Yet Again, City Candidate Switches Seats

By Mike Lednovich

City Commission candidate Charles A. (Tony) Morris has changed again to a new seat and opponent for the August city election.

According to City Clerk Caroline Best, Morris filed to change to city commission seat 3. That seat is held by Commissioner Chip Ross, who is termed out and cannot run for re-election. Tim Poynter, a former city commissioner, is also a candidate for seat 3.

Morris originally filed March 15 to run for seat 1, which is held by Mayor Bradley Bean. But just two hours after Morris filed, Bean filed to run for re-election.

Six days later, Morris filed to run for seat 2, which is held by Vice Mayor David Sturges. Sturges filed as a candidate for re-election in January.

Now Morris has switched yet again.

“I am learning as I go with this running-for-office stuff. When I initially ‘announced’ that I was running, I picked Seat 1, because at the time, no one had yet ‘announced’ for it. It was vacant. I figured that would be the easiest way to ease in … maybe I would run unopposed,” Morris said. “Shortly after I announced (within 2 hours), the incumbent decided (or let it be known) that he would run again. So, I switched to Seat 2. I try to get a ‘feel”’ for local politics by reading Facebook and NextDoor. My impression of Seat 2 was that, frankly, not a lot of people (on FB and ND) seem to know the seat holder. But many of the people I talked face-to-face with gave me a different impression of Seat 2. And now, based on ‘advice from counsel’ I have switched to Seat 3. That way, I won’t be running against an incumbent. Incumbents are generally tougher to beat.”

Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

mmonzon
Active Member
mmonzon(@mmonzon)
17 days ago

The job of a city commissioner is demanding and requires a deep understanding of the issues that affect our community; understanding that is gained by doing serious research. This candidate evidently “shoots from the hip” and doesn’t spend the time required to make thoughtful decisions. What can our community expect if he were elected?

Ben Martin
Trusted Member
Ben Martin(@ben-martin)
16 days ago
Reply to  mmonzon

If you resisted the vaccine you are a “superhero” for resisting the mob. Unfortunately Mr. Morris does not meet that criteria. Hopefully you saw the FDA quietly rescinded their advice on Ivermectin. Families of the 1 million covid dead you referred to in another post should be very angry.

Mr. Morris seems ambivalent about the false man made global warming narrative. Politicians who try to please everybody run the risk of pleasing no one.

Tim Poynter, some years ago when he was on the commission, at least had the decency to call me over concerns about a Fraudulent Account Statement received by a super senior citizen resident of Fernandina. He informed me the situation was “above his pay grade.” But all the same I appreciated the call.

http://www.BootTheBankers.com

(If city and government businesses can ban certain businesses from a jurisdiction why can’t they ban certain lawyers? Attorneys who authorize conflicts of interest in estate planning documents should be better regulated. That is especially true when the super senior client is not cognizant of that authorization. What would make things worse is if the document was written in such a way that important parts (like withdrawal rights) are essentially unknowable. If a “bank recommended” attorney gets a hold of a senior family member – watch out. Incredible business advantages will be given to the bank. Some might say that expecting the Florida Bar to properly regulate attorneys is like expecting the fox to guard the chicken coop.

A good way to understand the influence banks have over government is to examine how the “Duty of Loyalty” rules have changed. It used to be that conflicts of interest by a fiduciary were completely prohibited. But the law changed. Now conflicts of interest are permissible if authorization is provided. When it comes to that authorization all kinds of games can be played. Wikipedia gives a good description. See the “Duty of Loyalty” section under US TRUST LAW…..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trust_law

(This prime rule has been gradually moderated over time, based on the law’s recognition that in many cases, corporate trustees engage in transactions necessarily because they are in a for-profit business. Thus exceptions have crept increasingly into the general rule. Thus, a trustee can be exonerated from the “self-dealing” rules on property in situations where: (1) the transaction was authorized by the terms of the trust; (2) the transaction was approved by the court;(3) the beneficiary did not commence a judicial proceeding within the time allowed under statutes of limitation; (4) the beneficiary somehow consented to the trustee’s conduct, ratified the transaction, or released the trustee; or (5) the transaction involves a contract entered into or claim acquired by the trustee before the person became or contemplated becoming trustee.))

Last edited 16 days ago by Ben Martin
Jay Kayne
Trusted Member
Jay Kayne(@jay-kayne)
16 days ago
Reply to  Ben Martin

Ben, again you fail to provide a source re: your contention the FDA has approved ivermectin for covid treatment though both the Associated Press and Reuters have fact checked the question, the most recent being an August 2023 report by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N3AB1PS). Reuters point to continuing efforts by people to post this misinformation on Twitter and Facebook. However, there is no corroboration by the FDA.

Ben Martin
Trusted Member
Ben Martin(@ben-martin)
15 days ago
Reply to  Jay Kayne

Hey Jay – who is fact checking the fact checkers?

I provided multiple sources on a different post. And to be precise I never said the FDA recommended Ivermectin. They would never do that probably. It is an off patent inexpensive treatment. But what they did do is remove social media posts that urged people not to take it. They did not do this on their own accord. There was a lawsuit.

One source is the Epoch Times….

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to remove social media posts and webpages that urged people to stop taking ivermectin to treat COVID-19, according to a settlement dated March 21.
The FDA has already removed a page that said: “Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? No.”
Within 21 days, the FDA will remove another page titled, “why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” according to the settlement announcement, which was filed with federal court in southern Texas.

Another source is Dr. Peter McCullough.

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-dr-mary-talley-bowden-reacts?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1119676&post_id=142918391&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1fkpmf&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

STAY FREE!

Last edited 15 days ago by Ben Martin
missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  Ben Martin

Exactly they are all owned by the same small set of Globalists and that is super easy to verify

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jay Kayne

You need better resources than the AP and Reuters they sold out a long time ago to the Globalists

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  Ben Martin

great details, hopefully people will read and investigate for themselves

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  mmonzon

This is a completely normal process…when starting out in politics…has nothing to do with how someone will do the job or if they are the one for the job….you need to investigate more and go talk to the man and listen to him speak multiple times to get a feel for that

Hunter Walker
Trusted Member
Hunter Walker(@hwalker00)
16 days ago

Good grief. How is he going to make a decision on anything that comes before the commission?

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  Hunter Walker

Again this is a completely normal process that many go thru when just starting out in politics has no bearing on his decision making skills

Crackers_Boy
Crackers_Boy(@crackers_boy)
16 days ago

To add a little nuance to the answer that I sent the editor when asked why I was switching again, I included the following in my response:

Personally, I would prefer that each city voter get one vote for their favorite in the City Commission race. Then whoever gets the most votes gets the seat. The second most popular candidate would get the next seat and so on. If that were the case, there would have been no need for me to switch.

Did you know that ANY candidate has the ability to change to ANY available seat until early May? First, a candidate has to get elected. Playing with the rules as they are written, I am making tactical decisions based on information available at the time. And I am still getting a LOT of encouragement to switch back to Seat 2. Not currently planning to do that, but if it comes down to the deadline and Seat 2 is running unopposed, I may consider it.

If you want the city to continue to be run the way the city has been run, then keep voting for the people who have been running the city. But if you think spending money frivolously is not the way a city should be run, look at the alternatives.

Thanks for listening!

dcayscue
Active Member
dcayscue(@dcayscue)
16 days ago
Reply to  Crackers_Boy

FSS 101.019

Mike Lednovich
Trusted Member
Mike Lednovich(@mike-lednovich)
16 days ago
Reply to  Crackers_Boy

101.019 Ranked-choice voting prohibited.—
(1) A ranked-choice voting method that allows voters to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and has ballots cast to be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until a single candidate attains a majority may not be used in determining the election or nomination of any candidate to any local, state, or federal elective office in this state.
(2) Any existing or future ordinance enacted or adopted by a county, a municipality, or any other local governmental entity which is in conflict with this section is void.
History.—s. 14, ch. 2022-73; s. 24, ch. 2023-8.

Hunter Walker
Trusted Member
Hunter Walker(@hwalker00)
16 days ago
Reply to  Mike Lednovich

Nitpicking, but Crackers_Boy did not advocate for “ballots cast to be tabulated in multiple rounds following the elimination of a candidate until a single candidate”, so I’m not sure that qualifies for ranked choice voting (but I’m not a lawyer or election law expert).

Crackers_Boy
Crackers_Boy(@crackers_boy)
15 days ago
Reply to  Hunter Walker

Right Hunter. I am not advocating for Ranked Choice. (I’m not sure where I stand on that process.) My preference is not ranked choice. A tie would result in a runoff between the two candidates (with exactly the same number of votes, as opposed to not-a-majority).

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago
Reply to  Crackers_Boy

Exactly! Most people. Do not understand the process because they have never served they just like to xomplain

Douglas M
Noble Member
Douglas M(@douglasm)
15 days ago

Incumbents are generally tougher to beat.”

Maybe…….I believe the last mayor was defeated in his bid for re-election a mere 2 years ago. The opponent was a relative unknown (Antun).

Incumbents with a bad voting record are not that hard to defeat…..it would be easier than trying to beat a well known new candidate like Tim Poynter. That’s my 2 cents, Tony.

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago

Anyone who has ever served in a political capacity knows this is all par for the course especially when you are first entering the politics

missyjean
missyjean(@missyjean)
9 days ago

Anyone else notice the bias of the writers on this paper…We really need to demand more unbiased journalism in our town paper.

19
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x