More on Grapski's Goof
Mr. Grapski continues to distort the state constitution for the purpose of building his own grand conspiracy, but he does so by publishing only selected fact. For instance, he did not publish the half of the consitutional provison that clearly does not define an "officer" as a hired employee.
"(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.", and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies. "
"(c) The powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county officers shall be fixed by law."
In addition, in the Attorney General's opinion, he recognized that government employees, especially in small towns, often hold more than one job. In fact, the Attorney General listed specific exceptions, including sworn police officers also made state attorney investigators because they weren't being paid (Vinales v. State).
Mr. Grapski goes on to incorrectly state:
"It is also clear from the City's Charter that there are specific duties, sharing in the sovereign power, allocated to each of the offices of "Police Commissioner" and "City Manager".
This is factually incorrect. The city charter (link here) does not define any specific duties for a police commissioner, nor does it mention the position or the police department, at all. It is nothing more than a made up title granted, without pay, and approved by commissioners that were also affiliated with the ALA.
That brings us back to the most important point of the whole issue. Mr. Grapski holds this up as an example of corruption in the City of Alachua. Especially given the two commissioners that motioned and seconded the approval of the contract. If they are wrong, then they are wrong, but there is no evidence that this is an example of corruption.
Posted by SJ