last reply

Mr. Lyons......and just HOW do you know my call/calls to other commissioners, other than the one from my district, will be to no avail?  Each commissioner is accountable to ALL citizens of Clay County.  Just because 'single member' districts did not work for St. John's County does not mean it will not work for Clay County.  Further more, the CRC did not give the 'single member' districts a chance to succeed or fail and I question WHY?  But then, I've done my homework, gone back to when this all began 4 years ago (I think the time is correct, if not darn close); sorted out the pieces of the puzzle and now the picture is all together clear!! 

2 at large commissioners.......a BCC Chairperson for 4 years.......NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! 

The way I look at it, is my elected representative, my commissioner, understands what is happening in my district because he or she drives in the same traffic, drives through the same potholes, knows what streets are dangerous, what continual problems are dealt with by their constituents, etc.  They know the history, reputation or integrity of the person in the district coming before the Commission as a whole, if not, they know someone who does.

I believe that if the voting members of the district have enough faith in their representative to have voted them into office then the other commissioners are going to listen to them, hear their experienced opinion on the matter and vote accordingly; supporting my representative.  The other commissioners are also supposed to be looking out for the good of the County, its residents and the budget.  The commissioners should educate themselves on every matter that comes before the Board and do what is right for the County.

If I am spouting off about something that bothers me and my complaint does not carry enough validity or the solution is harmful to the County, then the other commissioners should not vote my way.  All of the commissioners should be informed on every issue, they should go see the problem, think about solutions, learn what others have done to solve the same issue.  What improves my district, improves my County. 

If I am spouting off to no avail, it could be because I am wrong.   

The commissioners are all accountable to me.  When I speak about them it can be with great respect and pride, indifference or very critical.  They will earn respect by doing what is right once they get there, however they got there.

Not that either of you need my validation but here goes anyway just because I feel like it.

WELL SAID, stryker and read44.

And never fear. This will not be his last reply. If it doesn't come from him directly it will come from one of his cohorts.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

80% of the people making decisions for you, you can't vote for. 

Thanks for clarfiying that we live in a republic where elected officials make deciisons for us, as if we were too stupid to know that.

But you make some point.  Look at it from this perspective, a member of congress from the third district in Oregon is a congressman or woman and a member of the UNITED STATES House.  But that elected official while you may think so is not responsbile to you.  If you call that elected official and say that you don't agree with the policies being presented, you're going to get a "Okay we'll look into it."  As is the same, rather you like it or believe it or no in Clay County.  If an elected official does not receive your vote, not to say that they don't care at all, but if you vote in their district, you'll have a whole lot more capability of getting into their head.  Now there are certain circumstances that apply otherwise, but by in large, you know.  Not to sound condescending and i have much to learn even while i major in politicial science.  There is still some hard truth, if you don't vote for that individual, more than likely they don't care as much, there is only one commissioner that is accountable to me, God love him, George Bush, i like him being my commssioner, b/c the man i'd like to make king is also named George Bush. 

To RLyons:

Under the previous form of government where we had all five commissioners elected county-wide, the practice by commissioners referring citizens to commissioners representing another district was wide-spread.  In other words, if someone calling from Harold Rutledge's district called Christy Fitzgerald - no -sorry -  bad example - she didn't return anybody's calls - better example: if they called Glen Lassiter, he would politely listen to their concerns and then ask if they had spoken to their own commissioner.  If a meeting occurred in a specific commissioner's district, the tradition of the commissioner from that district appearing alone at that meeting was widely practiced.  Other commissioners did not appear under advice of counsel to avoid violating the state sunshine laws.  [Funny how that is not mentioned when the argument is made for the 2 at-large commissioners.  And its also funny to think that the same sunshine law will still prohibit 2 or more commissioners from appearing at the same meeting now matter how many commissioners we are burdened with.]  So let's see now: under the 5 at-large commissioner system, only one can appear at a public meeting, and they always deferrred to the affected commissioner on matters that required their attention.  Now we are supposed to believe on faith that under the new 5/2 system, the 2 at-large commissioners are somehow going to drop the tradition of deferring to the commissioner in whose district an issue has appeared?  I'd bet even money that will never happen! 

Sounds like we're being sold a pig's ear to make a silk purse for somebody!

If you contact a Commissioner with a problem. That Commissioner will report that problem to the COUNTY MANAGER because if he contacts an employee with any directions. Then he is in violation of the laws of Clay County and it is called malfeasance.

Now lets say you live in district 1 and you contact a district 2 Commissioner and express concern over flooding in your district. Do you really think that Commissioner is going to say listen you live in district 2 call them. I don't think so. He's going to notify the County Manager. Who is in turn going to contact the employees to check into the matter and report back to the County Manager. You can put any problem in there you would like too.

The only time lobbying of the all Commissioner is of value is for growth and they need majority of the votes of the Commissioners. It's not about problems in the county.

The Chairman would direct growth according to the CRC's reasons for the wanting the position.

The CRC's statement: An elected County Commission Chairman provides for stronger leadership on all County matters, including traffic flow, development, and economic issues.

To me that means the Chairman will promote the Outer Beltway (at the detriment to the taxpayers), development (at the detriment to the taxpayers) and economic issues.

The Outer Beltway at whatever mean possible which means costing the citizens unregulated tolls, no accountability to the community by paying no property taxes, and a green light for more development. All dress up in the name of needed ecomonic issues that looks like more low paying services jobs.

However, the County Manager has been clear we need funds to work on the failing infrastructure we are being subjected to presently. That's due to the poor management courtesy of the prior county manager.

After all we have been paying an infrastructure tax since the 1980's in Clay County. I would like to know what happened to that money because they didn't pay for infrastructure which is evident by the road problems.

Funny these same people who support the Chairman position did not like the Hometown Democracy Amendment either. Which returned local growth issues over to the voters.