Alright, we're gonna get we're gonna start here in just a little bit, but Jason Teal is supposed to be here.

Well, so Mr.

Foote, please call Mr.

Teal.

That's what we're we're we're putting the search committee out.

We could we could issue a subpoena.

What's the notice for that?

Yay.

Yay.

We have one motion or say.

Okay, he's here.

No, no, no.

There he is.

Alright.

We almost had to issue a subpoena for you, sir.

Yeah.

No, it's not a laughing matter.

We would have done it.

All right.

Um good afternoon, everybody.

This is um a little finance workshop, but obviously it's for for anyone who wants to attend.

Uh Councilmember Halland uh isn't able to attend, he's not feeling well today.

So he will be listening in just uh for whatever that's worth.

Um so we'll start with introductions, but really all we're here to do is kind of get a just an overall idea of what the special investigative committee has been doing.

Um for those of us who haven't been able to follow along super super closely for the day to day.

I've obviously seen things in the news and read about it, but the exact information I just wanted all of us to hear from Mr.

Teal, and obviously we have um two of the sick committee members on finance as well joining us.

So just to kind of flesh out any questions, kind of get an idea of how did we get to this point where we're at today, and so on and so forth.

So we'll start with introductions to the left and then we'll go to Mr.

Teal and we'll go from there.

Colleen Hamsey, Council Research, Harry Stefopoulis, Office of General Counsel.

Philip Peterson, Council Auditor's office.

Kim Taylor, Council Auditor.

Good morning, Roy Diamond, District 13, the beaches.

Ron Salem group two at large.

Will Lane District.

Joe Carlucci, District 5.

Good morning, Raw Aries, District 11.

Good morning, Michael Boylan, District 6.

Just visiting.

All right.

Good deal.

So with that, we will kind of go ahead and allow Mr.

Teal really as much time as you need.

What did we notice this for a certain end time, Ms.

Defopoulos?

Okay, okay.

You have until 11 45.

Okay, awesome.

So we'll go to uh Mr.

Teal and then we'll bring it back for discussion and questions and yeah, take it away.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jason Teal, City Council Secretary and Legislative Council.

So I'm gonna have about 20 minutes probably to save uh plenty of time if you uh have questions or if um council member Salem or Councilmember Diamond wants to weigh in on anything uh that they uh uh think needs to be expanded on.

But basically, what this is is that the uh council president created the uh special investigative committee on uh JEA on March 11th, and it originated uh with a request from the Inspector General for the council to investigate uh the JEA's failure to appropriately collect capacity fees uh from developers whose developments exceeded the uh their uh or expanded their developments by greater than 20% over what they were originally approved for, what they originally paid into uh the capacity fee fund for.

Uh and separately from that issue, there was a separate issue with regard to allegations that were made to the JEA board by one of their board members about complaints of a toxic work environment and racism that's uh against Vicky Cavey, who was uh JEA's CEO.

Uh and after the the JEA board failed to conduct an investigation into the allegation, that charge was also added to the SIC's charge in its original charging document of of March 11th.

Uh now part of the SIC process, there was information received uh separately about a proposed combined cycle electric generation facility or plant that JEA had committed a 350 $350 million non-refundable deposit uh for which JEA had not yet received any regulatory approvals uh to construct.

And so at the request of the SIC on April 25th or 23rd, rather, the council president uh amended and expanded the SIC's charge to investigate the combined cycle plant as well.

So there's three three issues going on with the SIC.

There's the toxic work environment, there's the capacity fee issue, and there's the combined cycle plant uh issue.

So as part of its work, the SIC has met five times between March 17th and May 11th.

And you have in front of you uh a bunch of documents uh that I uh had copied for you to um that I think were relative to the sixth process.

I don't have those.

Um Nikki, did you have those?

We now have those.

Okay.

Uh and so what's part of that package I'll talk about is first of all the two sick charging documents from the council president, the meeting minutes from all five of the SIC meetings, and then there's other documents that have also been are also being distributed to you that I'll explain as I'm going through my presentation.

So the capacity fee issue stemmed from an investigation from the inspector general during which he interviewed Regina Ross, who was the Office of General Counsel's attorney assigned to JEA.

She was uh chief legal officer.

She was embedded at JEA.

So she was there on a day-to-day basis, and she was all things uh JEA.

And I believe she had uh reporting to her, I think three other attorneys, might be four other attorneys, uh, to handle the JEA's legal work.

So OGC's legal team was embedded at JEA.

And um she authored, Regina Ross authored a memo that detailed the fact that JEA had failed to appropriate appropriately collect capacity fees from developers and landowners, business owners, uh whose projects had grown beyond the original originally calculated JEA water usage rates.

And there was an initial request from uh councilmember Salem, who was the chair of the or is the chair of the SIC to meet with Ms.

Ross.

Uh however, uh Mr.

Fackler, the general counsel intervened uh and uh in essence prevented any conversations uh with Ms.

Ross or participation by Ms.

Ross in the SIC process uh due to concerns about uh attorney client privilege uh and confidentiality with uh her uh Florida Bar license.

There's restrictions on what attorneys can discuss and can't discuss.

Uh and in response to that, um, based upon the the SIC's understanding of Mrs.

uh Ms.

Ross's um testimony and the importance of her testimony, Councilmember Salem and Mr.

Facler devised a workaround uh whereby the council auditors would be able to have discussions and questions submitted to Mr.

Facler who would then go back and ask Ms.

Ross what the answer was, and then go back and communicate, report back to the auditors uh what Ms.

Ross's answers were, uh, and then that would prompt additional questions from the auditors, which would be presented to Mr.

Factor, go back to Ms.

Ross, and it was this whole um arrangement that was uh that was set up.

Um but that when the cumbersome process was explained to the SIC, uh the SIC caused a formal request to the JEA board to waive the attorney client privilege uh to give the ability for Ms.

Ross to fully participate uh in the SIC's process, and you've got a copy of the uh the request for the waiver of attorney client privilege in your materials.

Um separately uh at the same time the SIC instructed a letter to be produced to JEA for what's called a a document hold uh letter.

And so what that is is it's a normal practice during any investigation.

You want the agency to hold and maintain all of their documents.

So the SIC issued a formal request to JEA so that no relevant documents would be destroyed or displaced or you know, whatever uh wouldn't be available to the SIC.

So that letter went over to JEA as well.

Now back to the attorney client waiver request, that was heard by the JEA board at its workshop on April 14th, and the JEA board denied the request.

Um so they uh they failed to uh to waive the privilege to allow Ms.

Ross to be able to participate in in this whole thing.

Um now separately, as part of the six processes uh the uh the culture issue, the toxic work environment issue.

Councilmember Salem and I researched and had conversations with multiple employee satisfaction survey companies that are out there, and we ultimately selected a company called Selection Link based on their extensive experience with government agencies as well as their experience with conducting surveys with utmost attention to anonymity that was important uh of the respondents and their experience in targeted investigations uh related to toxic work culture and racism.

Uh, and as you'll recall, the council approved that contract last Tuesday.

Uh so we're moving forward with um with that uh survey.

Now, at the time that the survey discussions were being had by the SIC, there was a discussion.

There was uh uh JEA board member, other members came to the SIC and and indicated uh that the SIC should should disengage from its employee satisfaction survey from conducting the survey due to the fact that JEA was simultaneously conducting an investigation into the the uh allegations against Ms.

Cavey, as well as a JEA-wide-wide employing uh employee satisfaction survey.

So they were conducting their own survey, which as came out during the testimony they routinely do every two years.

Last one was in 2024, this one's in 2026.

It's over 2,000 employees.

It's uh we have a received a copy of the questions that they ask, and it was just general.

You know, do you feel like you're being supported in your work?

Do you feel like your duties match your job description?

It's you know, those kinds of just generic, we call them uh um temperature check uh type of uh of survey.

Um, and so the SIC considered all of that uh as well as uh that we heard a lot of information about the extreme distrust by the JEA employees about participating in their own survey because of the factor being honest in their own survey because they felt like there was a real possibility of retribution.

Um apparently that had come out after the 2024 survey.

Some people found out who submitted various comments, and there was uh um some retribution that apparently happened or allegedly happened in response to that.

So there was this uh environment of distrust over there with um being honest to to JEA.

Uh and so um the SIC determined uh, secondly, that they determined that that temperature check wasn't going to get the job done.

Um, that there really needed to be a targeted survey that focused on those employees that have direct interaction with the CEO, because not every line worker or every uh utility worker, you know, regularly interacts with the CEO, and so it was important to have a targeted survey, not only targeted with the uh the people who were would respond to the survey, but targeted to the questions that were asked.

We needed to focus on what is your work environment.

Has Ms.

Cavey you know done anything or said anything, or you've heard you know um her saying anything or doing anything, in order to really address the questions of the allegations that uh that were presented to the JEA board by one of their members as well as uh separate information that uh the sick committee members had had received outside of that process.

And so they made that determination that no, we do feel it's important uh to go forward with uh with the council survey.

We feel like people would be more forthright if they know that that information is not going back to JEA.

Um, and as you know, uh, based upon an amendment to the survey legislation, the the the idea there is to just gather data and have uh their experts, you know, kind of calculate it out and and draw some maybe some conclusions or or point to some trends, but that that information is given to JEA, uh, the JEA board specifically to do a presentation to the JEA board for those results, but it was determined that it was really important uh that the council remain separate from the JEA survey for uh the reasons that I just mentioned.

Now, on the capacity fee issue, oh, I should mention that it's expected that the time frame for completion of the survey will be uh late June or early July at the latest, and so uh so we do feel like um that it will be conducted in uh uh in a reasonable amount of time.

Uh on the capacity fee issue.

Uh the council auditors reported to the SIC uh that they had conducted interviews with over 10 JEA employees.

I think uh they sent them in four uh 13 um JEA employees uh in order to gain an understanding of the issues associated with a calculation of exactly how much in capacity fee uh arrearages uh exist.

Uh and so now I think that they've got um at least should have direct uh access to JEA's information in order to begin their calculations and their data gathering and in uh uh to understand, you know, uh how much capacity fees have have remained unpaid and are due and owing.

Uh, I should mention that there was a legal issue that was raised uh with regard to the capacity fee issue, which was whether or not there's a statute of limitations that may apply uh as far as what JEA can actually go back and collect, how far back JEA can actually go back and collect.

Uh that was presented to the SIC.

They evaluated that, but the determination was: look, we need to understand what the universe is of the amount of fees that is actually or would have been owed to JEA, regardless of whether it's collectible or not.

We uh needed a better understanding of of how much in these fees did JEA uh not collect over the uh over the years.

And so um so the uh so the sick requested the auditors to calculate the amounts of arrearages for as far back as was possible, uh in order for the sick to understand the total amount that uh the JEA failed to collect, regardless of how much was ultimately deemed collectible.

Uh now, in an effort to fully explore the SIC's charges, the committee requested the appearance of certain witnesses from JEA, Diane Mosier, who's the JEA head of HR, Jody Brooks, who's the JEA's CAO, and Vicky Cavey, who is the CEO, in addition to Ms.

Ross, uh, which I'll get to in a minute.

But uh Ms.

Mosier and Ms.

Brooks were originally scheduled to appear at the SIC's April 27th meeting.

Um, and Ms.

Mosier was uh originally scheduled for the May 11th meeting.

Um, I'm sorry, I had that backwards.

Um Ms.

Mosier appeared uh at the April 27th meeting, and Ms.

Brooks was originally scheduled to appear uh at the May 11th meeting.

Uh Ms.

Mosier appeared on April 27th uh as uh as scheduled.

She was questioned by the SIC at that meeting.

Councilmember Pittman uh read into the record several letters that she had received concerning uh racism issues and the toxic culture.

I won't really get so much into that, but if you're interested in the substance of those letters, uh you I would encourage you to review the video from the April 27th meeting.

Uh now, while Ms.

Mosier appeared as agreed on May 6th, I received an email from Ms.

Brooks uh to cancel her appearance on May 11th, and she further indicated that neither she nor Ms.

Kavey would be available until over a month later uh at a at a couple of dates in June.

Uh and you have in your materials the entire email correspondence between Ms.

Kavey, Ms.

Brooks, and me concerning the scheduling attempts.

Now, Ms.

Ross uh appeared at the SIC on May 11th to inform the SIC about her consultation with the Florida Bar uh about what she could or couldn't uh discuss uh in that type of an environment uh and whether she was able to testify at all before the SIC with regard to her representation of uh of JEA.

Um now while she was informed by the bar that she was prevented from testifying about all matters concerning her work at JEA unless she was compelled to attend.

So unless she was actually subpoenaed to attend, uh she couldn't really get into anything uh that uh that she uh observed while she was with uh with JEA.

But the bar clarified is that if she is under a subpoena, uh then she's free to testify about all of the m all matters other than those that are deemed privileged uh under the definition uh with the Florida Bar.

And that's in essence uh is a pretty broad definition, but it's it's legal advice that she gave her client.

Um, you know, discussions that she had with her client that led to the the giving of legal advice.

Um but what it doesn't include and what she would be able to testify about is those things that she just observed personally.

You know, did she observe anything with regard to the toxic environment or you know, interaction with any employees that came to her as their lawyer?

Um, uh not well in the course of her legal representation of them, but just you know, the uh things that they would have said to her about the way people were treated.

Um she can testify about uh public documents that she had public records that she produced, for example, her legal memo.

You know, what did you mean by this in your memo?

What did you mean by that in your memo?

Um those are the kinds of things that uh that uh we feel like she would be able to uh to testify about.

Um so in response to Ms.

Ross indicating that she needed to be compelled to testify uh via subpoena and Ms.

Brooks and Ms.

Kavey, their non-availability for uh for over a month, the SIC requested that subpoenas be issued to compel the appearance of all three of those witnesses.

Um now, different reasons.

Uh, you know, Ms.

Ross from Ms.

Brooks and Ms.

Cavey.

Um, but uh uh, and I believe that you've got pending today the uh the three subpoenas at the finance committee.

Um, however, the SIC did select dates for their appearances to coincide with the dates that both Ms.

Brooks said she was available on June 8th and the date that Ms.

Kavey said she was available on June 22nd.

Uh and so, you know, so the the purpose of the uh the subpoenas is basically hey, you said you were available on these dates, we're gonna hold your feet to the fire so that you can show up when you said that you would be there originally.

Um now, Ms.

Ross is also available on both of those dates.

Uh, and so I think that that's uh the request for the subpoena is is that you know she appear on both June 8th and June 22nd if necessary.

Uh, in essence, the thought process there was is that um Ms.

Brooks would testify uh Ms.

Ross would have the ability to hear that testimony, and then you know, if there was any inconsistencies or differences from the way she remembered or asking her questions about things that Ms.

uh Brooks or Ms.

Kavey brought up, um she would be available to do that.

Um it was also determined that the SIC needed certain documents uh concerning um various issues within the sixth charge, and that included uh the proposed settlement that uh Ms.

KV was pursuing with Mayo Clinic, whether or not the board was ever advised uh of those proposed settlement agreements, whether or not the board needed to be advised, or whether Ms.

Kavey had independent authority to enter those uh those types of settlement agreements.

Um the attempts by uh other documents include the attempts by certain JEA employees to calculate capacity fees owed to JEA.

Our understanding is that two JEA employees were tasked with calculating how much in capacity fees uh were owed to JEA.

Uh they were reassigned, demoted, disciplined uh in in response to something, which we'll have to figure out.

But the bottom line is they're no longer on that project.

And so we wanted to understand uh what was associated with that.

When did they start looking into the capacity fee issue?

When did JEA first have notice of the capacity fee issue?

Um, and then um other topics related to the SIC's investigation, uh, including you know uh complaints that were made regarding the toxic work environments, complaints uh that HR or the board had received with regard to any um racism uh or anything else, and that's all part of the uh the subpoenas that we're requesting as well.

So I think that catches you all up.

Um, however, I am happy to explain any of that further or to answer any questions that you all might have.

All right.

Well um let's go ahead and get our questions answered.

Um we got a full queue, and then I did promise Mr.

Fackler I would give him a few minutes as well to just speak and something that he'd like to bring up.

Um so we'll go through the queue for questions.

We'll start with uh oh, we want to welcome Councilmember Matt Carlucci for joining us as well.

So I don't think any okay, we have no one else to join.

Uh all right, so we'll go to Council Member Salem.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to make a two or three points, and I want to save as much time for questions as we can.

Um when this first came up month or six weeks ago, um, I had a call from the inspector general.

I met with the inspector general, which was after he had met with Regina Ross.

Regina Ross did meet with Inspector General.

He indicated to me, and I don't want to get into a private discussion, but clearly the capacity issue uh was one that he felt like um the council should look at.

Number two, we had a discussion about some of the environmental issues at JEA that uh he heard from not only Miss Ross, but from that February JEA board meeting where they didn't take any action, they suggested employees that had problems go to HR, go to the inspector general, go to uh um the human rights commission, and he had employees from JEA that came to him.

Um we had a discussion about that.

So when the president asked me to take this on, and I was very comfortable where I was and what I'd heard from the inspector general to move forward with this process.

The other point that I want to make that I've heard that it's just the auditors working on the capacity issue.

I I had several discussions with Mr.

Fackler orchestrating this process where the auditors could get the information they needed in this roundabout way, and that's pretty much been completed now.

I think they are now able to dig into the numbers, but there was considerable discussion.

The other point that's very important to me that that came up was this statute of limitations on the capacity issue.

I think Mr.

Mr.

Diamond and I about leaped out of our chairs when this came up at the SIC meeting because it's very important to me that we have the total picture of how far this goes back.

What the JEA board does with that information is entirely up to them whether they have some statute of limitations or or handle it in some way I I think the public needs to understand the total dollars involved in this how far it goes back and then let the JEA board uh handle it it's just like our survey we're going to get those results we're going to turn it over to the JEA board and they will take the appropriate action.

That's not up to the council they're responsible for operations of the JEA and and uh we will provide that information to them but please understand their survey is a temperature check survey it does not get into the specifics of what we're going to get into.

Now I should also mention they do have a uh a a um a law firm that's going around in meeting with individual employees about the culture I don't know what that's uh what what that firm has found thus far I'm assuming that will be uh reported to the board whenever that process is completed so they may pick up some stuff from that I don't know so I think that uh I think I just wanted to make sure everyone understood where I was and where the committee was and why we're where we are thank you.

Appreciate that um and just for for anyone else in the queue what we're what we're really wanting to discuss in the in the workshop and council member Salem's here for any additional questions but it's it's mainly focused on the subpoenas because that's something that we will be taking action on um in finance committee so want to just um allow this opportunity for everyone to kind of get a a sense of um who what when where why type of uh questions answered before we get to our very long committee that we have today as well so council member lanen you recognize I think chair and thank you for saying this up because uh a lot of us uh I mean we've been getting kind of the the bullet points from the sick meetings in the media I wanted to hear it from uh council members uh Salem and Diamond and uh Ms.

Pittman unfortunately can't be here uh so number of thoughts or uh questions actually uh for a combination of uh probably Mr.

Teal and our members uh I think to date the only thing I've said publicly is uh just my continued support for Arthur Adams.

I know that's not a discussion now but again being a newcomer to uh the government world in 2023 it's rare that I've had people I've worked with closely in my past uh be on an important board like this so I do hope that there's a way we can find a way to keep Mr.

Adams on the board very very talented person and he would not have gone through the hassle of getting the CSX CEO up to that level to okay him participating in this if he thought he was going to do it only one year.

One of my one of my questions is so on the subpoena uh through the chair and Mr.

Teal so basically they were going to come last minute they didn't come the subpoena now is basically extra emphasis to come on the date you told us you are now available right like the subpoena is not for a random date it's for a date they said that they are available and given that they didn't show up when they said they would the first time this is a additional motivation if you will to make sure they show up this next time that they said they're available correct through the chair to council member so the initial outreach that I did with uh with Vicky T Vicky Kavey I reached out to her twice uh to schedule her never heard back from her um in response to those when I did hear back um she said she was available the first date she said she was available was that June 22nd date but yes you're exactly right that's uh dates that they gave us that there was that they were available the purpose of the subpoena is just basically make sure that they show up on those dates.

Three chair, thank you, Mr.

Teal.

And to the uh to the sick members, Councilmember Salem and diamond.

Uh so June 22nd, do we have a feel for when we think we will wrap up the committee?

I know it can be open-ended, but is it a potential that this June 22nd meeting is the last one because then we go and recess, do council presidency, just trying to get a feel for when we are going to say this is over.

Um I had a plan to finish this by June 30th before all these delays occurred.

Um clearly the witnesses we have scheduled at this point are the only witnesses we have scheduled.

Umless something comes up from the witnesses that we're that we are have scheduled.

I could see the witness part of this uh ending on June 22nd.

The the capacity issue part of this may roll into uh July.

Uh one of the reasons it was very important to me to issue these subpoenas was to make sure for the reason you just stated, we're taking two weeks off, then we get into the budget process.

So I wanted to get as much of this completed as we can.

Um the presentation on the combined cycle is uh June 8th as well.

So I think there's a pretty good chance we will wrap most of this up by the end of June, may flow into July to some extent, and uh I'll allow the next president to decide whether he wants to extend it for a month or so or find some other way to pull all this together.

Through chair, thank you, Dr.

Salem.

Uh, and through the chair to Mr.

Teal, uh regarding the council directed survey, we will not have those results you said back.

It'll be well after the June 22nd date, right?

Through the chair to Councilmember Land.

Uh they indicated to me that uh they would have their the results back by late June, early July.

So I would well after, probably not, but you know, it may be a week or two after.

So through the chair, thank you for that, Mr.

Teal.

So uh again, I I'll support this.

Uh again, I think this whole process would have uh gone faster if one you were able to speak for at one of the board meetings that kind of was at the very beginning of this, and two, if uh if they had showed up on the originally agreed upon dates, we'd probably be closer to making June 30th of a more likely ending date.

Uh I will say the thing that has my most interest uh is with uh no surprise, right?

I'm the numbers guy, the billing.

So I I do think that's probably the thing uh that I want to be sure we completely run to ground and have the uh the right about uh right amount of oversight on that, given that it is going to be potentially a large uh dollar amount.

So uh I think that is all of my questions for now, and thank you for your time, Mr.

Teal.

All right, Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized.

Um I'll be really brief because I want there's only 15 minutes left.

So I'll do less than 90 seconds.

So just at 40,000 feet.

Um, you know, when we did the original sick in 2019, it was very contentious.

I mean, people are in jail right now because of the stuff that we found in that process and turned over to the feds.

This is not contentious process.

This is literally just trying to get some answers to questions that I think people in Jacksonville wanted to know.

So there's these these allegations just started shooting out racism, toxic work environment, uncollected fees, all this other stuff.

And the easy way to do it is to have had Mr.

Salem just had his questions answered at the board meeting, and for JEA just kind of like address all these things.

Instead of that happening, and then and then had a clear path for their employees to say, hey, I got a problem, right?

And be listened to.

And that didn't happen.

And anytime that doesn't happen when people aren't just like very eager to stand up there, like JTA, I have grilled them.

Nat Ford stands at that podium and he answers very tough questions for me at JTA.

That's all I was personally looking for.

Let's answer ask the questions.

When you don't get that kind of transparency, that's when my spidey senses start to explode.

And that's why I was like, okay, let's just get some subpoenas on deck here.

And all and I issue subpoenas all the time.

And it's really just to make sure people can show up.

That's one.

And two, it gives an employee cover so that they can say, I'm compelled by the court ultimately to show up.

And for Ms.

Ross, that's absolutely required.

She needs it in order to be honest and talk about it, she needs a subpoena.

So to me, again, uh, I love the transparency.

I love just getting questions answered, and we're the elected body.

I think just a check-in like this is absolutely healthy with something as important, especially when you see rates going up and up and up.

And just as far as like product stuff that we've already gotten, one, we're getting fidelity on the uh combined cycle plan and the risk associated with it.

I think if we did nothing else, that's important.

Two, we found out that senior executives were getting paid to do nothing, right?

So that sunshine coming in is super helpful.

Three, we're making sure that employees have a route to say, hey, there's a problem here, and we'll just get an answer, whether it's good or bad on the assessment.

So I just want to say from 40,000 feet, this is just about getting questions answered.

It should be non-controversial.

This is easy stuff.

All right.

Thank you, and Councilmember Arias, you're recognized.

I thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh speaking about getting questions answered, um, one of the a few questions that I have, and I want to make sure that they get answered.

I'm not sure if these questions were already asked, but during uh the upcoming meetings on the um 27th of June when Ms.

Kavey will be here.

Are we gonna be able to uh through the chair to Mr.

T.

Are we going to be able to know uh what the figure amount was that was uncollected by then, or are we still gonna have to wait until the July for that part?

That's one.

And then the second part is are we also gonna know who benefited from not being charged these capacity fees?

Um many times I get calls from a lot of business owners, a lot of them saying, Can you please help me out?

Uh, we're we're paying too much in capacity fees.

Are we even being charged accurately?

Uh, why so much money for a small 1200 square foot, you know, uh unit.

And so these people are paying with their life savings, and then to have larger entities that could easily write that check, not pay it, that's really disheartening, and it doesn't really show good faith for our small business community.

So I want to make sure that that um I know who these entities are that are benefiting from it because I'm pretty sure they're not small businesses, they're larger corporations.

And then also I want to know um when should we expect these capacity numbers?

I know you mentioned that there were two individuals working on it and they either got demoted or reassigned.

Um, has that process has has it been halted or is it continuing still?

Um, and so that's what I want to know if it turns to subpoena, are we gonna get those questions answered?

Okay, I don't I don't think that is uh you can answer that for 30 seconds, but I think the subpoenas are more of a issuing uh requirement to appear.

But if you want to take 30 seconds and answer some of his questions, you can or y'all can talk about it later.

So through the chair to council member area, so as far as the timing in terms of the uh uh when we're gonna get the numbers or find out more of that, that's more of the auditors uh as far as uh you know when they think they may have you know enough um meat on the bone, if you will, or certainty uh as to uh to calculate.

I know it's a very complicated process because we're dealing with decades of time uh as and the landscape has changed a little bit in in there.

Um as far as um you know the other issues, I think that um that that's the goal here.

Uh and we won't know until we we get those questions asked of um, for example, Ms.

Brooks, as far as these two employees, um, you know, what were they tasked to do?

One of the some of the documents that we've asked for, and it involves those employees as far as when they started working on it, how they started working on it, you know, those kinds of things.

Uh so we'll hopefully get a better picture of that.

We should have all of that back uh if Ms.

Brooks is is here on June 8th, um, you know, at that meeting.

All right, we'll go to uh last speaker in the queue, Councilmember Boylan, and then we will hear from Mr.

Facler um and we will go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I've got a couple of questions from Mr.

Thiel, and they are related to the the rationale for the subpoena.

Number one, is there documented evidence as to the percentage of employees who detrust the JA survey?

To warrant that kind of statement.

Through the chair to Councilmember Boylan, all we know is is what we're hearing.

Um now, is that a you know statistical calculation?

No, it's absolutely not.

Do we have any sense of how many participated in past surveys percentage-wise?

Um I do have the uh I do have the results of the 2024 survey.

I don't know off the top of my head what what the percentage of the employees were that participated, but I can certainly go.

I think that's helpful to understand uh to give either context or you know, affirmation to your the affirm uh the contention that they don't trust them.

Number two, uh is there documented evidence with respect to the number of employees who have complained about the toxic work environment?

Uh through the chair, Councilmember Boylan.

So the only evidence that we have of that is uh the JEA board meeting where they encouraged employees to to go to HR.

Um the chief of HR said that she had received no complaints, um, but we were also told by um the then chair uh Mr.

DeSalvo that uh that they started their survey or their investigation because they had received a complaint um in response after the board meeting.

So there's conflicting evidence uh as far as um, and that's just kind of one of the things we're trying to get to the bottom of is how many complaints have actually been submitted.

Speaking of conflicting evidence, I've talked to a number of senior managers who to a person said they did not see those incidents that Mr.

Wilson spoke about.

They were there and didn't experience them in the same fashion.

Well, and since he he you know he testified under oath, should he be called back here in order to clarify his position on that?

Potentially.

I think that's well within the six authorities, is if they've they've got conflicting evidence to call him back to try and explain.

I would suggest that might be something there for the committee to consider.

Last, as for your comments on the capacity piece about those two individuals who were quote unquote removed, it may the way you you commented on it.

Sound like you thought it was nefarious in the way they were removed.

Can you make certain we understand that there could be a variety of reasons whether or not they were not sufficiently doing the work well or well enough?

Uh it's not just because they were trying to put something out there that the management was trying to hide.

I I mean that's how it sounded to me when you said it.

So if you could clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair to Council Member Boyland.

A lot of the stuff we're hearing is speculation, it's hearsay, it's, you know, um not firsthand accounts.

It's uh, you know, it's a lot of smoke, right?

What we're looking for is fire.

Uh, and I think that that that's important to uh to understand.

I think it's also helpful though to know or to to recognize that the SIC or and the council is not going to be really taking any formal action with regard to this information.

It's just gonna be presented to the JEA board to say, hey, here these are the results.

We heard all about the smoke, we did the survey to see if there was any fire.

Here's the results.

You guys pursue as you see fit.

Now they may look at it completely different than the council does, but I think the council has recognized it's the board's prerogative to to uh um to to handle their employee however they see fit.

So I think that's the intent is is to just give them the information.

If there's anything there, uh and if there's not, then you know they'll they'll act accordingly.

And I very much appreciate the fact that uh the chair of the committee and others agreed to the fact that the survey information goes to the board and not to us for determination as to whether there is any validity to the issue.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Um, and just real quick, we're running a little thin on time, but Mr.

Teo, you are going to bring copies of the subpoenas to the finance committee for us to see exactly what the request is for.

Okay, great.

Uh Council Member Macalucci, I give you one or two minutes, and then I promise Mr.

Fackler he would have three minutes.

So, yeah, I'd rather let my time go to Mr.

Faculty.

I just want to agree with what uh Mr.

Borland said, and a lot of speculation has been treated as fact that I've watched, and I think it's been very unfair.

But at this point, I'd like to Mr.

Facker to have a chance to say what he'd like to say.

Okay, thank you.

Come on down.

Thank you, uh, board chair for um letting me have a just a board chair.

It's been a long day already.

Um, chair of the I don't envy that position right now.

Um I come today not as your attorney, um, but as the head of the office of general counsel and as the employer of Regina Ross to make a request.

It's not a legal, you can't do this.

I recognize you do have the authority to subpoena Ms.

Ross.

My request is I respectfully submit that it's not good policy or a good precedent to be subpoena an attorney from my office to testify under oath in front of the SEC.

And there are two main reasons for that.

First, it puts Ms.

Ross in a terrible position.

So she has ethical and legal obligations to protect the attorney client privilege.

Every question will force Ms.

Ross and one of our attorneys to parse that question to ensure that she can cooperate as she's required to under the subpoena and comply with her ethical obligations not to reveal privileged communications.

It'll be a difficult situation and it'll be fraught with real danger.

A legal complaint to the bar could follow if she makes a misstep.

And just as a quick example, um, we heard earlier that Ms.

Ross may be able to testify about public documents.

That's not necessarily true.

If that public document is about privilege and legal advice or information she relied on to give legal advice provided to her, that would be a privilege violation.

She could not testify to that.

So we've even heard today how fraught it will be for Ms.

Ross to answer these questions.

The second is the impact on our office.

We represent, as everyone knows, independent agencies, the school board, JHA, everyone in the consolidated government.

And we work tremendously hard and take great pride to gain and maintain the trust of all of our clients.

It's especially difficult when we're dealing with independent agencies such as JEA, the airport, the port, to build that trust because we're located here.

And there's a perception that we favor different clients.

My understanding is there's a perception that we always favor every other client besides the one we're talking to.

But we work really hard to build that trust.

I'm very concerned that we're requiring an OGC attorney to come testify about confidential information they learned while at that client will erode that trust.

The whole purpose of having that trust is so that we get the full picture in order to provide complete and most accurate and most necessary legal advice that we can, and I fear that having her testify under oath would erode that trust.

So those are the two main reasons I'd request not to issue a subpoena.

My second request is as an alternative, if you subpoena Miss Ross only for the last day, June 22nd, after the other witnesses have testified, it's my understanding that the majority of that confidential information could come out through those other witnesses, and we don't need to put Miss Ross through the parsing of every question.

So my request is if not subpoena, only subpoena her for the 22nd.

And by putting her at the end, we can potentially avoid some of those difficult questions.

That is my request.

I would like to clarify one thing because it's important for my confidentiality.

The process that we use with the auditors was I did not get the information from Miss Ross and relay it.

I was not a go-between.

Our whole purpose in helping the auditors was to make sure their legal questions were answered.

I was not relaying privilege communication from Ms.

Ross to the auditors.

The auditors had legal questions, Miss Ross might have had some of those legal answers.

Our job was to provide them with all the legal answers we could, not to be a conduit for privilege and confidential information.

Happy to answer any questions, and I hope I made it within three minutes, Mr.

Carlucci.

All right.

Yeah, we have Councilmember Diamond, you're recognized.

Well, just one statement and a question for uh Mr.

Facklar.

So, first of all, in 2019, Jason Gabriel never did this.

He bent over backwards and was willing to have OGC testify to anything, like full transparency.

But my question is through the chair.

I mean, isn't it true that if JEA just waived privilege, Ms.

Ross would be fine?

She would have no issues with the bar, she'd have no issues with professionalism.

They could just say tell them the truth, isn't that right?

They to uh Mr.

Diamond through the chair, that's correct.

If you waive the privilege, then there would not be that parsing of each.

And is it also true that eventually all this is gonna be public, no matter that the confidentiality that you're talking about, or even the litigation privilege with the attorney client privilege?

It all goes away with time anyways with government lawyers.

Like nothing is gonna be secret down the road.

Through the chair, to Mr.

Diamond, I respectfully disagree with the assertion that privilege remains the work product doctrine would of course expire upon the expiration of any litigation that stemmed from it.

But confidential information, unless waived, that information would remain privileged permanently.

What secrets could a board member or anybody else have over there that is not of the public interest to have full disclosure about?

Like what could you have that you don't want the public to know?

Chair, uh, just as an example, there could be a litigation strategy in there.

There could be concerns about uh the way we're proceeding forward.

There could be concerns.

I I speak just on hypothetical, I don't sure.

So put litigation in a bucket over here, which is probably only related to the uh to the uh capacity fee issues.

You know, we're gonna have litigation maybe with May or something.

Put that in a bucket over here.

I I could probably get my head around that.

Anything else?

What on earth could they have?

That's a secret.

If they have a conflict of interest, a board member has a conflict of interest.

If they were given advice and they ignored it, isn't that all public information?

Isn't it all of the public interest to know it?

Through the chair to Mr.

Diamond.

That may all be public information, but and it can come out through the board member, but as it resides with the attorney, no, it's confidential information is privileged.

If you wanted to ask the board chair about his or her conflict, I would argue that that is not privilege, that is public information.

But when it resides in the attorney, yeah, sorry.

I didn't know that's the clock.

That's okay.

Yep.

Um my clock is saying it is a uh 1145.

So we actually have to conclude, but I think we've heard um pretty much all the information um that we've needed.

So ultimately, uh just to summarize real quickly, um, finance will be at one o'clock today.

Uh, we will have copies of the subpoenas from Mr.

Thiel, and ultimately what I heard was um they are going to be issued with the same dates that have already been agreed to.

Um, and I'll reserve the right um to speak the rest of my comments and finance committees since we're already kind of running out on time.

But thank you all for coming to this uh you know workshop.

I thought it was uh appropriate.

I should have done more time, but obviously the guys uh Jason Teal and Mr.

Fackl are out there in the audience if you want to ask them any questions.

So, with that, workshop is adjourned.