Information on the judges that are on my Nov 2018 ballot

I decided NO to retain Judge Alan Lawson based on quote from this 2009 ARTICLE :

“The Governor is considering four nominees. Though we have more to learn about these nominees, we do know that Florida Right to Life, Florida Family Action, the National Rifle Association and the ultra right-wing American Family Association have begun to rally around the anti-choice Judge Alan Lawson.

I decided NO to retain Judge Allen Winsor based on quote from this ARTICLE:

“Mr. Winsor is a young, conservative ideologue who has attempted to restrict voting rights, LGBT equality, reproductive freedom, environmental protection, criminal defendants’ rights and gun safety,” the letter said. “He does not possess the neutrality and fair-mindedness necessary to serve in a lifetime position as a federal judge.”

We also should vote NO on Judge Allen Winsor to send a message to Bill Nelson that we support his decision to vote NO on Trump’s nomination of Winsor to a Federal District Court.  Details found HERE.  

I decided to vote NO to retain  Kemmerly Thomas based on this quote from this ARTICLE

A statewide gun control advocacy group is criticizing a decision by two judges to buy tickets to a fundraiser for a group affiliated with the National Rifle Association.  The Times/Herald reported that judges Clay Roberts and Kemmerly Thomas of the First District Court of Appeal confirmed they bought tables at the Sept. 15 event, a dinner and auction organized by “Friends of the NRA” that benefited the NRA Foundation, a public charity.

If you find it bizarre that the NRA Foundation is called a charity (as I did), here is a quote from this  ARTICLE :  NRA Foundation, is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization “designed to promote firearms ….”

Part of me wants to vote NO on any judge associated with the Federalist Society since the news has been very enlightening about Garsuch and Kavanaugh’s association with the Federalist Society and what that will mean to the country.  This is a quote from this ARTICLE

Judge Harvey Jay and Judge Stephanie W. Ray were both appointed to the First District Court of Appeal  by Governor Rick Scott.   Six of the judges Scott has named to appellate courts since taking office either list themselves as members of the Federalist Society or have been on the agenda to appear before one of the first two annual conferences of the Florida chapters of the society. Dorothy Easley, a past chair of the Appellate Practice Section of The Florida Bar, said most judges at the appellate courts appear to be making decisions based on the law, not the governor who appoints them.

We need legislators that will promote public education consistent with Florida’s Constitution

Paraphrased from an ARTICLE  about the race between Kimberly Daniels and Paula Wright:  Daniels said that people voted for her because they want prayers said out loud at the podium at public school events, and they want teachers to be able to proselytize their own religion at the public school, and they want taxpayers to fund unregulated charter schools and give taxpayer funds to private schools.

I read that Kimberly Daniels was heavily funded by Republican PACS. Was it some of the advertising from those PACS that swayed voters? My guess is that it was something in those flyers and NOT that voters supported bills like SB 436.  Don’t most people want their religion taught at home and at their religious institutions and NOT at the public school?  The public schools include people from a variety of religions as well as the non-religious.  This is the essence of SB 436 that Daniels and Bean and Fischer voted YES on:

Public schools (but not charter schools) must allow prayers said out loud at the podium at school events, and teachers must be allowed to proselytize their own religion at the school

Quote from this ARTICLE:

SB 436 will create a legal quagmire, as well as divisive consequences for Florida’s public schools. Our public schools are in no way devoid of religion. The First Amendment and federal law already provide students with the right to privately pray alone or in groups during non-curricular time, as well as pray to themselves at any time

School choice (at this time) means giving taxpayer funds to under-regulated charter schools and to private schools via vouchers.  “Charter schools are freed from many of the regulations that govern traditional public schools ” is a quote from the Duval County Public School WEBSITE .  That wording troubles me. I would prefer that they say:

Our legislators do not require charter schools to follow the regulations that they have imposed on our neighborhood schools. Why? If the regulations are valuable, why aren’t the charter schools required to follow them? If the regulations are not valuable, then why are they being imposed on our neighborhood schools?

The League of Women Voters have SUGGESTIONS for regulations for charter schools that will help prevent some of the abuses. Integrity Florida also has   SUGGESTIONS

We need legislators that are willing to incorporate those ideas into the laws that allow funding of charter schools. Even one of the promoters of charter schools is now calling for more regulation. You can read about that at this LINK

Jason Fischer and Aaron Bean are the reps for my district. They (like Kimberly Daniels) voted YES on SB 436 and HB 989. Fischer and Bean voted YES on HB 7069 while Daniels didn’t vote on that one. Is not voting as bad as voting YES if the end result is to let the bill pass?

And since they (Kimberly Daniels and Jason Fischer and Aaron Bean) allowed HB 7069 to pass, we could also add that they want the State to decide which charter schools are in our communities rather than letting the local elected school board make that decision.  How can HB 7069 be constitutional based on Section 4 (b) of Article IX of Florida’s Constitution? Here is what 4 (b) says:

 The school board shall operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district and determine the rate of school district taxes within the limits prescribed herein.

Florida’s Constitution Article IX Section 4 (b) seems a great idea to me. The school board can best determine what charter schools are needed in their district. And the voters can vote school board members in or out IF we don’t feel they are making good decisions for our city.

What’s the deal with the State Legislators promoting charters? Is the end goal to privatize education? Let’s posit that there is a place in our education system for charter schools. Shouldn’t the local school board decide which funds should be spent in the neighborhoods? The school board is made up of elected officials for our community. They know the community. We shouldn’t be paying a lease to a for-profit entity that a state legislator is personally profiting from while a school building is standing in need of repair. The charter school could be part of the public school building. The local school board is better equipped to make decisions (like that) than the state. HB 7069 is most likely against Florida’s Constitution Article IX Section 4 (b)

My guess is that most citizens would NOT want  HB 7069 and SB 436 if they understood them. Am I wrong?

Kimberly Daniels, Jason Fischer, and Aaron Bean also voted yes on HB 989. If HB 989 is a good idea, then why doesn’t it apply to any school that receives taxpayer funds? HB 989 doesn’t apply to charter schools or private schools that receive taxpayer money. Why not? HB 989 is about allowing the community to debate what books are used to teach the curriculum in the school.

public education

References:
Vote for HB 989: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/00989/?Tab=VoteHistory
Vote for SB 436: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/00436/?Tab=VoteHistory
Vote for HB 7069: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/7069/?Tab=VoteHistory

Do dress codes imposed by societal norms, cultural pressures, religious rules and/or government laws hurt self esteem, equality, fairness and/or justice?

I heard Professor Stuber on First Coast Connect talking about dress codes that target women and the possible effect on women’s self esteem.  You can hear  it at this LINK

School Dress Codes starts around minute 33 

I grew up hearing how women’s dress caused men to rape them.   It angers me.   Why can’t men be trained?  I don’t think it is the woman’s dress that causes some men’s bad behavior.  Boys should be taught manners and respect and the difference between yes and no.

The choice of attire belongs to the individual.   People’s reaction to that dress is their own responsibility.

this LINK  is to a GREAT article about dress codes and norms.  It brings up a lot of things to consider.  When we criticize anyone’s dress, are we considering their background and their family situation?   Perhaps we could all be a little kinder.

Some reasons why no one should hit kids

All this is copied from Becky’s page where she said we were free to share:

I’ve [again this “I” here and below is Becky since this was copied from her page] been asked to share some links to studies and information about using corporal punishment with children.

Here we go! See the comments for additional links.

This is public, you are welcome to share.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

This may be one of the best articles to read because of how plainly it illustrates that in the US, we overvalue pain and undervalue children. This simple phrase – overvaluing pain and undervaluing children – is a really devastating indictment of our culture.

And it’s true, you can see in many domains of life how children are undervalued (e.g. funding of education) and pain is overvalued (consider the dominant religious culture that is founded on human sacrifice, torture, and blood atonement; or consider the pressures of the workplace)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2028343

Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample

This study took place in Canada.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/7/805.short

When you hit your kindergartner more, your kindergartner hits their peers more.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/spanking-in-the-home-and-childrens-subsequent-aggression-toward-kindergarten-peers/A7885BAC743099CD174689E11D0428A7

This is a video discussing child abuse in the context of the video game of The Walking Dead, for those who might be more interested in video content, gaming, etc than reading scientific studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGl12Sv9SNs

Spanking increases antisocial behaviors.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/518458

This study was investigating whether effects of spanking are different amongst different cultural/ethnic groups.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01732.x

Spanking 3 year olds increases aggressive behavior seen through age 5.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057.short

“The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior.”

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/723.full

This is a good article from a mommy blog that gives parents some good tips for how to manage their toddler’s behavior. This is a good resource for those who want to get their information from a layperson who has several children of their own.

https://happyyouhappyfamily.com/handle-kids-temper-tantrums/

Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children

Spanking is violence against children.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdep.12038

2018 Amendments on the Florida Ballot-short version

1 and  2 and 5 and 7 and 10— Voting NO because I agree with the LWV’s position per their website LINK.

# 3. You should vote YES if you do NOT want gambling casinos in Florida.  I don’t know why else you’d vote YES.  See the actual wording on page 7 of the 46 page flyer explaining all the amendments at this LINK

# 4. Definitely voting YES to restoring the voting rights of those that have finished their penalty of prison, probation and parole. Florida is one of only four states that permanently bar felons from voting after their sentences are completed.

# 6. Voting no based on this (from the ACLU website  LINK):

Amendment 6 (if it passes) would give huge corporations a new right to inject themselves into criminal proceedings and appear in court with their high-powered lawyers to have a say in sentencing and bail hearings when they accuse people of even relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting.

I would vote NO on this part even if it stood alone. Quote (from the 46 page State of Florida booklet about the amendments at this LINK):

[If amendment 6 passes] ….. a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action pursuant to general law may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo  …..

It is VERY sad that the CRC put this awful stuff in this amendment rather than addressing some of the issues raised by people advocating for Marsy’s Law.  I hope that advocates of Marsy’s Law also see that they must vote NO on amendment 6 because of the above problems.

# 8.  This one will not be on the ballot because the courts ruled that the CRC’s wording was confusing and misleading.

# 9. Definitely voting YES. No drilling off our shores. Drilling off our shores puts our beautiful beaches in danger of oil spills.  This is another one that the CRC bundled unrelated issues into.  I hope those unrelated issues won’t stop you from voting YES.

# 11. Definitely voting YES based on quote from ACLU (LINK):

Amendment 11 – Vote YES–The ACLU of Florida supports Amendment 11 because it would address mass incarceration by allowing criminal justice reforms to apply retroactively. Right now, many people are incarcerated under harsh sentencing laws that could soon be reformed, but even if the legislature changes those sentencing laws, they won’t apply to people currently affected by them. If Amendment 11 passes, reforms to mandatory minimum sentencing or drug policy reform could apply to people currently serving under sentences that the legislature no longer believes are fair.

The CRC put unrelated things in the amendment but that should NOT stop you from voting YES. The unrelated things: The issue regarding the ability of non-citizens to purchase and sell property cannot be enforced, And it deletes obsolete language having to do with high-speed rail in Florida.

# 12.  I think I am voting yes. I am still gathering information.  I hope amendment 12 will stop these abuses is why I want to vote yes.  Quote from this ARTICLE :

Some Florida legislators are profiting from the charter-school industry while they have been actively involved in pushing — and successfully passing — legislation to fund for-profit private schools at the expense of public education.

 # 13. Definitely voting YES I have been convinced there is animal abuse

Amendments that will be on the Florida 2018 ballot

Early voting is October 22nd to November 4th.  You can early vote at most libraries in Jacksonville.  Please vote early and take your completed sample ballot with you.  You don’t want to be deciding on these amendments at the polling booth.

You can get information from these websites about the amendments that will be on our Florida ballot:

http://floridaballotguide.com/
https://www.lwvfl.org/amendments/ 
http://www.bobgrahamcenter.ufl.edu/content/2018-amendmentsreferendums

These three only list the amendments for which they have a stated position:  https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/florida-politics­

https://www.aclufl.org/en/aclu-florida-2018-voter-guide-select-constitutional-amendments­

https://protectdogs.org

And here is the link to information on the Duval County website:
https://duval.electionsfl.org/Election-Information/Constitutional-Amendments

And you can print out the 46 page booklet about the amendments from this website:
https://duval.electionsfl.org/Portals/Duval/Documents/Elections/2018%20Election/constitutional-amendments-2018-general-election-english.pdf

Here is what I have decided about the amendments so far: 
1 AND 2— Voting NO because I agree with the LWV’s position which you can see at their website at this  LINK

3. People that are anti-gambling should vote YES on this.  See page 7 of the pamphlet at the Florida website which includes the exact wording of the amendment at this LINK.  Amendment #3 is supported by Disney, No Casinos Inc and Seminole Tribe of FL.  Someone told me that a ‘Yes’ vote for #3 almost guarantees gambling will be locked out of Florida with exception of Indian Casinos.

4. Definitely voting YES to restoring the voting rights of those that have finished their penalty of prison, probation and parole. Florida is one of only four states that permanently bar felons from voting after their sentences are completed.

5. Oppose. Quote from the LWV website: This amendment does not include a provision that would allow for tax increases in times of emergencies (hurricane, floods, recession, etc.) and is an abrogation of the Legislature’s fiduciary responsibility to pass a reasonable budget.

6. Oppose.  I am voting no based on this (from the ACLU website—see link above):

Amendment 6 (if it passes) would give huge corporations a new right to inject themselves into criminal proceedings and appear in court with their high-powered lawyers to have a say in sentencing and bail hearings when they accuse people of even relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting.

I would vote NO on this part even if it stood alone. Quote (from the 46 page State of Florida booklet about the amendments–see link above):

[If amendment 6 passes] ….. a state court or an officer hearing an administrative action pursuant to general law may not defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of such statute or rule, and must instead interpret such statute or rule de novo  …..

It is VERY sad that the CRC put this awful stuff in this amendment rather than addressing some of the victim’s issues.  People advocating for Marsy’s Law should be VERY angry at the CRC for NOT addressing their concerns.  I hope that advocates of Marsy’s Law also see that they must vote NO on amendment 6 because of the above problems.

7. Oppose. Quote from LWV website: We oppose a supermajority vote to increase fees or taxes. Family members of the military who die in the line of service are already compensated through the federal government.

8.  This one will not be on the ballot since the lower court and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the wording is confusing and misleading.

9. Definitely voting YES. No drilling off our shores. Drilling off our shores puts our beautiful beaches in danger of oil spills.  This is another one that the CRC bundled unrelated issues into.  I hope those unrelated issues won’t stop you from voting YES.

10. Oppose. Quote from the LWV website: This limits the voters in local communities from deciding on the election of county officers.  FDLE is already the lead agency in coordinating efforts to prevent terrorism, and the Constitution already has authorized the Legislature to create a Department of Veteran Affairs.

11. I am voting yes on 11 because it allows for someone’s sentence to be reduced if a law changes. Below quote from ACLU (see link above):

Amendment 11 – Vote YES–The ACLU of Florida supports Amendment 11 because it would address mass incarceration by allowing criminal justice reforms to apply retroactively. Right now, many people are incarcerated under harsh sentencing laws that could soon be reformed, but even if the legislature changes those sentencing laws, they won’t apply to people currently affected by them. If Amendment 11 passes, reforms to mandatory minimum sentencing or drug policy reform could apply to people currently serving under sentences that the legislature no longer believes are fair.

Here is a link to a GREAT article about this amendment 11:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/250441-constitution-revision-allow-retroactive-criminal-law-changes­   Quotes from article: The coalition contends that Florida is the last state in the union to have a Savings Clause in its Constitution. The coalition includes The James Madison Institute, Unified Sportsmen of Florida, Florida Tax Watch, Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, FreedomWorks, the R Street Institute, Right On Crime, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums, among others.
end quote
Section 9 Article X is already in our Florida Constitution. Amendment 11 would amend it by adding the underlined portion and deleting the struck through portion.

amendment 11-1

The CRC put unrelated things in the amendment but that should NOT stop you from voting YES. The unrelated things: The issue regarding the ability of non-citizens to purchase and sell property cannot be enforced, And it deletes obsolete language having to do with high-speed rail in Florida.

12.  I want to stop legislators from pushing legislation that will harm the state but enrich themselves personally.    I think the goal of amendment 12 is to stop those abuses so I’m fairly sure I’m voting yes.   Quote from this ARTICLE  that talks about charter schools and vouchers being used by legislators to enrich themselves:

They crafted the most important parts of education bill HB 7069 in secret, acting in possible violation of the open government laws. There was no debate allowed and educators all across the state were left without a voice in the process. It’s no wonder it all went down in the dark. It’s a clear conflict of interest for members of the Florida Legislature who have a stake in charter schools to vote to fund and expand them.  It’s an abuse of power.

13. Many say vote YES because of dog abuse.   I have been convinced that there is animal abuse and I am voting yes.  People will still be able to bet on dog racing BUT not on live dog races in Florida if this passes.  Full text of this amendment (from the 46 page State of Florida booklet about the amendments–see link above):

The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. After December 31, 2020, a person authorized to conduct gaming or pari-mutuel operations may not race greyhounds or any member of the Canis Familiaris subspecies in connection with any wager for money or any other thing of value in this state, and persons in this state may not wager money or any other thing of value on the outcome of a live dog race occurring in this state. The failure to conduct greyhound racing or wagering on greyhound racing after December 31, 2018, does not constitute grounds to revoke or deny renewal of other related gaming licenses held by a person who is a licensed greyhound permitholder on January 1, 2018, and does not affect the eligibility of such permitholder, or such permitholder’s facility, to conduct other pari-mutuel activities authorized by general law. By general law, the legislature shall specify civil or criminal penalties for violations of this section and for activities that aid or abet violations of this section. 

Who has given the invocation during the 2018-2019 city council year?

I have grown bored with keeping track of who gives the invocation at the Jacksonville City Council meetings.  If you’d like to start keeping track of the invocation speakers, let me know and I can add you as an author so you can add to this blog post.

July 24, 2018–At this LINK you can hear the invocation given at the first city council meeting of Aaron Bowman’s term as city council president.  Perhaps if you listened to the introduction to the invocation, you (too) will have these questions:

1. What did Council Member Schellenberg mean by faith-based?  Is he signaling that he (like Doyle Carter) won’t be inviting those that are non-religious to give the invocation?  

2. Why did Council Member Gulliford ask everyone to stand before the invocation?  That’s not allowed, correct?

3. Is Council Member Schellenberg the new appointed Chaplain per Jacksonville City Council rule 1.106 ?  

RULE 1.106 CHAPLAIN The President may appoint one Council Member to be Chaplain of the Council, who shall arrange to open each meeting of the Council with a prayer/invocation. The President or Chaplain may invite or designate others to provide appropriate ceremonies.

 

Don’t burden the public schools with unnecessary rules

If a rule is good, then all schools getting taxpayer money (including those tax credit scholarship funds) should be required to follow it.  If it isn’t a good rule, then why do public schools have to follow it?

Please write your state representative.  And if they don’t agree with you, please consider that when you vote in August and November.  Why are charters and private schools that receive taxpayer money not required to follow the same rules (including FS 1006.28 to 1006.31) as public schools?   You can find those statutes at LINK

In my view Florida Citizens Alliance is the bad guy in this story.  Flascience.org is the good guy.

Quote from an article found at http://www.flascience.org/?p=3280 :

And parent Eric Otto said “… Florida Citizens Alliance wants religion to balance science in a science class. To me that seems like teaching financial literacy in english class.”

Here is a quote from the Florida Citizens Alliance website (LINK)

[Under] FS 1006.31 Charlotte County residents [note it says residents and not parents] presented their concerns to the school board ……. at least fifteen of the textbooks present evolution as fact. … which violates [according to Florida Citizens Alliance] Florida law (FS 1006.31.2) that requires textbooks to be “accurate, objective, balanced, non-inflammatory”

Excerpt from Rabbi Shapiro’s article that alerted me to this issue:

The Florida Citizen’s Alliance, the FLCA, is likely to bring their efforts to a county near us!  We must remain vigilant and prepared to preserve academic integrity and sound science. When they challenge textbooks being used in our neighborhoods, a hearing is required [by FS 1006.31]. You can be a hearing officer, if you wish!  Just contact the school board and let them know you wish to become a hearing officer for cases of school book challenges!

How to Contact the Board Office

E-Mail:

• District 1 – The Honorable Cheryl Grymes| grymesc@duvalschools.org

• District 2 – The Honorable Scott Shine  shinef@duvalschools.org

• District 3 – The Honorable Ashley Smith Juarez| juareza1@duvalschools.org

• District 4 – The Honorable Paula D. Wright| wrightp@duvalschools.org

• District 5 – The Honorable Warren A. Jones | jonesw2@duvalschools.org

• District 6 – The Honorable Becki Couch | couchr@duvalschools.org

• District 7 – The Honorable Lori Hershey | hersheyl@duvalschools.org

Phone:

• District 1 – The Honorable Cheryl Grymes | 390-2371

• District 2 – The Honorable Scott Shine | 390-2386

• District 3 – The Honorable Ashley Smith Juarez | 390-2239

• District 4 – The Honorable Paula D. Wright | 390-2374

• District 5 – The Honorable Warren A. Jones | 390-2372

• District 6 – The Honorable Becki Couch | 390-2373

• District 7 – The Honorable Lori Hershey | 390-2375

IF someone insists on discriminating against minority religions as part of their government job, then that isn’t the job for them.  Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, and all other world views need to be treated equally.

podium but biggerDuring the 2017-2018 City Council year, Doyle Carter has invited mostly Baptists to give the invocation. Here is a link to the list of invocation speakers for the 2017-2018 City Council year:  https://uniteusdonotdivideus.com/category/invocations-and-jacksonville-information/who-has-given-the-invocation-this-year/

I have asked Doyle Carter repeatedly about his selection process.  My question went unanswered.

If Doyle Carter runs for another office, please keep in mind that he did not answer my question asking him how he selects invocation speakers.  I was told by City Council President Anna Brosche that Carter volunteered for the position of chaplain.   Why is he refusing to tell us how he selects the invocation speakers?  Is that the kind of elected official you want in office?   Do you want to elect someone who won’t tell his constituents how he conducts the job he has volunteered to do?

The Jacksonville City Council has an invocation forum which is supposed to be open to the public. The Greece v Galloway U.S. Supreme Court decision is clear when it comes to invocations at City Council meetings. If the Jacksonville City Council opens the forum to the public, then it must be open to all voices. In other words, you don’t get to pick and choose whom you accept and whom you refuse. When you ignore a Jacksonville citizen or an entire subset of Jacksonville citizens attempting to participate in this public forum, you are essentially saying to that person or persons their beliefs or their invocations are not welcome in their own community. It’s prejudicial and unconstitutional, but it is also unkind and unfair.

The City Council President can appoint a chaplain.  The chaplain is in charge of appointing invocation speakers.  The City Council President (and hence the President’s appointees) changes every year. I hope future City Council Presidents will appoint chaplains who do not have a goal of excluding people from the invocation period.

IF someone has the belief that all prayers need to include the words “in Jesus’s name we pray” and if they also believe  no one should be allowed to give the invocation (out loud at the podium at a government meeting) unless they agree to say those words, then this person is NOT someone who should be appointed as chaplain.   Here is a quote from past City Council President Clay Yarborough:

 “The scripture teaches that unless one prays in the name of Jesus Christ, and since he is our only way to the Father, that is how one should pray. And that is what I believe.”

That quote can be found at this link: https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/inquisition-in-jacksonville-religious-right-grills-muslim-nominee-for  When Yarborough became City Council President, he appointed Doyle Carter to be Chaplain.  During that 2014-2015 City Council year, only Doyle Carter and Kimberly Daniels gave the invocation. They both always said the words “in Jesus’ Name We Pray” during the invocation period.  Many people spoke during the public comment period about the practice of not inviting the entire community to have the opportunity to speak during the invocation period. Here is a link to one of those 3 minute public comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Facp1ckvJAA

During the 2015-2016 City Council year, a Humanist’s request to give the invocation was accepted.  Here is the link to his invocation at the city council meeting:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyoD4__nfZ0&t=14s

During the 2016-2017 City Council year, there was more diversity as seen on the list at this link: https://uniteusdonotdivideus.com/2016/07/31/invocation-speakers-july-2016-to-june-2017-for-jacksonville-city-council-meetings/

BUT during the 2017-2018 City Council year, Doyle Carter has invited mostly Baptists to give the invocation. Here is a link to the list of invocation speakers for the 2017-2018 City Council year:  https://uniteusdonotdivideus.com/category/invocations-and-jacksonville-information/who-has-given-the-invocation-this-year/  Please note that it is one Catholic and the rest Protestants and mostly Baptists.  Why didn’t Carter invite speakers from other religions?  Why did he volunteer for a job that he didn’t want to properly perform?

Here is a copy of my emails where I asked Carter about his policy:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Susan
Date: Mon, Apr 9, 2018
To: “Carter, Doyle” <doylec@coj.net>, “Brosche, Anna” <ABROSCHE@coj.net>, “Gabriel, Jason” <JGabriel@coj.net>
Honorable Doyle Carter,

The list that you sent me did not include the date that the speakers applied.  IF you do NOT keep track of that, please let me know.  IF you did keep track of it, please provide me that information under the rules of 119 or the Florida Statutes.  Specifically I have these questions:
1. Do you put people on the schedule as they apply?  If yes, was the list that you provided me in order of when people applied?
2. Do you put people on a list of people applying with no indication of the date they applied?  If yes, how do you pick who will be on the schedule?
Thanks,
Susan
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Susan
Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2018

Council Member Carter— Thank you for the list (attached).  I had hoped that it would include the dates that people contacted you requesting to be put on the list and the method by which they contacted you.  Would you please include that information?  How do you make your choices?  Do you put people on the list as they call (or email) with the date of contact?
Thanks,
Susan
Concerned citizen that loves our First Amendment