NEW PAC

All one has to do is  look beneath the surface of this and analyze the results to figure out the motive and end results.

(1)  A special interest group did not like the possibility of the vote results they might get from 5 commissioners, 3 of 5 votes to pass.

(2)  Increasing it to 7 commissioners changes those results, 4 of 7 votes to pass. 

So, proposals that would have been defeated in a 5 commission setting now will pass with just one vote of the 2 additional at-large commissioners.

Most Clay County residents know it does not matter if its 5 or 7 commissioners, they will not have any more influence.  The influence will come from those special interest groups who were big contributors to their campaigns.  All one has to do is look at the candidates campaign contribution reports at www.clayelections.com. 

Bottom line is protection of voters rights is a "smoke screen".   

I don't remember anyone saying that Thrasher was involved. I did make a statement that perhaps your PAC could use the Thrasher maneuver and send out letters to get people to revoke their petition signatures.

Why is it that you are protecting my right to vote for two at large commissioners by trying to stop the passing of a petition to remove them? You took away my right to vote for only 1 commissioner when the CRC put the 5+2 on the ballot.

I can tell that you will never see the distinction in that question. It is not the idea of you wanting to keep the 5+2 configuration that I have an issue with. I have no real problem with that. Whatever shows up on the ballot is what I make a mark on. For or against, that is the option and my choice. Which way I'm going to vote is my business.

What I abhor is the arrogance of someone shouting to the county that only your PAC, a lone voice in the wilderness, is protecting my voters rights. You see, the only reason I have this 'right' is because you took away something else and gave me this instead.

And quite honestly, the CRC did not do that. The voters did when they went to the booth. Yes the CRC got it on the ballot and worked hard to get it passed, but it was the voters who exerised their right that actually made the change.

I think the real issue here is that you may be a tad upset that someone has the audacity to call your 5+2 baby ugly. They want to do away with it and give the citizens back the right to vote the way it used to be. A right that you took away the last time around.

They are NOT trying to take away a right. They are trying to change that right just like you did. Big difference.

Having said the same thing in at least 3 different ways, I'll give it up. To each their own opinion. I've stated mine, you've stated yours. They are on divergent paths and are not likely to ever meet or even run parallel on this subject. 

Mike Heemer

I was so excited this morning, Mike H. I'm loving your suggestion to copy the Thrasher's dance steps and revoke citizen petitions against the 5-2. I contact our Supervisor of Elections office, explain what I want to do and thud...oh man, so close, but no cigar. The charter doesn't allow for petition revocation. But maybe the charter needs to be updated to reflect the State Constitution.

Mike, I just wanted you to know, I followed up...

Karen Lake

Key;

I'd guess you thought I was being facetious or sarcastic when I suggested that. Perhaps just a little. But I'd say it was a pretty good idea worth checking out wasn't it?

Actually I'm more than a little surprised that it can't be done. I just assumed (I know, never assume) that the Charter would automatically follow the state when that new process was approved.

Karen, I have no issues or animosity whatsoever about what the PAC is trying to achieve. If you can figure out how to keep the amendment(s) off the ballot, good on ya! If not, and you can convince people not to vote for a change, I'll congratulate you.

As I said, the only issue I have with the PAC is the name and the implications it raises that CTLAC is trying to step on anyone's rights. I really think the PAC has caused themselves some image problems that could easily have been avoided. Perception is many times more powerful than fact. In my opinion the name gives the perception of questionable tactics.

But hey, what the heck do I know? I'm just hanging around watching the show so far. There is a good old Military saying: Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. For now I'll do the latter and let you guys lead the way.

Good luck. And I'm not being sarcastic.

Mike Heemer

Mr. Lyons, with respect to the additional two at-large commissioners, you stated in this blog “The model [the CRC] used was our Federal gov't , our State Gov't which has servered [sic] us well for over 200years.”  Could you please explain how the “5/2” Board of County Commissioners will be set up like our federal government and please include the following discussion points:

1. Separation of powers (e.g. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House…”, and “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”  How will the responsibilities of the two at-large commissioners differ from the five single-member commissioners?)
2. Checks and Balances (e.g. The Senate can disapprove a House budget and it goes nowhere.  How do the two at-large commissioners stop a policy that all five single-member commissioners want to have implemented?)
3. What position within our Federal government would reflect the position and power of the county’s newly elected Chairman?

I await your response.

The hybrid proposal that includes five Commissioners elected by their districts and two more Commissioners elected countywide is modeled after the way each state sends its members to Congress.  Members of the House of Representatives are elected by their districts, while Senators are voted on by everyone in the state.

To be accurate in the historic sense, though, that has only been the method of selecting Senators since 1913 (not over 200 years) with the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  Until then, regular folks didn't vote on who their U.S. Senators would be.  All the (old, white, male) members of the Senate were appointed by their state legislatures.

While the district versus at-large election difference works for Congress, it's not the same as the hybrid form of government scheduled for the Clay County Commission.  Congress is comprised of two Houses, distinct from each other, yet both necessary to make law.  It is in their seperation that "checks and balances" is found, not their individual methods of election.

The original Thrasher assumption was mine.  (Actually, it wasn't an assumption as much as the recognition of a trend.)  I'll take your word for it, Roy, that he's not involved - at least, until the financial reports start rolling in.  Nothing personal there at all, Roy.  It's just that I've seen a lot of politicians over the years and, well, you know.

One question I'd appreciate you answering for me, Roy.  At the recent meeting of the Fleming Island Republican Club, you said that the addition of the two at-large members to the County Commission didn't change single-member districts, it just "enhanced" it.  That's a word I've heard before in this debate, and one I've struggled to understand it in this context.  Straighten me out, Roy.  How is the five-member BCC "enhanced" by the additional two?

Michael S. Mann

Actually, facetious or not, it wasn't a "pretty good" idea. It was a darned good idea and absolutely worthy of some research.

I understand and appreciate your arguments against the name of the PAC. It is just a name. CTLAC still operates under the name of their first two amendments. It's really not relative to the issues that are important to them right now. It's just a name. The way I see it, people may not remember the name of the PAC but could - and I don't hold out a lot of hope - could remember what the group is fighting for. That's true of either PAC.

Karen Lake

Mr. Machala,

Several weeks ago, a blogger asked questions of CTLAC that have still not been answered. Questions like: 

1) If CTLAC is for "people not politicians" like their website says, then why are they getting signatures for a petition to override a system approved by the majority of the people?2) If they are for "people not politicians" like their website says, why would they take away the power to elect a chairman from the people and give that power to the politicians, do they not trust the people?3) Several years ago, CTLAC was in favor of an elected county manager. As a member, do you still want to make Fritz Behring run for his office?  If not, why has CTLAC changed its position?  If they believed in an elected county manager, elected at large, why would they be against an elected chair (who actually would have less power than a county manager)? What power does CTLAC believe the chairman will have that is so dangerous?4) I think someone asked why Mr. Smith mislead clueless to get him/her to sign the petition?Let's be very clear about the powers of the Chair, Mr. Machala: No additional powers or duties can be assigned to the Chair unless approved by the electorate. That job description is in the charter not in the Administrative Code so any add-on or take-away duties must be moved to the ballot and approved by you and me.

Holy helping hand. Don't tell me we have struck some kind of an accord here!

Too bad it didn't work out, but I guess getting that added or changed could be some kind of future project.

Mike Heemer

Yes, let's have some clarity regarding the powers of the elected Chair.  I quote from the current Clay County Home Rule Charter, Section 2.2A(2)

"Duties of the County Chair. The office of the County Chair shall have all jurisdiction and powers which are now and which hereafter may be granted to it by the Constitution and laws of Florida, this Charter, or county ordinance, provided that such powers shall be exercised in a manner consistent with this charter."

The "laws of Florida" (which are enacted by the state legislature) and "county ordinance"[s] DO NOT have to be "approved by the electorate".

As for your other questions, Key; I grow tired of repeating myself.

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."  -  Thomas Jefferson

rpmachala;

I must have missed something in this string. Perhaps it was in another blog.

I see that there is a difference between what k2l said and what the charter actually says. I think it is a minor distinction but a distinction none the less.

What I don't see of get is; what's your point? Other than to try to make it look like k2l is being devious.

Does it make a difference whether the chair is elected or appointed by the BCC? If you are trying to intimate that it does I don't see how. The chair is the chair and they will have the samed posers no matter how they got there.

I will admit that the new way would mean a 4 year term for the chair rather than switching every year to the most popular of the commissioners, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing.  

Mike Heemer

rpmachala;

Thanks for putting that on the blogs. I think it is important for people to see that additional power given to the chair will not have to be voted on by the citizens.

That has been discussed on the blogs and voters have been told the only way the powers of the chair can change is with the will of the voters. That's not true, and thanks for showing the voters.

Meaning the powers the chair has today may not look anything like the powers that are given to him a year later, and even more power 2 years later. And the voters will not have cast one vote to give them the additional powers. All they need is a few Commissioners who agree to enact an ordinance.

Something to think about!

Angela;

I agree with most things you post but this one is running me kind of sideways.

Could you back up a little, read my earlier comment and explain to me how 5+2 with an elected chair will change how the chair gets powers?

Unless I'm completely missing something the granting of powers to the chair will be no different than it is now with the current system.

I know you don't like the 5+2 configuration but I still have the same question. What is your point? The only difference I see is how the chair got the position.

Mike Heemer