Well Sheriff

[Unregistered]

Here are a few of the papers/media voicing their opposition to Amendment 10:

Opposition
The Sun-Sentinel said: "This piece of dirty work would prohibit any county’s voters from adopting a charter that changes the duties of certain constitutional officers or allows them to be appointed, rather than elected. It’s clearly intended to overturn parts of eight charters, including that of Miami-Dade, which has an appointed public safety director instead of an elected sheriff. It also would require Broward to begin electing a tax collector and build a separate bureaucracy. The commission tacked on irrelevant provisions to change the Legislature’s session dates, which the legislature has already changed, and create an office of counter-terrorism in the Department of Law Enforcement, which already has one. For all of this, Amendment 10 merits a resounding 'no.'"[10]
The News-Press said: "No on Amendment 10: Don't be deceived by this crowded amendment. It calls for all 67 counties to elect their sheriff, tax collector, elections supervisor and clerk of courts. Only one county, Miami-Dade, does not elect its sheriff, and only a handful do not elect the other constitutional officers. This is strictly a battle for those counties that don't elect those officers, not most of the state. The other two bundled items in this amendment are also weak attempts to muddy the system. It requires the Legislature to start its annual session in January instead of March during even-numbered election years. This is only an attempt to allow lawmakers to get out and campaign sooner. That's not good government. It also creates a counter-terrorism and security office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Most law enforcement agencies already have versions of this. It also requires the state to have a Department of Veterans Affairs, which already exists."[11]
The Tampa Bay Times said: "This amendment would subvert local control by forcing every county to elect rather than appoint its sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections and clerk of courts — whether it wanted to or not. Those already are elected offices in most counties, but the choice should be theirs, not the state’s. Other parts of the amendment are uncontroversial but also unnecessary. It would establish a counterterrorism office within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and add to the Constitution a state Department of Veterans’ Affairs. It would make permanent the Legislature’s recent practice of beginning sessions in even-numbered years in January, rather than March. All of those elements either already are or can be handled by state law and don’t need to be enshrined in the Constitution. On Amendment 10, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No."[12]
The Tallahassee Democrat said: "[Amendments 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13] are the detritus of the Constitution Revision Commission, with little or no impact on the lives of average Floridians, the kind of multi-tasking snowballing the CRC littered its amendments with — unrelated topics cobbled together in take-it-or-leave-it propositions. For most of them, we say leave it."[13]
Your Observer said: "While uniformity in the elected offices of Florida’s 67 counties makes sense, most people also know that government is best when decisions are made locally and not dictated by the state. The crux of this amendment would reduce voters’ freedom to govern themselves. We recommend: Vote no."[14]
The Treasure Coast Newspapers said: "The bundling of these unrelated proposals is ridiculous. Additionally, Amendment 10 infringes on the home rule of counties that choose to appoint their officials."[15]
Additional editorial endorsements
In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following outlets have also endorsed a no vote on the measure:
The Florida Times-Union[16]
The Herald-Tribune[17]

Blah blah blah

[Unregistered]

Blah blah blah

I am not going to lie Chitwood...you have had better comebacks than this. I guess the Rogaine is starting to affect your mental sharpness.

[Unregistered]

Are you just kidding or are you really stupid and delusional enough to think Mike Chitwood is spending his time reading LEO Affairs message boards?

[Unregistered]

Are you just kidding or are you really stupid and delusional enough to think Mike Chitwood is spending his time reading LEO Affairs message boards?

Yes they are stupid enough to think that. But to their defense, they have to think that otherwise they’re doing it all for nothing. They are delusional.

[Unregistered]

Yes they are stupid enough to think that. But to their defense, they have to think that otherwise they’re doing it all for nothing. They are delusional.

Equally stupid to make the argument that the liberal newspapers are right

[Unregistered]

Equally stupid to make the argument that the liberal newspapers are right

Nice comeback Chitwood.....speaking of liberal newspapers. I wonder if one would call favoring illegal immigration and sanctuary cities that of a conservative nature or that of being liberal.....hmmm

[Unregistered]

Nice comeback Chitwood.....speaking of liberal newspapers. I wonder if one would call favoring illegal immigration and sanctuary cities that of a conservative nature or that of being liberal.....hmmm

Every educated factually based comment such as yours, never seems to be challenged or explained ever...

[Unregistered]

Are you just kidding or are you really stupid and delusional enough to think Mike Chitwood is spending his time reading LEO Affairs message boards?

If he isn’t reading them on here, you can rest assured his little ****suckers (I.e. Kyle Bainbridge) are sending him screen shots.

[Unregistered]

Are you just kidding or are you really stupid and delusional enough to think Mike Chitwood is spending his time reading LEO Affairs message boards?

Well he did approach a ICAC investigator about trying to identify anonymous poster specifically on this site.

[Unregistered]

Well he did approach a ICAC investigator about trying to identify anonymous poster specifically on this site.

I heard he took a shit the other day. So what?