Lawsuit issue

Thanks for doing that work. I'll have to reread a few times to fully understand. But the upcoming comments should be interesting. If they stick to the issues in the lawsuit and the questions you raise.

I wish I had some answers but I don't.

I have not been involved in the saga only to jump in and read a bit here and there.

What a mess.

Were the rules of engagement, proper protocals, and nuances in preparing the documentaion for this proposal not understood?

Didn't the CTLAC have an attorney draft and reveiw this before submitting?

It just seems like a big cluster to me. It's too bad there were many people looking forward to this.

TRUTHHURTS

Please go to

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

Fred Catchpole Office 904-771-6852 Cell 904-708-5541

There is nothing wrong with a citizen preparing a Petition.  It is a common practice for ordinary citizens and ad hoc groups.  There are rules, and guidelines provided by the government and overseen by the Supervisor of Elections. The entire process was overseen throughout the journey to where we are by both the BCC and the SOE.  In fact once the CTLAC jumped through the hoops they would have been remiss in their duties if they had not acted to place it on the Ballot.  The County also contracts an attorney who views these documents and should have advised at least the BCC to have any technical issues resolved prior to approval.  Allowing Gotcha's is bad business and bad faith to the citizens.

Lawyers typically deal in minutia and will spin situations worse than politicians, which is why they tend to blend and do well in  politics.  They also like to throw a lot of crap against the wall in hopes that some will stick.

I will try to answer some of the questions that I have knowledge.

Some of the Rules that are applied are, the Title is Limited to 15 words.  The summary to 75 words.  Florida Statute 101.161(1).

It must be single subject, this is to prevent "log rolling" which is a practice where several seperate issues are rolled into a single initiative.

It must be "Oneness of Purpose" in otherwords any added purposes must logically have a natural connection with the single subject.

It must be Clear and Unambiguous and not create confusion.  It is not the responsibility of the initiator to determine how it is implemented.

The BCC and SOE are prohibited by Prior Court decisions and legislation not to Create any unreasonable standard for those seeking to put it on the ballot.

The CTLAC followed the guidance provided and produced what Middleburg 9th and 10th graders clearly understand.

They are clear and unambiguous, they also meet the single purpose doctrine, but to me the most important thing is that they meet the desires of thousands of Clay County citizens.  Which is a Constitutional Right of the People.

Suffice it to say attorneys are prohibited from submitting frivilous lawsuits.  In my mind this is one and in my opinion he should have the case thrown out and be sanctioned. It looks like the attorney was picking lint off an gnats rear end.

The actual word counting requirements are ambiguous since a statute cite like 101.161(1) could be classified as 7 words.

The items noted as nitpicking should have been noted and corrected by the SOE if it affected understanding.

Cases in the past have allowed the people to vote on a petition and then the Court has reversed them if found to be Unconstitutional.  Judges have broad discression and frequently have to be overturned.

In my research it is my opinion that the counting of words is not a reasonable regulation, I could not find where the method of counting has been ruled on in the Courts.  I hope that answers some of your questions.

JUST REMEMBER IT IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT IS BEING CHALLENGED, THAT IS WHY IT MUST BE DEFENDED.  IT IS CLEARLY THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR CHANGE OR REDRESS DO YOU WANT THAT RIGHT TO BE ONLY FOR LAWYERS?

Fred Catchpole

Fred has done an excellent job. I will add some information as well.

The Court’s inquiry, when determining the validity of initiative petitions, is limited to two legal issues: whether the petition satisfies the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and whether the ballot titles and summaries are printed in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161,Florida Statutes.

The Court has no authority to inject itself in the process, unless the laws governing the process have been ‘clearly and conclusively’ violated.

Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot, the substance of the amendment or other public measure shall be an explanatory statement,not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of.

“Section 101.161 requires that the ballot title and summary for a proposed constitutional amendment or other public measure state in clear and unambiguous language the chief purpose of the measure.” Askew v.Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 154-55 (Fla. 1982). This is so that the voter will have notice of the issue contained in the amendment, will not be misled as to its purpose, and can cast an intelligent and informed ballot. Id. at 155. However, “it is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose.”Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986).

As Fred has stated in another blog.

“Above all, the Florida Constitution embodies the right of self- determination for all Florida's citizens. This Court traditionally has been reluctant to interfere with this right by barring citizens from formulating their own organic law:”

I feel different about Mr. Lyons and appreciate the help he has provided. His discovery of the first amendment that had too many words in the ballot. Gave the CTLAC and the voters the opportunity to gather the second set of signatures. For that Mr. Lyons I thank you.

His decision to have this placed in the courts will set these in stone. For that I thank him also.

After that we will just be voting in November. So let's get out the vote.

Thank you both for your replies, they did answer some of my questions.

I have to admit that it rubs me the wrong way when any issue that is supposed to be decided by voters or elected officials ends up in the court.  I feel like it's cheating; in this particular issue it appears to be "I couldn't beat you with petitions, so I'll drag you into court." 

I went onto the CPVR website.  It bugs me that they seem to have a vision for Clay, but they don't tell you what the vision is.  I dislike vagueness in important matters.

If they set a court date I might have to take off work to go and see.  The CTLC, the county, and the SOE as co-defendents?  That will be a sight to behold.

I want to believe that this is a frivilous lawsuit, but something doesn't add up.  It seems to me that the fact of their being a lawsuit against the charter amendments would anger many people and make them more likely to vote "yes" as a matter of justice.  It is obvious that this is a tactic that can backfire.

I'm going to watch this with interest...but I might have to take a mail-order law course in order to keep up.

Thank you both for your replies, they did answer some of my questions.

I have to admit that it rubs me the wrong way when any issue that is supposed to be decided by voters or elected officials ends up in the court.  I feel like it's cheating; in this particular issue it appears to be "I couldn't beat you with petitions, so I'll drag you into court." 

I went onto the CPVR website.  It bugs me that they seem to have a vision for Clay, but they don't tell you what the vision is.  I dislike vagueness in important matters.

If they set a court date I might have to take off work to go and see.  The CTLC, the county, and the SOE as co-defendents?  That will be a sight to behold.

I want to believe that this is a frivilous lawsuit, but something doesn't add up.  It seems to me that the fact of their being a lawsuit against the charter amendments would anger many people and make them more likely to vote "yes" as a matter of justice.  It is obvious that this is a tactic that can backfire.

I'm going to watch this with interest...but I might have to take a mail-order law course in order to keep up.

Thanks Felix for your hard work.  Hopefully some good reporters are poring over this lawsuit and can bring us, via the site or print, a sound analysis of the facts.

I agree with Angela's assessment of the result of the suit, but still have no answers to the questions Felix has copied for us.

What? When? How?

Are these questions so trivial that they should be ignored in favor of putting a citizen's initiative on the ballot - even if it is as clear as mud - because people signed it twice.

I'm going to do a little research myself and see if I can figure out what the initiative says.  Then I'll tackle the suit. 

This is good stuff.  As a good friend of mine says about the housing slump - "It may not seem like it now, but this is actually good for you."  Clay County is getting better because of all of this.  If nothing else, it is getting more people involved in the issue.

"I couldn't beat you with petitions, so I'll drag you into court."   This is exactly what is happening.  Call it sour grapes, call it win at all costs, call it the end justifies the means so long as they get their Chairman in place. Maybe you weren't here when the first one got tossed out but as soon as the next petition drive started there were bloggers whose idenity is unknown inferring that  this would happen.  No one who is in support of these issues is surprised by the extremes that are being gone to in order to protect this Chair.  There are multiple millions of dollars at stake. 

You say their website speaks of visions but don't tell you what they are.  That word "vision" is very significant.....visioning is a plan on down the road, the ramifications of which I can't recall, all I know is that it will shut the voters out even further when they go after it.  Angela or someone else could explain the visioning plan better then I.

As a Citizen of a free country, my resolve to see this through to the end is even more firmly implanted with this latest circus act because it's now gone from just dirty politics to an assault on the average Citizens right to effect change in their goverment.  Whether you agree with the amendments of the CTLAC or not, this should give every redblooded American very great cause for concern. 

Marsha,

You said: "I couldn't beat you with petitions, so I'll drag you into court."  What?  And you said it with such outrage.

This is strange to me because you were so excited when Hometown Democracy ended up in Court. You proudly posted a link on the blogs and said it was great that even though they were short petitions, the HDA group was going to court to fight on.  Where was the outrage on behalf of Florida citizens who had rights not to have an invalid petition on the ballot.  Was the HDA group like Hitler, stomping on people's rights and shoving their ideas down their throats?

The best I can tell is that your outrage over citizens rights is based on whether you happen to agree or not, and not based on some grand notion of citizens rights.  It sure does make good politics, though. 

ByronM

 One other point:  If you are so certain that the language is clear, then what is all the fuss.  The judge will certainly read it and be comfortable that citizens know the effect of their vote.  Just making sure - we do want citizens to know the effect of their vote . . . right? 

Byron,

I applauded their going to court for the same reason I am involved in this one, the Rights of the Citizen to effect change in their goverment.   John Thrasher and his buddies which Clay County has too many of managed to get their beholding legislators to get a bogus law passed to allow the revocation of signatures and the courts tossed it because it was deemed unconstiutional.  Does that matter to you at all Byron?  Nope, because your agenda is as clear as mine, I'm just forthright about it rather then trying to be slick and manipulate things. 

The current litigation is over the fact that HDA has it's own special little deadline that was set.  The time frame/deadline was moved up for them alone. Not enough signatures?  Not enough signatures had time to be verified due to all the different counties and their different software to verify signatures.  My joy over Lesley Blackners continued fight is for the very same reason I am involved in this one.  The rights of the people to effect change in their goverment. 

THE PETITION WAS NEVER RULED AS INVALID ANYWHERE.

I had the same outrage over all those letters going out LYING to people about what they'd signed. 

Question my motives all you like, when I get picked on it's only because I am making a difference so bring it on. 

Byron M " One other point:  If you are so certain that the language is clear, then what is all the fuss.  The judge will certainly read it and be comfortable that citizens know the effect of their vote.  Just making sure - we do want citizens to know the effect of their vote . . . right?" 

I would like to know how much clearer a person would need to or even could state in a summary. A vote of yes would abolish the 2 at large commission positions. A vote of no would keep them. However, “it is not necessary to explain every ramification of a proposed amendment, only the chief purpose.”Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1986).

The chief purpose of the amendments that will be on the ballot:

[1] As a voter do you want 7 or 5 commissioners? Yes or No

[2] As a voter do you want to set the salary of your part time commissioner at 37K and vote for any increases? Yes or No

[3] As a voter do you want changes to our charter to require a 60% of the voters to agree to pass? Yes or No

That's about as clear as you can get in a 75 word summary and the chief purpose and each a single-subject.

Felix to answer one of your questions. These amendments have been reviewed and certified by the SOE. The signatures have been certified by the SOE. The attorney for the Commissioners has reviewed and the process met for these to be placed on the ballot. At the last BCC meeting they voted 5-0 to have the 3rd and final amendment placed on the ballot. These amendments will be on the ballot unless a court stops those from being on the ballot.

If you read the Charter it states the Commissioners shall which in legal terms is an imperative. Meaning if they did not place them on the ballot they would be committing an illegal act.

So let's get out the vote.

More definitions of logrolling.  I have never heard that term as it relates to politics or law.  Thanks.

log·roll·ing n.

1. The exchanging of political favors, especially the trading of influence or votes among legislators to achieve passage of projects that are of interest to one another.

2. The exchanging of favors or praise, as among artists, critics, or academics.

Politics mutual aid among politicians, as by reciprocal voting for each other's bills 

Log rolling is a tactic used by legislators to tack on favored bills to proposed legislation without conducting serious debate on its issues. It may be accomplished by a legislator agreeing to vote on another legislator's bill in exchange for the other

Logrolling n.1:  act of exchanging favor for mutual gain; especially trading of influence or votes among legislators to gain passage of certain projects.

Logrolling-legislator's vote on his/her own favored bill. A concession may be made to another party on a less important topic in exchange for that other party's support on a more vital issue. Another tactic is to include several sub-bills in one bill when passage of them individually is not possible.The term is also used for similar activities in academics, when one author quotes another and vice versa in order to drive up reference counts.

Logrolling-A legislative practice of embracing in one bill several distinct matters, none of which, perhaps, could singly obtain the assent of the legislature, and then procuring its passage by a combination of the minorities in favor of each of the measures into a majority that will adopt them all.

Practice of including in one statute or constitutional amendment more than one proposition, inducing voters to vote for all, notwithstanding they might not have voted for all if amendments or statutes had been submitted separately.

 I along with others appreciate your efforts and all the discussion it generated. Next time use the internet to get this type of information and save the gas. Also you don't have to pay the fee WHICH IS SET BY STATE STATUE,,, and any time you can beat the gov. out of a dollar it is good. We are very fortunate in Clay Co. to have a Clerk who has gone the extra mile to serve the people and we are one of only a hand-full of Co's where we have this access from home. We won't know what we will have if Jett's opponent gets elected because he sy's the web site is awful and must be changed.

Marsha,

The HDA is in court because the sponsoring group failed to get enough signatures by the February 1st deadline THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED for all citizen petition initiatives.  The idea that somehow HDA got its own special deadline is false. 

The "power to the people" group is claiming that the deadline voted in by the people shouldn't apply to them.  In that case, its "power to the courts!" 

Gee, that sounds familiar . . . "power to the people" unless they vote in a form of government you don't like.

In fact, you go beyond that and equate the Plaintiff to Hitler, say the attorney for the suit should be sanctioned and imply that the judges are being bought.  But no, the CTLAC never engages in innuendo and below the belt tactics.  Of course not.  

Show me anywhere that I've made any references to Hitler, or that any lawyers should be sanctioned and the Judges are corrupt. 

The blog that I wrote was based upon a news article for which I provided a link, that link is no longer available.  I took the verbage straight from the article, and stated so.  If there was anything in the article that was not true I clearly represented I'd read a story and provided the link.

I stand by what I said, prove me wrong, where does it say the citizens voted to move up the deadline for HDA.

You're very fond of insinuation and innuendo and a snotty tone. It's not surprising, the only person I have come across that does not have this behavior is Bill Garrison, the rest of you are all about attacking the people whether it's me or someone else.

I've never even said the CTLAC never engages in the same, I've said show me proof, give me something other then hearsay.  I speak about my own experiences, what I have come to observe all on my own without anyone telling me anything.

I have watched Roy Lyons and Karen Lake along with a several others with their identities hidden, like yourself slander these people over and over again but yet no one offers any proof, the closest thing is an unknown blogger saying it's so. 

So I say once again, prove me wrong, about the HDA and what I said about it that I clearly stated was taken from a news article and provided the link for.  Only a dumb ass is going to say something opposite of what an article said when they've provided the means to be proven a liar. 

Prove where I have said anything about Hitler or sanctioning Lawyers.  I said most Judges are corrupt 18 mths ago just in general terms, but prove where I have said it over this issue.

You can't....know why, because my Husband said it, not me.  I am a seperate person from my Husband and not responsible for what he says, you have a problem with him, then take it up with him.

Get your facts straight cupcake, and prove me wrong.

ByronM;

Could you cite the vote that set the citizen petition date to February 1st? I did not think this was the issue with the signature gathering. I was under the impression that the 1 February was the final date for all requirements being completed. I was under the impression that the actual date of signature completion was a date prior to that and that for some reason the HDA petition had a different date than others. Though I certainly could be wrong could you enlighten me with some statutes/facts.

The other portion of the HDA thing that bothered me was the part where Thrasher got the 'signature revocation' thing passed and then sent letters to all the people that had signed the petition telling them how stupid they were for signing it.

I got one of his letters and I was not impressed with him implying that the 'electorate' that would do the voting would be handpicked by certain groups in order to sway the vote to one side or another. The last time I looked the 'electorate' was every registered voter in the County. 

Mike Heemer

Another thing that troubles me about the lawsuit is that the CTLAC is co-defendent with the BCC and SOE.

The plaintiff is Roy Lyons, big Republican, supporter of 5+2 and any agendas that go with it.  On the defence is CTLAC, which I consider to be in a general conflict with the BCC and Republicans, and to be particularly in conflict in conflict with supporters of 5+2.  Also on defence is the BCC, Republican, containing some members in support of 5+2. 

My concern is that the BCC might not fight very hard to defend themselves against the suit.  Why would they?  They are elected officials of the same party as the plaintiff, I am told that some BCC members support 5+2, and in the petition fiasco the  BCC   declined to vote to put the CTLAC measure on the ballot.  Consider also that one of the charter amendments recomends a pay cut for county commissioners.  I can't imagine anyone fighting very hard to cut their own pay. 

I'm also concerned about the SOE office.  They previously certified a petition a petition that was invalidated; if they don't work hard to defend themselves there will probably be some grounds to judge them as having been negligent or incompetent with all of the charter amendments.

A lot can go wrong when the plaintiffs and defendends are closely connected with each other.  If the county and the SOE make a token effort and "throw" the case, that leaves the CTLAC with the onus for winning the case. 

It is my opinion that goverment officials make the greatest effort when they are under scrutiny, so the cure to this problem is public awareness.  Right now, I don't think too many people know about the lawsuit or the motivations behind it.  I'm going to write some "letters to the editor" to try and stir up some awareness.  I'm also going to write or e-mail the clerk of courts office to see if the entirety of the Lyons suit can be put on-line.  More people will see it if it is free on-line, and can see "that suites got a lot of holes."

I would encourage anyone else who has taken an interest in the matter to do a little bit of writing, calling, and e-mailing to their friends to raise awareness.  How about some chain-letters?  I've received so many useless, stupid e-mails that I was supposed to forward to ten friends.  maybe we can bounce something useful around Clay county.       

Lots of good insights and suggestions.  I would like to also point out that the CTLAC is a Corporation, and as such if they do not engage Counsel they will have no voice in the proceedings, they cannot represent themselves. 

I would also like to point out that the SOE allowed the first petition out when the title had too many words, and certified it to the BCC with too many words.  There is nothing in the Statutes that govern what to do if a mistake is found after the petition is certified.  It just says once certified they SHALL put it on the ballot.  It seems to me this major first faux paux by the SOE received absolutely no consequences of any kind. It was an informal "my bad" and that was the end of it.

It's important that everyone out there who feels that the amendments should be voted on by the people, even if you would vote against them that you understand the position the CTLAC is in.  Donations are needed, no amount is too small.  You can find a mailing address on their website at www.claycitizens.com. 

Consider it an investment in the future of Clay County,  The peoples right to petition their goverment must be defended and protected and YOU can make a difference.

Felix - thanks for your input and thoughts.  While I am not a member of the CTLAC, I have supported them for a long time, but not with $$.  I became involved with them directly this year when their original petition for the removal of the 2 at-large commissioners (particularly the Chair) was thrown out and they had to start a do-over.  They are an amazing group of people! 

Marsha, I also attended the "debate" between the CPVR and CTLAC and was flabbergasted at Lyons' unabashed bashing of the CTLAC from the onset with no awareness of the real issues.  He was totally unprepared and admitted that upfront which made me think he was just there as a 'token' and had no faith in his own cause.  It was all a sham, methinks.  My big question is why is that Chair position so important to some that a lawsuit is being filed so the taxpayers will have to fork over even more money for lawyers for the County and the SOE?

The CTLAC is a group of just ordinary folks who realize the need for participation by the people in their government and act upon that.  I said "ordinary" but they are far more passionate and energized than most of us.  They also have the same amount of money to pay attorneys as most of us...none!! 

Currently, donations can be mailed to:
    CTLAC
    PO Box 65847
    Orange Park, FL 32065

And for more information re: the CTLAC, go to the site Marsha gave:  www.claycitizens.com. 

Fred Catchpole Office 904-771-6852 Cell 904-708-5541

Byron Byron Byron

Lesson 1,

I have said a number of times that the Courts in Clay County, based on what I understand and believe may have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and should RECUSE themselves from hearing the Case brought by Mr. Lyons against the CTLAC. My belief is based upon candidates running for office, their donors ,and their relationships with the Judiciary. In fact I have also said that because this case, in my opinion, is an attack of Amendment 1 of our Bill of Rights that it Belongs in the Federal Court.

I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE JUDGES ARE CORRUPT. I have attached the definition of conflict of Interest for you to read.

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.

However, conflicts of interest do not only apply to professionals. A conflict of interest arises when anyone has two duties which conflict - for example an employee's duty to well and faithfully perform their work as purchasing manager, and that same employee's familial duty to their sibling who happens to be tendering for the sale of widgets to the employee's employer. In that case the employee has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that they are not a lawyer, doctor, politician etc.

I hope that any confusion that you and your friends have has been rectified by the above.

Lesson 2,

Not knowing who you are or what level of education you have, I made a extraordinary assumption that you knew the History of the Rise of the German Empire prior to our entry in World War II. During the rise to power of Hitler, he concentrated on eliminating the Rights of certain classes of Citizens, ie., Jewish and Gypsies. Yes you read it right Gypsies were also persecuted under his reign.

My illustration was a bit harsh, but think of it, during the early 1930’s people like Chamberlin of England and others refused to rebuke the taking of citizens rights. Thus the policy of incrementalism was used, first we take one right, then another and then another.

I personally view the law suit as an attack on Individual Rights Guaranteed under the Constitution. To me if one is taken away, what next freedom of speech, or would freedom of press being taken be better. Then the right to have a gun might come etc etc.

I have made it clear that I believe the fight to challenge the petition is with the electorate not the Court. As Marsha has posted the prior Petition for the 5-2, I have also obtained a copy of the actual ballot for comparison. By using the methods spelled out in Florida Statute 101.161(1) and using the same counting technique that the BCC used in rejecting the first version of the CTLAC’s new petition, there are 78 words in the Summary. That is too many, surprisingly both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s lawyer were drafters of that original 5-2 summary. Now they attack the CTLAC, the BCC, and the SOE that is why I feel a double standard should not be condoned.

Fred,

You said that the judges aren't corrupt but that they should recuse themselves in this suit.  Does that mean they are corrupt if they hear the case?

Thanks for the recap of German history.  Basically, you think that Roy is behaving much like Hitler when he engaged in incrementalism.  We agree on one point, your illustration was certainly harsh. 

As long as we're talking about rights being eroded and Hitler, what about taking away people's right to redress in court?  Just so I understand, CTLAC gets to assemble and petition, but Roy has no right to avail himself to the courts.  Have you considered all of our Constituional guarantees and determined your rights are more worthy than his? 

Before you go down the double standard road too far.  Take a breath and read the Charter.  You will see that the requirements to place measures on the ballot are different for each of the ways to amend.  The reason is simple.  Each method brings up different concerns and checks and balances.  This is certainly an argument for another day.  Why do I have a suspicion we won't agree on that either?

Fred Catchpole Office 904-771-6852 Cell 904-708-5541

If you re-read my responses you will see that I have on more than one occasion recognized Roy Lyons right to sue.  You will also see that I have held firm to the belief that it should be settled by the voters not a judge.

If as commissioner I had a project come before the commission that I had even the possibility of having a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I would recuse myself.

Lawyers and Judges have always held to the Standard that if there is a Potential or Possiblity of a Conflict they will make it known and judges in most cases recuse themselves and lawyers will decline representation.  Some Law firms have complex computer software to make sure that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Ask yourself the following, I am assuming you are a man.  How would you feel if you were going through a divorce and you found out that your wife is being represented by an attorney, who is also representing the Judge in your case in His or Her divorce.  Would you feel Comfortable with the decision your about to get?

I am trying to make it as simple as possible for you to understand why I believe the potential conflict exists in Clay County.  Should you believe there is no conflict it is your choice.

I am sure we will continue to disagree but at least i respect your right to disagree.  Once again I feel with the resources available to the Plaintiff, that the better way is to challenge at the election not the Court.

Fred Catchpole

Fred, thanks for your explanation.  You mentioned in another blog how Roy's lawyers should be sanctioned by the Court for even filing this suit and said that RICO violations should be investigated.  If you recognize that he has a constitutional right to sue, then I guess I misunderstood where you were coming from.  In case I haven't been clear, I think that CTLAC has every right to petition and their tenacity is obvious. My temperature spiked when it seemed like out of the gate Roy's rights were disrespected by the group purportedly out for people's rights. 

As far as conflicts and the judges, I guess we should wait as see what unfolds.  I trust that our judiciary is aware of rules of recusal and conflict. 

How in the world have I resisted the impulse to comment yet on this thread...

Oh wait.. I haven't.......

Am I reading your comments correctly Fred...  that while you acknowledge Roy's right to use the courts, you simultaneously "feel" that because you believe he has an advantage in resources with the courts, or that their "might" be a conflict of interest, that it should go to the electorate? I don't know if that is a terribly practical way of looking at future petitions and lawsuits. 

What would be the point of having the right to sue if you don't use it?

Fred Catchpole Office 904-771-6852 Cell 904-708-5541

Big, I believe in the Constitution and I have always tried to make sure even my adversaries rights were upheld.

Roy has Money available through his Friends who are registered lobbyists and developers, I would believe you know that already.  Roy has personally contributed to some of the candidates, check the SOE Clay County website. 

Roys Friends are skilled in getting out the vote.  To me the ability to get out the vote to support his position is the best way of dealing with things they disagree.  So what is missing, is it necessary to sue when you have that ability.

  I think and still believe that the only way this situation can be fairly settled is in the forum of the people to decide.

Fred Catchpole

I have no clue who Roy knows, who his friends are, or if they are registered lobbyists and developers. I am so tired of trying to convince people I'm not local. 

I am willing to do some research to satisfy my curiosity, but I think I'll draw the line at checking out every candidates donors and then googling their names to figure out the potential myriad of possible involvements with each other.

If Roy has the money, the connections and the ability to get out the vote.. why are you even bothering?  

If Roy has the money, the connections and the ability to get out the vote why IS he suing?

What is missing indeed? 

Decided to play lawyer and see what I can make out of this lawsuit. This is mainly an effort to satisfy myself; I don’t want to pick a side and make negative assertions about the lawsuit and in the end find out I should have done my homework before forming an opinion. I’m going to go through the whole thing, one piece at a time; the nice part about doing this online is that someone will tell me when I am messing up.

Count 1 is titled "unlawful ballot summary" and addresses the proposed amendment, entitled "Reduction of the number of Clay County Commissioners from 7 to 5."

1) The first complain found is "The present number of the Board of County Commissioners is five rather than seven." I believe the suggestion is this is an error that would invalidate the proposed amendment.

I have to agree with Mr. Catchpole’s comment that "lawyers throw a lot of stuff to see what sticks."

Literally, at the present time, there are five county commissioners, but this is a proposed charter amendment. The only action that the amendment can do is to change the charter. Right now it is in the charter that Clay county has 7 commissioners, the reason that only 5 are currently serving is because the additional two have not yet been elected. When the amendment proposal suggests a reduction from 7 to 5 it is obvious this action is to be carried out through charter amendment.

The statement that "the current number...is 5 rather than 7" is asinine.

2)Next, "The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A fails to disclose to the electors that the measure has the effect of reducing their right of participation in election of the Board from 3/7 to 1/5 , and reduces the frequency of their participation from once every two years to once every four years."

Fine, these effects were not disclosed; did they need to be?

The charter doesn’t say anything about disclosure, so I guess that we are adhering to the Florida statutes, which takes us to the infamous 101.161. Neither do I see anything there referring to disclosure. I went to the supervisor of elections site, neither did I see anything there about disclosure. (Oddly, the 7 to 5 proposal is not listed on SOE. I can only assume that it has not yet gone through enough administrative hoops. Also odd, the BCC is proposing legalized gambling. I have not heard anything about this. It was such a big deal when they proposed the poker room at the track, I suppose now that Diane Hutchings is too busy to run American Family Forum.)

I cannot find any laws demanding disclosure in charter amendments. I feel that something has to be out there, and as disclosure comes up many times in the suit I will return to this subject when I find the right paperwork.

For the time being I am going to assume that the suit’s objection regarding disclosure is just hot air. Here’s the way I see it:

1) You get a 15 word title and a 75 word body to make your pitch. You don’t have room to go into long explanations.

2) I do not believe it is necessary to explain anything which an elector should know or be able to logically infer. In this particular instance the complaint seems to be that the amendment proposal did not explain that "if there are fewer commissioners, you won’t be able to vote for as many commissioners." An intelligent person should be able to figure that out on their own.

You don’t have to disclose to an elector something the elector should already know.

Also odd, the BCC is proposing legalized gambling. I have not heard anything about this.

Talk about confusing. I have read this thing 10 times and I think I understand it but I wouldn't be my life on it.

They are not trying to legalize gambling. What they are saying is that the BCC can't approve it unless it is voted on by the County electorate.

If it is in a City and they want gambling they have to put it to a vote locally. It can't be approved by a city council anymore.

I'm still a little confused about that last pargraph. I'm only guessing that is what it means. Read the entire verbage and tell

This is the one Roy should be filing a suit against. I've got a couple of degrees and I'm not sure I read that correctly. 

Mike Heemer

Back to count 1

3)The suit states: The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A fails to disclose to the electors that the effective date of the amendment is upon approval of the electors. Otherwise, under the Charter, amendments become effective on January 1 of the year following voter approval.

I don’t get this at all. It is like they have rebutted themselves: if the amendment proposal does not give an effective date, then it is in the Charter that it becomes effective on Jan. 1. So what? It is not improper, it is the procedure set forth in the Charter. I do not consider this a failure to disclose, if it isn’t in there it isn’t in there.

4) This is my favorite.

The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A fails to inform the voters that a "yes" vote will or may have the undisclosed effect of abolishing the office of County Chair, which is not styled or listed as a County Commissioner on the ballot but is otherwise being filled on the same ballot. The text of the amendment does not reveal whether it is the intent to abolish the office before it is filled.

The suit is saying that a County Chair is not a County Commissioner, so that office cannot be eliminated with this charter amendment proposal.

The Chair is not a County Commissioner? It had been my understanding that the Chair was simply a chairman who holds the position for the entirety of their term of office. Suit says I’m wrong.

If you go to the Clay government web site you will find the 2006-2006 Clay Charter Commission Final Report. In this you will find:

Shall...the Clay County Charter be amended to provide for a body of seven rather than five county commissioners, consisting of a county chair and one commissioner, each elected at large,

Two at large commissioner provide for a natural "regional" approach...

Currently the Chair of the County Commission is elected by the other commissioners and only serves for one year-making the current chair a merely ceremonial post.

It is clear from this language that it was the intent and understanding of the CRC that the Chair position is a county commissioner and the term "chair" has the same meaning as the chair billet currently in practice on the county commission.

However, you get a different picture when you look at the County Charter. The CRC was just a planning committee, some significant changes in verbiage occurred by the time the Charter was amended. There is not one single place in the Charter in which you will find the Chair referred to as a commissioner. The Chair also seems to have picked up a great deal of power between the CRC recommendations and the actual amending of the Charter.

I suspect that this was done on purpose, and I find the entire procedure very suspicious. As I understand the chain of events: the CRC made recommendations, the electorate voted on the resulting charter amendment, and in the end some group of persons did the actual amending and came up with something that I don’t think the people voted on or the people ever heard come from the CRC. The CRC was public, the voting was public, I bet the actual amending wasn’t nearly as transparent and didn’t get much scrutiny.

QUESTION: WHO DID THE ACTUAL AMENDING OF THE CHARTER? I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU ARE BITTER TOWARDS THE CRC, BUT I THINK THIS IS MISPLACED, AND INSTEAD YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHO WROTE THE ACTUAL WORDS WHICH ARE IN THE CHARTER.

Be very clear, just because the Charter never refers to the Chair as a commissioner doesn’t mean that the Chair is not a commissioner. Even if the "drafters" had the intention that the Chair not be a commissioner, that doesn’t make the Chair anything else but a commissioner. Maybe they never said that the Chair was a commissioner, but they never outrightly said that he wasn’t.

Article 8, section 4e of the Florida Constitution states uses somewhat similar language to the Charter in that it speaks of "board of county commissioners" and "members" rather than "commissioners." It also makes allowance for charter governments.

It does seem that the argument could be made that the Chair is not a commissioner. I’m not sure a judge would rule on this. What I am sure of is that when the people voted for the Chair they thought they were voting for a commissioner.

You've asked a very very good question that I hadn't even thought of nor have I picked up on the discrepency you did. 

Who did actually physically amend the Charter?  What did they use for the guide, the petition itself or something typed up and handed to them?  If a Chairman is not a Commissioner, are they part of the BCC at all?  If not a Commissioner then what?   Isn't a Chairman always Chairman OF something? 

The laws don't allow for the text of any amendment to be on the ballot for obvious reasons.  In order to see the entirety of any proposed changes you have to read it on the petition.  If you did not sign a petition the entire language is located on the SOE website.  Should the creators of any amendment be responsible for whether or not the voter reads it? 

In the summary it says at the very end "abolish the at large elected positions"  Would this not cover the Chair whether the Chair is a Commissioner or not?   Right now we have no "at large" public servants so what else could it possibly refer to?

Legal challenges to amendment proposals aren't that uncommon.  They are just two other aspects of the seedier side of politics - one that attempts to have elections decided in the court room, and another that believes issues should be decided by bank accounts.

In all likelihood, the suit filed by Roy is a Hail Mary legal attempt to keep the amendment questions off the ballot.  Like a last-second shot from the other team's free throw line when his team's down a couple a points, the odds of winning the law suit game are slim.

But it will cost CTLAC money to be represented in court, and that's money the group won't be able to spend campaigning for its amendment causes.  And that's gonna be Roy's victory, even if a judge laughs his suit out of court.

As to the interpretation that the suit claims the Chairman is not a Commissioner, that's not the way I read it.  I can't figure out the specifics, but it seems like it may just be alleging that the amendment proposal doesn't specifically explain that the Chairman is one of the at-large positions to be eliminated.  Just a legal straw to grasp in order to file the suit and force CTLAC to spend its money now.

I liked it better when elections where decided by votes instead of dollars or judges.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

I agree Mike about the hail Mary! I think this lawsuit  has about as much merit as Geroge Bush's statement that he didn't know anything about the landfill. Of course you can easily find in the minutes where he voted on the matter to put the stuff in there.

Felix you are doing a great job!

I think I messed up, but I’m not sure. I was hoping to get this posted before someone picked up on my possible mistake. Let’s take another look at the passage in question:

The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A fails to inform the voters that a "yes" vote will or may have the undisclosed effect of abolishing the office of County Chair, which is not styled or listed as a County Commissioner on the ballot but is otherwise being filled on the same ballot. The text of the amendment does not reveal whether it is the intent to abolish the office before it is filled.

Upon re-reading several times I think that it might mean "the amendment does not disclose to the voters that the County Chair on the County Commission." What I believe they are saying is that a voter who wants an elected chair, but does not know that the Chair is on the BCC, might unwittingly eliminate the Chair by voting to eliminate the +2.

I hold to my earlier statement that you shouldn’t have to disclose to people something that they should already know. However, that is my personal belief and I can’t predict how a judge would rule on a matter of disclosure.

I must say that I am in awe of the wording of this suit. I believe the charges are entirely baseless, but I can’t help but admire the craft behind the writing. It is so ambiguous that I find myself searching for meaning and reaching conclusions that aren’t actually written in the text. I believe that the writer has not only mastered the art of double-talk, he has done so in a way that he must be anticipating what people will read into the text. I bet it takes years and years to learn how to write like that.

Is the Chair a county commissioner? I still don’t know, and at this point I have stopped caring because despite semantics or legal definitions the Chair is a county commissioner. He will be on the county commission, that makes him a commissioner.

I don’t feel that I wasted my time with this possible misinterpretation because it did point out some irregularities regarding the Charter and the CRC. I was probably too hasty in letting the CRC off the hook. Yes the CRC documents on the BCC website described a much weaker Chair than was later described in the Charter, but if there was a secret plan to create an uber-commissioner this would have been kept behind closed doors.

The wording of the charter amendment that created the Chair includes "to specify duties of the Chair." This gave the "drafters" carte blanc to bestow the chair with any lawful powers they saw fit.

It is my understanding that the author of a petition has no responsibility for implementation, meaning that whenever the voters approve a charter amendment it goes to someone else to decide how it will be implemented, and any ambiguity leaves open the possibility of abuse.

Perhaps for the next charter amendment we should redefine how amendments are implemented. I’m just making this up as I go along, but for each amendment I would recommend an amendment committee in which the petition author picked half of the seats, to ensure that the implementation does not violate the spirit of the petition. CTLAC, if your amendment proposals pass you had better make sure the implementers don’t pull a fast one.

Who wrote the actual text for the Charter? The bottom of the Charter says "copyright 2006," so I assume, perhaps wrongly, that it was completed before the end of 2006. It would fallen under the authority of the BCC, so the drafters were either the last BCC or the current BCC, or a law firm or committee that they appointed. For all I know the CRC might have done the writing. If anyone really wanted to know they could just ask a CRC person. Cummings and Bradley are running for office, if you asked them at a candidate forum they would be obliged to answer; Karen Lake does a lot of blogging on MCS, you could just ask her. .

Felix,

Was your question about who drafted the Charter? If so, that was many years ago, not 2006.

I think you may be asking about who wrote the CRC amendment that was on the 2006 ballot.

Well, if that's what you meant, it was C. Allen Watts, that crafted the amendment. Yes, that was the CRC's attorney, and yes, that is Roy Lyons' attorney. 

I think what is being asked...who physically changed it, typed the words into the living breathing official Charter. 

I took part in rewriting alot of Coast Guard Commandant Instructions, but I did it with copy I was given and precise word construction on how it was to be done.  I could have changed it had I wanted to and odds are...it wouldn't have been caught. 

 After that the question would be where did the person who actually did the work to type, copy & paste ....whatever get their copy of what to put into the Charter. 

As you are well aware, the text of the actual amendments passed by the CRC was drafted BEFORE the election and was available well in advance of the election for voters' consideration.  Yes, Alan Watts was the attorney for the CRC so he drafted the language to effect the CRC's proposal.  The final text of the amendment was voted on by the CRC and available to the public.  The idea that there was some secret committee that drafted language after the election or CRC approval is false and downright ridiculous. 

I think OneMann hit the issue on the head.  The way I read it the lawsuit too is that it doesn't specify that the Chair will be eliminated if the amendment passes.  I have one question: 

If its ALL about the Chair, and the CTLAC is so concerned with potential abuse of this office, then why on earth does the word "Chair" not appear in the Petition??? 

It looks rather deliberate to me, and anyone else who gives it a critical eye.  If my goal is to elimate the Chair, I'd make sure that I at least mention the office or include the word "Chair."  You'd think that the group could have used just one of their 75 to lidentify the office that was so dangerous.  Think about it, two years ago people voted in a Chair and at-large.  Now two years later, they try to abolish those positions, but don't identify Chair.  It's hard to imagine this was an oversight.

ByronM; 

Let's get a grip here. It is all about the Chair. But only from the other side.

The CTLAC is trying to do away with BOTH at-large seats. It says reduced from 7 commissioners to 5. With the 5 being elected by district. How much clearer can that be?

If the Chair isn't a commissioner, what the heck is it? If it is something other than a Commissioner then I think the voters were sold a bill of goods in 2006.

The charter says they are both elected at-large. That is, by the entire County vice as a district.

PROPOSAL 2

ADDS TWO COMMISSIONERS AT LARGE, INCLUDING ELECTED

A(1). The County Commission.

The governing body of the County shall be a Board of County Commissioners composed of seven (7) members serving staggered terms of four (4) years.

The above come from the proposal of the CRC from 2006.

If the Chair is something other than a Commissioner does that mean the following does not apply to the Chair?

2.2.I. Non-interference.

County Commissioners shall not give directions to or interfere with any employee, officer or agent under the direct or indirect supervision of the County Manager, the County Attorney or the Commission Auditor. Such action shall be malfeasance within the meaning of Article IV, Section 7(a) of the State Constitution. County Commissioners may communicate with employees, officers or agents under the direct or indirect supervision of the County Manager, the County Attorney or the County Auditor for the purpose of inquiry or information. Nothing in this provision shall prevent a County Commissioner from referring a citizen complaint or request to the County Manager, the County Attorney or the Commission Auditor. The Commission may make investigations of County affairs, inquire into the conduct, accounts, records and transactions of any department or office of the County, and for these purposes require reports from all County officers and employees, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and require the production of records.

Are you saying the Chair can interfere with employees but can't refer a citizen complaint to the County Manager etc?

You have got to be real careful about picking that salt out of the sugar. Sometimes you get the piles mixed up and don't know which is which. 

Mike Heemer

When the citizens were being sold this bill of goods concerning the Chair. We were told they have just ceremonial type duties, only one vote on the commission, no additional powers such as veto are otherwise. Basically a Commissioner with a title but no additional powers.

Now we are being told it's extremely important that the citizens know they will be removing a chair. So what, he has no additional powers. He's just ceremonial and he only has one vote.

However they are both elected at large. So by signing the petition to abolish the two at large positions by the people. Mr. Lyons alleges the people are too stupid to understand when they eliminate those 2 at large positions. They will be removing a chair that has no additional powers, only ceremonial duties and he will not get to cast vote. Of course we already knew that he could not veto anything. Wouldn't that be considered a de facto vote. 

Almost funny how he went from being just a Commissioner with a title to a now important figure with many duties. You know I don't think they listed all the important duties of the other at large position in their summary either. You think Mr. Watts has missed that too. Maybe he can amend his lawsuit. One more charge to sling on the wall.

I think it's about as clear as you can get do you want to abolish the 2 at large positons. Yes or No

When the next CRC convenes I hope we don't use Mr. Watts at taxpayers expense.

Since all this talk has come up about is it a Chair, is it a Commissioner or is it Memorex!  I figured I would bring up Roys website once again.  If you look at it you will see references of all kinds including ones that indicate at least to me that the Chair IS a Commissioner, and the Chair is an "at large" Commissioner as well.

Roy needs to make up his mind because he's all over the place with this part of the lawsuit. 

Check it out for yourself. 

www.clayvoterprotection.com

Byron, HDA, et al filed case #9:08-cv-80636-KAM in US Federal Court, Southern District of Florida on 6-11-08 based on violations of the 1st and 14th Amendment, asking the court to examine/overturn the actions enumerated and place the HDA on Nov. 2008 ballot.

Language contained in this case does alledge the State rollbacked the deadline to February 1st, making it different from other deadlines imposed on other methods for amending the Florida Constitution.

HDA has retained noted ballot access attorney, Gary Sinowski, of Brooklyn, NY as its lead counsel.   There is a deadline hearing date set for 7-21-08.

HDA submitted over 814,000 petitions for verifications.  I have a copy of the correspndence the acting director of the Div. of Elections sent to all county Supervisor of Elections dated 12-31-2007 of which the subject is 'INITIATIVE PETITION VERIFICATION". 

Paragraph 4 states "It is suggested that petitions be verified in the order they are received by your office.  Please do not verify petitions basd on "how close" they are to reaching the required number based on the Division's website.  Please keep in mind that there may be a number of petitions that still remain to be verifid in the counties that are not reflected on the website".

As I recall the revocation petitions were being vertified ahead of the HDA petitions.  On February 1st that procedure left thousands of HD petitions waiting to be verified.

Marsha, that's a good question for the county attorney.  My copy of the CCC says it was published by his office.  As to who actually did the recodification of this document is unknown.

Codification/recodification of county ordinances is by MCC and available online at municode.com.   

5)From the suit, "The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A states that transitional provisions a b c and d are to be amended, but the text of the proposed amendment provides that they are to be abolished."

I believe the suggestion is that "amendment" and "abolish" are contradictory, and therefore confusing and misleading. However, "abolish" is a part of a compound sentence in which the other verb is "replace." Whenever you "amend" something you "abolish" the original and "replace" it with something else. To "amend" has the same meaning as "abolish and replace."

6)From suit, "a b c and d are to be amended...Transitional provision b addresses the compensation of the Chair and County Commissioners...The undisclosed effect of its removal is to reduce the compensation of Commissioners elected in 2006, during the remainder of their terms of office.

Lets take a look at a b c d:

a. Sets the terms and dates when the Chair and at-large will be elected

b. States that the existing commissioners pay will not change until their first term after the amendment is enacted.

c. term limits will stay in place.

d. When the provisions for transition have been completed, this transitional section will be repealed.

The amendment also abolished 2.2 a b, which describe the chair and at-large offices. 2.2 c will still be in effect, the section which reduced commissioner and chair pay to 70% and 80% respectively.

The problem seems to be that if provision b is abolished but 2.2 c remains in effect then the pay of all commissioner elected in 2006 will be reduced to 70% rather than their pay remaining the same until the end of their term.

Florida Statute 125.83 states that "The county charter shall provide that the salaries of all county officers will be provided by ordinance and shall not be lowered during and officer’s term in office." "Officer" is defined as all officials of county government under a charter.

What I think should happen if b is abolished is that during the implementation process the Charter will be amended to correspond both with the amendment and with state law.

7)The amendment does not provide for the transfer of the duties of County Chair ...to any other office of the County, and the amendment does not disclose this effect.

All the powers and duties of the Chair are organic to the BCC. The BCC does not lose any power or responsibilities by the office of Chair being removed from the Charter.

Conclusion

Most of the allegations of count 1 are frivolous and refer to actions which should not be necessary, such as disclosing to voters information which is common knowledge. The only things I consider legitimate gigs against the amendment are that:

It did fail to disclose in the summary the date of enaction, even though it was included in the amendment body. (I was previously incorrect when I posted the date was not included at all)

It did fail to fix the commissioners pay by abolished 2.2 c.

I do not see these as being serious errors, I consider them as normal, unintentional errors which could be fixed during implementation. Intentional or not, the CTLAC probably did right in avoiding the issue of commissioners pay. If they tried to reduce the number of commissioners and change the commissioners pay, it could be argued that the proposed amendment was trying to do two things and therefore lacked singleness of purpose.

I don’t know. While I believe that count 1 will fail in court, I do not have the legal knowledge to make such a prediction. It passed the SOE and BCC, it should be legal enough to get through court.

What is important to remember is that lawsuit does not uncover and flaws in the amendment proposal that a normal person would consider serious enough to merit scrapping the proposal. Cut out all the legal gobbledegook and explain count 1 in plain English; at the respective points a normal person will either giggle, shrug their shoulders, or say "that can be fixed."

I feel that the lawsuit is in part a type of PR effort. It has been expressed by Mr. One Man that the suit will serve to drain CTLAC funds away from advertising. I agree with this, however, I feel that the amendment being dragged through the court leads to the public impression that the amendment really is illegal. I believe that in regards to candidates most people vote for the person they are told is going to win(by media, party leaders, political experts), it probably holds true for amendments the people are less likely to vote for something they think will fail.

Fred Catchpole Office 904-771-6852 Cell 904-708-5541

I have taken the position from the outset that the lawsuit against the BCC/SOE/CTLAC was a frivolous lawsuit. 

I have said I recognize the rights of both parties to; (1) exercise the Right to Petition and (2) Recognize the Right to sue for Redress of injury.

I do not see any injury to Plaintiff.  Has he lost any money as the result of the actions of CTLAC/BCC/SOE?  Only if he paid the attorney for initiating this action and that is his choice so is it a loss?

The only damage I can see is the embarassment from not getting enough signatures for a counter petition.  Having your ego hurt is not actionable in my mind.

If you ask the Candidates if they support the citizens initiative rights, all will say yes.  However, how many will take any action to show they support it?

 Many of the Candidates have accepted donations from the Plaintiff in the lawsuit, perhaps the action of returning those funds would be a show real of support for the citizens intiative rights.  I am sure the Plaintiff's lawyer could use the extra bucks.

  The other alternative would be for the Candidates to donate to the Legal Defense fund for the non profit CTLAC.  Will either happen, I doubt it.

Regardless, Felix whoever you are you have done a good service to the readers of the Blog to understand that the only issue involved is the real fear that citizens will take part in their government.  Well done.

Fred Catchpole

Felix I would like to again thank you for your efforts in combing through the lawsuit, sharing not only your conclusions but your thought process as well.  This is how we can work together as citizens, on these blogs.  If everyone did a little, or alot and then shared like many of the bloggers here do and the word is spread beyond this forum the machine of the citizenry will roll.

While I understand in concept why Mike Mann see's a drain on finances for a legal defense rather then advertising.  I also understand the pied piper mindset, people try to choose a winning side rather then a right side.  If enough people did what they thought was right rather then what would win then perhaps right would win after all.

When people jump from one party to another because most are "x" and they either want to get something they feel they can't get if they're not running with the big dog pack.  If you change political parties in order to vote in a primary, wouldn't it be better to work towards a change so that there is no closed primary? 

Things backfire sometimes and this lawsuit may be one of them.  This lawsuit will actually bring attention to the cause of the CTLAC.  So far those people that I've talked to that have had no participation with the CTLAC or any of their amendments is they're angry.  I've talked to a few small business owners who want flyers in their stores and they aren't going to care about a created complaint to intimidate them, they're mad!

I don't want anyone to get involved in this effort just because I say so.  I happen to believe the right and wrong of it is reason enough and in the end that is all I ask for. Do what you believe is right, not what you think has the best chance of winning in a lawsuit or election.  There is some honor in doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do.   I don't care how the world changes, this small simple concept never does. 

Whether you are for or against these initiatives, NO citizen should willingly give up their right to vote and leave it to the courts to decide.  If you do not get involved in this battle then you are basically saying "it's ok for everything to be decided by a Judge" because that is where it will all go in the future if this lawsuit is not beaten down into the ground like you would an intruder into your home.   

When citizens groups offer petitions to the voters basic is the best way to go. The courts frown on these ad hoc groups who make the summary complicated. Since they are not lawyers when they start going into how an amendment should be enacted and all ramification it generally gets the petition thrown out in the courts.

CTLAC has stated the basics they have asked the voters do you want to abolish the 2 at large positions yes or no. Single subject, clear, concise, and as basic as a group can get for presentation to the voters.

We pay some Commissioners in my opinion an exorbitant amount of money to legislate the county. We pay for an attorney. Why should the CTLAC spend time working out all the ramifications of an amendment in a 75 word summary? Let the Commissioners and the attorney do their jobs.

State the basics, do you want to abolish the 2 at large positions? Yes or No

How much clearer do they need to get?

Felix;

A quick question for you. Someone I was discussing this issue with told me the paperwork said 'plaintiffs' as in plural.

Is there someone specifically named as plaintiff besides Roy or is it a collective thing like 'the citizens' of Clay County or was the individual misinformed?

Mike Heemer

Finder, I also have a copy of the civil action filed by Roy Lyons.

The compliant only list Roy Lyons Plaintiff.  However, on page 12 below Mr. Watts signature and info about his firm, COBB COLE, the last line says  "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS".

That was a clue and one of reasons for all my earlier questions for Roy about this suit.  If there is more than one plaintiff, does CTLAC have a right to know names of all the plaintiffs?  I would certainly think so.

Although we are not members, our check to CTLAC to help them defend this will be in mail tomorrow.

Thanks alabayea.

Interseting to say the least.

Mike Heemer

I think that is on behalf of our copy and paste group of citizens who have never had an orginal thought. He is representing those who might be confused like him which is apparent since he filed this suit.

The courts really frown on amendments that state "Protect our rights". It tends to mislead the general public into think they are in peril.

What was the name of his group again!

I’m going to take a break from the lawsuit and look at the issues related to the 5 versus 7 commissioners amendment proposal. The lawsuit is a legal matter concerning the rights of citizens to petition and vote on charter amendments, but I don’t want to get too far from what we are voting on.

This will be mostly background information with which many are already familiar, but I feel it is constructive to rehash some of the arguments for and against 7 commissioners. In particular I want to examine the Chair position: why is it undesirable that there be an elected Chair, and would the Chair really have that much more power than the current position of chairman? If I make any errors in portraying past events they are unintentional; I have learned that if you misrepresent a CTLAC issue that people will let you know you messed up.

Back in 2004 CTLAC proposed and the voters approved that the 5 commissioners of Clay county individually be elected by the members of their respective districts rather than be elected at large. Mr. Tom Platt is usually presented as an example of why this is necessary, in 2004 he won the majority of votes in district one but lost the election due to the at-large county vote.

I fully support single-member district voting not only because it makes sense, but also because it is the custom. You don’t get to vote on Senators from other states or state reps from other districts, why should you be able to vote on commissioners from other districts? Yes, all the commissions vote on issues that affect the entire county, but each commissioner is the direct representative of their district, there should never be a situation where the direct representative is selected by someone other than the electorate he represents.

A related issue that was brought up by the CTLAC was the opinion that at-large elections are usually won by the candidate with the most campaign contributions, giving "special interests" too great an influence over the county elections.

In 2006 the CRC proposed and the voters approved the addition of an at-large commissioner and an at-large chair, and reduced commissioners salaries so that the extra two commissioners wouldn’t cost the county extra money in payroll.

The objections of the CTLAC have been that the two at-large elections again open up problem of offices going to the candidate with the most money, and the Chair position would have too much power over the BCC. The CTLAC has also pointed out that even though commissioners’ salaries have been reduced, the extra two commissioners would still cost the county because it’s two more officials with retirement benefits, expense accounts, and other benefits.

The pro side of 5+2 was that it gave the voters more candidates to vote for: They used to be able to vote for all 5 commissioners, then it was one commissioner, now it would be 3 commissioners.

Their other argument is that the Chair would have a great deal of authority over the BCC, enough authority that the office has been referred to as a "weak executive." In their opinion, the effect of the Chair position is that it increases accountability in that the Chair is primarily responsible for the direction of the BCC. If the voters were unhappy with the direction the county was going, they could change that direction by electing a new Chair, and that this would be more effective in "moving" the county than the current situation in which no particular commissioner has more power than any other.

Note that is not just the detractors of the Chair that consider it to be powerful position in the county, supporters of the Chair also consider it as the lead position that would determine the policies of the BCC. Concerns about the Chair are not specious arguments, but legitimate concerns about a fundamental change in local government that would have a substantial effect upon Clay county.

Added to this is the impression of many that the issues related to the creation of the Chair are the result of an ongoing effort by "special interests" to gain an undue influence over county government. They base this opinion upon the publically disclosed campaign contributions of various candidates, and that out of all the Republican politicians in Clay, only one is running unopposed for the Republican nomination: if not for one independent candidate, Mike Heemer, the Chair position would be won without the need for one citizen to cast a vote.

Is the Chair effectively more powerful than the current office of Chairman?

It is my understanding that the Chair and the Chairman have essentially the