Comments on: Judge Charles Dodson Allows City in Jackson-Maddox Residency Case

By: Vic Aderhold

Vic Aderhold — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:00:50 +0000

Can you say, “Fox in the henhouse?”

By: WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:07:25 +0000

The judges decision isn’t a win for the city, but merely grants the city the right to be heard. The judge may rule the city has original jurisdiction to interpret the law.However, such a decision would place the city commissioners in the unethical position of voting on a matter in which they have a personal or political interest. Additionally, any ruling by the city can be appealed to the circuit court.
The city isn’t trying to win, just in delaying the decision until AFTER the election.
Dennis Barton may have the most intriguing interpretation, that the other commissioners may be looking for a chance to dump Maddox, who has perfected the art of opposing unpopular commission votes purely for the political benefit to himself.

By: News_Maven

News_Maven — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:37:10 +0000

In reply to Hope. Hope, you know the answer to your question: He who takes walks with the (former) executive editor is absolved of all transgressions..

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:26:59 +0000

Why on earth is the city even involved in this? It really isn’t their business. Let the legal process go forward.

By: Hope

Hope — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:43:43 +0000

In reply to Steven Hougland. Thank you! It is very clear.

By: Hope

Hope — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:35:53 +0000

The time loop continues…the (alleged) fraudster expends taxpayer dollars, city resources, time, and energy to defend the fraud. What type of person does this? Groundhog day all over again…we just got over the years Mr. Maddox did the same thing regarding expending the same city resources to cover-up the firing of minorities for knowing too much.

Why is Mr. Maddox given carte blanche to break the law and rules? Thinking nothing of utilizing city resources to rescue him from his misdeeds. This is sad, embarrassing, and it drags down the efficiency of the City of Tallahassee government. It gives Tallahassee a bad reputation on the state and national levels. We know all too well the consequences on the local level; #1 in crime in Florida, a failed CDA, utility crisis, sewage spillage, etc.

Will it be groundhog day all over again…and again?

By: Steven Hougland

Steven Hougland — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:07:47 +0000

The City’s interpretation that “the question of residency is only relevant when the winning candidate takes office” is contrary to the City Charter and qualifications information posted by the Supervisor of Elections.

The City Charter Section 7-5 states “Any person who is a resident of the city and is a qualified elector therein may become a candidate for nomination to the office of mayor or city commissioner for the city by taking and subscribing to an oath or affirmation in substantially the following form and filing the same as provided by state law:

“…that he or she is a resident and qualified elector in the City of Tallahassee….”

Several SoE documents for City Commissioner also state a candidate must be a “resident of the City of Tallahassee at the time of qualifying” or “Candidate must reside in city at time of qualifying.”

Maddox, and every other potential City Commission candidate, was required to sign this document, under oath, stating he resided in the City in order to become a candidate for office, not to hold office.

By: DavidB

DavidB — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:44:40 +0000

In reply to News_Maven.

“independent”

hahahahahaha…

By: Dennis Barton

Dennis Barton — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:15:58 +0000

This is an interesting conundrum. Does the City Commission protect its own and devise a position that defines “residence” as something other than what most people believe it to be, or, do they take this opportunity to dump a commissioner who has not been in lock step with the mayor and his followers?

By: News_Maven

News_Maven — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 01:37:18 +0000

So the City Commisars get to put their thumb on the scale again, just like they did with the “independent” (wink, wink) ethics board?

Shameful.