ActNow! Email Council Now on Elections Litigation/Bill

Jimmy · #1 04-22-2008, 10:00 AM

The Jacksonville City Council will be having what's known as a "shade" meeting later today/this evening. This is a private meeting which, as the name suggests, takes place outside of the normal open government sunshine.

We believe that one of the topics of the meeting will be to instruct and advise our City's General Counsel on how to proceed in the litigation that has been filed against the City Council by Dick Brown, who is seeking to defy Judge Nachman's court order and re-open the At-Large Group 2 ballot. Many here feel that the ballot should include only the two Jacksonville residents who legally qualified for the election, meaning Democrat Bob Harms and Republican Theresa Graham.

You have the right to be a part of the City Hall Process and have your opinions and views heard. This is a straightforward way to get involved.

The City Council deserves to hear from you and to learn how you feel the City should spend your tax dollars in pursuing this matter. Because it's a shade meeting, you can't attend it and you can't voice your opinion inside the meeting. But your opinion is important. And this thread contains the tools to help you express yourself.

In addition to any discussion that might happen at the shade meeting, the Council will take up Bill 2008-206 in its public agenda this evening. It is important that the Council pass the original version of 2008-206 and defeat the proposed amendment. An amendment which would ignore the Court ruling, the General Counsel, and the Supervisor of Elections.

The link you'll see below will compose an email on your behalf within your computer's default email program to every member of the City Council. We're also CC'ing the emails to the Ethics Officer. Edit the email as you wish. Take special notice to include your name and mailing address after the "Thank you," at the bottom of the email window.

If your computer doesn't have a default email program configured (for example, you use web mail instead of Outlook), I will post below the email addresses and the proposed text of the email for you to copy/paste.

(Link removed - the issue has been voted on. Thanks to everyone who participated!)

If you'll be copy/pasting, here's some guidance:

Quote:

Subject: Elections Litigation and 2008-206

To: Clay@coj.net, WBishop@coj.net, RClark@coj.net, Redman@coj.net, AShad@coj.net, Webb@coj.net, Gaffney@coj.net, EDLee@coj.net, WAJones@coj.net, MJones@coj.net, Holt@coj.net, DDavis@coj.net, ArtG@coj.net, Corrigan@coj.net, RonnieF@coj.net, Joost@coj.net, KHyde@coj.net, GloriousJ@coj.net

Letter text:

Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:

As I am a resident and voter in the City of Jacksonville, you are my representatives on the City Council. I ask that you vote in any upcoming shade meeting about this litigation in support of the Office of General Counsel defending the decision obtained in the Harms v. Jabour litigation, which limits the At-Large Group 2 election to the candidates who had timely qualified, Harms and Graham. As having been a candidate yourself and likely in the future, I know that you appreciate that election laws must be followed and defended.

The General Counsel needs to mobilize and oppose this lawsuit with everything they have -- just like they would anytime the City is sued. Since you as a City Council have also been sued, it's especially important that you protect yourselves from this manipulative and questionable lawsuit.

I would also ask that you pass 2008-206 as originally submitted. The proposed amendment flies in the face of Judge Nachman's previous ruling. It would have you legitimize the questionable litigation and ignore an actual Circuit Court Order on the issue.

I appreciate your thoughtful attention to this matter.

Thank you,

NAME
ADDRESS

(Link removed - the issue has been voted on. Thanks to everyone who participated!)

Thank you all for your interest in this topic. JaxOutLoud will be improving this citizen activism system for future beneficial use. We consider this to be an active beta test. Your experiences and feedback using this tool will be helpful to us.

Jimmy · #2 04-22-2008, 11:38 AM

After sending my email I was contacted by CM Corrigan, who offered the amendment to 2008-206. He states that his amendment merely removes the names of Harms and Graham and otherwise declares the vacancy and otherwise complies with the Court Order. I haven't had a chance to read the amendment just yet.

He also stated that the elections litigation can't be discussed in today's shade meeting due to it not being noticed for that purpose. Other insiders have indicated that the elections litigation could be discussed, though technically un-noticed. I leave it to everyone's judgment.

I think there's no harm in continuing to let the Council know how we feel about the elections litigation and any amendment to 2008-206.

Diane Melendez · #3 04-22-2008, 12:48 PM

So, Corrigan wants the names removed? Looks like he is making way for the outcome of a lawsuit. Gosh oh Golly Gee. I am sure no one knows what this is really about. I especially like the statements contained within which instructs that the bill is dependent on the outcome of current litigation. Why? The city did not bring this legislation and the outcome will not be effected by the names of the only two candidates that can appear on the ballot per the judges orders. Looks like Mr. Harden has been making some phone calls to his old buddies. Perhaps no shade meeting with elected officials, but you can sure as hell bet there has been alot of conversation in the shade, the alley and elsewhere. Mr. Corrigan, we know what this is about and what you, Harden and others are up to. Not so very clever as you think. In case you don't realize it, the city consists of taxpaying individuals who have not been invited by you or Harden into the conversation. Of course, they are not your concern are they? Getting a yes man or woman is. We get it.

Jimmy · #4 04-22-2008, 01:19 PM

I've heard from others at the City. The emails are being read.

Diane Melendez · #5 04-22-2008, 01:42 PM

They need to read them Jimmy. It's time the people are heard. I sent one to all of them. What's wrong with respecting the judges rule? Of course we know the answer to that. Those who want to keep a tight reigns on the city, keep their yes men and women in line, don't want anyone they cannot ultimately control. That's the sad fact and the people don't have to stand for it.

Jimmy · #6 04-23-2008, 11:11 AM

As an experiment in online-led activism, I'd say our dry run this week went well. No, we didn't get the result we were aiming for in 2008-206, but we did get some good experience in creating new ways for residents to get involved.

I've heard from both Councilmen Corrigan and Yarborough concerning our comments. They each were extremely professional and interested in making sure that our understanding of the situations were clear. I admit that it's refreshing to get an unvarnished perspective on pending legislation directly from the Councilmembers who have crafted it.

Thank you to everyone who participated. Since the moment has passed -- at least with respect to 2008-206 -- I'll be editing this thread to remove the email links. Until next time...

Diane Melendez · #7 04-23-2008, 12:13 PM

Thanks for letting the people know who responded to the email Jimmy. We will give the others benefit of the doubt since many of the emails were sent at the last moment.

To Clay and Corrigan. Thank you for responding. It is much appreciated.

CS Foltz · #8 04-30-2008, 07:29 AM

Hay Jimmy....this was the first that I found out about 2008-206....and the shade meeting....according to the Sunshine Law class that took place with the new Ethics Commission "A meeting that takes place requiring discussion and a response/opinion must be recorded by the two persons having said meeting". This is the opinion from John Phillips GC for the City who is a member of the Ethics Commision so it would seem to me that they have hoisted themselves on their own dagger.......is this not so?

CS Foltz · #9 04-30-2008, 07:31 AM

Ps......great idea though as to E Mail direct....hope I get the chance to participate next time around!

spidey · #10 04-30-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CS Foltz

Hay Jimmy....this was the first that I found out about 2008-206....and the shade meeting....according to the Sunshine Law class that took place with the new Ethics Commission "A meeting that takes place requiring discussion and a response/opinion must be recorded by the two persons having said meeting". This is the opinion from John Phillips GC for the City who is a member of the Ethics Commision so it would seem to me that they have hoisted themselves on their own dagger.......is this not so?

I think that does not apply to lawsuits where they are discussing the matter with their legal counsel, CS