Clay County charter review commission rescinds prior ballot language, opts to tie commissioner pay to state statute

The Clay County Charter Review Commission voted to rescind previously approved ballot language on commissioner pay and substitute language recommended by county counsel that removes a fixed $37,000 charter salary and ties future pay to the formula in Florida law.

County attorney Glenn Taylor told commissioners he was presenting two drafting options and that removing the charterspecified $37,000 could be treated by courts as a significant alteration of an existing limitation. "I felt it was my obligation to present this case law to you as a commission," Taylor said as he summarized relevant statutes and judicial decisions.

The commission first voted to rescind the language it had approved at a prior meeting and then approved a motion to adopt counsel's second option, which removes the $37,000 figure from the charter and references the state statute that sets county commissioner pay. The chair announced the motion carried over three "no" votes. The commission directed counsel to prepare finalized ballot text for submission and legal review.

The board scheduled the three public hearings required by the charter on the proposed amendment for April 20, May 4 and May 18, each beginning at 5:00 p.m., and staff noted the supervisor of elections' August deadline for ballot materials.

Public commenters urged caution or opposed pay increases. Richard Cleansman, who identified himself during public comment, criticized repeated attempts to raise commissioner pay as a "ridiculous attempt" and warned against repealing the charter. Commissioners said clearer ballot language and public information were priorities before voters see the question.

Why it matters: The change would remove a specific salary figure that has remained in the charter and instead follow the state compensation formula for county commissioners. Counsel told commissioners that leaving a sentence requiring any future salary change to be approved by electors could create contradictory or burdensome obligations, so the approved language deletes that line to avoid ambiguity and reduce the risk of a court challenge.

What happens next: Counsel will produce the formal ballot wording for review. The commission will hold the three public hearings in April and May; after that the final ballot language must be transmitted through the board to the supervisor of elections to meet the August deadline.

Quotes: "It's going to get voted down a third time," public commenter Richard Cleansman said of past pay efforts. "I felt like it was my obligation to present this case law to you as a commission," County Attorney Glenn Taylor said of his memo advising the commission. "Motion carries. Yay. Have it over the three nos," the chair said after the final vote.

Ending: With the commission's decision, the next steps are preparation of precise ballot text by counsel and the three public hearings in April and May that will give residents a chance to comment before the measure is finalized for the ballot.