Camp Blanding meeting

I was just wondering. Why after all these years does Camp Blanding need a "Buffer Zone"? What is the purpose of this Zone?

TRUTHHURTS

County Commissioner Chereese Stewart, who called the meeting, tried to remind those present that, “I care, too. We are not done with this issue. It is very much on the drawing board.” She was at a loss, however, to explain another questioned asked again and again: “Where are the other commissioners?”

Can you say "single-member BCC?"

This was exactly what I was afraid would happen.  If you take away peoples right to vote for someone (actually FOUR someones) and only give them ONE vote--what leverage do I have if I live in Keystone and have a problem?  Does the Commissioner in OP or Green Cove or Middleburg or Lake Asbury really care?  I hope they do, but if they don't care--I have no recourse.

Baxley,

So glad you're back.

Let's take the discussion one level deeper into the single-district politics...Commissioner Stewart is the sole representative of Rural Clay County. Like the universal garbage issue, this stands to be a number of voters who cannot drive the type of support that changes Clay County policy - even though they are passionate about their issue.

If this comes before the BCC, how many votes does Commissioner Stewart have on this issue when it only affects one district? No one else showed up because no one from District 4 can elect any other commissioner.

Too bad, so sad for District 4. You guys need to get over it and accept whatever the majority of the County decides to do...I don't care how loud you scream.

District 4 was STUPID when it voted for single-district commissioners. Very short sighted. There aren't enough votes out here - because of our lifestyle - to effect a change in government policy. The "lifestyle" votes are up north and they dictate three or more district commissioners.

And that's the truth...

Karen Lake

I watched the BCC meeting where Commissioner Bush stated that Commissioner Stewart would be representing the board at that meeting. That he would expect her to be reporting back to the other Commissioners. So everyone contact your Commissioners. They are the Commissioners for the entire county regardless of what district they represent. If you contacted them they will hear you. Contact them all.

Here are the minutes from the BCC meeting for review.

8. Discussion regarding Camp Blanding Comprehensive Plan Policies Mike Kloehn, Planning/Zoning Director, discussed proposed changes to the Comp Plan regarding Camp Blanding. After discussion, Commissioner Conkey moved, seconded by Commissioner Bradley, and carried 5-0, to support Commissioner Stewart in her plans to hold a meeting on April 17, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at McRae Elementary School as a representative of the Board; and that Commissioner Stewart will report back to the Board following the meeting.

Nothing you shared above has anything to do with the price of tomatoes in China.

Thank you.

Karen Lake

I would love to know why Camp Blanding needs a new buffer zone. What is their reasoning?

TRUTHHURTS

I know Key you are holding the mirror and blowing smoke at the readers of the blogs and insulting their intelligence. We'll let them decide if the minutes clearly show the support and the representation of the Board that was voted on. You are what you blog and that's the truth.

So now Karen, the voters of District 4 are stupid?  You have promoted the addition of two at-large commissioners to the point of comparing Clay County government with larger government (i.e. the State legislature).  Would our local state representative hold a meeting to discuss an issue and invite ALL of the House members to attend, or would your single House district representative hold the meeting with their constituents and report back to the full house or committee?   

Karen, your insults to other members of the MCS blog community only serve to diminish all of your statements and opinions. 

And Baxley, if you think the other commissioners would have/should have attended if they were all still at-large (that sounds eerily like a prison escapee), why wasn’t the District 1 Commissioner who is “Chairman in waiting” in attendance to his show his interest in the situation?  Oh - I forgot - he doesn't need their votes.

Seems like the BCC meeting minutes are pretty clear that it was Commissioner Stewart’s meeting with her district and she’s to report back to the full BCC and there's nothing wrong with that - it's the way government should work.

Judy

Link to petition: http://24.23.126.8/Petition.pdf

I don't think comparing a county issue to a State House issue is the same for representation.  It only takes an hour to get from North OP to Keystone. Not so from the Panhandle to the Keys.  I think that single member districts made it an easy out for commissioners to "cop-out" and not participate.  I appreciate Comm. Stewart reporting back but I think that it only makes it easier for the remaining four. 

If I were the people near Camp Blanding, I would already be worried that I really do not have any influence (my vote) on the other 4.

Sunflower, you made an excellent point about the candidate for Chairman. If he had an opponent, maybe he would be showing up ALL over the county.  I guess the new 5-2 isn't looking so good either. 

So, the single member district makes me nervous (regarding their true COUNTY-wide committment), the candidate for Chairman has no opposition and is making me nervous (about a true committment to represent ALL the county) I am also appalled at the huge treasuries in some races. I am already in quite a pickle, come time to vote I should be in a real twist.  Do the words lesser of two evils come to mind? 

No one Commissioner can get anything done without a few more. They need the support and votes of the other Commissioners.

I think it would be wise if they listened to the Commissioner with their ear to the ground and what is important to their district. Because in time they will need that Commissioner's vote on a issue that effects their district.

The Commissioner represents a district that represents the County. In turn you can always work to get someone in another district in office. Just because they aren't your Commissioner doesn't mean you cant donate time and resources to getting that Commissioner elected or removed.

The Camp Blanding issue if property values go down in that area. So does revenue to the county not just a district.

I agree with clayvoter, Judy. Single district representation can be used as an excuse for not attending events in other single districts. Or just maybe, the other commissioners were spending time in their districts with constituents who can influence their re-elections or maybe, just maybe the candidate in waiting was being a father and out watching his son play soccer.

Judy, maybe I should have used the words, "In hindsight," but yes, voters in districts 4 and to a large degree 2, may have been sold a bag of goods when this was placed on the ballot because they didn't think far enough down the road to understand their issues would not be seen favorably in the north end of the county.

I understand that many of the influential landowners around Camp Blanding have promised to sue if there is not a remedy protecting their landowner rights if the vote goes against District 4.

And as one man was quoted as saying at the meeting, "The county doesn't have enough money to defend a lawsuit against us." Every person in attendance stood up in agreement.

You know this whole issues has nothing to do with single members districts. The attempt of some to put that out there is wrong. How sad!

Please folks don't be mislead.

I showed in the minutes that Commissioner Stewart was the representation sent by the Board. That is district 4 and she is the Commissioner for district 4. She is to report back to the Commissioners as documented in the minutes in a public meeting.

Now they could have set up a special meeting/workshop and had all the Commissioners attend. In order to follow the law they would have had to publicly advertise the meeting, take minutes, and conduct this county business in the sunshine. It is against the law for 2 or more Commissioners to get together to discuss any matter they might come before them for a vote outside of the laws that govern public meetings.

This will be before them for a vote in the near future. This was the reason this was handled as is documented in the minutes. It has absolutely nothing to do with single member districts as discussed.

I think she handled the heirs exemption and did a fine job for district 4 and guess what all the Commissioners supported her when it was time to take the vote.

Readers of the blogs don't be mislead.

I am not excusing ANY commissioner from attending the meeting.

Simply because the Chairman said Dist. 4 representative will report to the BCC does not prevent a concerned County Commissioner from attending the meeting.

I'll bet you that if the 2 at-large commissioners were sitting (one being the Chairman that we got to pick - not a Chairman who reminds us at every meeting how many days he has left), they would both have been there at the meeting.

The accountability of the single-district method was demonstrated thoroughly.  The 1 commissioner who depends on and is accountable to the voters of Dist. 4 was there.  The other 4 who did not represent nor depend on the vote of the District were not.

This is the system that the CTLA wanted.  The 5+2 keeps the above system intact, but gives District voters 2 more voices on the BCC - best of all WE get to pick the Chair.  Currently there is only 1 candidate.  August is a long way away.  In the longterm future of Clay County, regardless of what happens in 2008 election, voters choosing the Chairman of the BCC is a good thing (to me).

I didn't call anyone anything nasty, or imply if you don't like the 5+2 something's wrong with you.  We just disagree.  It's OK.

As sports prognosticators are likely to say, "That's why they play the game (election)."

Basing their pay on growth and requiring 66% to get rid of an elected position are also good things?

I was under the impression that your PAC was formed to protect voters rights. Can you enlighten me as to how these two ideas do that?

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov.

After the discussion at the BCC meeting if more than one Commissioner had attended. I would have reported them for a violation of the Sunshine Laws if any of them discussed the matter at that meeting. Plain and simple it's a crime.

This single member districts is what the voters wanted. CTLAC just presented the idea.

It was a good idea then and it still is a good idea.

Just making sure people understand what the laws are governing public meetings. It was handled correctly. Any attempt to present it any other way is wrong and would have violated the laws. Now you know!

Angela

Thank you for addressing the legality of this issue. I did'nt know that.

Although we have had our differences and from time to time and you have driven me crazy.   I must admit your knowedge in these matters is very admirable.

Thanks again, keep up the good fight.

TRUTHHURTS

I think I've heard my parents make that same statement too, "from time to time you have driven me crazy."  

Angela,

The meeting was legally and publicly noticed. There are 4' x 8' signs at the intersection of SR-16 and SR-21 so your arguments are mute. Anybody could attend including county commissioners.

Please call the BCC offices and confirm.

Karen Lake

finder and other bloggers, 

The CTLAC has presented three petition amendments: salary, abolish at-large, and 60/40.  The effective dates of these amendments and time of presentment of these petitions make clear what the CTLAC is trying to achieve.  Simply put, the CTLAC wants to push through the salary and at-large amendments, then "shut the door" behind them with the 60/40 amendment. 
 
Ironically, each of their petitions must only pass by 50%.  Quite intentionally, the 60/40 is the only one of the three amendments that isn't effective until the following election.  It is also interesting that they collected the 60/40 petition first -people probably signed thinking, "Great! Let's keep things the way they are and make future changes more difficult."  Once they had these signatures, then they went about collecting signatures to abolish the provision of the Charter just voted in by the people.  This group had one political objective - abolish at-large and make sure they never come back.  Abolish by 50% then require 60% to add them back. 

The idea that the 60/40 amendment is anything but a political maneuver at the expense of the citizens of Clay County is laughable.  This is the same group that appeared before the CRC decrying any attempts to change the petition process.  CTLAC was up in arms over proposed changes that would have merely required that signatures be collected from all around the co unty and not in one parking lot alone.  I can not imagine the wrath upon the CRC if the 60/40 amendment was presented by them.  Instead, the CRC conceded any minor changes to the initiative process that were being considered and left the issue alone. My, how things change in two years! Two short years later, the CTLAC thinks that 60/40 should be a Charter requirement for all. One has to wonder why. The answer is obvious and known to all who care to think rationally:  50% to abolish and 60% to add back.
 
The problem with the manipulation of the Charter in this manner is that the CTLAC proposes sweeping changes to the Charter, beyond their narrow goal of abolishing at-large.  As proposed, ALL future amendments must pass by 60%, regardless of subject matter. 
 
The question facing CPVR was how to combat such manipulative politics.  How do we preserve the wishes of the voters, yet not tie the hands of future citizens?  The solution was quite simple and narrowly tailored.  It appropriately focuses on the core issue.  The premise is simple:  if citizens have earned the right for greater representation through an elected process, attempts to abolish such representation should require more than a simple majority vote.  Remember: the CTLAC could have chosen to subject itself to the 60% threshold to which it wishes to bind proponents of the CRC model.
 
The confusion that results from such tit-for-tat changes to our County Charter is not surprising.  One group engages in political maneuvering to overturn a vote of the people, then another group steps in the preserve the status quo.  This confusion is a by-product of a system that, I believe, needs repair.  I believe that changes to our government should, ideally, take place in "public" where all citizens have the opportunity to speak, be heard and offer input and where both sides of the issue are discussed and considered.  Government changes should, ideally, not take place in a "Publix" parking lot, where people are given one side of a story which may or may not be accurate.

The resulting confusion over the petitions is certainly not the goal, but it sure does highlight that a goal of the County in the future is to address the nature of citizen initiative petitions.

Karen Lake

K2L;

The CRC put in the 2 at-large and it passed by 52% but now the CPVR wants to make it 66% to get rid of an elected position (which becomes effective immediately) but it will only have to have 50%+1 to pass.

I have got to ask this. Isn't that the same strategy that CTLAC is using? Also, will the signatures from CPVR be from 'all over' the county or just the local 'Publix' parking lots?

I know we've kind of been here before but it just seems that having these competing petitions on the ballot could cause some real issues if they all pass. What do we do then? 

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov.

finder,

Good questions.

The only time when a 66-percent approval will be needed in the future is if an election is trying to be overturned by a citizens initiative and it involves the number of commissioners on the Board of County Commissioners. Any other amendment could pass with 50 percent + one vote.

I have to cast a shadow on the opposition because we're not trying to raise the threshold on every amendment, they are and they're requiring an immediate effective date on two or their three amendments. We're not. So effectively, we protect the election results while not hindering future citizens petition initiatives. If they are who they say they are, CTLAC would not want to make it harder for citizens...they say it's "hard enough" but yet, here we are on the verge of a 60-percent threshold.

Yes, petitions are coming from all over the county. Thanks for asking.

What do we do if they all pass? Punt. [See related blog titled, "The Citizens Petition Initiative is Broken."]

Again, it bears repeating...charter government was not designed to change it willy nilly. That appears what is happening here - AT OUR EXPENSE.

Is there a link to the CPVR petitions? Your explanation of the 66% initiative is not the way I understood it.  

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice in Nov.

Karen I don't need to call the BCC. I know how to read and I'm very familiar with the laws that govern open meetings. 

Not only does the meeting have to be publicly noticed it requires minutes to be taken.

Per FSS

The minutes of a meeting of any such board or commission of any such state agency or authority shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application by any citizen of this state.

If no minutes exist, then it was not a public meeting as required under the FSS.

Let's see what qualifies as a meeting under Florida Law.

The Sunshine law applies to all discussions or deliberations as well as the formal action taken by a board or commission. The law, in essence, is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. There is no requirement that a quorum be present for a meeting to be covered under the law. 

Now with that said all other statements made after that entry by Karen. I considered moot and didn't even bother reading them. 

Angela,

I stand corrected if I was wrong. I am not an expert on public meeting laws but I do know there are several large signs in a couple of places out here.

Karen Lake

Attaching some sinister conspiracy to the effective date of CTLAC's proposed amendment to change the threshold of amendment passage to 60 percent is another example of making a false argument devoid of common sense after first basing it on a premise of distortion. Just an attempt to confuse an issue instead of truthful debate.

It doesn't matter what the effective date of the super-majority amendment reads. Suppose the amendment became effective immediately upon adoption instead of the next election - the evidence offered to prove a conspiracy. It would make absolutely no difference. Wouldn't change a thing, except the words on paper.

Suppose voters approve the measure on Election Day. The conspiracy argument implies that if CTLAC's amendment had a provision making it effective immediately there would be some type of change in the results of other Charter Amendment issues on the ballot.

After all the votes are counted on every issue from every district and every precinct, the Supervisor of Elections certifies the results of the entire election. Under the scenario suggesting sinister CTLAC motives, Mrs. Kirkman would then immediately have to de-certify the election results of only the other four Amendment proposals that may appear on the ballot and retroactively apply the newly-established 60 percent requirement for passage. That's a ridiculous suggestion, one offered only to confuse the legitimate issues in the debate about the CTLAC super-majority amendment proposal.

The undistorted fact coupled with common sense is that as soon as this November's election is certified and voters approve the amendment, it will become effective as immediately as possible, which is the next election. Wording its effective date as "immediate" like other amendments wouldn't change a thing, and arguing that it would is not honest. 

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

No Mike, it's not ridiculous and it's not a false argument.  You are wrong that the CTLAC's 60% amendment could not, under any circumstances, apply to the results of this election.    You go through this whole description of Ms. Kirkman certifying the results and the results then being final and absolute because of Ms. Kirkman's certification.  What about the fact that she will certify the results of an election for the 2 at-large positions?  Under your logic, those results must stand as well, even if the CTLAC's possible petition to remove the two position passes, because, hey, the results of the election for the 2 at-large positions have been certified by Ms. Kirkman.  Mike, the CTLAC obviously believes that they can put something on the November ballot to undo or change something else that is on that same ballot.  They are getting signatures right now to undo positions that are already on the November ballot.  The idea that the CTLAC didn't apply the 60% amendment to the November election because they didn't think that it could apply to the results of the November election is, as you like to say, a false argument.