CTLAC Appearance at CAN Meeting Thursday, October 2

Well at least they had an unbiased speaker with no conflict of interest present the facts.

Darn but you just have to love the way things are done around here. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Sunflower,

Are you honestly criticizing Republican Women for not being "fair and balanced" while promoting an event called "Has Roy Lyons lawsuit killed citizens initiatives in Clay County?" Your kidding, right?  You shouldn't take politics too seriously, so feel free to re-read your post and laugh a little. 

I don't think you read my blog very thoroughly.  I was only informing the readers of an upcoming meeting by Clay Action Network that features the topic "Has Roy Lyons lawsuit killed citizens initiatives in Clay County?" The email I received from the CTLAC clearly states the topic as does the CAN website.  The email which was copied and pasted into my blog, also states the obvious issues at the Republican Women's meeting which I did not attend. 

Byron, please attend the CAN meeting at the Fleming Island Library on Thursday night and be involved with the events in Clay County instead of slamming me for my taking politics too seriously.  It is people such as yourself, not taking things seriously that have contributed to the situation our county, our state and our federal goverment is in today. 

Yes, I DO take politics seriously.  So should you!

Support the CTLAC: www.CTLAC.com

It seems to me that the Republican women can invite whoever they would like to speak at their meeting.  Prior to the primaries, Mr. Lyons was invited to speak to the women regarding the amendments and his lawsuit.  The CTLAC was invited to send a representative to present their case, but they declined.  Why the concern now?

This blog concerns Clay Action Network’s meeting tomorrow (7 PM at the Fleming Island Library), entitled “Has Roy Lyons’ lawsuit Killed Citizens’ Initiatives in Clay County”. We invite anyone interested in the continued vitality of citizens’ initiatives to attend this meeting

Clay Action Network has formed an opinion about Mr. Lyons’ lawsuit. We make no attempt to hide that fact. The word “Action” in our name means that our members form opinions, which we then act on. We formed the opinion in 2006 that the amendment adding two At-Large Commissioners, with one a permanent Chair, was a step backward, taking power away from the citizens. We “acted” by campaigning against the amendment. This year, after moderating a debate between Mr. Lyons and Jane Padgett of the CTLAC, we still believe that keeping the two additional commissioners will damage Clay County governance. 

Clay Action Network opposes Mr. Lyons’ lawsuit, as is obvious by the title of our meeting. Our board and members have observed CTLAC’s struggle to obtain enough money to fight Mr. Lyon’s suit, as well as the anxiety that the suit has produced. This concerns us, because it will obviously make citizens’ organizations which have little funding, such as CTLAC and CAN, very hesitant to introduce amendments that are opposed by individuals or organizations that DO have abundant funding.

The title of our meeting reflects the concern we have about the future of citizens’ initiatives in Clay County.

Bloggers,

With all due respect, Roy's lawsuit sets everyone on notice that if you're going to engage in bringing about a constitutional change to the Clay Count Charter, then you better bring your "A" game. And that means having your ballot summary written by a professional...someone who is an attorney and who understands the impact to the Charter.

If there were a competent reporter in this county, based on the number of technical illegalities in CTLAC's recent amendments, I would run - not walk - to research whether or not the two prior amendments passed by the Clay County electorate were even legally enacted.

Based on recent performance, chances are, we do not fall under term limits, at all.

Karen Lake

Does that mean we may not really fall under the +2 either? If I had my hand in the same deep pockets as Roy I'd sue to find out. But I don't dance to those strings therefore I can't afford to find out.

Besides the ones pulling those strings want the +2 so they probably wouldn't support a legal challenge to it anyway. But I bet they'd throw a bunch of money at a lawyer to save it. Oh wait, they already are aren't they?

If you have to have a lawyer I'd say it isn't a citizens' initiative anymore. But then you've pretty much put yourself on record as wanting the citizens initiative 'fixed' to make it nearly impossible to get one on the ballot and you've already stated on more than one occasion that you would like to see this one tied up in court. And so it is.

Did you have inside information about what was going to happen or did you just happen to wish upon a lucky star?

But to answer the question in the subject of your post; I don't think so. Not yet anyway. I think the courts are going to go with previous findings that citizens' initiatives should not require lawyers to write them. Especially if over 50% of the voters say they want to do away with the +2.

That is why it is critical that everyone vote yes on the +2 and the salary amendments. 

I make no statement on the 60% simply because I have yet to make up my own mind on that one. Not because I think it is illegal or poorly written, but because I haven't decided if I think it is a good idea or not.

Karen, I think those running for, or already in office should be worried about the outcome of this suit. If the courts go with Roy I think the next two elections ('10 and '12) are going to be a blood bath for incumbents.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Funny statement about bring the "A" game Karen. We have 15 members of the CRC. The taxpayers pay for an attorney. As a matter of fact the attorney being used in Roy Lyon's suit.

Now we all know the Ballot Title has to have 15 words. The Ballot Summary has to have 75 words.

Let's review the 5+2 we voted on in 2006: Shall Section 2.2.A and 2.2.C of the Clay County Charter be

amended to provide for a legislative body of seven rather than

Why is the A Game necessary for citizen initiatives?  Especially when the A Game, in this case, is just the added expense of a lawyer in the preparation process and more legal fees during the inevitable court challenge?  That's not an A Game, it's just more unnecessary government and private expense injected into a process designed to let citizens put questions before voters.

The Clay County Home Rule Charter gives citizens the right to initiate ballot questions.  The ultimate goal should never be lost, and the law should be used to find ways to reach that goal, not provide minutiae to prevent it.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

It will continue, probably even more so, after this episode.  

Language drafted by an attorney is no guarantee it will survive a court test.   The numer of words in the ballot title is something the SOE should have caught before certifiying it.   The DOE has written procedures for all SOE to follow.

Good example of attorney-drafted language can be found in the revocation bill promoted by Mr. Thrasher.  Bill drafting in the Florida House and Senate is composed of attorneys.  A staff analysis is completed on all propsoed legislation before any vote is taken so the effects would be known.

Isn't it woundrful one so concerned citizen is willing to spend his money to challenge these charter amendmnts?   We can all look forward to some more excitement for the next round.

As part of Roys PAC you are aware that Roy has  access to special interest money.  Unfortunately the ordinary citizen does not have that type of access.  Would you pay 50k of your own money to pay legal fees to fight the ordinary citizens petition initiatives.  I do not think you would.  I do not believe Roy would either unless he was receiving something far more valuable in return.  What could be so valuable that he is getting?  I am sure you know the answer to that question.

An A game is not necessary in a citizens petition initiative.  What is necessary is to be willing to stand up to the special interests.

By the way are there any plans to lengthen the runways at Keystone Airpark and to qualify it for larger aircraft, if you took that initiative perhaps more jobs would be attracted to the Keystone Heights area.

Angela, you scamp, how dare you point out that '2.2.A and 2.2.C' comes out to either 5 or 7 words.

My guess is 7, but it is at least 5 and that puts the summary to either 76 or 78 words.

I guess having a high priced lawyer doesn't guarantee that the summary will be correct does it.

Comments like bring your 'A Game' are what is wrong with the leadership in this county. They want to treat this like a game. Which to them it may be. What an arrogant, condescending attitude. But then I don't expect any better than that from a few of them. And that is real unfortunate.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Angela,

The charter allows for the CRC to hire both a recording secretary and a charter attorney during it's engagement to be independent of the BCC. This independence deepens the integrity and the outcome of the CRC process. I, for one, believe that's important and worked toward it as a member.

It's the CRC attorney's job to make sure the language can withstand a legal challenge. So no, it wouldn't be Mr. Scruby's job to look over a ballot summary that was written by a CRC attorney. It's his job to legally protect the BCC.

It's interesting that you comment on the payment of a charter-sponsered provision regarding the CRC when in fact, CTLAC now enjoys the benefit of one of the best attorneys in the state at taxpayer's expense. Why should anyone care how anyone else's attorney is paid?

Mike H.

I believe in lucky stars because I can't read tea leaves.

Mike M.

On the one hand I agree that an attorney is an added layer of expense. On the other hand, these past few amendments sponsored by CTLAC demonstrate a need to be technically accurate because not to do so, lessens the public's confidence in the election results. Bottomline.

The other point I would make is that I personally, do not view CTLAC as a grassroots group rather a special interest group and consequently, understand they have been doing these amendments for a number of years. That experience (as in most endeavors) lends itself to knowledge and knowledge to higher levels of outcomes. They've moved past the point of being able to "claim" ignorance of the process. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd say the same thing and hold Roy's PAC to the highest standards (which they should). Anything less than perfection would be identified and challenged.

That's the responsibility we individually take when we decide to participate.

Fred,

I donate to the campaigns of people I want to support. I donated to Roy's PAC (as the financial statement reflects). The value any of us receive is the satisfaction of participating in the process - Heaven knows - there's no money in it. That's probably not the answer you wanted to hear but it's the truth.

Yes, the airport is discussing extending a runway by 800 feet. It's in our five-year Master Plan. We are looking at available funding sources to support the extension.

Increasing economic opportunity is already in the works and hopefully, in the next 9-12 months, there will be activity as a result. Thanks for your interest.

It's been fun...y'all have a great week.

Karen Lake

Karen in your post you stated:

"With all due respect, Roy's lawsuit sets everyone on notice that if you're going to engage in bringing about a constitutional change to the Clay Count Charter, then you better bring your "A" game. And that means having your ballot summary written by a professional...someone who is an attorney and who understands the impact to the Charter."

With the 5+2 that was a constitutional change to Clay County's Charter. We had a professional...someone who is an attorney. We had all the sunshine meetings you talked about at the BCC. Then we get what I see as an illegal amendment and a constitutional change to our Charter.

I placed the summary on the blogs above and it has 78 words which is illegal.

The Fl Adminstrative Code states:

 (d) Contains the ballot title that shall not exceed 15 words and the ballot summary of the proposed amendment or other public measure that shall not exceed 75 words in length as prescribed in subsection (4).

The word count as defined in subsection (4):

(4) Word Count. The following provisions apply to determine the word count for a ballot title and summary:(a) Hyphenated compound words count as two or more words.(b) An ampersand or a plus or minus sign shall count as one word.(c) Punctuation such as commas, periods, hyphens, question marks, parentheses, quotation marks or exclamation points does not affect the word count.(d) Each word joined by a forward or back slash to another word counts separately as a word.(e) Each part of a date counts as one word. Example: January 1, 2025 shall count as three words.(f) Each word in a name is individually counted. Example: George Washington shall count as two words.(g) Each whole number shall count as a word.(h) Spaces do not affect the word count.

Quite frankly I'm not impressed with your reasons citizens need an "A" game to propose amendments to the Charter.

I'm certain Mr Lyon's will protect the citizens rights in that illegal amendment too. It seems to me you can have all the elements you state are necessary and still turn up with an "F" game and an illegal amendment.

If Scruby advised the Commissioners not to place the CTLAC's first amendment on the ballot because it was illegal due to a technicality. He would have advised them not to put this amendment on the ballot due to a technicality too.

If you don't want to bring your A game, don't bring it. 

I doubt seriously that you would spend $50k of your own money to stifle citizens initiatives.  Your donations to whomever are of course your business as long as they are within the law.

It is questionable situations that send red flags in my direction.  I must be honest with you I spent too many years defending the right of petition and the other freedoms that you enjoy to consider the legal challenge of Roy as justified.  The only justification is the peoples vote.

I am a professional Aviation person, and 800 feet extension does not get it.  You need a minimum of 7000 ft  and more ramp space, to attract major aviation interests and that is tight for some aircraft.

I think the CTLAC delivered an "A" game. I think they did so as a citizens group who is not special interest but public interest. Thanks Read for the info. I think they have given the citizens some great options such as term limits and single member districts.

I think even better is the amendment to remove the 2 at large commissioners. I think they should let the citizens decide by vote.

I still think it's funny that a member of the CRC who gave us an illegal amendment wants to challenge a citizens group for an illegal amendment.

Then another member of the CRC explains this lawsuit is to put the citizens on notice they need to bring their "A" game if they want to place amendments on the Charter.

I think the CTLAC should challenge the legality of the 5+2 even being on the Charter.

"A-B-C, It's Easy as 1-2-3", The Jackson 5 (go ahead and sing - you know you loved that song)

Dear Lord - someone shoot this issue in the head and let's move on with life. How 'bout them Jags??

I was actually wondering how the CAN meeting went.  Did anyone attend, and care to offer a review?

Thanks.

PS to Fred - be careful re the Keystone Heights Airport and growth.  It almost sounded like you were actually in favor of growth.  Shudder the thought - growth being a good thing.

"A-B-C, It's Easy as 1-2-3", The Jackson 5 (go ahead and sing - you know you loved that song)

Dear Lord - someone shoot this issue in the head and let's move on with life. How 'bout them Jags??

I was actually wondering how the CAN meeting went.  Did anyone attend, and care to offer a review?

Thanks.

PS to Fred - be careful re the Keystone Heights Airport and growth.  It almost sounded like you were actually in favor of growth.  Shudder the thought - growth being a good thing.

Yes, Bax, I was there. It kind of got off track and didn't really give us any breaking news. Commissioner Ruthledge looked kind of lost. I don't think he has much experience with knowledgable audiences. Except for the fact that everyone seemed to agree that the Roy Lyons group were terrible people and that the CRC members were not really out to improve anything beyond their own self interests, it was a pointless meeting. I think for the future it would be better to have a lot more time than 90 minutes to air more give and take on issues. I would be embarrassed to be associated with CRC. But that's just me.

Fred, if I didn't know better, I'd think that you're lobbying a public official of the aviation authority to further your own economic interests.  With your extensive aviation background that you talk about, I think one could reasonably assume you'd like to see the airport changed to benefit you. 

 It would be kind of like when you sought zoning restrictions for the Ravines because you had a business plan to try and sell. 

Now . . . do I really believe that that was your motive for either of those actions? Not really.  But the fact is that if you spend your days looking for conspiracy, you're sure to find it. 

I especially liked your statistically analysis of the Tallahassee appeals court and your conclusion that the court doesn't support the people.  Huh?  Statistical analysis for supporting the people?  Let me guess, the analysis goes something like this - not sure the court will say what I want it to, so I'll plant a conspiracy theory now and it'll make a good "I told you so blog" later.

OGV:  Not sure you and Bax have been formally introduced...

"OGV, Please meet Baxley, former member of CRC."

Either you weren't aware of his relation, or just make nasty insults to help you fall asleep.  If the second is true, you just might have found a fringe group home with CAN and CTLAC. 

key2life posted:

It's interesting that you comment on the payment of a charter-sponsered provision regarding the CRC when in fact, CTLAC now enjoys the benefit of one of the best attorneys in the state at taxpayer's expense. Why should anyone care how anyone else's attorney is paid?

Karen;

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? Since when are the tax payers footing the bill for the CTLAC lawyer? The only tax payers I know of paying for that lawyer are the ones that are donating their money to CTLAC! Please don't tell me you mean that the County is paying for their lawyer! You know that is not true.

We (the county) are in fact paying for the two that are representing the SOE and the BoCC. And the PAC that you donated your money to isn't paying for the lawyer that Roy is using.

Speaking of bringing your 'A' game, if I were a lawyer that served on the CRC that represented 2 other communities and a CDD I'd be a little insulted by your comment. Are you implying that he doesn't meet your standards of an 'A' game lawyer?

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Bill rather then whining about it why don't you just ignore the subject matter like most of the rest of us do when we're tired of hearing about something. 

Byron you just can't represent anything accurately can you. You make it sound like Fred was on a one man mission to change something when the facts are that the zoning restrictions that were in place when we bought into the Ravines we supported maintaining along with a whole bunch of other people. The real profit is to sell it all off for development and he had a plan to improve the place and not go for the greedy payoff of development and you're just trying once again to put a inaccurate spin on it. When you choose to participate and those you seem to like to throw stones at just really makes me think you're Roy Lyons.   

Hmmm, the potential for an airline, REAL INDUSTRY in Clay County that meets with such sarcasm, I guess the growth is only ok when YOU are the one that will profit from it.  One thing is for sure......the beltway won't help it one lil bit.

Voters the amendments of the CTLAC are valid and alive until the litigation process is exhausted and the FSC won't get to it before the election so whichever way you feel, yea or nay make sure you vote.  Since the SOE is soooooooo concerned about the confusion of the voter she needs to run some ads letting people know these amendments are still valid.

How about you Lamar, going to run a letter to let the people know these amendments are still alive and well and will be so long as they're in litigation and give some fair and balanced exposure??

Angela, I agree with you, we have an illegal amendment to our Charter and should the CTLAC not achieve victory on this round the next order of business should be to have it repealed.  If Roy wins there will certainly be a precedent for it.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Wow, and here I thought this would be just a regular morning.  Marsha thinks its a valient cause to have a court strike something off the Charter.  I thought Roy was paving the way to hell, not being your tourguide.

Either you weren't aware of his relation, or just make nasty insults to help you fall asleep.

What nasty insults are you referring to Byron? Or do you have reading problem, too? Far as insulting people goes, you ain't no slouch in that deprtment yourself. Got a mirror handy?

Bax, if you have followed the totality of what I have said in all my writings you would Know I favored growth that adds jobs not rooftops.  You may also look back through the records and you will see that the inference of some of my ideas provides more and better conditions for the Keystone Heights area.  Surely Bax you can build more than homes right?

It is my belief that the citizens of Keystone Heights are not treated as well by the county government as the other districts.  The fact that I suggested airport improvements and obtaining FAA certifications for Keystone does not make me a lobbyist.  In fact earlier this year I sent Mayor Mike an email inquiring about similar improvements to Reynolds Airpark which he did not answer.

Let us set the record straight ByronRoy I never asked or suggested the zoning for the Ravines be changed.  The record will show my position was to keep it the same and support keeping the covenants and restrictions the same.  So any assumption you have about what I had planned then pulled out after rejection by the owner is simple fertilizer from a bull.

Yes I have been asked to recreate an aviation business that I started in 1982.  Yes it would provide within the first 6 months of operation more than 150 jobs and ultimately peak out at about 1500 jobs.  BUT Aviation Industry is not cheap and liquidity and capitalization is not easily found in todays financial markets.  Will it happen? I think it will but it could not be located in Clay County for a number of reasons.  The first reason is none of the airports in Clay have Heavy aircraft capability.  Runways are too short, ramp space and hangars not capable of handling large aircraft.  Second, they are too distant from distribution centers to move items quickly as required by the aviation industry for operational support.  Three, cost of building support facilities is cost prohibitive.  The list goes on. 

My suggestion for longer runways at Keystone, was not self serving, I have already met with airport officials at the 2 places in contention for the jobs that I would create.

My only reason for suggesting Keystone seek improvements was to better the chance of aviation expansion support centers to be established.  Airports are growth assets for jobs.  It was a recognition of the Navy's AICUZ program that better airports meant more jobs to a community and better standards of living since the typical wages are higher in Aviation than those in the food industry.

Bax if you look back you will see that I was for a beltway, not a toll way I might add it would have transited closer the Keystone area since land is cheaper and that is the part of the County that can handle some growth at least land wise.  Further, I have always liked Keystone and I feel that the diversion of the water from their lakes has caused that community to suffer at the expense of other districts.

So Roy/Byron I am not like your lobbyist friends, I do not get paid for suggestions, my only endorsement of those improvements is for the benefit of the people not my own wallet as your lobbyists do.

I felt since you all are grooming Key2 for a political future that she might have at least the benefit of what is truly needed at the airport that will help and create jobs in the future if that is what her interests are for her community.  I can only assume it is not merely a punching the ticket with a notch on the resume' she seeks really to do something for her people.

By the way a lobbyist would have slipped her a brief case and I can assure you I did not, just some simple advice.

Where did I say anything at all about being for the Courts removing anything from the Charter?

A petition drive to repeal the 2006 Amendment is just another way to try and reduce the BCC back to 5.  CTLAC tried it one way, didn't work.  An Amendment to repeal the prior one would be soooooooooooooooooo easy, wouldn't take many words at all.....and when they're hauled into court over that one the Attorney for the CTLAC can just point out that technically the amendment was in violation of the clerical requirements to begin with and there is local precedent to remove that one also along with the fact that enough voters signed petitions to put it on the ballot.

It's a hop, skip and a jump for the BCC, or the CRC to get an Amendment on the ballot. The last CRC, Roy Lyon, Karen Lake, Bill Garrison just to name a few wanted to make it harder for a Citizens Petition Initiative to get onto the ballot.  It's all of course done in the name of the reverence for the Charter while not validating the fact that it is already harder to do ANYTHING on a citizens petition initiative then any other way. I believe it takes only 8 of 15 members of the CRC to get an Amendment on the ballot and a simple majority of Commissioners be it 5 or 7.

When they wanted to adopt 2 more Commissioners the CRC interviewed all sorts of people who would tell them different ways of doing it.  The CRC COULD have adopted "at large districting" to keep those other two from coming from the same part of the county.......now THAT would have been a shot at the argument that there is an attempt to stack the BCC

There is also discusssion about the "end way around term limits" so that lets say an incumbent about to be term limited out of office can then turn around and run for the at large position when the voters have clearly spoken that they want their elected officials to have a limited effect in time. 

No, it's not me advocating for litigation, it's just an awareness of this is how it's going to be for awhile and at some point Roy and those who work with him, beside him, behind him may just realize that they've shot themselves in the foot with what they've done. 

People, the minutes and the agenda of the last CRC are there for anyone to view, and if you take the time to read them then you can learn alot that you don't have to take someones word for....even mine. 

http://www.ctlac.com/

OGV, I was referring to the part where you said the CRC was a terrible self interest group who should be embarrassed to exist.  Since Baxley was a member, you can connect the dots.  As for me, sarcasm - guilty, childish name calling, not so. 

OGV, I was referring to the part where you said the CRC was a terrible self interest group who should be embarrassed to exist. 

Since I wrote nothing of the kind, I suggest you get a reading tutor. I did say i would be embarrassed to be a part of this crowd. The first part you have misread was my impression of the majoritys sense of the meeting. Had I put as much work into trying to undermine my neighbors for personal gain, I shoul be embarrassed. You need a reading comprehension course. I suspect you are either a part of this group or a wannabe. What swampland do you have to unload at an obscene price? Are you taking lessons from RT1? She is a great teacher, i guess.

Thanks for the report re the CAN meeting OneGuy.  Sorry you feel as you do about the CRC "crowd".  Not quite sure if you mean the actual 15 Clay County volunteer citizens who were selected by the BCC to pursue a Charter mandated, and very noble, review of the Clay County Charter, or some other "crowd", but I am extremely proud to be a part of either "crowd".  I enjoy being involved in Clay County civic affairs - everything from my local community association, to coaching youth sports, to participating in transportation and other planning forums that are always open to the public, but always poorly attended.  I can honestly say that being involved with the Charter Review Commission that brought forward the Charter Amendments that were subsequently approved by the majority of the voters (a fact seldom mentioned on the blogs) was truly one of the highlights of my volunteer "career".  The CRC was comprised of 15 individuals of such variety of background, opinion, race, sex, etc., that I was proud - certainly not embarrassed - but proud to be a single part of it.  I encourage you, and anyone else who really cares about what happens in Clay County governance to volunteer to participate in the upcoming Charter Review process.  Hopefully, you will be able to say you were proud of - not embarrassed by - your participation.

Fred - sorry for painting with the broad "growth" brush.  Still trying to figure where everyone stands on the various issues discussed here.  Yes - growth in jobs would be good, because it usually leads to a growth in residential construction down the road.  I seriously doubt Clay County would experience a growth in jobs without a corresponding growth in residences.  Just so we're clear, I absolutley agree with creating more jobs in Clay County.  As far as more roof-tops - seems as if we have plenty of them here already.  Ditto across many parts of the nation.  I'm not sure the "special interests" of Clay County can be blamed for the local/national/global economic crisis.  I know John Thrasher is a powerful man and could probably stop the world spinning single handedly, but I don't think it's fair to lay this financial fiasco (aka housing crisis) at his feet alone.

While I'm on a roll - yes, I did, and still do, support requiring a certain percentage of petition signatures to come from each district of the county. This requirement does not exist now.  It always seemed odd to me that people who support single member district voting so strongly would oppose this "district" requirement.  It seemed to me that these folks wanted it both ways - single district representation & accountability(which I support), but not single district accountability when it comes to collecting signatures for initiatives.  I don't see it making initiatives more difficult, just more fair.  I feel citizens from ALL districts should be required to support at-large initiative petitions, not just voters in one or two districts - as it is now.

Bill "Baxley" Garrison - Proud, not embarrassed, member of the Charter Review Commission (and more importantly - proud Papa too)

 Except for the fact that everyone seemed to agree that the Roy Lyons group were terrible people and that the CRC members were not really out to improve anything beyond their own self interests, it was a pointless meeting.....I would be embarrassed to be associated with CRC. But that's just me.

This is your exact quote, OMV.  You say that everyone at the meeting (I assume you were there) agreed that the CRC were "terrible people" who were motivated by "self interest" and said that you would be "embarrassed" to be associated with Bax.  You could tapdance out of this one or you could simply apologize to a good man, Baxley, who was the recipient of an unfair insult.  He obviously let it go because that's the kind of guy he is, and I will as well.     

Bax;

I'm not trying to 'cherry pick' your post as I have been accused of doing in the past. It is just that there was a particular section that I would like to speak to. I'm only going to paste one sentence from the last paragraph but it is the paragraph in its entirety that I'd like to address.

I feel citizens from ALL districts should be required to support at-large initiative petitions, not just voters in one or two districts - as it is now.

Bill, from what I've seen of the proposal for a % of signatures coming from each district I think I could and would support something like that with perhaps one or two caveats. I'd have to see your entire proposal to make sure that the overall % didn't increase but the concept seems to be within reason.

But as usual I have a question for you as a member of the CRC that brought in the two at large members. If the CRC felt so strongly about having the citizen petition process changed to this requirement why didn't you make that a stipulation for the 'at-large' Commissioner petition process also?

What we have right now is a situation that flies in the face of your statement about citizens from ALL districts being represented. Of the petitions submitted by the candidates to be elected at-large how many do you think came from D4? Do you think it might have been a less than equal % as those collected in say D1 or D3? 

How well do you think those folks out in D4 feel they are being represented? 3 of the 7 members of the new board will be from D1.

As you say 'It seemed to me that these folks wanted it both ways'. I would have thought that you (the CRC) would have set the example. Perhaps if it had been presented in that manner you would have gotten more support for getting the citizens initiatives process changed at the same time.

As you allude to, it is certainly a lot easier to get the required total number by hitting D1 and D3 very heavily. I just think that it is a bit self serving to berate one group for their stance against this change when it appears that the group proposing it is not willing to meet the same standard.

I would certainly be more likely to support changing both processes rather than just the one. What say you?

And just in case someone wants to fling that rock, I know that I did not have to get any signatures or pay the 'party' fine in order to run. But that has to do with Florida election laws concerrning write-in candidates and has nothing to do with the Charter. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Mike,

Part of preparing for my nearly 1 year stint on the CRC involved reading all 19 County Charters from around Florida.  There were several that addressed this issue of requiring a certain percentage of signatures from all the districts within a given county.  The issue was discussed at  length, and was finally removed from consideration because of the controversy it illicited, and because we were never able to come up with a plan the majority of the 15 members would support.  To me, it makes sense, but I do understand why some people would be opposed to it.

As you can tell, I think the County Charter is a great "constitution".  We the people - that great cliche - get to decide how we want to be governed.  It is only natural that there will be opposing views on nearly every part of the Charter.  I much prefer a reasonable, if sometimes spicy, discussion of the issues to the low-brow name calling and baseless (and rude) innuendos some see as "blogging".  But I guess . . . to each his own.

I'm not sure I quite understand the question of requiring %'s as it relates to the at-large position.  Do you mean that a certain number of voters from each district would have to support the amendment, or the newly created positions themselves?  Sorry if I'm being dense (it is nearly 11 pm - time for bed).

Thanks for cherry picking - I appreciate the conversation.

PS - I think it is interesting to watch St. Johns County grapple with the Charter debate.  For what it's worth - the SJCBCC really stepped out of line, to me, by spending tax payer money selling the Charter idea to the voters.  If the Charter advocates can't present a valid case for the Charter, taxpayer money should not be used to promote the idea.  There are currently 19 (unless more have adopted Charter Gov't.) of 67 counties operating under the Charter form of government.  Those 19 Charters have many similarities, but they are even more interesting because of the many differences they have.  For Charter junkies like me, they are all available online. 

Bax;

I thought I was being clear about the petition signature issue but having re-read my post I can see where my point could have gotten lost in the translation.

When someone wants to run for the BoCC (other than write-ins) they have to get a certain number of signatures on petitions in order to qualify and get on the ballot.

What I was suggesting was that SMDs would naturally do that within their own district with voters registered in their district.

If the CRC wanted to change the citizens charter amendment process to require an equal % of signatures from each district, why didn't they think that the at-large positions should be required to obtain their signatures from all the districts in order to qualify as a candidate?

One seems like a natural extension of the other. An amendment affects voters from all districts in the county so we want to have signatures from all districts in order to get it on the ballot.

At large candidates represent voters from all districts in the county so we want signatures from all districts before you qualify to get on the ballot as an at large candidate. 

If the proposal had been presented in this manner it might have had a lot better chance of getting through the wickets.

The at-large candidates might not like it because it would certainly take a LOT more work on their part but at least you would know that at least a certain number of people from each district would like to see that name on the ballot.

As I said, I think I could and would support a proposal to make amendment petition signatures come from all districts but only if it was applied to the at-large candidates petition to qualify process also.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.