“Sarasotans have made their wishes in this governance debate crystal clear. We believe this is yet another confirmation of the intelligence and good judgment of Sarasota's voters.”

When Eileen Normile made that statement to the press I had to wonder, had Citizens Voice, the group working to defeat the petition to allow a vote on the revised City Charter, always been so tone deaf, or was it a recent affliction?  Was the low dismissive note intentional in the suggestion that those 2,000 voters—who by signing petitions that would have allowed us all to actually vote—had not shown intelligence and good judgment in doing so?

Did they not glance at the list of petitioners from every district, every precinct? Not recognize the names of their neighbors, perhaps their friends, all of them investing their lives, their families and their future here? Are their voices not worthy to be heard in the "debate"?

And what of this theoretical crystal clarity? There are around 36,000 registered voters in the City of Sarasota. Is the Citizens Voice really so full of themselves as to believe they can lay claim to the 34,000 voters who didn’t sign the petition? And, had It’s Time secured the requisite 10 percent of signatures, would “crystal clarity” have then been ours to flaunt? Of course not—that’s not how democracy works.

Do you suppose the tone deaf know they are tone deaf? Or do they just bleat on, off key until members of the audience finally speak up. And does the Citizens Voice ever wake in the middle of the night all sweaty and squirmy with sudden self-awareness and doubt? Do they lie there feeling small and alone replaying in their minds what they’ve said, wishing they’d taken a moment to consider how their tone might have soured the community of voices they pretend to represent?

From my perspective only two things have become clear via this recent adventure in democracy. To insure the robust voice of November voters is heard we only need to knock on more doors, and the Citizens Voice will do whatever is takes to mute any voice but theirs.

SRQ Daily offers a forum for all to speak their minds. I respect that and avoid using my column to back talk what others write—until now.

Frank Brenner wants us to shun Michael Barfield because when Michael was 19 years old he committed a felony. Mr. Brenner made his career defending felons—one a man who shot and maimed four teenagers on a New York subway. I’ve been witness for years in this City to violations—innocent or not—of our Sunshine Law, and Michael Barfield has earned his redemption by defending that Law, and with it our rights to open government. I don’t always agree with Michael, but I respect him, and I know this: the Sunshine Law deserves as zealous a defense as those four teenagers. 

If I were drowning and Michael swam out to save me, I’d let him, and if Frank Brenner is so pious he would swim the other way, well then so be it. 

SRQ Daily Columnist Diana Hamilton, after living 35 years in Sarasota, labels herself a pragmatic optimist with radical humorist tendencies and a new found resistance to ice cream