Commissioner Bush could verify that statement. Regardless of those facts the citizens were mislead into thinking the Shands Bridge would remain in tact with the new Outer Beltway. That is until they found out they could never sell that idea unless they removed the Bridge and forced the citizens to pay to use the Bridge.

It is also noteworthy to remember the new Outer Beltway runs right along with the property of one of the land developers who stands to benefit greatly from the Outer Beltway with several projects. Its also noteworthy to remember that he was the Chairman of the TAC (transportation advisory committee) who has been working from the conception to get that roadway built along his property.

With some many places that Bridge could have crossed it just happened to be in the landowners benefit. This is the same landowner who expects the taxpayers to give him perks for his donation of land of the right-of-ways.

He should be the poster boy for Hometown Democracy Amendment and the reason every citizen in Clay County signs a petition and votes yes if it gets on the ballot.

Those who supported the 5/2 plan that barely passed despite the 30K spent to promote that to the voters. Evidently are disturbed that over half of the signatures required have already been collected and turned in.

If you are interested CTLAC workers are at the polls today getting registered voters signatures to have this amendment placed on the ballot. That should cover if registered voters that vote are the ones signing the petition. I know that to be a fact because a friend of mine saw them and signed the petition when voting today. Then called to let me know. Way to go CTLAC.

We have several PAC's in our county,  Citizens for Ethics Accountability and Representation our friend Thrasher's group, the Republican Committee, Democratic Committee, and the American Family Forum Committee. They each work the system in their own way. Yet none are called to the carpet and questioned on the blogs.

Must be the success of the CTLAC and the realization that the voters have now seen for themselves how the Charter government should be ran legally and have had a change of mind about the additional positions. No need for 2 additional policy makers in Clay County for the taxpayers to have to fund. We are coming into some hard economic times in Florida and the county. We can decide as voters do we want more fire and police or Commissioners to make policies. I think that's an easy choice for me to make and am happy to see that many voters who have signed the petition feel the same way in the county. Security first!

Sunflower made an excellent point about the petition.

I like mud I hear its good for the skin.

Still learning about these issues and have not made up my mind yet.  I appreciate the conversations.  

Angela, your comment about liking mud made something funny come to mind;  a good mud mask is supposed to bring out all of the impurities. Some descriptive words used are deep cleansing,  purifies, provides clarify and tightens.

This is my last journey into the quicksand of lopsided debate and innuendo. Angela, as I stated in my previous exercise in futility; the Shands Bridge would take millions to repair, it is near the end of it's service life and even when repaired it would be constrained to travel limits in numbers and weights. Once again, you stated the truth, or at least the part that supported your position. As for the "Local" citizens being required to pay for the use of the "New Toll Bridge" and that the Shands was abandoned because it would detract from use of the toll bridge if it was free; once again, partially true. After analysis by FDOT (not Clay County), it was determined that a "Free" bridge adjacent to a toll facility would encourage the targeted users (bypass traffic) to find a way to get into the local traffic streams and clog those artrial roads as well as cut back on revenue for the organization that is building and operating the Beltway. Another bit of information that you left out of your indictment was the fact that the MPO, FDOT, Clay County and even JTA has come onboard with the requirement that "Local" users (this classification to be defined by geographic proximity to the shands bridge) could have their own free pass. Now for the terrible act of donating land for the right of way and getting something in return. If you would remove yourself from your hatred or jealousy of someone who has the ability to help the community and still gain some reward; you would see that the people you are referring to are getting very little return on their investment dollar. Another little tidbit that is left out of your response is the fact that no matter which alignment (this is the proper term for the path of the beltway) was selected, the impact would have been essentially the same in terms of access to the developer's project you are so incensed about.

As for the petition signatures, you missed the whole point. I just voted, no one was at my voting precinct asking for my signature. If anyone would actually want to research the effect of the petition drive and the resulting votes derived from that effort, as I stated; get the election results of the subject election and compare names of the petition signatures to the actual votes. I may take that on as a challenge; to prove that what the PAC is doing is not really a representation of the "Voters" of clay county, but instead the signatures of disinterested and disgruntled citizens. Now before I get the response that "I signed and I vote" from about a dozen people, I believe the point has been made earlier in this site that there are over 100k voters in the county so, a couple of dozen people stating that they signed and voted in no way nullifies my argument. If I prove that the petition process is not a true representation of the "Voters" of the county do I get a little peace and quiet from the Wal-Mart squawking malcontents?

Pardon me for sneaking in after that last shot, 'Dweller, but I'd love to see the results of your petition-signer v. actual-voter study.  I hope you find the time to complete it.

I'm not sure even a large discrepancy in the numbers would actually prove that petition signers are "disinterested and disgruntled."  Or that it would prove anything else, since the signing of petitions to aide in a ballot proposal is not the same thing as casting a vote on Election Day.

They are two different processes with two different goals.  Signing a CTLAC petition merely implies the signer's endorsement of an issue being placed on the ballot for all Clay County voters to decide, not necessarily endorsement of the issue itself.  But stepping into a booth and casting a ballot implies decision-making responsibilities that some eligible voters choose not to accept.

The numbers of your proposed study may be interesting, but comparing two completely different acts with completely different goals isn't going to prove much.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

We are the targeted users of the bridge. The taxpayers of Clay County. The ones that use it now. If that wasn't so instead of the requirement that we have to cross the bridge at least 6 times a day to even get a reduced price.

If it was as you say. Then they should just issue all Clay County residents a free pass to cross the bridge. And then they could offer the St. Johns County residents the same offer of the free pass.

Because as you say we are not the targeted users anyway. They are going to get rich off the bypass traffic and fund that road. So they don't need to further tax the citizens for the bypass traffic. Just give us our free passes.

That ain't happening.

I took my friend to her polling place this evening and saw a CTLAC worker who had gathered over 200 signatures today alone at the one place. My friend signed the petition.

Your serve

I agree with Angela that to give the Clay County residents free toll would seriously impact the beltway's ability to generate revenue, or Toll Feasibility. Apparently, it's already pretty marginal and to my understanding doesn't fit the Florida Turnpike's test for profitability within allotted time frame. That means a public- private partnership is the only way to make it happen, because private entities can take longer to make their money back. I'm not sure the potential investors are seeing toll feasibility that involves toll rebates for residents. 

Another interesting point that has yet to be tossed around very much is the apparent plan to toll the existing Brannan Field Chaffee up to I-10 as part of the Outer Beltway. I expected some push back, but have yet to see it. Don't a few people in this county travel that way to and from work? hmm

While I'm not thrilled with the existing Shands bridge, it is indeed free as many other bridges down the St. Johns. Why toll us? Why take away a currently free access at the Shands and at Brannan Field and give it over to a public private partnership to make money off of us? How about small contractors who travel these roads daily to get to their jobsites? There's a long time between building this road and having the industry that the county intends to attract pay for it. Meanwhile, we will instead.