Good afternoon.

Let me call to order the special investigative committee on JEA.

Let me begin by introductions and I'll make some opening comments.

And then we'll get started.

Let me start from my far left.

Colleen Hamsey, Council Research.

Very Staphoulos, Office of General Counsel.

Brian Parks, Council Auditor's Office.

Kim Taylor, Council Auditor.

Jason Teal, Council Secretary.

Good afternoon, Rory Diamond, District 13, the beaches.

Ron Salem, group two at large.

Jacobi Pittman, Dick Street 10.

Kevin Kariko, District 4.

Michael Boylan, District 6.

I'm just visiting.

I've got a 2 o'clock PSG meeting, so I'm going to hang her in for as long as I can.

Thank you.

Matt Carlucci at large group 4.

Thank you, everyone.

Mr.

President, do you have any opening comments or anything?

Okay.

What I what I'd like to do today is keep the uh the dialogue between the committee, Councilmember Diamond, myself, and Ms.

Pittman.

At the end, if we have some time at the end, we will allow some time to any uh non-members to ask questions or make any comments they would like to make.

So I think that's the best way to do this.

Let me go through some issues before we get to testimony.

Uh first, let me go to the council auditors for an update on the capacity fee issue.

Ms.

Taylor.

Yes, sir.

Through the chair to the committee, um, just to let you know that we have had uh multiple meetings, um uh my staff, Mr.

Parks, and uh another employee within our office with JEA personnel, probably upwards of over 10 meetings to get an understanding of the process, treating it like an audit, but just for our purposes and being able to talk to the committee review, but process-wise, trying to do our normal, get the understanding of everything that's going on over there process-wise, so we can understand what initial fees because keep in mind if somebody in order to determine those initial and the charge of the committee, the additional charges, we've got to get an understanding from very old records of what initial capacity charges were paid because they may have um paid into development, so to speak, at the start.

Um so trying to do all that, we've met with the Office of General Counsel, uh, Mr.

Fackler and Mr.

Reingold um two times to have a meeting get an understanding of some of the legal questions that we have.

Um so we are continuing that process and we'll continue working through to try to get an understanding of everything that we can related to this in order to um complete the charge.

Um hopefully that's our goal, depending on some of the records that that we can get that are quite old.

Um we'll discuss that as we start getting through that, but that that's a brief update for you.

Ms.

Taylor, you're still going through Mr.

Facklet to get to to Regina Ross.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Let me just mention there is a committee meeting tomorrow that I've asked uh Mr.

Teal to attend, where the issue of her privilege is going to be discussed by the board of JEA.

And uh I thought it would be helpful if we had some representation there.

Um I'm hopeful that we can get some limited privileged uh testimony from her, particularly on the capacity fees and in some sense the culture issues without revealing any um uh secret information of JEA, but that will be up to the board to to decide.

And we'll see where that goes.

Okay.

Update on requests for information from from JEA Human Resources.

Um Councilmember Pittman, I spoke to Diane Moser.

She received our request.

She was very uh appreciative that we gave her 30 days to complete it.

Um I I don't see any issue that we won't have that information inside of 30 days.

So I will keep you posted as soon as I receive something.

Okay.

Umber Diamond.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So just uh I think everybody saw in the uh the news this morning that there is a state attorney from uh State Attorney Melissa Nelson subpoena out to JEA.

And so I the issue is, Mr.

Chair, um back when we did the first JEA SIC, the federal prosecutor, Tyson Duva, called me as the chair and said, Hey, don't talk about this, don't ask about this, leave those for us.

And I said absolutely okay.

So I I you know I need to ask you, have we do we have guidance on this point uh from the state attorney?

In fact, I called the state attorney this morning.

Um they have indicated they want to open dialogue between the sick and their office, but they put absolutely no restrictions on us continuing our process.

So we will continue as we are today.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

And just for anybody listening at home, there is like many levels of investigations that can happen.

And so on the state level, uh Councilman Salem is talking about the State Attorney.

I've also had conversations with the Statewide Prosecutor's Office who also said they were looking in at JEA and said that uh again, same thing, no restrictions.

Just do whatever you need to do.

Um so that's out there.

Uh the other interesting thing about the State Attorney uh subpoena that I read this morning is that it asked for text messages and all sorts of stuff from JEA going back to last summer.

Um, however, and I promise I'm not picking and choosing between uh news agencies, but if you watch some of the action news stuff, they were talking about texts that go to January 2025 related to the Ballard contract and potential you know um influence in the Ballard contract in 2025.

So for the State Attorney, if she is listening, uh your subpoena seems to be a few months short.

You need to go all the way back to January 2025 if you are going to capture what was covered by that agency.

Okay.

Mr.

DeSalvo, would you like to come up here?

Um let me swear you in, sir.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during the penalties of perjury.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Mr.

DeSalvo is asked for a 12 minutes, might go over a minute or so, so we would set the clock for that and uh for his opening statement.

Please go ahead, sir.

Okay, Chairman, can you all hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great.

Chairman Salem and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Based on a recent news reports and this committee's charge, I am here today to share with you four aspects of JEA's culture and process that demonstrates JEA's commitment to its core mission to provide safe, reliable, and affordable utility services to our community.

First aspect, working for our community every day.

JEA is a complex operation.

Executive level decisions involve millions or tens of millions of dollars and consequences for our customers.

Our work environment can be intense, but it is professional and driven.

JEA's leaders seek excellence in themselves and in the JEA team.

That is a JEA work environment.

Second aspect, the appropriate process.

Capacity fees beyond the initial capacity charges that any large customers pay is both an individual contract issue between JEA and its affected customers and a policy decision for JEA.

JEA addresses these matters in an appropriate way, weighing both the history and future ramifications for customers and JEA.

There are no rush decisions, but a diligent effort to achieve the best result for all involved.

That is the process that JEA is engaged in now on the capacity fee matter.

Third aspect, clear decision making.

In any meet in any matter where legal counsel is sought, discussions with attorneys involve a critical analysis of what has been done, and sometimes difficult decisions on what needs to be done in the future.

These discussions often revolve around uncertain outcomes where the risk and benefit of each decision is weighed to achieve the best overall result to support JEA, the mission.

These discussions with legal counsel are subjected to attorney-client privilege, so both JEA and its lawyers can speak freely and engage in appropriate discussion aimed at allowing JEA to make the best ultimate decision, understanding all facts, risks, and potential outcomes.

Waiving attorney client privilege and exposing these discussions without context can do inevitable harm to JEA and its decision-making process.

It can develop excuse me, it can devolve decision making into a word parsing and political gainsmanship.

Instead, any decision on waiving attorney-client privilege will be handled in a thoughtful and deliberate way by the JEA board.

The JEA board is to hear a recommendation on this at its April 14th workshop.

Based on that, the JE board will make a reasoned and well-considered decision.

And then fourth aspect, cooperation and pursuit for the best path forward.

I'm here today as a member of the JEA board.

The board will cooperate with the City Council in its pursuit of finding the best path forward for JEA on these and all issues, where that pursuit is grounded in facts, thoughtful analysis, and decision making that is focused on meeting JEA's mission.

Doing what is right for JEA customers, this community, and JEA's employees is a commitment that I personally know each member of the JEA board shares.

On that basis, I pledge my cooperation with City Council in having JEA meet its mission of approving the lives and building community through its safe, reliable, and affordable provision of utility services.

On allegations regarding work environment, the unsupported and wrongful characterization of JEA's workplace in some areas is toxic, is not consistent with the operational realities and the data.

JEA employs approximately 2200 individuals.

This committee has indicated that 12 employees have come forward with concerns.

That represents roughly one in every 184 employees, hardly indicative of a systemic condition or organizational culture that is problematic.

JEA safety record is unmatched by any other public utility.

Currently, we're on a streak of 2 million hours without a safety incident.

That is a reflection of attention to detail, outstanding supervision, not low morale.

JEA employee average retention rate over the past years is above 98%.

JEA received the Building Strong Communities Award from the Florida Municipal Electric Association for making valuable investment that enhance the quality of life for the Jacksonville community.

For three consecutive years, JEA's Fleet Services named one of the hundred best fleets in the Americas by the National Association of Fleet Administrators.

JEA's managing director and CEO Vicky Cavey was recognized among Florida's trend's top 500, highlighting the most influential executives in different economic sectors across Florida.

The Fulton Cut project is evidence that constructive collaboration between independent authorities, in this case Jack Sport and JEA, City Council, and the mayor's administration can work together to execute a project that will significantly positively impact our city's economy.

This is the relationship our community expects.

These achievements are hallmarks of a team hitting the mark, not what has been described in unsupported accusations.

This committee has appeared to rely on outreach to former employees.

While former employees' perspectives can be informative, they must be evaluated carefully.

By definition, such a pool can disproportionately include individuals who departed under adverse circumstances.

Selectively amplifying these voices without context risks creating a skewed and unreliable narrative.

Assertions that employees are scared to death are serious, but they must be supported by credible representative evidence.

To date, that standard has not been met, but JEA has processes and procedures in place to address such concerns.

Disagreement, scrutiny, and professional attention, particularly around legal, financial, and operational decisions, are indicators of an engaged organization working through complex issues.

On two occasions, a member of the board of the JEA board has recently recommended a more appropriate path forward, allowing JEA's established internal governance, compliance, and human resource processes to evaluate these claims.

JEA's governance structure is specifically designed to investigate, address, and remediate such concerns in a fair, structured, and legally sound manner.

On the additional capacity fees, it is critical to clarify the facts regarding additional capacity fees.

All JEA commercial customers pay for monthly service and system capacity their service utilizes through the monthly and other JEA fees and charges for service.

The issue under JEA review relates only to an additional capacity charge associated with increased usage over time, not baseline service or initial connection fees.

The situation involving the Mayo Clinic, referenced in some dues accounts, highlights the complexity of legacy accounts.

Mail's service relationship predates JEA's assumption of the system in 1997 and involves historical agreements and infrastructure established decades earlier.

In 2022, JEA appropriately identified that increased usage at the mail campus could warrant additional capacity charges.

Mayo disputed that obligation based on its interpretation of a 1986 agreement.

This misalignment led to ongoing discussion and different legal analysis.

Precisely a type of issue that requires careful, deliberate resolution, not rushed judgment, and policy considerations for other customers in similar situations and the cost burden on all commercial customers needs to be carefully considered.

Rather than selectively enforcing charges or taking inconsistent action, JEA appropriately paused resolution with any single customer in order to develop a fair, uniform, and legally sound program applicable to all similar situated customers.

That is responsible governance.

That is leadership focuses on JEA's mission to building community through its utility services.

The JEA board will participate in a deep dive session as part of our rates hearing workshop tomorrow.

And again, it's a public session.

Third, on the proposed waiver of attorney client privilege, potentially undermining this prudent responsible governance at JEA is a political push for the JEA board to waive attorney-client privilege in order to further work, in order to further the work of this committee of the City Council.

Attorney client privilege is not a procedural technicality.

It is a foundational legal protection that ensures public entities can obtain candid legal advice, fully assess risk, and comply with their obligations under the law.

The committee has sought waiver out of an abundance of caution to access legal guidance and internal deliberations.

However, compelling or pressuring such a waiver sets a dangerous precedent.

It risked politicizing legal advice and impairing the ability of council to provide independent and unfiltered guidance.

The JEA board will participate in a deep dive session on this topic as part of a rates hearing tomorrow.

Again, that's a public session.

Fourth, on JEA's independent structure, it is also important to emphasize that JEA is by design an independent entity within the consolidated government of the City of Jacksonville.

Its governance framework was intentionally structured to allow for operational independence, professional management, and decision making insulated from shifting political pressures.

JEA's operations are a significant multi-billion dollar business, and it's consolidated and the consolidated city's forefathers saw the need to run it like a business and limit the influence of politics.

That independence is not incidental.

It is foundational to JEA's ability to reliably deliver essential utility services to the community, uphold fiduciary responsibilities, and comply with legal and financial obligations, including bond covenants.

Efforts that undermined or circumvent this governance structure risk eroding the very framework that has enabled JEA to function effectively.

Respecting that independence includes allowing JEA's established processes to operate as intended, particularly in the areas involving personnel matters, legal review, and internal compliance.

In conclusion, the record of supported facts and achievements show utility confronting a complicated decade-spanning issue with diligence and care, not avoidance.

It shows professionals engaging in decision making that is sometimes difficult and always focused on achieving the mission of JEA.

It also shows that JEA has internal structures, expertise, and governance mechanisms necessary to evaluate and address employee concerns responsibly consistent with its role as an independent entity designed to operate with professional autonomy.

At the same time, this special investigation process raises serious questions about neutrality, methodology, and purpose.

Please continue, sir.

Thank you, sir.

JEA's responsibilities to operate lawfully, fairly, and in the best interest of its customers, not to respond to narratives that are unsupported by data or shaped by external considerations.

Thank you.

I am prepared to answer your questions.

Thank you.

I've just got a couple of things I want to address, so I'm going to let Councilman Diamond begin with questions.

First of all, uh Mr.

Who is chairing that meeting tomorrow?

That will be MG Ornder, the current MG Orender.

Okay.

We will have to follow up with MJ on an issue then.

Number two, uh, Mr.

Teal, will you update us on the survey?

I meant to do that prior to Mr.

DeSalvo's comments.

And let me begin by saying Mr.

Thiel has worked uh tirelessly with me last week on getting this survey set up.

So, Mr.

Teal.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh through the chair to the committee.

And so what we did is uh we reached out to the respondents uh when the city put out a solicitation for Peggy Sidman survey, uh, and it resulted in three companies that uh that replied.

Uh and so in reviewing uh the responses uh and discussions with those three companies, we have selected, and you'll see actually for introduction tomorrow night some legislation to authorize the council president to execute a contract with a company called uh Secure Link and or Selection Link, sorry.

Um that company has got a lot of government experience.

They've actually dealt with the uh surveys, employee satisfaction surveys with uh Orange County School District in Florida.

So they've actually got some some uh direct Florida experience.

Uh but they have agreed uh to, and they the price that they quoted us is uh $9,250 to do the full survey.

And what that does is it authorizes a complete survey of the selection of individuals that uh the JEA has given us uh along with some additional names uh of folks that um that have been brought to our attention.

Uh and uh just a little bit about selection link.

They uh are an offshoot of Gallup polling, and so they have got a long history of being uh involved in these types of uh endeavors.

Uh but Selection Link is uh is their employee satisfaction survey group.

Uh they will start with a template of questions uh that they've uh that they've used in these types of situations.

They will allow us to fully tailor those questions for um uh dealing with the specific issues.

Uh there will both uh consist of uh ratings type of questions, like how would you rate it on a scale of one to five uh, for example, but they'll also have um open-ended questions so that uh people can feel free to add whatever comments that they want.

Uh they'll the survey will stay open approximately two to three weeks.

They'll send out reminder emails to those employees who haven't yet responded, uh, so that there will be follow-up in terms of the anonymity component of it.

Uh they will send each employee an individualized link, and that employee can send it from their JEA email to their phone or send it to their personal email and they can access it that way if uh if they have some concerns about about uh how they want to do that.

And so um they uh have uh indicated that they uh they have no problem at all uh being able to meet the committee's deadline uh to be able to have the survey results back to the committee in plenty of time to meet your uh your June 30th deadline to report in uh on this topic.

Uh they will collect some demographic data in terms of you know how long have you worked at JEA, what are your types of duties, you know, those kinds of things to be able to uh sort, if you will, are you a current employee or your former employee, you know, for example, uh, and so they'll be able to uh to include that information.

Uh and uh it will uh include or this price includes a uh presentation, and so they will uh have their analytics person.

They've got uh uh PhDs and you know all of that stuff to be able to um evaluate the data.

Uh and they'll have their uh their their uh that person will be able to present uh make a presentation to the SIC committee in terms of the results.

Uh they do offer, I don't know uh if this committee is interested in, but they do offer the ability to provide suggestions uh depending on the uh the results uh of this uh that gets into the issue of what this commit kitty committee can do in terms of JEA managing its uh its CEO or anybody else on their uh on their management staff.

So uh that um Mr.

Chair is my presentation, unless anybody has any questions, I think that should cover it.

Let me make just a few comments.

Um I asked Jody Brooks for the managers and above that work in the JEA headquarters building.

That's around 140 people that will receive the survey.

Um those people that have contacted uh me or others that are no longer working at JEA that want to participate in the survey will be handled separately.

We will get those results separately from the active employees at JEA, and we're gonna uh attempt as a part we will, as a part of the survey, get some indication of the amount of interaction the employee has with Ms.

Kavey as a part of their results, so we we get a feel for that as well.

Um Mr.

Teal, does that cover pretty much everything?

Okay.

Um as I said, I'm not we're not gonna recognize any noncommittee members until the end.

Um, I have invited uh Ms.

Cavey to be our to come to our next meeting for testimony.

I asked her to respond by one o'clock today.

Mr.

Teal, did you get a response?

No, Mr.

Chairman, I didn't get a response.

Okay.

Mr.

Diamond.

Uh this is just my view of things.

Um I might suggest that uh we you know we talked to like Jody Brooks and a few of these Diane Moser and a few of these other folks first because if uh at some point the CEO will have to come here and she is required by statute.

So there's no question eventually Ms.

KB is going to be here.

I I personally I'd rather have a few more folks tell us what's going on.

I'd like to get some uh reports back on the things Ms.

uh Jacoby is worried about before she's here.

I mean, it seems like we I don't want to have to call her again.

Okay.

Mr.

Teal, would you s would you extend an invitation to both uh I I think uh Ms.

Brooks, Ms.

Moser are two good uh people to bring in, see who's available for uh our next meeting, and I would schedule the other one for the meeting after that.

Yes, sir.

And uh let's move forward that way.

Mr.

Chairman, do you have a preference for which one comes in first?

I know that we're waiting on Ms.

Mosier to give information and response to the case.

I would I would hold on Ms.

Mosher until Ms.

Pittman's information is available to us.

So I'd probably bring in Ms.

Brooks first.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Ms.

Pittman, you're in the queue.

First of all, to the chair, I want to thank you, Mr.

Gisalvo, for um making your presentation um today.

Um I guess what my concerns are that you represent the board and not the entire staff, right?

And I know you mentioned about previous um surveys.

I know your role is to have oversight um to the governance and and the policy um directions and not the day-to-day um concerns of management and employees.

So I know you can, you know, you can speak to the actions and the decisions and organizational um roles.

And I guess, you know, my concern is and which I've said, you know, my space here is to be a voice for the employees and my conversations that I've had with past um employees.

So to me, to be able to have the the JEA um executive leadership or someone from the union or employees themselves once they feel comfortable and coming forward, um, I I would feel a lot more comfortable.

Um, you know, what's what's important to me is that I want to make sure there's um an assurance that you could give me and or the leadership team that today that the voices are heard from the employees.

And you know, and it's and it's meaningful and it's visible and something could be done about it.

Um that's my space um on this committee, and to be able to talk to people who have left um JEA in a management position to just hear some of the things that they are saying is pretty much in line with what the existing employees are saying.

And so I don't want you to think it's just 12 people.

There's just other people that are afraid to say anything.

And and I will say some of them are colleagues of mine or people that I've done work with or projects with.

So is I want you to know it's just not the 12 people.

Um, you know, they have to have some type of protection right now.

There's a there's a lot of moving parts to what you reported today and what we discussed.

And and so I just want to be open because, you know, I'm an employee, and I know if something was going down with the city, I want to be able to um share what's really going on.

And so, you know, from a high level, you are high level, but we have to make sure that we talk to the people on the front line to hear what they got to say.

Because I think that's important.

And JEA has done a great job in this community.

I've been involved in projects with them over the years.

Um, but from what I'm hearing, it's always been an issue, but no one has ever vocalized it because they didn't want any repercussions.

So all I'm saying for you as the chair is to make sure that you talk to your leadership team and the leadership team as it trickles down to the employees to make sure that they're just not a number.

Um, to make sure what they say matter.

And it's just this became an opportunity for more people to say and to share.

So I just want you to know my position that I stand on this committee is that I'm I'm I care about the people.

So thank you.

And I you know you can comment on that as well because I know that you're not deep in the weeds, that your your position is more capacity building with other board members into making sure that the work in and the budget and the direction that JEA is going.

Would you like to comment on that?

Sure would.

And I appreciate your genuine concern, Councilmember Pittman, on the uh the employees that JE employees.

And and I share your same passion too, down to the men and women out on the streets daily 24-7 doing the electric, the water, and wastewater, without a doubt.

And I'll just say, sure, whenever there's issues that surface, um they should uh be uh be looked into.

And uh I'm just saying I'm very confident in the processes JEA has in place to look into those and to make sure those voices are heard.

And I'm I'm I'm very confident that they can uh do that for the benefit of those folks.

But uh I share your passion and thank you for that.

Thank you.

I'm now gonna ask uh uh Councilmember Diamond to start the questioning.

I may uh ask him to jump in at some point.

But anything he doesn't ask, it'll come to me that that I have, and then we'll go to Ms.

Pittman.

Councilmember Diamond.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'm just gonna say this the first time through the chair to General DeSalvo.

Can we assume the rest of the way is through the chair?

That's fine.

All right.

First of all, sir, thank you for being here.

Uh you're retired GO, you've got better things to do than be here on a Monday afternoon.

I'm sure you'd rather be fishing or making lots of money with a defense contractor or something.

But uh you're here, you serve for years honorably on this board and for free.

It's not like we're paying you.

So I thank you.

I remember when you got appointed, we uh we were just going through the nightmare of the last JEA scandal, and the entire board got wiped out, and we populated with new people, and we were very careful, I think the mayor was uh in the council and getting a good board.

And I really felt like we were doing really well for a while.

And then last like three months, I feel we hit some rocks.

And I think the purpose of this committee is to kind of figure out what's going on.

Just like time out what's happening over at JEA.

One of the worst things that I have to do in this job is I have to ask questions with all these reporters, with all these people, with like I guarantee you, hundreds of JEA employees watching right now, where I would much rather ask you questions in person and just sit down and say, can you help me understand this?

Can you help me understand that?

That's my preference.

We don't get that option.

Sunshine requires us to do it like this.

And so a couple of these are awkward.

And there's a couple of questions I have that I honestly don't want to ask.

And uh, but there's people who keep asking me about stuff, and I'd rather just let's just ask the question and then get it off the table like we did in the last committee.

Sometimes just get some sunshine on it, and then we move on.

Fair enough.

All right.

I also know your reputation is important to you.

Um and you swore an oath.

Uh and so I'm gonna be super careful with my questions.

If I ask a bad question or you don't understand what I'm saying, please let me know.

Because the last thing I want is to have since all this is recorded and there's a record that that you don't feel like you have what you meant to say on the record.

Uh, and then two um if uh if we go down a road and there's something you want to fix or if you want to add context to something, I'm fine with that.

Like this is not antagonistic.

I think people need to understand, especially our folks at JEA and people watching at home, we're not in the fight here.

This is not this is not a game.

We're all on the same team.

We all want JEA to have low rates, uh happy customers, happy employees.

We're all on the same page.

I think we're trying to get JEA through this drama so we can get to the other end of this so we can all feel comfortable.

Fair enough.

Okay.

All right.

So let me let me get rolling here.

First of all, thank you for the opening statement.

Um I assume people helped you with that, not because you're not intelligent, but it was just it's very lawyerly in there.

Did you write it all by yourself or did somebody help you?

No, I did it with myself and some other people.

Yeah, who else helped you?

Other people.

Can you tell me who they are?

No.

You're not gonna tell me who they are?

Did Vicky KB help you?

Nope.

You're literally not going to tell me who helped you with your opening statement.

I don't understand why you need it.

You read my comments, you read or you heard my statement, excuse me.

So what's it matter?

It's a product of me with some help, and I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

Um we'll just pause here for a minute.

Um Do you recognize that we have an oversight function over JEA at all?

Sure.

Okay.

And we're elected um to represent the people.

Do you recognize the people of Jacksonville own JEA?

Yes.

How else are the people of Jacksable supposed to know what's going on with that board if their elected representatives don't ask these types of questions?

I'm not sure what you that's why I'm here to answer your questions.

Okay.

Well, let me ask you this.

Are you gonna answer every question I have about JEA, or do you have uh a filter in your mind of what you think is fair or not fair to ask I'll I'll please ask away, and if there's something I feel that's not right, I'll be sure to let you know, but I'm here to answer your questions.

So right out of the box, you won't tell me who helped you draft your opening statement.

I'm not sure what what relevance is it?

I'm taking accountability for that statement.

I think that's enough.

Sure.

I think it would be interesting if Vicki Havey helped you.

She did not.

Okay.

I think it would be helpful to know whether or not um general counsel helped you write it.

No, they did not.

All right.

I'll move on.

Uh you've been on the board for how long, sir?

Um six years.

And you were chair for how long?

Two years.

And you're no longer chair, correct?

Yeah, that is and if I could make a just for uh councilwoman um Pittman, I mean, yeah, so I am not chair right now.

That is MG Orner, just so we understand that.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh as board chair or as a board member, you were getting briefings regularly, is that fair to say?

Sure.

How often were you getting briefings?

So with committee work, uh, we usually had one type of committee once a month, and then J EA board meetings once a month, so probably two times a month.

Twice a month.

Yeah.

And then um You live in Jacksonville, is that right?

I sure do.

Um of the questions I didn't want to ask, but people have bugged me about this so many times that I'm gonna ask it anyways.

Uh do you have a job outside of the state of Florida last year or a gig of some sort?

Yeah, I have a uh I uh work with the University of Maine.

Uh how many days approximately were you not in the state of Florida last year?

Um four months.

It was the let's see here now, the spring semester.

I'm sorry, the the fall semester for August to December.

Okay, so kind of January, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um the end of August, quite frankly.

Okay, so kind of August through December, you were in Maine.

Generally.

Yeah, and I would come back here for meetings.

Gotcha.

You flew back for the board meetings.

Did you zoom the other ones and the briefings?

Um I did the preparatory uh sessions via Zoom.

Okay.

It was pr physically present for the board meetings.

Tracking.

Did you pay for your own transportation or did JEA pay for that?

No, no, that was on me.

For the between Maine and back?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

No, that was all on my own.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um you you mentioned it in your opening statement.

There's no mystery as to kind of like what's triggered all this.

Um but I'm going to ask each bucket just so I understand when you first were that there was like allegations.

I'm not saying they're true.

Just like when did you first hear there was allegations about toxic leadership at JEA?

Yeah, first heard at the I'm looking right now, 11 March, when the the Special Investigatory Committee had their uh press conference announcing the formation of this committee and the reasons why.

Okay, that was the first time.

And then after you heard that, did you do any in independent investigation into just the toxic leadership part of that?

That's when at our and I'm looking at my notes here.

Well, yeah, that's when we I'm sorry, let me back up.

I first became aware of the allegations of the toxicity and racism.

I believe it was the 20th of February or shortly after it's 17 February when the uh city council president's text uh came out in the press, and then shortly afterward a response on the allegations of toxic toxicity.

So I say that because then that issue was then discussed at the 24 February board meeting.

Roger.

Okay, so just uh I had this right.

Uh did you become aware of the allegations about toxic work environment and racism at the same time, or did you learn about them differently at different times?

Um at the same time.

Okay.

And um you talk about this in your opening statement too.

You're talking about capacity fees.

When did you first hear that there was like an issue with Mayo or anybody else about capacity fees?

Yeah, if I recall, it was um January.

So when I first heard about it, I believe.

This year?

Yes.

Gotcha.

And then um there's been a lot of talk about this ballard contract.

I'm sure you've heard about that.

You know, i I've heard a lot from what I read, but quite honestly, I I know like less than 0.001% of what it's about.

No, no, fair enough.

Uh when did you when did you first hear about it though that there was an issue?

Uh it was mid-January.

When and actually I read about it in the press was the first time I got any uh indication of it.

Okay.

And then um the combined cycle plant has been kind of a rumbling issue for a long time.

Have you been taking briefings on like the combined cycle plan for like a long time?

Yes, that started when we did our IRP like three years ago.

So it's been an issue front and center for a long time.

Probably since you've been on the board, right?

Um well not the first year.

Like I said, the first two years not really, but then three on, yes.

Got it.

Okay.

And then just going back to toxic leadership.

When you when you hear about Councilman Carico, Council President Caracro's tweet and it gets in the press, did you do any independent like research?

Did you go and ask people, hey, is there any truth to this?

Absolutely.

And by yeah, now I'm not going to say it was all encompassing, but and I've said this before, I think folks have heard it.

I live right in Jacksonville, Springfield District, so I see a lot of the folks out, a lot of the JEA employees out there day in and day out.

And even before this this recent um issue of toxicity and racism, I always ask them, how are things going?

And you know the deal.

When you ask somebody on the ground, uh, you know, doing the the grunt work essentially, uh they'll give it to you unfiltered.

And of course, I'm always going to hear about well, I I uh dispatch my vehicle and the guy before me used it, didn't top it off or whatever, you're always gonna hear that stuff.

I said, no, but how how's morale and all that kind of stuff?

And not one time had the issue popped up of any toxicity or racism or anything.

You'll have general complaints again about not being topped off, but generally I saw the morale great.

Yeah, I'm tracking.

Okay.

Um but uh other than like talking to some folks, like who did you talk to about toxic leadership after you heard about this?

Did you did you who did you check in with?

Well, of course, I asked Vicky Cavey, and then I asked the senior leadership, that became a point of discussion.

Uh Kurt Wilson and I had a discussion on the 18th of February, and he he told you about that at the last meeting.

Um and then when that session I just listened to him.

I didn't hardly said anything.

And I simply ask him, okay, why am I now just hearing about this now?

And quite frankly, I really didn't get a an answer.

The other thing too is when you know there are serious allegations, when you start getting the anonymous emails or letters to the board members, and I've seen those in the past.

Um I did not see any at all over the past year, anything having to do with toxicity or racism.

And normally you're going to see something like that in an in an anonymous you know, nature for letters to the board.

I don't recall any.

Okay.

And then uh with regard to uh like the racism allegations, um, did you do uh were you doing at the same time when you were asking folks about toxicity, you're kind of asking, is there any truth to this, or did you do that differently than the toxic work environment?

No, I I I said toxicity, excuse me, toxicity and discrimination racism.

Yeah.

I'm tracking.

Okay.

So in your opening statement, you said three times that the allegations were, quote, unsupported, unquote.

What would what would what would cross that line?

When do you think an allegation is sufficient enough to warrant a board investigation?

Okay, I would say once the processes are in place to see if there's any validity.

And so that said, that's what JEA is in the process of doing.

So before we jump to conclusions, let's see if anything is out there, if it's valid.

And we'll find out what the processes that we're using within JEA.

And by processes, do you mean HR?

HR.

We're also uh um doing a uh in fact we already had a survey in the works before any of this stuff started, before the SIC was formed.

That's our employee engagement survey, which I believe goes out next week, I think.

Um and bottom line, the purpose of that survey is to find out what's good, what's bad, what needs to fix, what what's it what do you need to sustain, what do you need to improve on?

So we'll see what that says.

And then in addition, as part of our internal investigation, based on the accusations, we're also engaging a um uh a standing um law firm JA has used Jackson Lewis, and they in turn have contracted a Miss Sherry Silberman, who's an independent reviewer who will work at who will do an analysis and look into the allegations.

Gotcha.

And I'll ask about Jackson Lewis.

Yeah, tracking.

I'll ask about Jackson Lewis in a minute.

Um you also said in your opening statement that there was only 12 complaints from the 2,000 plus employees at JEA.

That's based on comments made on your first sick meeting and also at the uh at the press conference.

Okay.

I mean, do you have like in your mind a magic number of the number of complaints is enough to like get rolling?

Um well, I mean um, you know, I would say, okay, one is serious enough, and I don't if somebody thinks they have a legitimate thing, right?

You're always gonna have isolated instances which need to be looked into.

And if there's something to that, you need to take action.

But if it's one, that certainly doesn't imply it's endemic of the whole institution.

Sure.

Uh uh but and uh let me let me just understand this.

Uh the the 12 allegations out there, uh would you recognize that if there are 12 legitimate like complaints out there?

Not saying that they're validated, but just 12 complaints out there, they probably aren't the only complaints, that there's probably other people who are afraid to come forward?

You're always going to have a small percentage like that, I'm sure.

If my problem is the qu I my excuse me, but okay, so what is the number that then says are you going to chase down every rat hole for a complaint?

And that's something you gotta balance.

Uh if my problem is with HR, if I feel like I'm being discriminated against from HR because of the color of my skin, where am I supposed to go?

If that's the case, then with and uh I'm no expert on HR, but in that case we have the anonymous hotline, ethics hotline, which you can call to if you're in a JEA employee.

Okay.

Um there's a couple of surveys going out right now.

Um you were doing one, you're doing one.

If the results come back that there is a systemic problem of racism at JEA with regards to promotion, in particular with black employees and black managers, um, what is the threshold for you to say we've got a leadership problem at JEA that allowed this to happen?

Well, that if if if the analysis, the survey, whatever shows that it is a valid um a valid complaint about racism, then that isn't an issue reflected on the leadership that we got to change things.

And and again, just jumping into a sensitive questionnaire.

If someone in leadership used the n-word to an employee, would that be enough?

Yes, totally unacceptable.

The stuff on toxic work environment, I think we can all agree it's kind of hard to nail down.

Everybody complains about their boss because their boss has to tell them what to do.

For you, what is the what is the threshold?

Is screaming in the office enough to say that's unacceptable?

Like what is the what kind of facts do you think would be like, all right, this leader shouldn't be in that position?

Yeah, toxic leadership to me is demeaning somebody personally.

It's not toxic leadership is not demanding high standards, and if you can't meet the standards, then appropriate action has to take place.

But it's treating people with dignity and respect.

Gotcha.

You mentioned that you sat down with Kurt Wilson on February 18th.

He asked for that meeting, right?

Uh that is correct.

Um he asked for it, I I'm told on the 18th, I think he testified to that.

Um, or he asked for it the day before, and then you met on the 18th.

Is that right?

Correct.

Okay.

How long was it?

It was an hour.

It was at five o'clock at uh five o'clock to around um six o'clock at night.

Did you tell Vicky gave you before the meeting you were meeting with Kurt Wilson?

Um yes.

What did you tell her?

I told her on the um 17th because there was a conflict, and I can't remember what it was.

Some some I was supposed to be at a meeting for something, and then Kurt and I had to change the time.

It was a conflict for some pre-brief, as I recall.

Let me try to get right to the heart of this.

Did Kurt Wilson testify here that he told you that if Vicky knew that you guys were meeting that he'd get fired?

Okay, and this is where I I I can answer your question, but I want to you you have to really check with HR to make sure I know what I'm talking about.

At that meeting with Kurt and I, he told me he had already resigned.

Okay.

As I recall.

And I think according to HR, he had already submitted his resignation.

So and I got it the next day, as Mr.

Wilson said, the next day they did away with the position, making it sound like he was fired the next day.

That's not the case.

They did away with the position that was already an occupied because he had resigned, but I'd ask you to check with HR.

That's the impression I'm under.

If he if he had had the position while he met with you and then was fired the next day because of that meeting, do you think that would be a violation of the whistleblower policy at JEA?

Um, yeah.

But it's not like uh yeah, but if we're speaking hypothetically, there's no way in heck, regardless of how contentious the meeting, and it wasn't contentious, by the way.

He's just it was a one-way conversation, him telling me what his observations were.

That said, I would never then run to the CEO and say, fire this guy.

That's not my remit as a board member.

Drakken, uh uh you work with Kurt Wilson before that meeting regularly?

Yeah, I mean, and quite honestly, I I was very curt for the geez, I think he was at JA as long as I've been and was uh was excellent, was very good.

In fact, ironically, the um characterizing saying before he went rogue is a bad way of saying it, but I'm not sure what happened, but as recently as the 12th of February, when we were at the uh Ricky Erickson's uh um discharge from the um um rehab center, uh our director of electricity got seriously injured.

Anyway, Kurt and I are walking back from that ceremony, and he's telling me, yeah, I'm working with city council on your nomination.

Okay, I didn't sense any any disillusionment with Kurt at all.

And prior, he had been fantastic for some reason, and I don't know what it is.

That's between uh him and and the and I guess uh the CEO, however the relations soured, it took me by surprise.

Um and then just some stuff he started saying took me by surprise.

I never would have expected that to hear that from Kurt.

He said that there is a toxic work environment at JEA.

He said that there's issues with general counsel advice.

He's he's he testified here.

I'm sure you've heard about it if you didn't watch it.

Oh, you were here, that's right.

Sure.

Do you think he was telling the truth, or do you think he's fabricating?

No, I'm not uh I'm not here to impugn his honor.

He has his own way of seeing things, which may have been.

Um I'll just um I I'll say this.

He was he was straight on uh f forward when he said he saw no discrimination or racial issues on it, and and I agree with that.

As far as his other stuff, it may be his perspective.

I don't agree with his perspective, but if you're saying I'm calling him, you know, and I question his integrity, no, I'm not doing that.

Um I'm sure he'd appreciate that too.

Uh like I said, this is this is not antagonistic.

We're just trying to try to get all this out because people have these questions.

All right, I'm gonna I'm gonna fast forward to February 20th.

There is this uh press conference here at City Hall.

Um who invited you to the press conference?

I'm not sure.

I honestly don't remember.

Um you sat next to Vicky Kavey uh during the press conference?

For half of it, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So here's a flag question that I don't really want to ask, but people keep showing me this photo of you guys sitting next to each other.

It looks like you're holding hands.

That's not right, is it?

No, that's absolutely a third.

No, we can move on.

Um at the press conference, the mayor said that there is a conspiracy to take over JA from former uh mayor of Jacksonville and his former staff.

Do you think that's true?

I'm not gonna comment on that.

I the reason why I'm not going to, it could be it couldn't be, but this is just playing into some drama drama that I'm not going to be part of.

I keep things black and white.

Okay.

Um have you heard of JEA public power partners before?

No, I haven't.

You don't know that they offered $8 billion for a 50-year concession at JEA?

No.

Did you know that Jody Brooks worked for them during that?

No.

Did you know Mike Weinstein worked for them during that?

No.

Okay.

Um you were at that comp that press conference where essentially let me ask you this.

Did you go to the press conference with the intent of supporting Vicky Kavey?

Absolutely, and also the intent of putting down what what I still say is a is a uh drama not created by JEA, which some members here have said before at the last sick meeting.

We didn't create this drama.

This drama started within City Council on that press conference uh announcing the need for this sick.

That's where the drama started.

So you went to the press conference to support Vicky Kavey.

Right.

You had already been told that there was allegations of racism, allegations of toxic workplace allegations of issues with capacity fees, allegations regarding a ballard contract.

You knew all those things before the press conference.

No, that's not correct.

And just so the only on racism and uh and toxic leadership, the only prior knowledge period on that, okay, was from the press conference.

And then with the meeting with Kurt, and that was it.

Capacity fees was never part of the the um part of this.

Sure, okay, okay.

But just all right.

So but you you were aware that there's these allegations, whether it's from the council president or anybody else on racism and toxic workplace environment.

We'll just stick with those two.

Yeah.

And you stood behind the CEO at a press conference anyway without having done an investigation yet.

Mm-hmm.

What if they're true?

We'll find out.

Then then if if it's true after the appropriate processes indicate so, then I'll take accountability for that.

Okay.

Um moving on to capacity fees at the Mayo Clinic.

Um I assume you were briefed on this.

You told me like you you you got up to speed in January.

Yeah, no, so I got up to speed actually last week.

But but I will say, and for if you go, you'll see the results of the meeting tomorrow.

This is very, very complicated.

Um it's not straightforward, but I will say some of the narratives where uh Mayo and other entities are getting off the hook of having to pay for their services is completely false.

They haven't been given a reprieve or overlooked any of their services.

A capacity fee.

I can give you a two-minute thing if you want, or I'll just it it's how much depth do you want me to go into this?

I mean, I I am really just trying to I'm I like timelines.

So I just was trying to figure out when you got up to speed on the issue with capacity fees.

That was the Okay, so I am 25 percent smart now.

Then tomorrow after our uh in-depth deep dive, then I'll be feel very confident in knowing the major you know muscle movements behind it.

Okay, but the issue was first flagged in January of this year.

It came to my attention within JEA executive leadership, I think it was December, but I don't know if it's a December.

Okay, right.

Um, yeah, of course.

My understanding, uh, Mr.

DeSalvo, that in 2022 this capacity fee problem was identified.

That's what I have been told, correct.

Okay.

You and I agree on that.

Right.

Has this issue ever come to the board of directors?

Um at a regular board of director meeting?

No, not to my knowledge.

I find it astounding.

You'll see to I I hear what you are saying, Councilmember Sam.

And for all I know, maybe this whole capacity fee tariff, as it is called, okay, maybe it's something that's unenforceable, or maybe it's something that needs majorly you know, tweaked again or something, but I'll agree there is issues with it.

Um, but it's it's very complicated.

I I I hear you.

But I am just astounded that you, as the chair were just briefed in January, and this issue has not come to the board.

Um can I continue just for a second?

Are you aware of a meeting that that uh Ms.

Cavey had with the CEO of Mayo?

I know there was a meeting recently, yes.

Are you aware that uh is it's been reported to me that uh a deal was cut to where we will forgive your old fees and go forward?

My understanding is not correct.

This is all still um litigation may be the wrong word, but it is still in the process of determining what is going to happen.

But there's no deal been made from my understanding.

From your understanding.

Okay.

Please go ahead.

Well, those are all the questions that I had on that, except for um does the does the CEO of JA have the authority to make the deal with Mayo without board approval?

To make what deal waiving capacity fee?

Waiving the fee or essentially negotiating a resolution to this.

I one think so, but I can't I I don't know for sure from a legal thing.

Yeah, I'm not yeah, I am not trying to catch out.

I'm just sure.

Genuinely curious.

Can I jump in?

It's my understanding that Regina Ross wrote a memo to the CEO saying you cannot forgive these capacity fees.

They must be collected.

I assume you have seen that memo.

I did not see that memo.

You did not see that memo.

And you are aware that the C the uh JA leadership questioned that and she got a second opinion.

Have you seen that second opinion where she saw she sought outside counsel and they said the same thing?

I have heard that, but I haven't seen the results of it, but I heard she sought a second opinion.

Did you I want to say though, I really feel uncomfortable talking about anything with Regina based on the attorney client privilege thing that we will be discussed tomorrow.

So I just want to I'm I I'm not asking you to comment on I just but those are public records that I am referring to.

They're all over the city.

The the original memo that she wrote and when questioned, she saw it outside counsel and brought that in and it supported her opinion.

Did you attend a meeting with with Mr.

Fackler where you asked for Ms.

Ross to be removed from JEA?

Yes, I did.

Yes, you did.

When did that occur?

I think October ish.

Maybe September or maybe earlier, I can't remember.

What was the reason for requesting her removal?

I have my own reasons that I don't want you to disclose.

Again, I'm getting back on attorney client right now.

You had you had reasons yourself for having her removed.

Is that what you are saying?

That's correct.

And I assume Ms.

Cavey had reasons as well.

I assume you are correct.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Uh what were they?

Well, why did you want to remove as your attorney?

I am not asking for about her counsel.

Just well, why would you not want her to be your lawyer?

With all due respect to her, and I don't want to impugn her professionalism.

Um to me was way off the mark.

I saw her getting outside her box on issues that were disruptive within the uh the executive leadership team.

Um, and also just some inattention to detail.

Uh what do you mean by disruptive?

Just that um I am not sure she had the confidence of everybody based on her interactions at meetings.

And I'll just leave it at that.

I don't want to make this a personal attack on Regina.

No, no, I understand.

Um General, I I think the issue is that the lawyer was asked to be removed.

And of course, that happened the last time.

You weren't here for it, but the lawyers kept changing when they gave advice the CEO didn't like.

And so it is a sensitive issue for us when OGC gets lawyers get replaced.

And so that's why we are drilling down on it.

Okay, but just be a I I know you know this.

There's five lawyers.

At that time, we had four or five lawyers other than Regina.

So it's not like we are saying get rid of everybody from OGC that works at JEA.

Just let me know that.

Please.

I I am trying to understand because I find it fascinating that you would attend a meeting where with Michael Facler requesting that that Ms.

Ross be removed.

Um that would seem to be the CEO's responsibility.

Her going to see Mr.

Fackler to request that.

I I'm I'm I'm like uh Mr.

Diamond.

I went through 2019, and I'm very sensitive to attorneys being removed in such a fashion.

It's uh it raises a red flag to me.

Having gone through that.

But wait a minute.

Let me let me but I find it did she ask you to go with her?

Did who ask me?

Ms.

Cavey.

No, Ms.

Cavey didn't go with me to Mr.

Fackler.

You went by yourself?

No.

I went with Jodie Brooks.

You went with Jody Brooks to see Mr.

Facler.

Ms.

Cavey was not present.

No.

That was the meeting you requested that she be removed?

I didn't request she be removed.

I expressed my frustration with her performance.

Okay.

Did you go to a meeting with Ms.

Cavey separate from that?

No.

You did not.

I did not.

Okay.

Then I have gotten some bad information.

Yeah.

I'm going to it is perfect timing.

I was going to ask you about Jodie Brooks.

What's her role over there?

CAO?

Chief Administrative Officer, yes.

What does that do?

I mean, I can guess, but can you help me out?

So she generally, but specifically, actually, her main job is to make sure that GEA stays within all the policies from the City Regulations, State Regulations, Federal regulations.

Yeah, basically it hears all the policies.

It's a huge tasking, and it permeates all the executive leadership duties, because again, they all are subject to their regulations, policies, procedures, et cetera.

So she has got a significant job.

And she is an attorney, correct?

That is correct.

Did she ever give you legal advice?

When I first got to GEA, she was the uh the legal counsel for JEA.

So my first year, I am just trying to year and a half, she was the OGC rep for us.

And then after that, did she give you legal advice when she was CAO?

No.

Please.

Um prior to her removal.

Is that correct?

I am sorry, Councilman.

Ms.

Who?

Ms.

Ross.

Regina Ross attended from as the OGC representative attended all the meetings briefing you on board meetings and such.

Is that correct?

She attended all the board meetings.

She did not attend the pre-briefs.

She did not.

Not that I recall.

Okay.

Now she I we have so many.

She may have over the, I think she is with us for three years, if I remember right.

Maybe on occasion she was there, but not on everyone for the pre-briefs.

For the actual board meetings, I don't think she ever missed the board meeting.

Okay.

It is my understanding that she attended the the pre-meeting review with each board member.

Did each board member have their own separate pre-brief meeting?

You have to, yes.

Okay.

It's my understanding that she attended those prior to her removal.

Just to just to establish that, once she was removed, did you have another OGC attorney attend any of those?

Attend any of the pre-meetings?

Yes.

If it was, it was isolated, but it was not routine as far as I remember.

It's my understanding that that you and the other board members relied on Ms.

Brooks as as counsel once Regina left for those pre-meetings.

I did not.

You did not.

Can't speak for the other board members, no, because I recognize Jody Brooks's position as the chief admin officer, not the general counsel.

But then who did you in those meetings?

Who did you rely on for legal advice?

I've got to tell you legal advice never came up on my mind.

There were no issues that I needed to revert to legal advice.

But there was no OGC representative in those meetings.

Not that I recall.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

So she's just kind of going back to Ms.

Ross, and I know we are focusing on this.

And hopefully after this, we're, you know, we will talk with Ms.

Brooks, then we'll talk with Ms.

Cavey, and then hopefully that we're done with this particular line of questioning.

But uh when it comes to Ms.

Ross, did Ms.

Brooks and Ms.

Ross ever disagree um in a meeting with you about anything as far as legal advice?

Um I can't name specifics, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Did Ms.

Brooks and Ms.

Ross disagree about capacity fees ever?

That I don't know.

I'm not sure.

And maybe I'll find out more tomorrow.

I'm just not sure.

Yeah, fair enough.

Um was one of the reasons why you didn't want Ms.

Ross to continue in her role was her opinion about capacity fees?

No.

Was one of the reasons because she sometimes disagreed with um Jody Brooks?

Um.

Sound like you had more to add there.

Do you have more to add for color on that?

Well, yeah, I'll just say I and again, I'm not speaking for the entire executive leadership team, but in general, um.

And I can't speak for them, but in general, folks, um.

I best characterize it by they weren't comfortable going to the Regina for counsel.

Okay.

I'll ask one last question on this stuff and then we'll move on to combined cycle plan.

But on the attorney client privilege waiver issue, um, and I'm going to ask you to disclose any conversations with any lawyers.

But if you, as uh former board chair and current board member, just you, your vote was to just give a total waiver.

What's the worst that could happen if JEA said, yeah, you can know every single thing that our lawyers have told us?

Like what we're doing.

I am concerned about the president and sense.

But again, again.

I am concerned about the president it sets for board members.

We're going to have two new board, potentially two new board members coming on.

Um, and I am just concerned about if I am an incoming board, new brand new incoming, and get wind of, wow, they were waiving an attorney client privilege.

I don't care how potentially innocuous in this situation it may appear, it just would rub me the wrong way big time.

Okay.

But what kind of what kind of secret could get out?

I mean, this is all public stuff.

There's all documents.

So why ask for the waiver?

I'll just ask you that.

If it's all public, why ask for a waiver attorney client if you can get it in public venues?

I I I wish we could go back and forth.

I get to say this all the time up here, but we're asking the questions, but I appreciate it.

Well, that's my answer then.

I I am not for it.

Right now, I may change my mind tomorrow, again, when we do the deep dive, but right now I am not for it, because what you are asking for, if you can get it through public uh public uh um processes, then do it there.

I'll just say this, not necessarily for you, sir, but for the public listening.

Like anything I talk about with Mary Stapopoulos is public.

There is no secrets there.

The only time the attorney claim privilege attaches is if there is potential litigation.

That's it.

And you can read the Florida Circuit Court cases that say the DCA cases that say exactly that.

So to me, this is uh is mind-blowing.

But anyways, we will move on.

Um the combined cycle plant.

Um Can I respond real quickly?

So I would say this.

If if if the questions can be asked to the board in a public domain thing without if it can be asked that way, then I highly encourage you to do it so we can get by this information bypass.

Fair enough.

Um the combined cycle plant for people who have no idea what this is.

Can you give us the 20 seconds of what the combined cycle plan is?

Yeah, basically it's a um significant capital project that will reduce our carbon footprint by 40 percent.

It burns cleaner, natural gas, more efficient, and it will allow us to get on a glide path to decommission North Side um uh three plant.

And we want to get rid of Northside because it's dirty, right?

Eventually we would like to, yes.

When we have the technology to do it.

Right.

The combined cycle plant will cost how much to build approximately one billion, I believe.

And we had to purchase or get in line for a turbine sold by GE, is that right, in order to do it?

Correct.

And that was $300 million?

Uh I believe it was total $500 million.

I think that includes getting the contractor.

And this is to have it in place by 2032 because there's a five-year backlog on getting these combined cycle.

And to your knowledge, we have to have permission from the Florida Public Service Commission in order to build the plan.

It is correct.

Do we currently have that?

That's in the process of getting.

We do not have it yet technically.

It's in the process of getting, from what I understand.

How much have we already spent on the combined cycle plan?

I think it's $350 million.

I know what you're getting at.

Yeah.

So what do we do?

If PSC says no, and they they haven't been that nice to JEA in the past.

If they say no, what are we going to do with $350 million already spent?

Yeah, I'll good question.

Um the only and I I asked the same question.

Um and is this will sound ridiculous.

That's part of the process.

PSC has been aware of what we're doing.

If they would have saw it, what I've been told, if they see any red flags in the process before we um contracted for the combined cycle plant, they would have told us, and I know, believe me, I I'm not a fan of that's the way of doing business.

Guarantee me I am okay before I go the final step.

Uh but I've been told that's what the process is like.

We have not seen any reg flag red flags for them.

So this would have to be something totally out of the blue if if the PSC denies it.

And we're not getting that signals yet.

Tracking.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then um I see.

Mr.

look very eager.

Yeah.

I I mean this issue is huge to me, as I I think it is to you.

We have spent $350 million.

That's my understanding, but I I'll check to make sure that I think I've heard the same figure, so I don't I think we're safe to say $350, it may be $500 if you consider the other parts.

In a situation where we're hoping and praying the PSC approves this plant.

And do you think the other six board members understood that as well as we're saying it right now?

I believe they did because they all got briefed on it, I believe.

What was the vote?

Do you recall?

On the for the combined cycle plan.

It was unanimous.

It was seven nothing.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Please go ahead.

Um back to just combined cycle plant here.

Uh the the question then was to build this plant or to essentially buy power from FPL, is that fair?

That those were kind of the two bucket options.

Um I'm under the impression buying power from FPO was infeasible.

Uh why?

It won it we it'd be uh the it would be uh uh price prohibited, we paid too much and it couldn't produce as much as the combined cycle plant.

That's the impression I'm under.

Yeah, again, I'm I'm not playing gotcha, I swear.

Uh well uh if if I told you that FBL offered 30 years of energy at the basically the exact same price as building the combined cycle plant, would it seem like that was uh an option worth evaluating if that were true?

Yes, and somebody did evaluate it, and I'll I'll admit my ignorance.

I'm not sure what the showstopper was.

I'm under the impression that it was um they couldn't guarantee the amount of power that we needed to purchase or the price that couldn't guarantee exactly what the price would be, so that made it risky.

But uh that's my impression uh from what I understood.

Uh and I could be way off.

Yeah.

I think I know the answer to this question.

But do you have any knowledge at all of anybody trying to put pressure on JEA to build a combined cycle plant because it was in their personal interest outside of JEA?

No, none.

Um I'm gonna In fact, actually, quite certain the only opposition we have was from Sierra Club type folks who didn't want to see it at all.

That's the only opposition I'm aware of.

Tracking.

Um we're gonna flip to the Ballard contract very quickly.

You have already been very candid, sir, that you don't know anything about it.

Uh but let me just ask the a couple of check the box questions here.

Uh you're aware that that Ballard Partners was the lobbyist for JEA at some point you knew this?

Yes.

Well, when did you first know that Ballard was your lobbyist over there?

Okay.

The first time, and I didn't even know it Ballard to me was just a name that we have a um, and we still do have somebody under Ballard, who I believe is our Federal uh lobbyist, if I remember right.

And I I don't know his name, um, but that's about the only thing I know of uh Ballard and and what GEA uses for their services.

And to your knowledge, was there any problem with the original awarding of the Ballard contract a couple years ago?

I have no because I had no visibility into that, so I just don't know.

Yeah.

Um do you have any opinion about their performance for the No, it was completely transparent to me, quite honest, quite honestly.

Yep.

Um have you ever do you have any personal knowledge of anyone pressuring JEA to hire or not hire Ballard?

I do not.

Um you're aware that there is a now uh investigation into bid rigging on the ballard contract, right?

Into what?

I'm sorry?

Into the ballard contract, you realize there is an investigation going now.

Uh, I've heard of it, yeah.

Um if it if it is true that someone pressured the CEO to not hire Ballard or not use them, would you have had a problem with that?

If somebody pressured the CEO not to hire somebody under Ballard?

Yeah.

To hire Ballard or not hire them.

I it would be up to her decision on on why or why not to do it to renew it.

Let me ask a better question.

Okay.

Do you think it's right for the mayor to have an opinion about who JEA uses for their lobbying contracts?

From a political perspective, yes, I can see your point.

You think the mayor should be able to push the CEO?

No, I just I can understand why she do it.

Do I say it's right or wrong?

I'm not going to uh comment on that, but it doesn't surprise me something would have come out of the mayor's office like that.

You don't think it's wrong for the mayor to try to influence the CEO of JEA on the awarding of a contract?

Um I don't no one should try and influence the the CEO, and I'm not aware that she tried to do that.

Yeah, I'm just asking what your opinion is about that kind of behavior.

No, you it should, again, it gets back to my opening statement.

JA is an independent authority and they should be uh shielded.

This sounds naive, shielded from political gamesmanship.

Yeah, no.

Uh I would like the same result.

Let me ask you this.

The hundred and forty million dollars that the City of Jacksonville gets from JEA every year.

Have you had heard anyone trying to pressure JEA to do more?

No, I'm not aware of any.

And I think that 140 is actually above the average, one time above the average if I remember right.

Sure.

Uh well, since you're here, um if we weren't doing that, would we still have to raise rates on the ratepayers in Jacksonville if the city wasn't getting the 140 million or whatever the uh fee is?

We're gonna have to um well again, it's it's good timing because we have our rates hearing tomorrow.

But it the rates we'd still have to based on the capital expenditures that are confronting us for the next uh five years with water, wastewater, and electricity.

I think we are going to have to raise rates, but we're gonna obviously that's that's the next uh four months of determining if we need to, because we need to come back to City Council with that, I think in May time frame or June.

Thank you, Councilmember Diamond.

Last year the JEA gave the city a one-time 40 million dollar payment.

You are aware of that.

Yes.

Okay.

Are you aware of any discussions of a second payment above the normal um 120, 130 million dollars that the the administration has requested to the board or to Ms.

KB?

I'm not aware of it, no.

You're not aware of anything.

No.

Thank you.

Um let me uh skip to the board meeting on February 24th.

Sorry, Ron, I have to ask about this just because I was there.

It's a little frustrating.

I think everybody was a little frustrated.

Um both ends.

Yeah, I know.

I could see.

Uh so you're aware that each of the independent authorities have a council liaison, correct?

You understand the purpose of that is for us to have somebody over there who can participate.

Um twice tried to speak during that, both times.

Can I read and I'm gonna let you go.

I like both times you barked him down and said you're not recognizing him.

Why?

Okay.

One, it's and with all due respect, it all started uh when we approved the agenda.

And the first comment from from uh council member Salem was um why isn't the executive committee slating on this agenda?

We had already approved the agenda as board chair, I approved the agenda.

And that was not part of it based on the ramifications of why we need to redo the slating uh for that.

And just with all due respect, Councilmember Salem, when you objected to that not being on the agenda, that's not under the purview of the council liaison.

The board had approved it, so it's open for discussion.

Number two, when we started discussing the vote of confidence.

Okay, then that's the second time.

Councilmember Salem asked to be recognized.

Said no.

It's a board member discussion on a very sensitive matter.

And that's reserved for board members.

We have the luxury of getting together once a month, period.

And I was not going to let this meeting get hijacked by an external person.

In my opinion, all due respect, you were acting like you are a minimum an ex-officio board member.

You're not.

You are a liaison.

The board needed time to discuss this very sensitive issue amongst themselves.

And they did.

And there was also a comment made by the board abrogated their leadership by just sitting on their hands.

No one sat on their hands.

You were there.

They discussed this for 12 to 15 minutes.

Every board member spoke up, even uh the one dissenter, but everybody had the opportunity to speak up.

And I'll just tell you, I'm thin-skinned on one thing.

When people criticize the board, especially this current board, these folks weren't their butts off, and they're not afraid to express their opinion.

And I was proud of the board because I didn't default and say, no, we're not going to do this vote of confidence for Vicky.

Uh we need to discuss it.

No one abstained.

They all voted, and I think they showed courage in doing that.

Okay.

Well, let's let's let's unpack a couple of pieces of these.

Yes.

So um what do you think that the City Council's business is when it comes to JEA?

Are there things that are just totally yours and stuff that's ours or no?

There's there's for the City Council and JEA, there's plenty of room for collaboration, um, frank dialogue, et cetera.

Don't conflate that with a city liaison, council liaison.

City council liaison, and I have looked it up.

Actually, it's very loosely defined what the purpose of that is.

And quite frankly, as best I can tell, it's up to the board chair to see what role the City Council liaison has at board meetings.

In my two years, it was listen and then get back to City Council on whatever you observe, with an opportunity at the beginning to tell us if there is anything on the City Council's radar.

If that doesn't, if that rubs the wrong way with the city liaison, um one ever brought me in on a discussion on what that should entail.

I guess the good news is, though, you got a new chair to see what that relationship is.

I mean, I mean Can I jump in?

Sure.

Please the previous liaison could only speak during that comment time where he is listed on the agenda.

That was Ms.

Cavey's rule.

No, I it's it that precede since I have been on the council uh chair, um, prior Randy the four, if I remember right, then um then Councilmember Boylan.

Um we never had, I'll just tell you, we never had any issues.

And by the way, they would speak on occasion with something that was appropriate, no big deal.

Let me finish if I can.

I'm he was restricted, because I met with Ms.

Cavey when I was appointed by the President to serve as the liaison.

I went to Ms.

Kavey and she said this is when you can speak during your the liaison's report.

And I said, I am a city councilman representing 19.

If I can't speak during the meeting, I don't want to be the liaison.

I went to you.

I don't know if you remember.

I went to you and said I want to be able to ask questions throughout the meeting.

And you said that will be fine.

Do you recall that discussion?

Absolutely do not.

Okay.

I do not.

But you don't recall that.

Okay.

That's fine.

Okay.

Um.

The uh executive slate was pulled from the agenda.

Whose decision was that yours?

That was my decision as one as chair of the executive committee, and then also as uh chair of the board.

Didn't anybody ask you to pull it?

Nope.

Just totally your decision.

Why?

Did you do that?

Well, because we had a the current slate, which again I'll do respect to board member Morales.

So we have him get outside his lane, go to Vicky, ask for a resignation without consulting the fellow board members.

He did this after he was slated to be the chair.

So common sense, who on earth would want to still maintain that same slate when we know we got an aggressive anti-CEO becoming chair.

That's not fair to Vicky.

That's not fair to the other board members before before they could voice do they support Vicky or not, which they eventually did.

I got you.

So that's it's common sense why I had to cancel that slate.

So Mr.

Morales um in that board meeting, he goes out and he says, I went and talked to a dozen or so leaders at JEA because I am an incoming board chair.

And during that, and this is just what he said in the meeting, you were there, I was there.

He says I learned that there was a bunch of problems, right?

Um then he had these meetings with Vicky.

Let's put it aside the meeting with Vicky and the resignation, all that stuff.

Just like he comes back and he says there's a bunch of problems.

Do you do you think that he heard from employees that there are a bunch of problems or that he is just contriving this?

I don't know.

I'm not I I have no idea.

I'm just my own personal opinion is he should have he should have brought this up with all the board members.

Yeah, sure.

But I mean, do you think he was telling the truth?

I'm not-I I don't know.

I don't know.

Okay.

Um the uh motion was made by Mr.

Morales to do an investigation into the stuff he said he heard.

It was correct.

It was an external investigation, and we said we will do our internal JEA processes.

Yeah.

Uh he couldn't get a second on it, correct?

That is correct.

Why not second the motion for discussion to see if that's a better process to go, given that the allegations were about HR?

Sure.

Because then there was uh before before that motion was not voted on because no one would second it, if I recall correctly, people did discuss we have our own internal processes.

Why would we um punt those to to city council to somebody else when we have our own processes which are uh uh in place to field such complaints to see if there is validity?

But did you think that what he was asking for is city council to do or like uh an outside law firm coming in and doing an investigation?

He was asking for somebody outside of JEA processes.

That's what he was asking for when why not let us use our own processes first?

It's it's uh just so I understand it.

You don't think that he wanted you all to hire a law firm on the outside to investigate JA?

You think he wanted to do something just totally rogue?

No, he may have wanted an well, yeah, and he wanted an outside entity to look into it instead of using our own internal processes.

What was wrong with an outside entity looking at allegations of racism, toxic culture?

Why why not do it?

You can do it when it's warranted, but if we have processes in place for JEA to do that, why not use those first?

If they come out to be uh ineffective, got it.

Okay.

So you have those internal structures and for a purpose.

I'm tracking.

Uh but you've stated that the allegations were unsupported.

It's just 12 people, it didn't meet the standard.

You're saying that all this stuff.

Like what is the threshold?

Is 12 people enough?

Is allegations of racism enough?

Well, again, we we sort of talked this, I think, half an hour ago.

I don't know.

But when you got such a low percentage and you're making it sound like it's a systemic, endemic problem, that's that you're jumping the gun way too early till we find out how significant those are.

Isn't that the point?

And we don't know.

Isn't that the point, though?

You get reports in that there's a problem.

Right.

And then you go and do an external investigation to make sure, right?

You I mean, you're saying it's such a small percentage, but you say by definition, anybody who comes forward is going to be less than 2,000 people.

You say maybe we're talking past each other.

Uh investigation is warranted.

If it's one person, investigate.

And we have processes to do that.

But Councilmember Diamond, you keep saying external investigation.

I'm not sure why do you keep harping on it?

Sounds to me, maybe I'm misreading you, that you don't think JEA has processes from HR ethics, et cetera, to do an own internal investigation.

It sounds like you don't think we have that capability.

Yeah, no, no.

Okay, so this is worth a second here, just so I'll define this down for definitions.

Certainly you have internal processes.

Someone makes an HR complaint, there's an HR process that goes.

All right.

And also an ethics hotline.

And ethics hotline, I'm sure whistleblower protections and all the rest.

Okay.

Fully, fully tracking.

The processes all report up to the CEO, correct?

Ultimately.

Yes.

And to the board.

And to the board.

Okay.

So if the problem is with the CEO, which is what many of these allegations were, doesn't it make sense to have a process that doesn't report up to the CEO in order to make sure a proper investigation is done?

Right.

And that process again will come to the board, not to the CEO.

Okay.

Let me keep going on the board meeting.

And I only have a couple more questions here, so we can.

Can I jump in?

No, please.

The as was previously stated, the the motion was was not seconded, so there was no discussion on the morales.

And I think he used the word survey as I recall, because I spoke to him prior to the meeting, and we did a survey ourselves for an employee within the city council and used that survey to it was an outside survey.

So I I and I think he actually used the City Council's name similar to what the City Council has done in his and his wording on his motion that was not seconded.

But but yet that was there was no second, no process in place other than your internal processes, which I'm told by many JEA employees, they're afraid to go through those internal processes because it does go up to the CEO, which they claim is the problem.

So the need for which to me, then three weeks after the meeting.

Let me make my statement, then I will ask you the question.

Three weeks after the meeting, you uh boom, there's this we're gonna hire this law firm, they're gonna come in at $380 an hour to talk to our employees, and they're gonna hire a firm at 100 plus thousand dollars to do a survey.

So I'm trying to understand who initiated that three weeks after the board meeting where he we couldn't get a second for discussion.

Who initiated that survey and that law firm?

Do you know?

I think we are complaining two things.

As I said before, we have an engagement employee survey that was already in the works before any sick commission was stood up, anything.

That was already in the works, and that's to again poll uh employees on what's good, what are sustained, what needs improved.

That was already in the works before any of the accusations of toxicity or discrimination.

Mr.

Salbo, let me read you a statement.

This is the letter from um thank you.

Kathy Christy Gavin, one of your attorneys.

Yep.

She initiated this, and this is to empath employment and HR law.

Okay?

Jackson Lewis, correct?

Pardon me?

Is this the Jackson Lewis letter?

No.

No, this is an NPATH employment and HR law.

There is no Jackson Lewis on here.

Let me read you a sentence from this.

The scope of the engagement, the purpose of the investigation is to make findings of facts and conclusions concerning allegations raised during the February 24th, 2026 JE board meeting regarding JEA work environment complaints.

I I am just astounded that that sentence is there when there was no second to the motion to have a discussion.

That's and I am assuming this this entity is hired by Jackson Lewis.

Okay.

I don't know.

I am not even sure you are aware of this.

I'm not.

But I'll just tell you, I again.

And then let me make one other comment.

And then I called Jody Brooks and found out there was one complaint after the board meeting, and I have it here.

One complaint from one employee, anonymous, that referenced some of the stuff that we have talked about.

And I think you said that the investigation was initiated due to the one complaint after the meeting, anonymous complaint, to your hotline.

Is that correct?

No.

The investigation that was initiated about the toxic toxicity and discriminant and discrimination, that's the internal one that we started based on the sick, the formation of the sick to look into these allegations.

So we said, okay, you we hear allegations, we will look into it.

That's what that letter is about.

I don't know, I guess, uh Chair, I don't understand you are astounded by what?

I am astounded that you couldn't get a second at a meeting to have a discussion about the culture, and three weeks later, in between two board meetings, there wasn't even a discussion about this.

We we did not motion, we did not act on a motion because we couldn't get one, to get an external evaluation.

But that's what this is.

No, this is what this is.

This is that I believe, and I haven't I I don't see the pay I'd have to read it.

I believe that's when JEA said we're hearing noise about discrimination toxicity.

We will look into it, and this is how.

That's what that is.

That was not what Rick Morales was asking for about us to cede investigatory uh an investigation on our culture to an outside entity.

I I I I think we just have a disagreement.

Okay, it might be.

It might be certain things that have occurred.

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilmember Diamond.

I'm almost done.

I mean, it's uh 235.

We have been going for a while, so thank you for your patience.

I know this is this isn't a great fund.

Um just uh finish up on the meeting.

Um before the February 24th meeting, had there been any investigation done on the claims of racism?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Before the board meeting, was there any investigation done on the claims of toxic work environment?

No.

Before that board meeting, was there any investigation done on the issues related to capacity fees?

Were there any meetings on investigations?

Wait, investigations on capacity.

Not that I'm aware of.

There was discussion within the executive leadership on capacity fees with the male thing, but yeah.

And uh before the February 24th meeting, was there any investigation on issues with the Ballard contract?

No investigations I'm aware of.

So you were aware of allegations of racism, toxic work environment, issues with capacity fees and the Boward contract, and you made a motion for a vote of confidence without any investigation?

Yes.

Okay.

I've just got a couple follow-up and then I'll go to Ms.

Pittman.

Um you were chair, were you provided a guideline for the meeting to follow by the staff when you were chairman?

Yes.

What were the other board members provided the same guidelines?

Yeah, we all get the agenda that walks through everything.

No, I am not talking about the agenda.

I'm talking about a document that that goes through every single item and provides guidance for you and other board members.

What do you mean like whatever the topics are, we get a background, just all the associated material.

But I'm sort of confused.

What do you mean guidance?

Sort of a script of how things are going to occur.

You provided that and it guides you through the meeting.

If you're a committee chair and you do a report on as a result of the committee, um, yes, the admin people will do up a script for what transpired at that.

And then it's up to the committee chairs to use it or use their own notes.

But as it's chair going into a board meeting, you have a script of some sort in front of you that's different from the agenda.

No.

I am but maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not sure what you mean, Chair, by a script for what?

What's the script do?

A flow of the meeting, identifying where you need to take votes and where you don't need to take votes and motions and that kind of thing.

No, I do not have a script.

I just go by the agenda and where I see action, parentheses, action, that's when I know I need to uh uh uh ask for a motion to action.

But I don't use a script.

I don't get a script saying as they go from public comments to whatever to whatever, this is what you need to say no.

How was the was the vote of confidence that you provided, Ms.

KV?

It was me.

I didn't get my question out, but I appreciate your response.

It was purely spontaneous.

Yes.

Not part of a script or anything else.

No.

The reason I'm asking these questions, what we had a problem in 2019 of a script of board members uh having something in front of them, which in my mind created a serious problem of uh board members not thinking.

So the the vote of confidence, if we did a public records request, it was a spontaneous uh action upon on your part.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I don't use scripts.

Okay.

Okay.

Ms.

Pittman, do you have anything?

To the Chair, and the only other thing I have general, and and I don't know the process.

Again, I think a lot of what we're discussing is is process.

Um talking to past employees, I don't know what the process is before they leave.

If they have like an exit interview or something like that, um have there ever been any information regarding, you know, sometimes you have, you know, if I if I could make a recommendation since I'm leaving or I'm retiring, I would like to make recommendations.

And have you ever had any of that, or do you all have any information that has combinate all of those, you know, within the last three to four years, or where we're where we're talking about.

Um I I would like to know that.

Um, or any recommendations from the leadership team of what they have heard in previous years.

Um I think a lot of the questions that I wanted to ask and answers to, we've already put in writing, but based on the conversation and questions by my colleagues, I mean, which dug a little bit deeper than what was requested.

And you know, I'm only asking these questions because of conversations that I've had.

And I just wanted, you know, I'm a fair person, and I want to be fair in this process as well.

Um, but going forward, we can always complain about what's not right, but where do we go from here in terms of a solution and the assurance going forward?

Because right now the the current or existing staff doesn't believe in the process right now, right?

And so, and the ones that have left have mentioned the process.

So I just I I behove the board, the leadership staff, and Ms.

Cavey to look internally, because if no one is at the table or or have a seat at the table and feel comfortable in an environment to ask the questions that should be asked, no one's gonna do it.

And it's just like me on this committee.

You know, I probably wouldn't be on this committee if someone hadn't come to me, or the conversations I've had after the meetings that we've had.

So all I'm saying today, you know, from what my point is, Mr.

Chair, is to check and dig a little bit deeper and have a process where you have documentation and data that can reflect what you just said from as a board of directors and the information that you get from your leadership team.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, you're recognized.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee and to the general for coming up and speaking as Mr.

Diamond alluded to.

None of this is easy, but we're just trying to get questions out there.

And you you did a great job answering all these questions, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and revert back to a question that was asked by Councilman Diamond that you didn't answer in the very beginning as to your written statement.

You came out with a 12-minute written statement uh and he asked if you had any assistance with that.

You said yes.

He asked if it was Vicky Kavey, you said no, he asked if it was OGC, you said no.

Was it a private attorney that helped you with the statement?

No, it wasn't.

Was it Jody Brooks who helped you with the statement?

No, it wasn't.

Is it a JEA employee?

It was a contracted JEA employee.

Okay.

And the reason why I'm getting to it is the statement is very opinionated, which you're entitled to your opinion, especially with the matter of the attorney client privilege that we're asking you guys to decide as a board.

Uh do you know if if your statement or any of those prepared remarks were sent to the board member in advance, the board members in advance of tomorrow's meeting?

Not to my knowledge, no.

All right.

I just wanted to give you a chance to answer that question.

And then one other question real quick that just kind of uh seemed like it wasn't answered or that you brought up in the meeting, the board meeting where um Councilman Salem was was not allowed to speak.

You mentioned that you removed uh the item off the agenda because there was an anti-CEO board member.

And so your feelings were that because of Mr.

Morales was anti-CEO.

You didn't want to to carry that motion forward?

Correct.

How did you know that he was an anti-CEO board member?

What what discussions did you have with with him or with Ms.

Cavey or anyone that led you to believe that he was against the CEO?

He told me, Rick told me.

Rick told you.

Yes.

Okay.

And I I should correct Jody Brooks also took a look at my draft statement.

Okay.

Okay.

Would you consider that legal advice?

No.

Okay.

Those are the questions I had.

I just wanted to follow up.

I think the committee has done a great job and keeping this straightforward, answering questions, not getting emotional, not getting upset, not getting triggered.

We're just here trying to find the truth on what's going on with our public utility.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

That's all I have.

Mr.

Peloso, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the three minutes.

Uh General, thank you for coming here today.

I appreciate it.

Um have you ever done one of these in front of the U.S.

Senate?

Yes, twice.

Was that more or less stressful than this?

About the same.

So congratulations, guys.

Uh uh to the General.

Uh to that point, um, you were a three-star gentleman before you came into this role, correct?

Correct.

Would you say that those roles are very stressful?

Sure.

Would you say that you've worked with attorneys in the past during those roles, JAG officers included?

Sure.

Is there ever a time where you've had an issue with one of those attorneys?

No.

No, and no, no issues.

Um, and yes, there were disagreements with their advice or what they were advising me on, and and that happens occasionally.

Have you worked with other attorneys at JEA in the past?

Um yes.

Again, when Jody Brooks was the OGC, and then uh the new folks.

Yeah.

Point being is you've never had up until recently, right?

Through your How about this?

Let's go back a little bit.

Given your time that you were a three-star general, you were approved by the U.S.

Senate multiple times for your promotions.

Obviously, you have a very decorated career.

Would you say that you are maybe a well-received leader and expert in management?

Yes, but it's ultimately up to the folks who are managing.

They get the last vote, obviously.

Well, the United States Senate and the President of the United States selected you to be a leader, did they not?

So one would say that you are an expert on leadership and management.

So one would think that if you've never had an incident with other attorneys in the past where you've asked for their removal or wish for them to maybe have somebody else work in their stead.

And this is the one time that it's happened that maybe that's a serious thing that maybe board members here should consider that city council members should consider.

Yeah, but I would say they shouldn't consider it unusual either.

It's just the degree of how comfortable a client is with his attorney.

Understood, and I appreciate that.

Would you say that some of the questions today were very much misleading?

Um, I don't want to say misleading, they were hard.

I understand from their perspectives where these questions came from.

Um I just hope they understand my perspective of how I answered.

As a leader yourself, do you still have confidence in Ms.

KB?

Absolutely.

Do you believe the board has confidence in Ms.

KB?

Absolutely.

Do you believe that some of the questions here today were meant to create news headlines to make it seem like Ms.

KB is creating a more toxic environment than what you believe as a leader she is.

I'm not sure how much will come out of this with those themes you just said.

I'll just say my impression there's been a sp a steady drumbeat of that.

Understood.

Uh Mr.

Chair, if you just wouldn't mind, I'd like to say a few more things.

For one, we do have the OIG who's investigating the fees, right?

We know that that's happening right now.

We have the State Attorney's Office looking into the Balor contract.

That's what's happening right now.

Go ahead.

Let me correct you.

The OIG is not looking at capacity fees.

He asks us to look at capacity fees.

So there is a lot of people.

He doesn't he doesn't have the ability to uh or the staff to do to do the review of capacity fees.

That's why he came to the president and and put it into this committee.

Did the OIG ask for the president to create this committee or did the OIG asked for the assistance of our auditors?

Well, I'm not going to get into all that, but I'm just saying the OIG is not inspect it's not reviewing capacity fees.

That I just wanted to correct that point.

Understood, but they could.

I'll give you another minute.

Thank you.

I thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that.

But they could.

They could, so long as we allow for our auditors to work directly with them.

And we wouldn't have to have this this committee.

Uh and like I said, state attorney's office looking to the ballot contract.

OIG could be looking into the fees with the assistance of our auditors and the JEA board is doing this survey to ensure that the uh the personnel working for JEA are feeling comfortable on their roles.

Now you've done, General, you've done, I assume, in the in your time as a military officer, um climate surveys in the past, have you not?

They're very common, right?

As a leader myself, I'm a I'm a commander in the Navy.

Um they're very common to do.

And so we we we trust that those surveys are done you know accurately and uh independently.

And so I I I trust that JEA will be doing this.

The point being is I feel like we are in a place now where, given what has occurred today, given what's occurred over the past several weeks, the amount of headlines and news stories, this this should not continue in this current path.

We should take a step back, we should push pause, we should allow for this survey to come out, we should allow for the state attorney's office to do what they're supposed to do.

We should allow the OIG to work with our auditors independently.

Um that's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized.

Oh, someone has some town all for Jimmy.

His back must hurt for carrying all that water from the mayor.

Um sorry, I couldn't help it.

Uh the uh uh I have nothing more for the witness.

I really appreciate you being here, sir.

Like genuinely, I know you have better things to do, but um it's good service.

The uh stuff I do care about though, just I have to mention Rick Morales while I'm up here, because I have the platform, and this is not uh a comment on uh the testimony today, but I just have to say he's he's literally one of the most honest decent people I've ever met at Jacksonville.

And if he says something, I I believe him.

And I just feel the need to say that.

Um the other is that I have a request uh that some of the stuff is just like just shiny objects, right?

Some of the stuff is is not real.

It does really affect rates, it doesn't affect the employees, it doesn't affect um the finances of JEA.

But some of its core.

And I'm a little worried that we've shipped off some of the shiny object land and not on the core stuff.

So to the council president, the thing that I'm the most worried about is a combined cycle plan.

And not that they need another set of eyes, but that this is our most important asset as a city.

And I remember plant vocal very well.

And it's been awful to try and deal with that.

I don't know if this is 2.0 vocal, but I think that we need to know and have a seat at the table on those decisions.

Um especially since early liaison is not going to get uh you know any seat at the table.

So I would ask that that our sick be expanded just to include that, just so we have in our report an understanding of where we are today on combined cycle.

And frankly, the Balor contract is concerning to me.

Bid rigging is concerning to me.

Uh I'll throw that out there too, but mostly combined cycle plan is what I'm worried about.

And and I can't do it privately, so I have to do it publicly.

Thank you through the chair to Councilman Diamond.

I'll I'll get with our legal counsel and look into what it takes to amend you know the sick and if we need to add that charge.

I wasn't really familiar with what we learned about today, but the fact that we might have $350 or excuse me, $350 million invested in something that hasn't totally been approved is is something worth looking into.

So I'll get with uh counsel and we'll see about uh adding that to the sick.

Okay.

I I want to make one last comment.

Uh first of all, thank you very much for coming, Mr.

DeSalvo.

You answered the questions as best you could, and I appreciate that.

Number two, um there's been uh uh percentages used on uh JEA employees, and I think you've used them uh less than one percent and et cetera, two thousand employees, twelve complaints or something in that nature.

I I don't think any of us are of the belief that uh uh there are all the employees out in the field have any issue with Vicki Kavey.

They rarely see her when they do, she's probably out there cutting a ribbon or something like that, which is why our survey is targeted to those people that work in that building.

Uh there's 140 of them we've identified that are managers and above.

Now, what I don't know is how many of those regularly interact with Ms.

Kavey.

And one of the questions we're gonna ask specifically is that, because we want to know if you're interacting with Ms.

Cavey and have you had uh uh a toxic work environment when you have interacted with her.

We're trying to be as targeted as we can because I want the truth, and I know these two people want the truth.

So we're being I spent an enormous amount of time in the last two weeks working with Mr.

Teal and the survey company to make sure that we can get the information that is specific to this situation for those people that might be impacted.

So with that, uh I just wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you again for coming.

We are adjourned.