Venice Florida! dot com's political endorsements for 2006
-- 10/27/06, revised 10/30/06

Got a comment? Make it here.

City Council Seat 3 -- We endorse Ernest Zavodnyik
Ernest Zavodnyik's web site
Ernest Zavodnyik is the first truly viable non-Good Ol' Boy political opponent to step into the local limelight since Martha Hanneman trounced Fred Hammett in a council race several years back. He's educated (law degree, attorney formerly employed by The American Bar Association), intelligent, soft spoken (usually). He's also a strong advocate for controlled growth, a vocal opinion that is sorely lacking among the seven current all-CQG council.

At a recent debate, John Simmonds rattled off a list of CQG members in order to dispel the notion that it is predominantly developer oriented, despite the fact that, according to Simmonds, 19 members all are related to the development industry, the largest single block of members.

Make no mistake -- the land development industry is interested in only one thing: the land development industry. If the rest of the economy tanks -- real estate, local businesses swamped by new and larger chain stores, banks hit with rising foreclosure rates, stores unable to find workers -- the development industry gives not a care.

Simmonds, like most of council, has adopted the notion that what is good for developers is good for the rest of the community. It's a variant of Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economic policies. The fact is that this economic model in Florida, particularly in Venice, has turned out to be a near-total disaster.

We can't afford this anymore. Nor can we afford the mixed political signals that Simmonds is ever so deft at giving out: He's for growth, no, now he's against it, but wait, growth is necessary and vital, but he hates growth. The public needs a set of hip-high mud waders to get through all of that.

What really sunk Simmonds for us happened on the campaign trail when Simmonds accused a citizen of libel and hinted at (and then denied) possible legal action (story with video). He may have believed at the time that he was levying the accusation at this web site, but, as it turned out, it was two other local writers that had earned Simmonds' wrath. That Simmonds couldn't figure this out on his own, despite the fact that one of the authors' information was in the signature line of the email in question, was an act of colossal dumbness.

When Simmonds was told by this web site of the real identity of the email's authors, he quickly shifted gears and denied that he was threatening any legal action.

It was an accusation that was calculated for one purpose and one purpose only: to chill public discussion. The act was so outrageously and maddeningly wrong as to defy proper description.

Simmonds has, by our perception, always been a fairly honorable and quite likable man. While we have had agreements and disagreements with him on public issues, there has never been any reason for us to have any concern with him over any issue of ethics. Until now. The public accusation of a writer for libel, especially when it is clear that the writing was truthful in nature and not at all libelous, could not have angered us more. Given the history of this web site and attacks upon it by government officials in the past, there was little to nothing Simmonds could have done that would have been viewed as worse behavior than his accusation of libel. It was just so wrong in so many ways.

To date, Simmonds has offered no apology to writers Ed Martin and Joe McKee. Martin is a columnist for the Venice Gondolier-Sun, McKee runs a web site called The Venice Resident (neither are affiliated with Venice Florida! dot com).

Simmonds joined a short list of vile politicos that have used or have threatened to use the legal process to squash nay-sayers here in Venice for no other reason than to try to shut them up: former mayor Dean Calamaras, former city manager George Hunt, former police chief Joe Slapp, former councilman David Farley, and former utilities director John Lane. For that action alone, Simmonds deserves to join their ranks as a former politico.

Zavodnyik is by nature cautious and shy and this has cost him in the early part of the race. When he realized this wasn't working, he shifted gears and became far more aggressive. That's when we started to see the fire and the passion in Zavodnyik.

We were initially unimpressed. We ended up being impressed. Mightily so, in fact. It would not be an exaggeration to note that in the final three debates, Zavodnyik kicked some major ass while Simmonds came off as a tired and scared has-been (video of Simmonds attacking Zavodnyik and Zavodnyik forcefully bouncing right back).

The big criticism against Zavodnyik is that he has no experience and is still coming to grips with several municipal issues. Strangely enough, this was council's main reason for praising and appointing Jim Woods to city council when there were a few other candidates vying for the job that did have a better grasp of municipal issues (notably Jim Leis, who has served on several boards and ran for council several years back). The argument against Zavodnyik regarding experience in elected office is more than greatly hypocritical by those putting that argument forth when compared to the council appointment of Woods. This is not to imply any ill-will on our part towards Woods: none is meant. It is merely to note that it is peculiar that lack of experience is perceived as a plus in the case of Woods and a negative in the case of Zavodnyik.

As for Simmonds, we are reminded of the six-word phrase that brought down a British Prime Minister in a recently aired episode of Doctor Who:

"Don't you think he looks tired?"

Venice Florida! dot com went to more charter review board meetings than all other media combined -- we followed this issue very closely and offered on the record input into the matters at hand at several of the meetings. These amendments are vital and critical as to the way in which city business will be conducted in the future. For Venetians, these are the most critical items on the entire November ballot.

We could write extensively about our reasoning in our recommendations, but the plain fact is that the Gondolier already did just that and came to the exact same conclusions we did for almost the exact same reasons we had. So if you want to understand our reasoning, read the Gondolier editorial that took the exact same stance. We agree 100%.

Well, 90% anyway.

Our reasoning, that came to the same conclusions as the Gondo, was a little different on two of the proposed changes. What we would really liked to have seen were two things.

On terms and term limits, we repeatedly suggested two four-year terms for council and two four-year terms for mayor and that's it, you're done, you can't ever serve gain. Oh, and dump that silly requirement that you have to wait a year out after some fixed time period. After anyone has served two full four-year terms on council, they can either take a shot at becoming mayor or it's back to the committees and boards. If you are appointed mid-term, that doesn't count for a full term if you haven't already served two full terms.

Two years ago, five people were running for two council seats. Fred Hammett was running unopposed for one seat, while the other seat had a four-way race. Hammett won with no votes while Bill Willson was elected to the other with 44.7% of the vote (meaning more than 50% voted against him in a single-seat race).

This is nuts. Just a plain loony way to run an election that has historically helped benefit the person who can spend the most (i.e., CQG candidates).

What we proposed instead to the Charter Review Board was eliminating council seat numbers and letting all candidates run in a pool. Take the 2004 elections, for instance. If five people were running for two seats, the voters ought to have been able to vote for any two, just like the local hospital board races. Would the outcome in 2004 have been any different? Maybe, but probably not given the campaign budget of the CQG PAC. It would have certainly leveled the playing field just a bit and campaign financing would have had a somewhat lesser impact.

Instead, we currently have meaningless seat numbers and candidtes have to file for a specific seat, a concept that only makes sense in elections involving districting (like the county commission races). That brings up the alternative idea of districting, where we would divide the city into seven parts and one candidate comes from each district. In a city this size, there seems to be little sense in that idea. Maybe if there were only five seats and five districts, but seven districts in this town would be ridiculous.

Both ideas -- the four-year terms and letting candidates run for election in a pool by eliminating council seat numbers -- were chuckled at. There was some discussion of the four-year terms as a method of reducing election expenses, but the idea was quickly rejected. We still think that both are viable ideas, far better to the voter than what is being offered.

The Herald-Tribune took a different approach to these same questions. We would submit that the H-T did not clearly and thoroughly think through the possible negative ramifications from their endorsements on the charter amendments. In fact, we can't recall any H-T reporter attending any charter review meeting.

State Constitutional Amendment 3, which would require broader support for Constitutional Amendments -- We endorse a NO vote
Hey, here's a thought -- why don't you allow yourself to become even more powerless in the face of big government? Isn't that a neato idea, kids? Bend over and smile... you'll like it... no, really!

Yeah, we've had some dumb amendments -- the fetal pig and the high-speed monorail amendments both seemed to come straight out of episodes of The Simpsons (video), but democracy is not always pretty.

Circuit Court Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit -- we endorse Preston DeVilbiss
Preston DeVilbiss' web site
DeVilbiss has been a consistent and solid judge in his past appearances on the bench. Fair, even handed and able to wade through cases with ease, grace and aplomb. He is a strict legalist, a by-the-book jurist.

Venice Florida! dot com's John Patten worked under DeVilbiss for two years as a probation officer during the early 1990s: "Out of all the judges that I've dealt with or seen in criminal courts, DeVilbiss was the most stable and consistent. He once reamed me out in court for asking for a lenient sentence on one probationer who had run out of money to pay his fines. I mean DeVilbiss just lit into me. I was horrified and I hadn't been doing this job for very long. After court, he ran up to me in the parking lot and told me to keep doing things the way I was doing them. DeVilbiss said the rant that he had aimed at me was actually a message he was sending to defendants in the courtroom that were sitting behind me in the gallery, that if they violate their probation for whatever reason, there would be hell to pay in the courtroom. He reminded me again to always speak my conscience in court and that if he had been really angry, it would have taken place in chambers. I was incredibly relieved and impressed. It also gave me a great tool to deal with some of the more difficult probationers, as I could honestly tell them that they really did not want to get their probation violated as DeVilbiss was not friendly about deliberate violations."

County Charter Review Board -- we endorse Bryan Worthington
Bryan Worthington's web site
We really haven't had the time to check out most of the folks running for Charter Review Board, but Bryan Worthington is a standout. He's been heavily involved in the South Venice Civic Association and has done a tremendous amount of volunteer work while he has kept the county on their toes to fulfill their obligations to the South Venice area. In other words, when it comes to protecting his community's rights, he's a scrapper.

He also has a hell of a lot of basic common sense, something that is sorely lacking in some governmental circles. He's young(ish), he's extremely intelligent, he still hasn't had his idealism pounded out of him (that oughtta last about six months into office), and he's just got that one blind spot where he thinks all of that may make a difference.

Who are we to tarnish his dreams?

Go forth, Bryan, and be trampled. But get some good things done before they run you over.

State Representative, 70th District -- we endorse David Shapiro
David Shapiro's web site
Another of those rare politicians, the idealist. That's two in a row. What are the odds?

Shapiro's opponent, Doug Holder, talks a lot about his family and family values, and that's been about as substantial as he's gotten. It's a good schtick that plays well with the brain-dead far-far-right Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson crowd, but even those on the moderate right were left scratching their heads. His battle in the primary for the Republican nomination was, in the words of the Venice Gondolier, "a war" that left the paper "disgusted" (story).

As for us, we just got the impression that Holder is waiting for his first chance to fleece a lobbyist.

Shapiro, on the other hand, bristled with ideas and energy on the campaign trail. Just listen to his full seven-minute speech at Bay Indies (ignore the horrible acoustics of the hall and the corny joke at the beginning).

'Nuff said.

County Charter Amendment on Verified Paper Ballots -- we endorse a YES vote
SAFE Vote's web site
Do you ever leave a store without a receipt? Do you think it's a good idea? Is your vote worth any less than some cheap knick-knack that's not worth getting a receipt for? It is?

Good man, you've made the right decision. Welcome to the abattoir. Just turn your head this way for a moment...

That seems to be the argument against paper ballots. Strangely enough, there's a good portion of idiots that agree with it. They should be euthanized.

and, finally...

U.S. Senate -- we endorse Katherine Harris' right boobie
In the Fark profile of this web site's editor, there appears a photo of him with Harris from the 2004 race (there's a smaller version of the same pic to the right -- click on it to enlarge and then this endorsement may make sense). As Farkers have noted, she's really cozy in this pic.

That said, this is the woman who, in 2000, managed to help violate every shred of decency from election offices around the state in a recount that was automatically kicked in by state law due to the fact that the original margin between Bush and Gore fell below the 5% difference threshold. Then there are all of the voters that year who were purged from the rolls on the basis that they might be felons. An astonishingly high number of people on the no-vote list were blacks with no felony records and yet still they were were denied the right to vote. As events and news unfolded, it turned out that Harris had a distinct role in the denial of voting rights to lawful voters. That Harris held the dual role of State Elections Supervisor and head of Florida's Bush campaign was probably the bitterest pill to swallow for these disenfranchised voters.

If you need a refresher on how this fiasco played out, here's an excellent online film documentary that was actually NOT made by Michael Moore.

Then there are Harris' more recent foibles, including her comments to a Christian crowd that electing a non-Christian would be the same as legislating sin. Many Jewish politicians and citizens were, rightfully, outraged and Harris eventually sucked up to Jewish audiences by back-peddling furiously.