SHORTCUT TO PAGE 2
http://www.myclaysun.com/node/3910?page=1 [0]
Hi.
I wanted to know the real deal with the lawsuit against CTLAC, so I went down to the clerk of courts and got a copy.
I had to go to three different offices, but that mostly because I didn’t know where I was supposed to go. Everyone was friendly and efficient, and the entire process took about 15 minutes. Feh on Wayne Spivey.
I read the lawsuit, but I don’t speak legaleze, so I am left with a few questions. For the purposes of public information and dialogue, I’ve copied what I consider as the main points of the lawsuit, and I will ask my questions afterwards.
(Note: The clerk of courts office charges $1 per page for copies, if anyone wants to get a copy, save yourself some money and don’t do what I did. The first ten pages or so are summons against the county, SOE, and CTLAC, written in English, Spanish, and French, God bless America. What you want is the section that begins with COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.)
Be aware that I am only copying selected sections of the suit, and that I am liable to have made some errors in copying. Any mistakes are unintentional, and if you think I am misrepresenting the suit in any way, go get a copy and look at it yourself.
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.
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.
The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit A fails to inform the voters that a "yes" vote will of 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 ballot summary fails to disclose that the proposed amendment at Exhibit C amends Section 4.2 c(2) not only by requiring a sixty percent approval, but also by removing the existing power of the Board of County Commissioners to submit amendments at a special election.
Article VIII 1 FLA CONST authorizes and requires that charter amendments be approved by vote of the elctors. It does not authorize supermajority requirements.
A 60% supermajority requirement for approval of a charter amendment means that the votes of those electors who are opposed to a measure have 150% of the strength of the votes of those electors who favor a measure.
In the absence of express Constitutional authority, the proposed amendment at Exhibit C violates the principle of one person-one vote, contrary to the equality of all person before the law under ART. I , 2 FLA CONST.
The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit D fails to disclose to the electors that the existing Charter already provides for a reduction in the salaries of Clay County Commissioners whose terms commence after the 2008 election.
The ballot summary of the proposed amendment at Exhibit D describes a proposed fixed salary of $37,000 per year for each commissioner as a "reduction." The summary does not reveal what the current salaries of Commissioners are; or what the salaries of Commissioners will be commencing in 2008; or that if the Legislature at any time specifies a salary of less that $52,857 for commissioners in non-charter counties of like population the effect of the proposed amendment at Exhibit D would produce not a "reduction" but an increase in the compensation of commissioners.
Art II, 2.2 C of the charter states that the reduction in salaries of Commissioners already provided in that section shall not affect the benefits, except retirement benefits, of Commissioners. The proposed amendment at Exhibit D provide, but the ballot summary does not reveal, that "other compensation, benefits or reimbursalbe expenses shall be set the same as those set by general law.: The ballot summary thus fails to reveal that retirement benefits for commissioners would hereafter be "as set by general law."
Each petition form is invalid and the total umbers of signatures on such forms is insufficient for certification as requiring a referendum on any or all of the measures.
In several places the suit mentions "logrolling."
The severability clauses in the petitions for amendments at Exhibits C and D are a form of logrolling unauthorized by Section 2-9 of the County Code of Ordinances, and would require the Court to speculate on whether a sufficient number of electors would have signed the petition or approved the measure if the ballot summary had been accurate.
Now my questions
Are these viable complaints, or the plaintiff "nitpicking" something that normally would be consider as legal?
Should the CTLAC have hired their own lawyer to review their charter amendments? If they had hired their own lawyer, would normal diligence have "cleaned up" their amendments to the point that it would have passed the stringent requirements of the lawsuit?
Are the issues raised in the lawsuit things that should have been noted and corrected by the SOE before certification?
What is "logrolling?"
Finally and most importantly, can any charter amendment be put on the ballot I it is in a disputed legal status? If the answer is no, then the only thing the plaintiff has to do effectively win is to delay until after election day. Considering the number of complaints and the number of defendants, this suit looks like something that might take a while to sort out.