High Springs Herald

Stopped by and Amused wrote on May 5, 2008 6:13 PM:

" Like what? Name one thing this man has done "useful" to anyone but himself. "

Passer by wrote on May 1, 2008 7:28 PM:

" Nah, I think Calderwood has a real life and went off to accomplish something worth while. "

mAd Man wrote on May 1, 2008 4:19 PM:

" It looks like Grapski got the best of Calderwood in these arguments. Calderwood has given up in defeat. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 12:23 PM:

" A good example to illustrate the abuse (and problem) of the PCA and the distinction between the general "thing" ("per curiam") and the different particular "thing" (the use of the PCA in Florida's Courts) comes by reviewing the US Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore.

The significant issue here is not the LABEL ("per curiam" - "by the court") applied to this decision. But the INTENT of the judges on the Court to RULE POLITICALLY and NOT HAVE IT COUNT AS LAW.

Scalia & Co. wrote a decision based on the OUTCOME they desired rather than the LAW (at least as they have traditionally held it to be).

To avoid the "bind" that they were thus putting themselves in FOR FUTURE cases (legally they are supposed to have to FOLLOW that "interpretation" (the "law") in FUTURE cases) - the Court's majority, led by Scalia, attempted to "create" for the FIRST TIME in Supreme Court history a TYPE of pca (like in Florida) - in terms of its EFFECT.

The Court ruled but stated that the ruling (the REASONING in the decision - and that distinguishes this from Florida) COULD NOT be considered PRECEDENT. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 10:23 AM:

" ... continued ...

PCAs contribute to a lack of respect for, and acceptance of, appellate decisions. PCAs seem arbitrary and contain an element of decisions made behind closed doors. Part of the effectiveness of any court, including an appellate court, is the perception and reality of fairness. A court should explain its decision even if the explanation will not necessarily advance legal precedent.......The hollowness of PCA decisions undermines the integrity of our judicial system......Respect for the rule of law in general, and the appellate courts of this state in particular, is diminished through the use of PCAs........The use of PCAs in approximately 65 percent of DCA decisions harms the publics faith in the fairness of the legal system that it helps to fund through payment of taxes.....There have been many instances where the power of the DCAs to PCA decisions has been abused with no avenue of redress available to the litigant who receives the unfavorable PCA decision. In several instances, the PCA decision was contrary to existing law. DCA judges should be required to cite the appropriate authority when issuing a PCA." "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 10:22 AM:

" ... continued ...

Overuse of the PCA practice masks laziness by appellate court judges, uncritical judicial analysis, and questionable justice in the administration of the court system...when litigants commit themselves to the time and expense to take an appeal, win or lose, they expect greater consideration by the appellate courts than a one sentence decision or a citation to one or two cases that often appear inapplicable or distinguishable. Usually the losing party in the appeal feels cheated, not only by the loss but also by how the appellate court treated the appeal in a dismissive, perfunctory way. That undermines the justice system or at least the perception of the justice system.

Nothing undermines public trust or professionalism more than the inability of the attorney for the appellant to explain to his or her client a PCA opinion.

... "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Objections to the misuse of the PCA by Florida Courts (from the PCA Committee of 2000) see the report:

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/pubs/bin/pca-report.pdf

"The net result is that PCA opinions undermine confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. The point is not that the public perceives PCA opinions as a way to hide injustice. The point is that they are right in thinking so. The remedy is to change the practice, not the perception.

Problems arise when the only law on the subject from one DCA is not followed by a sister court when the identical issue is presented.... The court has an obligation to either follow the law or explain why they may have reached a different conclusion. It is improper for a court to hide behind a PCA to avoid following the law and avoid taking a stand if it disagrees.

The courts should be required to give an explanation for their affirmance. Floridas appellate courts have long used PCAs to avoid writing on important issues that have not been decided under Florida law.

... "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 10:03 AM:

" The whole point of the ISSUE of the misuse of the PCA in Florida's Courts is exactly that.

In issuing a PCA the Courts DENY the REASONED-BASIS for their action being known. Thus one can only refer to POSSIBILITIES.

This is why such PCAs have no legal significance and cannot be relied upon as precedent or statements as to "what the law IS." "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Actually you are incorrect. My arguments are not "weak" because I REVEAL the underlying elements.

The issue of "possibility," etc. is, as I point out, just as EMBEDDED in your arguments as in mine. The only difference is that I OPENLY STATE the position whereas you PRETEND IT ISN'T SO (for your arguments).

You, as I have repeatedly point out, argue with logical fallacies.

As for not being surprised with our appeal - you ignore 1) that we WON our case regarding the dual office holding (we PROVED he was violating the Constitutional prohibition as well as was obtaining benefits that he was not entitled to); 2) we APPEALED Roundtree's false and misguided statements of what the LAW is (i.e. that he has no authority to rule if the DMS is a party to another case).

We are well founded in our legal arguments unlike you and Roundtree.

As for the public records case - I predict that it is likely that there will be an appeal. I also believe that we will also PREVAIL at the level of Roundtree on a number of points. The appeal is for PARTICULARS not the general. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 30, 2008 9:18 AM:

" >>>We have another opportunity to observe the process (including its flaws) coming soon as we have filed an appeal on Roundtree's misruling regarding the Dual Office-holding lawsuit. <<

Why am I not surprised?? And you will file one when you loose the Public Records case also. Hopefully you will get two more PC.

Your arguments are weak when you have to use terms like "likely", "possibly", "maybe" "could be", etc. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 7:55 AM:

" The same is true for the appellate courts.

They will not always issue a PCA giving you plausible grounds to make your case as you have (but unlike your position NOT providing you with indisputable claims to your case as you frame it (or spin it)).

I contend, and you have yet to undermine this contention, that the PCA is misused in Florida. And that its misuse includes the political and the avoiding uses of this mechanism.

We have another opportunity to observe the process (including its flaws) coming soon as we have filed an appeal on Roundtree's misruling regarding the Dual Office-holding lawsuit. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 7:51 AM:

" The real test of the "view" of public records and other laws by the City of Alachua and its officials (including Marian and Robert Rush - who, although being the City Attorney, claim they are neither city officials nor employees) will come when ANOTHER judge other than Roundtree makes a ruling on the City of Alachua.

And in time this will come to be the case. Roundtree cannot keep "taking" cases from other judges when assigned - just because the issue deals with Alachua. Nor will Roundtree always be in this area of the courts nor will he always be a judge.

Sooner or later another judge will be faced with the issues of law and Alachua.

Then we will see how "sound" your interpretation of the law is - and your "spin" on the facts. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 30, 2008 7:40 AM:

" Yes Mr. Calderwood,

I make the assumptions but you do not. OK.

I did not make the assumption that you refer to - I STATED the position was a POSSIBILITY.

You DENY the possibility. And assume there is only ONE portrayal of events.

That is your error. You go too far in your assumption that the Court did not write an opinion because the issue was so simple.

However this is betrayed by the fact that 1) the Court permitted oral arguments FIRST; 2) what the questions asked in oral arguments were (and what the answers given by Rush were - you seem to have a real "hatred" for the esteemed Prof. Little. Too bad. You keep relying on Marian and Robert as your "ideals" of lawyers.).

It also ignores what the judges themselves SAID in their process of hearing oral arguments.

And it also ignores the other facts of, for example, the City's acknowledgement in changing the provisional ballot ordinances, etc.

Keep believing your own lies Mr. Calderwood. There is no opponent more easily defeated than one who refuses to recognize the facts. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:50 PM:

" Mr Grapski, you just don't get it. You ASSUME that the Appellate Court was avoiding giving a written opinion because they didn't want to embarrass a lower court? How rediculous.

>>>IF they had found that Roundtree CORRECTLY ruled on the law they would LIKELY have written exactly that. They chose to AVOID the issue altogether<<

They are not required to write an opinion. Sometimes the obvious CORRECT ruling doesn't need further bloviating. In this case no response is a yes answer and a NO to your arguments, period, end of endless appeals and Court time.

As for
>>>No one argued that appellate courts were primary trying the facts. No one argued the facts to them.<<,
your stumbling over the hill Lawschool Professor made three points, the last was Plantifs Summary Judgement. He introduced the questions of the absentee ballots and Willet Dixon. These had nothing to do with the timing of your lawsuit, which was why Roundtree found for the city.

I especially liked the girl falling asleep during Little's stumbling, rambling remarks. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Ah, Mr. Calderwood has availed himself of the legal "brilliance" of his Rush allies.

Sorry but you again err. This time by shifting the issue off topic. Another logical fallacy.

No one argued that appellate courts were primary trying the facts. No one argued the facts to them. The issue was the error in law. The FACT that the Court DID NOT write an opinion is what is revealing.

IF they had found that Roundtree CORRECTLY ruled on the law they would LIKELY have written exactly that. They chose to AVOID the issue altogether.

Again anyone who wants to understand this case and the silliness of Calderwood's attempts to misdirect away from the actual facts can simply WATCH the oral arguments for themselves.

They say it all.

I'll stick with principled lawyers like Prof. Little over overzealous, unprincipled, and self-interested practicioners of the law any day.

As I said Mr. Calderwood welcome to a different game - my game - which is nothing like the one you think you are playing. Your actions "fit" exactly as expected in that scenario. You just fail to understand that not everyone is a self-interested, self-seeking actor. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 29, 2008 1:52 PM:

" >>>The Court "affirmed" (without giving a basis) Roundtree's ruling which AVOIDED hearing the election case on its merits claiming the suit was filed one day late.<<

Mr. Grapski as an astute self proclaimed scholar of the LAW knows ( or should know) that Appellate Courts don't retry lower court cases. They are there to determine if an error occurred. They leave it to the lawyers in the lower court to defend their cases within the law. The lawyers who bring cases to the DAC must show where the judge mis-interpreted the law. They aren't there to determine if a witness lied. That would be proven at the lower court level.
So it was up to you and your over-the-hill law school professor who can't perform in a real live courtroom to prove your case. The merits that the Appellate Court looked at was whether you proved when the clock started to run. YOU FAILED TO DO THAT SO YOU LOST THE APPELLATE APPEAL. There was no need to offer a written opinion. I'm sure that they know you well and didn't want you to waste anymore of their time with another appeal.
"

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Mr. Calderwood,

I believe it was Macbeth that claimed that LIFE was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

In essence there is no point to it is there? It just moves forward, droning on despite the momentary clamor, as if nothing really had any MEANING.

But that is where you and I differ. The "sound" and the "fury" that you recognize in me HAS A POINT.Indeed it does signify SOMETHING.

It signifies what I believe to be the POINT of government (and that itself based on a philosophical understanding of the POINT of mankind - "our" existence (our "life" both as individuals and as a species).

I believe there is a POINT a PURPOSE. And I believe that the purpose of government is to seek a context of Justice/Common (or Public) Good as the "ideal" (and thus as the proper "end" of government).

So yes I signify my objections to the corruption of this system (and thereby my commitment to its "proper" functioning and existence) with what you refer to as being "full of sound and fury."

But indeed signifying something very real and I believe very important. "

ella wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:44 AM:

" You go Charles Grapski - you're awesome! "

Video says it all wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:20 AM:

" Did that judge really say Alachua elections reminded him of Mayor Daley in Chicago! "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:04 AM:

" If anyone wants to see the kind of PCA that I am referring to watch the following video of oral arguments before the Florida Court of Appeals.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7409265931496151643&q=oral+arguments&ei=oZwWSJ6UHYSaqQLkycnzBw

The Court "affirmed" (without giving a basis) Roundtree's ruling which AVOIDED hearing the election case on its merits claiming the suit was filed one day late.

But watch and listen. And you will see clearly from the Judges and their questions - and particularly Rush's answers - what was established in that case.

And since that time we have only proven further that we were correct.

The City knew it was wrong so it just changed its ordinance regarding provisional ballots.

The issue just in court on public records also really focuses on one day - the day the City "adopted" the Canvassing Board minutes unlawfully and without ever having even seen the minutes before adopting them.

There will be no quick victory, no knock out punch, in this fight. Its more like a war of attrition. And as I said an illegitimate power cannot have its legitimacy confronted over a sustained period of time without wearing away its dubious foundations. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:47 PM:

" As for "Amused,"

The flaw in your attempt at a witty analogy is that the Black Knight is losing each battle - and in that losing an arm or a limb, etc.

In this case you could not be further from the truth. As I am not losing anything in these battles. I understand the personal cost going into it. But I also know that what my "enemy" cannot survive is a continued assault.

It's strength is in its ability to avoid assaults or to keep them relatively brief and unsustained. This comes from its ability to bully, to outspend, to be "above" the law, etc. Not many people are willing to take such an opponent into battle - and the few who do usually give up in the face of what appears an overwhelming force.

But appearances can be deceiving. And often times one's greatest strength is actually one's greatest weakness.

In this case it is not merely "power" - but that its absoluteness has given you an air of arrogance - and the two combined are a fatal combination when actually confronted head-on. So welcome to the game Mr. Calderwood. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:39 PM:

" Mr. Calderwood,

As I stated - they issued a PCA. It "affirms" the lower court WITHOUT giving a reason - thus without JUSTIFYING their action. Thus they are SILENT on the basis for that action. And the lack of a written opinion means that the ruling doesn't establish WHAT the Court determined in the case.

This is where you err.

You attempt a number of logical fallacies in your statements. For example you assert that the Court "found nothing wrong" with Roundtree's argument. But you cannot make such a claim based on a PCA.

Indeed I would argue that it is likely that in one or more of the PCA's given on Roundtree's ruling - it is more the result of a different function of the PCA. To avoid having to make a lower court judge look bad.

When your ruling goes AGAINST established case law - as have some of Roundtree's - the PCA avoids the issue rather than confronts it.

But again the issue here is that you try and take the PCA and make people believe that more than what is entailed somehow follows. Its a neat little rhetorical trick. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:58 PM:

" Mr. Grapski, if the Appellate Court did not affirm Roundtree's ruling and dismiss your appeal, what did they do? "

Amused wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Hey Chucky, you sound more and more like the Monty Python Black Knight. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 8:44 PM:

" I am sorry that you insist on displaying your ignorance of the law. But just repeating a misunderstanding of facts does no more to make those facts so than wishing they were so. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 28, 2008 7:27 PM:

" >>>there ARE NO decisions as this has come to be practiced.<

On the contrary, they affirmed the lower Court ruling and denied your arguments. They found nothing wrong with Roundtree's decision. Too bad, so sad, for you.You loose!
"

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 6:46 PM:

" Just to chime in one last time but having reflected on my point to Calderwood I think this also shows a lesson in the danger/harm of putting people like Watson in teaching positions.

Its not just about having the facts. So its not about simply searching a reference book. Its about having an understanding.

And without the context of that understanding it is very likely that you will misunderstand as well as misuse the facts.

No matter how familiar Mr. Watson may be about state and local government (and I contend that he is probably no more familiar, outside of the particulars of Alachua, than the average student in that level course) he lacks the broader understanding of what is significant about those facts and how to utilize them in your analysis and understanding.

Students in that context can AT BEST obtain nothing but a set of facts. But that is not learning. AT WORST, however, they don't simply get the "wrong" facts - they fail to obtain, or worse obtain a misunderstanding, the requisite framework and context to properly analyze those facts. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Mr. Calderwood,

Be careful when relying on Wikipedia for your position. And not just because it MAY NOT be "correct" (may contain "incorrect" information).

But just as this example demonstrates - the use of ANY source (even if "correct") is only as good as the USE made of it.

In this case your ignorance of the distinction leads you to assume, as it turns out incorrectly, that the terms are synonymous and thus the explanation you copied and pasted was appropriate. This indeed is the origin of most conceptual confusions.

You need to spend a bit more time learning HOW to use those resources well before you start relying on them as you have below. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 6:23 PM:

" You won't find this practice in the U.S. Supreme Court Mr. Calderwood. (The sole ATTEMPT by Scalia & co. in Bush v. Gore which was about as RADICAL (and "activist") a judicial action there ever was)

So you should not rely on the usage in that context to try and understand it in THIS context.

"Per curiam" simply means "by the court" and distinguishes a decision from one that is DESIGNATED by the particular judge who wrote the DECISION.

This is NOT the practice in Florida and that is NOT what a PCA is in these courts.

In this context it is a case in which NO DECISION is written. And all that is stated is "per curiam affirmed."

Because it sets no real precident the judges have "reasoned" there is nothing really wrong, in terms of functioning of law, with this practice. Thus the judges USE this as a cop-out - to avoid the RESPONSIBILITY of having to WRITE an opinion (and TAKE a firm stance and seek JUSTIFICATION of the position taken).

The ruling "makes no law." But it does HARM the process by denying appeal ability. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Actually Mr. Calderwood your knowledge and understanding of a PCA (per curiam affirmed) in the STATE courts of FLORIDA is insufficient and mistaken.

In fact the decisions are not "short" at all - that is the point - there ARE NO decisions as this has come to be practiced.

It is NOTORIOUS for its use as a way to get OUT of making a ruling that has political implications or to simply avoid the issue altogether.

Because they do not write a decision - you cannot KNOW what the REASON for the Court's action was (indeed it could be, for example, that the judges agreed in the appeal but thought there was nothing they could do at that time to change anything - so you just pass over it) - and thus you cannot RELY on it as a STATEMENT of "what the law IS."

It cannot be used, because it has no written opinion, as a basis of precident in any real sense.

Thus the Court's have given THEMSELVES a cop-out mechanism - much to our demise.
"

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 28, 2008 5:32 PM:

" Per Curiam: "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial.

This must really gall you that the Courts consider your lawsuits as non-controversal. All you bombastic bloviating amount to nothing. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 5:06 PM:

" A note on the Feb 6th meeting (The "egg-eating" scene):

It was after this meeting that Watson & Co. began the "theme" that I was somehow "disruptive" and "a threat." Watson had his staff write statements stating that they feared for their lives (I am not making this up) because of my "behavior" during that meeting.

What is not necessarily obvious about that meeting, however, is that it was not a FIRST ATTEMPT to get those records.

This meeting occurred after: 1) Having records requests outstanding since APRIL of the year before; 2) Having made additional requests in November (one week, coincidentally, before the fire) in writing; 3) Having met with Watson in December (after he announced Alachua would be a MODEL) and discussed those with him; and 4) after all of that - Watson then began IGNORING all communications, REFUSING to meet, respond, or discuss the matters (and prohibiting any member of staff from doing so); and 5) after several weeks attempting to FIND HIM AT City Hall.

It was 4 pm. Watson had JUST ARRIVED for the work day (and the office closed at 4:30). "

English Professor wrote on Apr 28, 2008 4:36 PM:

" The fact that Calderwood thinks that he is in a majority speaks to the issue of his own view of reality.

I guess he prefers the professional type of journalism practiced by his Boukari buddies at the Alachua Today or by Charles Goston.

Most people who read either of those rags usually give up after the third grammatical error or the fifth spelling error. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 4:30 PM:

" As for Roundtree and the Court of Appeals - again you can keep relying on the DISFUNCTIONALITY of the system to back up your actions. But in the END you will lose.

Roundtree has yet to be SUPPORTED by the Appellate Court. It has YET to write a WRITTEN basis to UPHOLD any of Roundtree's rulings.

And this use of the PCA is quite naked - it is a means whereby the Court of Appeals can AVOID making a ruling - rather than making one. It cannot as such serve as precedent (beyond Roundtree himself - which means I welcome his placing his rulings in writing more and more - because one day the higher courts will HAVE to deal with his misguided views and weak justifications).

Roundtree is a weak judge to say the least. Hardly someone I would be hitching my future to. But you have nowhere else to turn but to your local politico buddies.

Again this is a struggle that will take place over time - and is not a single issue battle. In the end I can assure you - you will lose. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Mr. Calderwood,

First of all the report was produced ON CITY time (indeed Watson claims he is 24/7 on city time so I don't know how you can deny this) and WITH CITY resources.

If you want to hold the position that it was purely for his "private" degree - then Mr. Watson is in serious violation of Florida's ethics laws.

Sorry, in Florida, there are no such "fringe benefits" for public officials. As much as the City of Alachua operates in a different realm altogether.

As for Roundtree unfortunately I don't expect the law to be as I think it OUGHT to be (but as IT ought to be - by definition - as "law" - which means AIMING AT JUSTICE) - I expect the law to be THE LAW.

In this case it is Roundtree who is guilty of what you would call "judicial activism" in his personal views that government should be INDEPENDENT OF and UNACCOUNTABLE TO the people - with the minimal exception of elections. This is not the law as it is nor as it ought to be it is the law according to one Judge.
"

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 28, 2008 3:10 PM:

" >>>Thus for a City Manager to produce a "master plan" for Alachua is not only unlawful and inappropriate - but constitutes this as PUBLIC BUSINESS. "<

He didn't produce it for the city.... it was for his Masters degree.

>>>Watson's degrees were paid for BY CONTRACT as part of his job. <

They were a fringe benefit, not part of his duties as in the Charter. If you want to think of that as part of his "job", so be it.

>>>Watson USED City's staff to do much (if not most) of his academic work.<

And you offer what as proof of this? Eye witnesses? Depositions??

>>>the work submitted by Watson is DIRECTLY RELATED to not only the City - but is being used AS IF it were guiding the City.<

Watson acts on the "policies" directed by the Commission. That is his responsibility in the Charter. So?

>>> Judge Roundtree's unique view of public records<

Roundtree is following the law. He told you, it isn't what you want it to be, it is the law. I'm sure the Appellate Court will agree with him AGAIN! Too bad, so sad. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 28, 2008 2:40 PM:

" FACTS about the PUBLIC and Watson's degree work:

1) Watson's degrees were PAID FOR by the public.

2) Watson's degrees were paid for BY CONTRACT >> as part of his job. <

That alone should constitute all of the information on those degrees as well as all the work as a PUBLIC RECORD.

[Unlike Calderwood's reliance on Judge Roundtree's unique view of public records - a public record is NOT simply what IS IN the files of the City but also WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE in those files. Simply eliminating the record, despite Roundtree's view, does not render it a non-public record nor a non-records law issue.]

Furthermore:

1) Watson USED City's staff to do much (if not most) of his academic work.

2) Watson appears to have gotten credit FOR the City's work.

And more - the work submitted by Watson is DIRECTLY RELATED to not only the City - but is being used AS IF it were guiding the City.

Thus for a City Manager to produce a "master plan" for Alachua is not only unlawful and inappropriate - but constitutes this as PUBLIC BUSINESS. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:02 AM:

" >>>Being Real: There's no faulty logic. It's not really "logic". I'm not arguing that he did do it on city time, I'm saying that *it would be reasonable to assume* that he did it on city time, given the scenario and the person in question. Believe it or not, most of the world doesn't operate on "logic".<<

What you are saying is that YOUR perception should be REALITY for everyone else. That is self serving and illogical and doesn't fit the facts. The fact that you think that you are in a majority speaks poorly for your thought processes. But you fit in well with the philosophy of the High Springs Herald.
"

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:41 AM:

" Hugh,

Being Real: There's no faulty logic. It's not really "logic". I'm not arguing that he did do it on city time, I'm saying that *it would be reasonable to assume* that he did it on city time, given the scenario and the person in question. Believe it or not, most of the world doesn't operate on "logic".

So again, good for him if he didn't and it was something he did on his own. But for someone to think otherwise isn't a leap. "

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:40 AM:

" Being Real Again: Glaringly absent from your response was the point on records (which you brought up). Seems simple:

-Grapski is annoying:

Because he can't seem to throttle it down at the appropriate time. And because he's so close to being right. The "rightness" levels are pretty high on the substance side, but are much lower on the style side. We can let the style obscure the substance, but we shouldn't. He may be wrong on the master plan issue, we all know he's more right than wrong on many of the other points.

-The records should be released or it should be acknowledged that they don't exist.

If required records don't exist, then an appropriate investigation and sanction should be there. Presumably a correction plan and an acknowledgment of the errors will precipitate a reasonable sanction. Continued obfuscation and denial should precipitate a serious sanction. "

kitty wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:32 AM:

" If only all of this were truly a "mute" issue, to quote Watson... We wouldn't have to hear about any of it. But it is not moot, but very important. The quality of the education at any institution should always be setting higher standards. Reading the course curriculum of Watson makes me embarrased to have a degree from SFCC.
"

Anthony Lorenzo wrote on Apr 27, 2008 11:20 PM:

" Thank you for your work exposing the corruption in small town Florida. Exposing corruption and fraud is the duty of every American and should not be limited by partisan leanings or labels. This isn't about whose team is winning or in charge... it is about the government acting responsibly and lawfully. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 27, 2008 10:57 PM:

" >>>OK, Huey, it's not hard to assume that the master plan was a document done as part of Watson's job duties. He seems to make ridiculously partisan Operation Red speeches on city property and time. Unless we hear otherwise, it's not a far leap to assume that the master plan was work.<<

Your logic is faulty. The Master Plan was part of his Masters project, not his job duties. He did it on his own time using information he gathered on his own. The commission never asked him for a plan. It doesn't exist as a public record. Your "leap" is way off the mark. Of course the "plan" was work but not city work and not on city time. Get real.

>>>I started with a historical study of the city, documenting how it grew through the years, and then suggested steps for future development which still preserved the integrity of our past.<<
"

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 27, 2008 10:34 PM:

" >>One would think that after bringing a lawsuit on public records that Canney and Grapski would have learned what one is.

>>It is his intellectual creation. It is not a public record. It wasn't created on the taxpayer's dime.

OK, Huey, it's not hard to assume that the master plan was a document done as part of Watson's job duties. He seems to make ridiculously partisan Operation Red speeches on city property and time. Unless we hear otherwise, it's not a far leap to assume that the master plan was work.

So good for him if it wasn't. I saw the "Egg" video with Grapski asking for the records. True, 5 clearly worded requests for the records would have been enough, and the 187th request as Watson got in his car to run away was well past annoying, but... why didn't he just give the records? Give a time and date for the city to get it together? Or acknowledge that they didn't exist and be subject to sanction for dereliction. "

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 27, 2008 10:33 PM:

" Grapsky's annoying and needs to ratchet it down about 12 notches, but it's not that he's tilting at windmills. Clearly the city had a problem and needs to become transparent.

I also listened to Willete Dixon and Louis Washington. Obviously she lied at one point and most likely she lied to protect Watson. He misused his position and steered her to vote the way he wanted.

So I bet he'll "get away" with it. But the election was badly handled and now it's time to do it right. Other things as well. "

Hugh Calderwood wrote on Apr 27, 2008 9:17 PM:

" One would think that after bringing a lawsuit on public records that Canney and Grapski would have learned what one is.
There does not exist a document in the city's files entitled "Master Plan For Alachua". They can't grasp that Watson wrote it for his Master's from information about the city. It is his intellectual creation. It is not a public record. It wasn't created on the taxpayer's dime. It was done on Watson's personal time but that doesn't satisfy their need to smear him.

Canney could not accept that the city didn't have background records on volunteers. He sent numerous demands to see them. Then I surmise that he went to the Herald and claimed that the city was denying him public records and asked for an "investigation". Low and behold they "discovered" that the city didn't have any AND found out that the city wasn't any different than Gainesville, Newberry and all the other towns AND the School Board. "

Michael Canney wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Thanks to the Herald for reporting on Clovis Watson's second job. His explanation for the "MPA" after his name was priceless.

I wonder why the public is not allowed to see the "master plan for the City of Alachua" that was the basis for Watson's self-designed Master's Degree (which is not an MPA) from Mountain State University.

Since the "master plan" submitted by Watson was produced on the taxpayers' dime, and since it relates directly to his job as our city manager, why isn't it provided to the public? Surely Watson is proud of the work that earned him a Master's Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies?

Those who don't know what I'm talking about should visit the MSU website: http://www.mountainstate.edu/majors/graduate_studies/studentspotlight.aspx

Here's what it says:
"What Watson found at MSU was the Interdisciplinary Studies masters degree, which offers students great flexibility in self-designing a degree. I worked with Christy Bishop, who is a real treasure, to create the right program for me, says Watson. We created a concentration in Public Administration, and my culminating final project was a master plan for Alachua, with a comprehensive design for growth and land development. "

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 26, 2008 3:54 PM:

" OK, so I just stumbled on this before and just thought I'd demonstrate my witty brilliance by skewering everyone in sight.

Now I've been watching YouTube Citizen Grapski and I'm moving toward Mr Grapski.

The Mr Gainesville picture was a hoot, but the Watson on the front steps with the Operation Red, turning the county Republican, was a real stomach turner. Maybe because I'm not a Republican, but I think that a city employee standing on the steps of city hall (I assume), on city time (I assume) saying that they're going to turn the county republican is a gross demonstration of bias and a misuse of resource. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 26, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I wonder why someone takes the time to write a post that says nothing. "The snakes are out." OK.

Now how about the ISSUE at hand? You've made your non-point. How about a point?

I find it more troubling than amusing that there are so many who are quick to speak - if they have nothing to say or can hide behind anonymity - but are yet so silent at all other times. "

Sigh wrote on Apr 26, 2008 12:45 PM:

" The Speak Out must be down. All the snakes are crawling out from under their rocks. "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 26, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Crazy,

Your points have sense to them. But in fact I am not grandstanding. Indeed I am not PLAYING that game at all. I have taken no time to frame or spin or do any of the things one who is seeking to grandstand would do. What I am saying is about as RAW and untempered as it comes - and for a reason.

If I were in this for myself it would be much easier. That's an easy game to play successfully. (If Clovis Watson can get that far in that game - just think about it). But it is that very game that I am in opposition to.

But again there is merit to part of what you are saying. "

CrazyStalkerGuy wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Chuck,

Well, you did control yourself when attacked from a cowardly and anonymous position, so that gives you a few points.

Not kidding now (but still cowardly and anonymous): you come off as grandstanding and it obscures your message. It's hard to think that it's all from the media coloring the picture. Focus more on yourself more and don't make such a spectacle of yourself.

Focus on results more. Scamming the election and hiding/neglecting to do paperwork? First make sure it doesn't happen again. Watson yet again being a cheezy wannabe? Expose him, but don't make it so personal. "

Redneck wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Ana must be one of those Obama smug elitist condescending left wing nuts. "

ana wrote on Apr 25, 2008 3:08 PM:

" too bad there arent enough charles grapski's, at least he's a doer and thinker

you people are dumbed down, this has been going on in small towns of america for forever.

now you have a champion for the people and mr PJR thinks that mr grapski has no life.

Keep up the work Mr Grapski "

Charles Grapski wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:54 PM:

" Yes, we don't need people exposing fraud. Fraud is OK. Its a good and healthy thing. All loyal patriots will cease to be citizens and just obey and praise. Is that what you want from America?

Sad to know that there are people in this country like you. We truly have failed to educate - and instill the values - Americans about America and American citizenship.

Now how about commenting on the ISSUE rather than sidestepping it with an ad hominem attack. Address the facts about Watson's fraudulent resume, his unqualified hiring, the appearance of a quid pro quo, etc. "

P J R wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Mr Grapski, Needs to get a REAL Life. And Leave the Good People of Alachua Gov't Alone! The Poor Man Must Not have a LIFE at ALL! I REALLY feel Sorry for Him! "