This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
Three hours later, here I am again. Urgh. I am so tired. Lets see if I can do a couple before I have to get ready and go to work… For School board the candidates are:
* Larry E. Hughes
* Harold Parten
One of them with a website again. Good. And I found this PDFwith information on a lot of candidates, including these two. And of course, Florida Today. And an article about a debate for school board. And there were actually a few more. But this is enough…
Frankly, on their viewpoints on the various issues, there did not seem to be much difference. They agreed on more than they disagreed. A little more looking around and it seems that Parten is the one that has been endorsed by teacher’s unions, which makes me a bit nervous. Based on previous experience, I don’t usually trust the teacher’s unions. But it looks like Parten has a lot more experience and has an educational background, which has pros and cons, but I think the pros outway the cons. It is good to be an expert in the field you are dealing with as a public official. I do not feel strongly about this one and could actually fall either way. But Parten also had the sense to have a website.
My vote: Harold Parten
There is a mayoral race going on too! The candidates:
* Harry C. Goode, Jr.
* Ed Palmer
* William Perry
OK, to be fair, that is the website for Mr. Goode’s family business, not his own site.
As usual, there is the helpful Florida Today summary. William Perry had no website that I could find, and did not bother to answer any of Florida Today’s questions. So he is not even a consideration.
Palmer seems qualified and had a lot of experience on the council. But his issues and stated views do not seem substantially different from Goode. But Goode has been mayor before, as well as being a state representative for a number of years. His responses seem a bit more detailed and focused. Also, Mr. Palmer is 77 years old, while Goode is a spritely 66. Let’s give the youngster another go. I also am interested by the depth of Goode’s family history in Melborne mentioned at his store’s site. (They were one of the founding families of Melbourne.) Anyway, I think Mr. Goode looks the best at this point.
My vote: Harry C. Goode, Jr.
Taking a short break from the research… I am really tired… it is almost four hours past my normal bedtime!
Anyway, flipped on CNN. Dixville Notch, New Hampshire did it’s usual thing and voted just after 05:00 UTC (the earliest they can legally vote). As in the last few elections Hart’s Location, New Hammpshire also did. Since they are allowed to release the results before the statewide polls close if EVERY registered voter in the town has voted, the entire population of both towns gets together at midnight and votes and they count it right away. It has been a tradition for decades.
So, with these two towns, the election so far stands at:
Bush – 34 votes
Kerry – 22 votes
Nader – 1 vote
I drove by Dixville Notch with my mom once as part of the 1998 Q4 Random Trip. We didn’t even notice.
OK, last of the Melbourne districts… The candidates in District 1 are:
* Richard P. Contreras
* Mike Nowlin
Only one website this time, and an official (boring) one. But I guess I know he is the incumbant from that. The Florida Today summary comes to the rescue again… Well, it really didn’t give much info. Contreras is in the office right now and wants more police and fire protection. Nowlin is concerned about growth.
I did find one more thing on Contreras. A blog called Noded had a mention that during the hurricanes Contreras was very active keeping people updated on the local situation via some of the online forums at floridatoday.com. The author of the blog says that he thinks people will remember Contreras come election time. Well, OK.
I didn’t of course actually see any of his communication during the hurricane, but his experience shows in his answer to the Florida Today questions, and Nowlin doesn’t provide a strong argument to give him a chance instead.
My vote: Richard P. Contreras
OK, next district… in Melbourne District 2, the candidates are:
* Matthew Carroll
* Mark LaRusso
* William Lovin
Finally a couple with actual websites!
And once again, Florida Today has a summary of the candidates. Based on the info from the candidate sites and the summary, here is what I come up with:
LaRusso is pretty new to the county, and is very vague on what he wants to do. I don’t see much there. Carroll seems to really have it out for Lovin, spending a good deal of his space countering an ad by Lovin, and pointing out that he has been in Melbourne much longer. Lovin… dunno, perhaps it is because I read Carroll’s site first. But while both Carroll and Lovin seem to be fiscally conservative, about controlling growth while keeping taxes high and the standard of living up, but Lovin seems a bit more conceited. His “I am running because people asked me to” does nothing for me. Carroll seems more up front about things. Lovin is in tech, so of course his website is slicker, but it is almost too slick for a local race. And what is with the big-ass flag?
My vote: Matthew Carroll
Each Council Member on the Melbourne City Council apperantly represents a specific district making up a part of the city… however they are elected by the whole city, not just those people in their district, but they have to live in the district. I think. It doesn’t make sense to me. You should only be able to vote for the council person from your district… at least I think so. But that isn’t how it is, so lets look at all of these…
For the record, I am in District 5, which is not on the ballot at all this year… apperantly there was only one candidate, Cheryl Palmer, who ran unopposed, and therefore automatically won and that seat is not appearing on the ballot. There is something wrong with that… I hate unopposed elections. Oh well!
Although that is apperantly better than one of the other districts, where Cliff Cook vacated the seat and NOBODY ran for the open seat… So they will be holding a special election in February to put someone in.
Anyway, the candidates for District 3 are:
* Lynne Flora
* Cleave Frink
* Kathy Meehan
* R. Richard Ott
* Merrill Robertson
* Manuel Rodriguez
Once again, I couldn’t find anybody with a campaign website. People! Get with it!!!
I did however find a couple articles from Florida Today that are relevant. One on the large number of candidates running for Melbourne City council this year, and one specifically with profiles on all the candidates in the District 3 race. Since it is the most complete information I could find, this will be my main source of info for this race.
Ott is out. He didn’t answer their basic questions. (“Why are you running? How are you qualified? What are your key issues?”) Robertson is for VoTech schools. Rodriguez is for youth sports programs. Flora wants more flights to the Melbourne airport.
Frink and Meehan seem to address a broader range of issues, both seem to have a good deal of community involvement in their past. Looking at their pitches though, Frink seems to be a bit too self assured for my taste. Meehan seemed more reasoned and moderate.
My vote: Kathy Meehan
Ok the second of the two Sebastian Inlet Districts I get to vote for. Here the candidates are:
* Jenny Lawton Seal
* David A. Pasley
I could not find websites for either of these candidates. Come on folks, I know it is a dinky local office, but this is 2004. Make yourselfs a freakin one page website saying why you want to be elected… Anyway, both Seal and Pasley were invited to the same debate I mentioned in the previous post about District 5. Only Pasley showed up. And I could not find anything on Seal on the web at all… except an article (again behind annoying registration) on tcpalm.com saying that she… and Sherrie Quarrie… ahd gotten significant campaign donations from a lobbiest for a sand mining company. Apperantly Seal is also the granddaughter of a former commissioner who died recently. In any case, she was a no show and has provided no resources to find what she stands for or anything. Pasley shoed up at the debate, and seemed to do OK. The same editorial I quoted in the last post says of Pasley:
Pasley, an avid fisherman, boater and inlet volunteer, wants the district to reach out to more community organizations and environmental groups. He also believes it could benefit by collaborating with other districts around the state. … Pasley and Culberson are knowledgeable, independent candidates who are committed to improving the inlet’s management and effectiveness. As straight shooters, they deserve a shot at the job.
OK, not too much on him. But his competition didn’t really shows up. And from what I read in the article about donations (it goes on quite a bit) both her and Quarrie look like they are part of a ploy by the sand people (you know, like in Star Wars) to influence how replenishing efforts in the county work and such.
My vote: David A. Pasley
OK, the Sebastian Inlet apperantly is an “special area” that contains large parts of Brevard County as well as parts of Indian River County. It has commisioners that are elected at large from within there. But it is still divided into sub-districts. I don’t fully understand, but we get to vote for it. There are three candidates:
* Jim Culberson
* Bob Hartman
* Sherri Quarrie
Of the three, Jim Culberson’s site is the only one that actually mentions this campaign. Bob Hartman talks a lot about a run for Tax Collector, but he apperantly lost that in the primaries. It mentions that his WIFE is currently on the Sebastian Inlet Commission. What is this, a consolation prize after losing the other race? [EDIT: His wife WAS on the commission, she apperantly passed away earlier this year.] Sherri’s is all about her as a real estate agent. Nothing about this.
In googling for more information on this race, the only place I could find covering this was tcpalm.com which required a really annoying registration. I did it, because I wanted to find info on this race. But if anybody from tcpalm ever reads this, be assured that I won’t be back to your site again for a long time. Anyway… I won’t bother linking to them because of the registration issue, but they did have some info… Candidate profiles for Culberson and Quarrie… none for Bob Hartman… and a link to a low quality video with almost completely unintelligible audio where they talked to Culberson and Quarrie, along with a David Pasley, who is running in a different District for the same commission.
The Commision is all about maintaining the Sebastian Inlet waterway. OK. Got it. From the profiles on tcpalm.com, and what little I could understand of the “debate” on there, Culberson and Quarrie don’t seem to actually differ on too much.
On this, I will immediately discount Bob Hartman. He is a no show. He did not participate in the debate, nor give tcpalm a profile. Nor does he have anything at all on his own website about running for this office. (At least not that I can find.)
Amoung the other two, I will go for Jim Culberson. He actually has a website describing why he wants to be a commisioner and his expertese in the area. He’s involved in the local historical commission and recreation committees, etc. From what I could hear of the debate (the sound got a bit better as it continued), he is the more articulate of the two on his beliefs on how to deal with the issues surrounding the inlet. His degree is in Marine Biology. He knows his stuff. The tcpall.com editorial on this race and the District 1 race said:
Culberson, who has written a detailed history of the Sebastian Inlet, says the district needs to be more responsive and open to the public. He knows whereof he speaks, as he regularly attends board meetings. … Quarrie’s interests appear more scattered. She talks about turtle nesting and national security, but offers few substantive insights or proposals. On technical matters, she seems out of her depth compared with Culberson.
This reinforced the opinion I had alread reached.
My vote: Jim Culberson
OK, last of the proposed constitutional amendments. After this I have top start learning about people… Anyway…
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 22
ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 22. Parental notification of termination of a minor’s pregnancy. The legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy right guaranteed to a minor under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Notwithstanding a minor’s right of privacy provided in Section 23 of Article I, the Legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor’s pregnancy. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the notification.
In this case the full text is exactly the same as the ballot summary. So, first, on the issue… I don’t have super strong opinions here. But in general I am for giving more independance and autonomy to minors, as I generally feel what they are capable of doing and understanding on their own is underestimated. The specifics of the abortion issue notwithstanding, I think that if a minor is capable of seeing out and obtaining medical care independant of their parents, they should be allowed to make the decisions associated with that care independantly. So I’d probably vote against a notification rule on the merits, although I can see the other side as well and understand the arguments.
Of course though, once again, this is a policy issue, and policy issue specifics should not be addressed in a constitution. Even though, I know, it is done this way in many states because that is what the initiative process allows… but I still think it is wrong. There is a legislature for this kind of thing. So, on the last of these…
My vote: NO
Chugging right along… next one…
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 10
ARTICLE XI, SECTION 5
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE
Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to require the sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposed by citizen initiative to file the initiative petition with the Secretary of State by February 1 of the year of a general election in order to have the measure submitted to the electors for approval or rejection at the following November’s general election, and to require the Florida Supreme Court to render an advisory opinion addressing the validity of an initiative petition by April 1 of the year in which the amendment is to be submitted to the electors.
And the full text… Um… OK, this one is best described by a before and after… It wishes to change Article IV Section 10 from:
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously.
to
Attorney General.–The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion no later than April 1 of the year in which the initiative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to Section 5 of Article XI
and it changes Article X Section 5 from
Amendment or revision election.–
(a)Â Â A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, initiative petition or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b)Â Â The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(c)Â Â Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(d)Â Â If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
which they want to change to…
Amendment or revision election.–
(a) A proposed amendment to or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election held more than ninety days after the joint resolution, or report of revision commission, constitutional convention or taxation and budget reform commission proposing it is filed with the custodian of state records, unless, pursuant to law enacted by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of each house of the legislature and limited to a single amendment or revision, it is submitted at an earlier special election held more than ninety days after such filing.
(b) A proposed amendment or revision of this constitution, or any part of it, by initiative shall be submitted to the electors at the general election provided the initiative petition is filed with the custodian of state records no later than February 1 of the year in which the general election is held.
(c) The legislature shall provide by general law, prior to the holding of an election pursuant to this section, for the provision of a statement to the public regarding the probable financial impact of any amendment proposed by initiative pursuant to section 3.
(d) Once in the tenth week, and once in the sixth week immediately preceding the week in which the election is held, the proposed amendment or revision, with notice of the date of election at which it will be submitted to the electors, shall be published in one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which a newspaper is published.
(e) If the proposed amendment or revision is approved by vote of the electors, it shall be effective as an amendment to or revision of the constitution of the state on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the election, or on such other date as may be specified in the amendment or revision.
Finally! A proposed constitutional amendment that actually addresses structural questions!!!
On this one I actually spent a little time looking at the pro and con websites. Looks like this will place a specific date on when the petitions have to be submitted in order to get on the ballot (which is earlier than the current date) and will also put limits on when the courts must provide an opinion on those proposals.
According to the people against this, it will make it more difficult to get proposals on the ballot. According to the people for it, it will give more time to educate the people on the ballot issues and for public debate.
Given the nature of most of the proposals I have seen on this ballot, I think both of these things are good things. Thus…
My vote: YES
|
|