Why I Believe In The 5+2

Heck, Bill, I was gonna take the other side of this debate, but now I'm not sure if I should wait for the Red Herring Edition before talking 5-2.

Just to get things started, though, I'll offer some counter-points of my own for you.

1.  I can't argue with your math, and this is the most cogent argument I've heard in favor of the additional two at-large representatives.  I just don't think the math is as important as you do.

Can't buy that line about "district commissioner" either.  It doesn't matter if a person is elected by the constituents of a single district or by voters countywide, the job they're being elected to is "County Commissioner."  Even in the midst of a 5-2 County Commission, the five will still be expected to examine and vote on issues of a countwide nature.

2.  The single-district, five-member County Commission was not left unchanged.  In fact, the voting of each of those Commissioners was reduced to 5/7ths of its previous power.  For those who supported single-district elections because they feel it provides more accountability, saw their desire for accountability reduced to that same 5/7ths of the previous amount.  Ain't math fun?

3.  The discussions about the chairmanship often confuse me, because it sounds like I hear two different things.  First, the chairmanship is primarily ceremonial and just lends a face to county government.  Other than holding the gavel at meetings, there is no additional power granted to the chairman.

But then the discussion shifts the focus of the four-year chairmanship and it becomes a position of leadership which, as I've said before, would be beneficial in the hands of a benevolent dictator.  We haven't seen a lot of them lately in Clay County government.

That ought to be enough to get the conversation going, Bill, but I'm still looking forward to your Red Herrings.

Michael S. Mann

I don't have enough seniority in Clay County to get into the middle of this one so I'll keep my opinions of 5+2 v 5 to myself. I will say that this is a very interesting post from my position.

Two very knowledgeable advocates discussing/arguing/debating different sides of the issue. I like a lot of what Bax has to say and can see his points on the math (important or not).

On the other hand, as Mike stated, I think the part about the skipper leading the way is a little double speak. My understanding is that the chair is there to lead the meeting and keep it on track. The skipper analogy implies that he has some control over which way the county (vote) goes.

I didn't think that was true and understood that there would be no new powers added to the chair's duties. Perhaps I'm being a naive but I thought it was one person, one vote, regardless of their standing as to district, at-large or chair.

I too look forward to the next post and comments to both. Not being able to draw on previous county experience, I have nothing to base my decision on except what I glean from various sources. In my opinion, this site is one of the best. 

Mike Heemer

Mike and Finder,

What I hear you saying is you don't hear that people are being consistent when describing the Chair.

On one hand, he has no special power, yet he seems to be designed to be the policy leader of the government.

The Chair, while not having extra votes or veto power, does have the ability to set forth a vision and agenda for the county by virtue of his title and being the "face of government."

For instance, Governor Crist has no power to "make laws," that is the job of the legislative branch.  Yet, he proposes them, advocates them, gets the public fired up about them, and influences the agenda of the legislative branch.  He uses his "bully pulpit."

The 5/2 system with a Chair recognizes this power, and allows the elected Chair to exercise that power for 4 years, so he/she can actually get something done, rather than have a rotating annual chair that provides no continuity of leadership.

We don't want to give the Chair too much power in case he/she is going off the reservation, so we retain the ability of the rest of the BCC to stop the initiatives of the Chair by a simple majority.

Hope that helps define the Chair.

Karen Lake

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

The Chairman would have the right to make policy, advocate policy, and then vote on the same policy. Does the Governor have that same right?

I don't think so but then maybe I'm confused. That sure looks like alot of power given to one Commissioner.

Key;

Actually that cleared a lot of things up for me. I understood what was said and implied. The only thing that would concern me is the amount of time the chair would have to influence and gather a 'following'.

Of course that happens now, it just isn't for such a long time. I can see good and bad in this. But then, there are only a couple of certainties in life. You plays your cards and takes your chances.

Angela; 

As to setting and voting on policy, doesn't the current chair do the same thing?

Mike Heemer

Finder yes he does. That was why I couldn't see how that could equal what the Governor's powers are in his position, or why you would use that as an example.

If we only wanted continuity for the Chairman without true additonal powers all they had to do was make a policy that allows the Chair to remain in that position for 2 years. We didn't need to add two Commissioners and the additional cost to achieve that goal. It is not mandatory that they rotate every year but their decision. As a matter of fact Commissioner Rutledge suggested that policy change when he was the Chairman. I think that would have been a better idea to try before we added more government.

If they wanted a true representation of what the Governor is they should have proposed a true Mayor that is elected by the all the voters but has true seperation of powers. Responsible to the entire voting citizens and has seperation that give true checks and balances.

It was proposed that the County Manager report to the newly elected Chairman. Why should that be handled in that manner. He is hired by all the Commissioners. Presently he reports to all Commissioners.

The Charter states he can obtain additional powers by ordinance. That does not give the citizens a voice in his power grab after being elected. Just the vote of a few Commissioners. That I think is very misleading to the voters.

But then of course I am not for more government. As I've always heard ask 3 people to do something and they will get it done. Ask 30 and you will get part of it done. Ask 3000 and you'll never get anything done. Sounds like our government in Washington. So less is better when it comes to government in my opinion. Otherwise I would want true checks and balances and knowing exactly what the powers were and would be limited too. That idea that his/her power can increase with time and a few votes of the Commissioners not the voter gives pause for concern to me.

Angela,

The example of the Governor was used to define a "bully pulpit." While the Governor cannot vote on laws, he has veto power. The chair that has been approved by the voters does not.

I'm concerned when I hear people say that duties and powers of the Chair can be changed by ordinance. If you notice, all of the duties are defined - explicitly - in the charter. Any changes in duties or powers to the Chairship can only be made, "provided that such powers shall be exercised in a manner consistent with this charter." Article II, Section 2.2:2

If duties or powers were suggested that were inconsistent with what has been established in the charter (that list of duties) -such as veto power- then it couldn't be done without the will of the voters.

Angela, I don't know where you heard, "It was proposed that the County Manager report to the newly elected Chairman."

To my knowledge, the CRC did not propose that the County Manager report to the Chair. Not at all. It was never our intention to change the County Manager form of government. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement.

In researching different formats of government and in talking with Dr. Bailey at Stetson University, the most common progression in county forms of government develop along the lines Clay County is moving: Single District (simplest); Combination of single and at large seats (with a weak Chair); Single/At-large combination with a Strong Chair.

Who knows, maybe the next Charter Review Commission will move that to ballot.

Karen Lake

This is what the Charter states and I will quote:

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. 

Commissioners make and vote on ordinances by the laws of Flordia by the way of the County Attorney. The voters are not involved in that process.

Maybe if we could wait until we have a population (at least over 300K) consistent with the need for a Mayor, or additional Commissioners, or additional government and then let the people decide. Then I think we will have a better pool of citizens to decide from for those positions. I really get concerned about the default factor of selected people.

I would like to see a provision that stated if you were selected to fill in you were prohibited from running for office in the next election. But I thought that was just an ethics issues.

The fact that 60% of our citizens work outside the area limits us to those few who work in the area to run for that position. We are extermely limited in the pool of candidates in that respect.

OK, Bill, it's kind of a dreary day in my northeast corner of the county, so I've been playing with some math. I wanted to see how much fun I could have trying to blatantly manipulate the numbers to support my side of this discussion.

I've come up with this Dilution of Voter Influence Theory that shows the influence of your individual vote isn't increased - not even one little bit - with the addition of two at-large County Commissioners.

Under the current system, due to change later this year, you and your fellow district residents get to vote for one of five members of the BCC, and you'd like to have more individual influence on the decisions being made in county government. That's a truly worthy goal, but won't be accomplished with the two new guys on the BCC because it fails to recognize the Dilution of Voter Influence inherent in the plan.

As it stands, your vote lays claim to influence 20 percent of the Commission's power. With the addition of the at-large Commissioners, each of the County Commissioners elected only from their districts will see their individual power drop. The County Commissioner you and your fellow district constituents elected will go from 20 to just 14 percent, the initial dilution of the influence of your individual vote.

Your vote will also influence the two new at-large Commissioners, and your math establishes 14 percent for each of them, giving your individual vote influence on 43 percent of the BCC. You can't forget, though, that your individual vote for those at-large Commissioners is diluted by comparison to the influence your vote would hold over a Commissioner elected only from your district. Five times as many voters will be casting their ballots in the countywide elections, reducing the effect of your voting influence by one-fifth.

Instead of 14 percent for each of the two at-large Commissioners, a more accurate assessment of your influence would be slightly less than 3 percent per Commissioner, a total of just 6 percent both of them. In the Dilution of Voter Influence Theory, adding that 6 percent gain in influence from the at-large Commissioners exactly offsets the 20-to-14 percent drop in influence of the one Commissioner you now get to vote for. It's a mathematical wash.

Bill, if you need some of my bio information for when you nominate me for the Nobel in Mathematics, let me know.

Michael S. Mann

OneMann;

Did you perchance take Inferential Statistics and Decision Making? I think I saw that equation on my final exam.

Gotta be careful with those mathematics. The reciprocal is always going to make it a wash.  

Mike Heemer

Had to review my notes on the reporting to the Chairman. That was Chairman Bush's statement. When he was talking at the BCC and stating what the Chairman is responsible for and working with the county manager. He also voiced his concerns over the Chairman and the County Manager be the only ones allowed to place items on the agenda and not in support of that either.