Congratulations Jane Padgett & the CTLAC

Marsha, I agree. Jane did an excellent job presenting her group's viewpoints. I agree with most of them. Roy, however, did not appear to be prepared for anything. He made minor mistakes and seemed at a loss in some responses. I would venture a guess that he and his group are so small that facing a huge crowd (OK not in comparison to a Hannah Montana concert but huge for local politics) was something he has rarely, if ever, done. But kudos for doing it.

What I found really interesting was how each speaker could look at one specific point and interpret it so differently, kind of like that Fair Tax silliness. At least they were not trying to undermine the Laws of Mathematics.  I should have taken notes, as I am at a loss to specifics myself. I would have been a lousy reporter. I saw Beth Cravey scribbling intently throughout. I hope the editors allow her to put everything she feels important into the story when it is published.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

You were there, how cool is that!!!  I know you have no interest in meeting anyone but I would still like to meet you!  There were at least four of your blogging cohorts there last night.

You're right, it is interesting and can be so confusing when two people interpert things so differently. I've never seen either of them debate before so it was doubly interesting to me. I know my daughter Kelsie remembers Roys teaching days and she thinks he's a great debater and was dissapointed when he retired from Teaching.  I only met Jane a few weeks ago when the new petition drive began again.

I'm glad we at least got to the bottom of the whole issue over Camp Blanding and why there were not more Commissioners there and that the way it was handled was actually standard operating procedure for the Commissioners to have 1 represent all and report back. 

http://24.23.126.8/

I wanted to go to the meeting but was unable to get home from work in time to attend the meeting. Glad to hear it was so successful.

Each time that I have been able to see and hear Ms. Padgett speak I have been impressed.

Marsha I'm glad to see you and many other people are getting involved in what's happening in Clay County.

In the event many don't remember St Johns County had a Commissioner suggest placing an amendment on the ballot to increase county government from 5 positions to 7 positions. This was at the same time the CRC placed the amendment to increase county government from 5 to 7 positions.

In St Johns County the amendment failed when the voters said no. In Clay County is passed by a margin of less than 5%.

The Commissioner of St Johns County noted the amount of money spent on selling this idea to the public. They raised upward of $28,000 in the weeks before the election. Thrasher and his wife contributed 1,500.00 to the PAC.

St Johns County has lead the way in removing a pro-growth Commissioner with a huge war chest. They have lead the way in defeating an amendment for additional government in their county. St Johns County has a population similar to Clay County.

I am glad to see the citizens in Clay County getting actively involved in our community and hope they will support the CTLAC petition for less government. We do not need more government but more accountability in government. Thanks to the CTLAC for giving the voters an opportunity to revisit this amendment.

Sign the petition, then get out the vote.

Roy Lyons and Jane Padgett presented their respective arguments, but there was really nothing of substance offered about the amendments that hasn't already been discussed in this and other forums. So, I thought I'd offer a new perspective of at-large versus single-member district elections that I can't remember hearing discussed.

Before voters decided to adopt the single-member districts four years ago, all five members of the Board of County Commissioners were elected at-large. One consequence of that was the elected Commissioners recognized the concentration of voters in the municipalities. The result was a history of Interlocal Agreements that essentially screwed anyone who lived outside the official boundaries of Orange Park, Green Cove Springs, Keystone Heights and even Penney Farms.

Interlocal Agreements were desigened to provided equity in property taxes. For example, a resident of OP is subjected to the same property tax county residents are, yet they were paying for county services (police, fire and rescue, road maintenance, etc.) they weren't using because the town government was providing them. Interlocal Agreements were supposed to return that part of the property taxes that essentially double-taxed city folks.

But politics being politics, and at-large elections being at-large elections in which every County Commissioner needed to impress all four of the concentrated municipal populations, changed Interlocal Agreements into more than just returning money that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. The Agreements were often filled with extra cash and unfunded county services - a boon to Clay County's four city governments and a relief to their taxpayers.

Of course, that politics-inspired use of Interlocal Agreements was a re-election tool for at-large Commissioners.

In 2004, voters changed the County Commission elections to single-member districts and one of the first changes made by those Commissioners who no longer had to collectively concentrate their efforts on pleasing voters within municipalities was to change the way county government deals with its municipalities. Now, there are tax districts, a much more equitable solution to the interplay of governments, services and tax burdens.

If the BCC were still filled with politicians who were elected at-large, the politics of that method of election would eliminate changing the patronage of the old Interlocal Agreements. It is another example of the difference between single-member district and at-large elections.

Single-member districts obviously don't guarantee that political priorities will be removed from local government, but at-large elections virtually guarantee it.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Marsha - great blog about the CAN meeting and debate.  It was very well attended by citizens (and politicians) from every region of the county, and was very informational in many ways.  Jane Padgett did a great job of clarifying the CTLAC amendments and her handouts detailing the amendments and their reasonings were very helpful.  I still don't understand the Committee to Protect Voting Rights amendments as there were no handouts nor many details presented by Mr. Lyons.   Most of his time was spent bashing the CTLAC, so I didn't learn much about how the CPVR amendments are going to protect my rights.  I would like to have asked why, as a Republican leader all of these years, is he  promoting MORE government?  I thought Republicans always were looking for smaller government (well except of course the current POTUS and cronies).  He is also against allowing voters to approve any salary increases for the commissioners, but wants to continue basing it on population growth (a state formula).  Again - less rights of the voters and more for the special interest groups. How is that protecting my rights?

I was glad to see so many MCS bloggers there and know now that others (or at least one) were also in attendance that I didn't recognize as MCS bloggers.  Lily - glad you could be there. I wonder how many more were there from the land of blog?

Angela - sorry you weren't able to join us.  Were you tied up in the worst commute in Florida?  Keep up the good work in supporting the CTLAC petition for smaller government.

Mike Mann - thanks for the additional information on the Interlocal Agreements.  Very informative and a real eye-opener.  Hmmm - the plot thickens.

Link to less government not more petition: http://24.23.126.8/

Marsha and all, I didn't hear if there was going to be another debate. I know July is out. If there is a meeting in June, will it be on the same subject? I think the CAN group is terrific.  

I'm happy to see Mr. Lyons follow up today. My disagreements are purely political and I hope he didn't think I was being critical of him personally. He has a heck of a job to do to win this argument. But I applaud his willingness to follow his heart.

Hopefully Foxx will turn up at one of these. I'm sure as young as he is it will be tough to sit through. When I was young (at least I'm told at some point I was young) I would have been bored stupid but I think a perspective from the young is always important. As we age we get set in our ways and lose sight that there are three sides to the coin.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily,

I am sure there are  groups besides CAN that will be sponsoring political forums.  According to Lamar in the MCS there are 38 (if I recall) candidates and in the same blurb he encourages people to send in their forum/debate information to MCS. 

The Republican party has had a Q and A forum for the last few meetings.  The circut judges were in April.  I thought the CAN forum Monday night was pretty good--interesting, it seems that there were about 6 bloggers there.  If you subtract the bloggers, the parade of candidates, a reporter (or two) and the regular CAN folks, I have to disagree with Marsha.  There did not seem to be but about 20 to 25 other folks.  I really try to attend as many forums as possible.  With the number the  local races being decided at the August primary there is not much time! 

I hope more people will try to attend these events to learn more about the candidates and the issues. 

Marsha,  I tend to agree with your comments and those made by the others.  However, I went to the debate with an open mind waiting to hear a point or counter point to change my mind and decision to support the CTLAC position or those of CPVR. I will admit I had been leaning toward the CTLAC position but was really a leaner. One push either way and that would have convinced me in who to support.

The clear winner in my opinion was Jane Padgett and here group.  She presented their reasoning with facts and honesty, stuck to the questions and rebutted with ease and articulated her points professionally and with courtesy toward Mr. Lyon's.  She almost hit it out of the park but lacked the "pow" to get it completly over the wall.

Mike Lyon's almost refused to answer but instead chosr to tap-dance around the question.  For someone who presented a great resume at the beginning, even with some cheap shots at the CTLAC, he sure did stumble.  I find it hard to believe that he didn't no the difference between the County Manager and a City Manager, a County Comissioner and Constitutional officer and several other's.  The compensation for the two additional comissioners was an issue that he threw allot of curves around.  When I pressed for "total dollars" in compensation he admitted it was $26K/comissioner or $52K not including salary.  WOW!!!!!! and we just spent TEN MILLION cleaning up the illegal dumping grounds.  Guess he thinks Clay County has unlimited tax dollars to throw away.

An old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should also apply to our county elected officals.  Now in future when we get bigger and crowded without any breathing room  than increasing the size of the comissioners should be seriouslt looked at.  But now is not the time.  I hope those who attended will support the CTLAC and defeat the additional comissioners and pass the word to sign their petition. 

As a matter of fact I was a victim of the worst commute in Florida and missed the meeting. Well maybe next time. I do hope they debate these issues again. I've been collecting signatures too. I will be mailing them to the CTLAC.

Sign the petition and let's get out the vote!