Warren Jones says "political pressure" changed human rights vote, suspects mayor

[Cheshire Cat]

Awesome Diane.  Thanks for this.

What do you suggest that the average person do with her outrage?  Is there anything?

If there was ever any issue which could ignite a real and significant change, I think it could be this one.  Perhaps the problem with previous battles is that only a few people spent enormous efforts to fight the corruption.

Could this battle be won with a thousand little helping hands? 

I believe there is always an answer to any situation we face in our lives.  The hard part is identifying what that answer may be and then acting upon it.  As you stated above, far too often the search for those answers and hard work to manifest real change is left to the few willing to shoulder the burden.   As you well know, that burden can be very heavy and if not carried correctly can break ones back and spirit.  So the first key to change, as it has always been, is passionate yet thoughtful action by "we the people".  Not just a few, but many.   The truth is that even the most protected politicians will bend to public pressure and the parties that protect them will drop them cold if they become a liability.  Hold politicians responsible using facts, documentation and their own words.  Question choices and actions taken on our behalf, but do so with reason, patience and facts.  Remain firm in those facts and refuse to be ignored.  If one door closes find another and
open it. Pressure politicians to put safeguards into law that protect the rights of the citizens in meaningful ways as opposed to laws that contain wiggle room for those politicians who want to bend or break the rules. 

The flip side to action and real debate is the hard part for most people, especially when it comes to issues about which they are passionate.  When one takes a stand, whatever it may be, there will always be another person out there with a completely different view of that issue.  We have to be willing to face those with opposing views on equal ground and hear them out.  We must be willing to understand why they feel the way they do about any particular topic.  That does not mean we are forced to agree with their position, but understanding their views is the first step to a resolution.  Of course there will always be people who come from a place of anger.  Our choice then becomes one that decides whether or not we step into their personal storm.  I can tell you that a lifetime of being proactive has taught me it is never wise to step into someone else's personal storm.  Think independently and understand that even those you think may share your views, may or may not feel exactly the same that you do, so discuss, discuss, discuss before moving forward.  Finally and perhaps most importantly to affect real and positive change we have to be willing to identify and understand our own motivations for involvement.  If it is to become some sort of folk hero or political darling, stay out of it. If it is for financial gain or personal power, stay out of it. If it is for reasons to do with illusions of self importance, stay out of it. I try my best to be honest with myself about my own motivations and can tell you I am harder on myself than I am on others.  Understand that even the best politicians have their own motivations for involvement, whether it be a real desire to help or a quest for power and money.  In most cases if we are willing to be honest with ourselves we can also begin to understand why we allow some politicians to go so wrong and stand by mutely accepting their actions.  More times than not it is not the politician themselves that we are looking at but rather what aspect within our own human nature we are protecting when we react to their actions.  If we have fully supported someone for office because of party affiliation and nothing else, we will be less likely to find fault with them.  If we have supported someone because we believed in them only to be betrayed and still remain silent, it is usually because admitting they blew it also requires admitting that our judgement may have not been as sound as we though it was.

I have found that the good in people still far outweighs the bad.  I look for the good first and very often find it, however when there is nothing of truth or value to be found in a person or circumstance I resolve to work through or around them for those are the ones that will never really change. 

The hope in where we are as a city is that fact that we can approach even the most volatile situations without violence.  As a measure of human development, this bodes well for our collective future.


Diane Melendez

[sheclown]

excellent Diane. 

The first part of this problem is the question of the human rights issue.  I think Jacksonville did a fairly good job of that. (Albeit clumsy and a decade late).  People spoke with great courage about their personal struggles.  It was working itself out the way it should with the citizenry having its voice.

The greater problem for me is this back room deal.  It perverts this whole process and makes a mockery of the tears shed on the council floor.

Any chance of bringing back JAX OUTLOUD?  We could use it right about now.

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree Gloria and would re-enforce the position that what is currently at issue is not the outcome of the vote on this particular piece of legislation but rather if that vote was "politically maneuvered" to fit a private agenda.  For those who are angered by the prospect that the vote on this piece of legislation was skewed by backroom dealings my suggestion is to make those feelings known to the parties involved, face to face.  I would take my concerns directly to the persons whose actions are in question.  I would have in hand the documents Gaffney filled out stating his position of support for the Gay community and related issues as well as minutes from other meetings where he voted for the legislation.  I would ask him why he has given two completely different explanations regarding his about face on the vote.  First explanation claiming confusion and the second being that he was swayed by emails from those opposing the bill.  I would file a letter stating my concerns with the City Ethics Office and a notice of inquiry with the SAO asking for direction and if they will look into the situation.

Warren Jones knows what went down.  Talk to him about it and his concerns.

Of course the expectation is that these allegations will be denied with Gaffney likely stating he made his own decision.  What is important is that those who suspect (or know) something unethical went down, continue to ask questions and investigate what happened.  With any luck, some in media will do some investigation of their own.   I cannot state strongly enough that the issue is not about the outcome of the vote but whether or not the outcome was changed by any sort of backroom negotiating.   Regardless of where an individual stood with regard to this particular bill, every citizen should be concerned that the process that delivers legislation is lawful.  That is the bottom line.

Finally, to Gaffney himself, who will likely have associates who read this and other posts on the topic, there is a way through this that can keep your own integrity intact, which is simply to tell the truth.  The explanations you have given so far just don't add up and you know why that is the case. 




Diane Melendez

[Timkin]

What I do not get is how someone like Kimberley Daniels,  or Don Redman, who claims  ( CLAIMS ,being the operative word here)  to be a steward of the Lord, and to me seems to be the ring leaders against this bill FROM DAY ONE .   Obviously there are others.  I really wonder how these individuals can live with themselves.

Does it give these people some kind of high to get their way and discriminate?   They scream and yell if it happens to them.  We are asking for basic equal treatment, and they aren't having it.  I was thinking basically the same thing Diane outlined citing a sunshine law incident during the Peyton Administration.  These people would get , at best , a slap on the wrist and be giggling under their breath the whole time.

To me the solution is to wait it out.  GET ALL OF THEM out of Council.  Much easier said than done.

I have to say, Lumb's position on this was the most appalling and I am sure it was in part from the same pressure Gaffney was up against,   Whatever the case may be, we all know it is unfair and unjust. 

[rippley408]

It's hard to find anyone in this discussion thread to disagree with. 

I am new to this discussion, and, it seems, new to Jacksonville. Eleven years ago I moved here from San Francisco, where these issues were hashed out in the mid 1970s, and the good-old boys there were out by 1979. Yes, there was a time when they ruled that city. So I come here and thought the place was changing, but this vote was instructional. I sent a link to my blog ("Give me your dogmatic") about the vote to every member of the city council.

John Crescembeni's response was the most interesting. He said that "2012-296" now was "behind us." But 2012-296 will never be "behind us." 2012-296 more than any other bill has determined our future.

Just a few months after Forbes named Jacksonville the worst city in the list of 100 U.S. cities for places a young person to build a career, the city council voted as it did, compounding the problem. The vote announced to the world that the young, the artistic, the imaginative, the entrepreneurial, the playful, the creative, the innovative, the thinkers, the movers and shakers of tomorrow are NOT welcome here. Has the council not noticed the brain drain of young talent out of the city?

A lot of other small-medium-sized cities are drawing young creative people who will make those cities' futures. Jacksonville, already lagging, will lag even further behind.

Chris Gabbard

[BridgeTroll]

Many would be interested in the story behind your move from San Francisco to Jacksonville...

[avonjax]

What I do not get is how someone like Kimberley Daniels,  or Don Redman, who claims  ( CLAIMS ,being the operative word here)  to be a steward of the Lord, and to me seems to be the ring leaders against this bill FROM DAY ONE .   Obviously there are others.  I really wonder how these individuals can live with themselves.

Does it give these people some kind of high to get their way and discriminate?   They scream and yell if it happens to them.  We are asking for basic equal treatment, and they aren't having it.  I was thinking basically the same thing Diane outlined citing a sunshine law incident during the Peyton Administration.  These people would get , at best , a slap on the wrist and be giggling under their breath the whole time.

To me the solution is to wait it out.  GET ALL OF THEM out of Council.  Much easier said than done.

I have to say, Lumb's position on this was the most appalling and I am sure it was in part from the same pressure Gaffney was up against,   Whatever the case may be, we all know it is unfair and unjust. 

I think in Kimberly Daniels case it is the "Dark Lord."

[vicupstate]

What do you suggest that the average person do with her outrage?  Is there anything?

If there was ever any issue which could ignite a real and significant change, I think it could be this one.  Perhaps the problem with previous battles is that only a few people spent enormous efforts to fight the corruption.

Could this battle be won with a thousand little helping hands? 

My thoughts:

How many of the 'outraged' have WRITTEN a hand-written (believe me, the MOST effective kind, just be legible) letter to the offending councilmen/women ?   Don't be vindictive or threatening (no one likes that) but DO be SERIOUS and express disappointment and a desire to see 'forward-thinking' leadership in this city, which was not shown with this vote.

How many of the 'outraged' have written a hand-written letter to the all-to-absent MAYOR?   Ask him to tell you why as the leader of this city that he felt  the need to abstain from the discussion.  Tell him you didn't work your ass off for him, for him to sit on his, when important decisions are being made. 

The WORST thing that can happen is for this to 'blow over' .  The 10 councilmen and 1 mayor who let this happen, need to know there WILL be consequences for their actions.  There is a broad and influential coalition in support of a more progressive Jacksonville (Chamber of Commerce, UNF. to name two), but this group must maintain the pressure!

NOW is the time to RECRUIT candidates, RAISE MONEY and gain SUPPORT for a BETTER class of elected officials.  Voting alone is NOT enough.  Getting elected takes money and the ones who give it, WILL get THEIR calls returned, and THEIR advise heeded.  Maybe they didn't teach that in 8th grade Civics class, but it is the truth.     

Jacksonville is a prime example of why term limits DON'T work.  Neanderthals like Redman get in with no prior electoral record, and then get a second term for free because it is easier to just 'wait out' his second term, rather than take on an incumbent who already has a big advantage in name recognition and campaign funds. Also, when you have someone good, they term out along with the bad ones.  Term Limits are a knee-jerk simpleton solution to the more complex problem of voters not being engaged, and willing to accept mediocrity in their elected officials.         

[kellypope]

Can we call the council members and annoy them enough to put the bill back up for a vote? I'm not familiar with the exact intricacies of how this works, but I've seen in Chicago multiple appearances of a citizen-supported ordinance that the invested powers that be weren't too fond of.

[Tacachale]

The problem is that even if this somehow got back to a vote and passed, what happens next? If the mayor really was behind Gaffney's Judas move (and Reggie Brown's), clearly he would have just vetoed it anyway. There was not enough support to override a veto.

IMO the better move will be to lick our wounds and rally again in the future, knowing what we know now. The supporters are not going to give up, no matter how long it takes. We need to keep score on this one - and that includes the mayor.

[John P]

The maor would not have vetod the bill but he didnt want it on his record when he goes for higher office. Thats why he told gaffney to kill it. What is interesting is that gaffney and the mayor have had a very cold relationship to this point and gaffney will be looking for a new job in a couple years because he cant run again.... connect the dots.

[vicupstate]

Exactly what 'higher office' would Brown be running for? The office he holds now pays more than U.S. Senator. 

His own party is not going to support him if he won't support any of it's agenda, and the GOP has plenty of real GOPers in line already, before it will support a wannabe. 

He needs to prove himself as Mayor before he will have ANY hope of any other office. He needs to get a clue.

[avs]

Brown shot himself in the foot keeping silent (and with any back room deals).  He wont get re-elected.  He can't get re-elected by catering to the right (and I mean those who are right leaning but are calling themselves democrats).  Those of us who truly believe in the democratic party's positions won't vote for him again.  Gaffney has had plans to run for another office, but he has revealed himself to be a coward too, on sustainability issues as well, which are also embraced by the national party.

The local democratic party needs to stand up on this.  They can't have the National party saying one thing (http://www.democrats.org/issues/civil_rights) and their local leaders advocating policy completely against that.    Otherwise, why should the average voter be part of their party?  I am seriously considering leaving the party over this.  I should be able to expect that the local leadership of my party advocate the party principles they are advertising. 

[urbaknight]

Democrats in Fl, imo are not much different from the Republicans. I don't know why they even call themselves Democrats Most of them in this city simply tow the line for the status quo. What really cracks me up and makes me sick to my stomach at the same time are the political ads, calling people on city council "Liberals". There are no TRUE liberals in Florida at all. I'm not liberal or conservative. I think of myself as a "radical moderate". It sounds contradictory I know, but that's the best way I can describe my position. I believe in doing things the right way, with a well thought out plan, but should use any means necessary to achieve them. I believe that all people should be treated fairly. (with the exception of criminals) However, I also believe that a good number of crimes shouldn't be labeled as such. (like possessing drugs for personal use, jay walking or being in a Downtown park after 10pm)

There's my mini manifesto.

[urbaknight]

All are welcome!