Jacksonville's legislative branch is scrutinizing a mayoral decision to move the city's last remaining Jim Crow era Confederate monument.
While it doesn't appear legislation will emerge to restore the structure, new General Counsel Michael Fackler took questions and absorbed attacks from City Council members during a Rules Committee meeting.
Fackler, appointed by Mayor Donna Deegan and unanimously confirmed by the Council last year, heard questions about the Democratic chief executive's choice to remove the city's tribute to the "Women of the Southland."
Jacksonville's General Counsel tailored his argument for monument removal around questioning whether the structure was even "historical" or a "contributing structure" to the Springfield historical district, a position based in local ordinance not making that designation clear.
However, he noted that he didn't actually present the draft memo to the Mayor during comments Tuesday, though he promised a finalized opinion was pending.
The memo also notes that Gov. Ron DeSantis "cannot implement an unconstitutional statute retroactively to penalize the Mayor from exercising her exclusive executive powers over parks under the consolidated City's unique Charter," a reference to newly filed legislation that would allow him to remove lawmakers who took down statues.
The committee delved into the "process" of monument removal, per Republican Council President Ron Salem, who said Council's "powers were infringed upon" by the mayoral movement.
Salem noted the opinion was "unsigned" and "undated," presented as a "draft" to the media.
"It was an internal document that we used to advise the Mayor's Office if they could achieve the goal," Fackler said, noting that the Mayor's Office requested the draft on Boxing Day, followed by the press and members of Council.
This didn't mollify Salem, who objected to a "draft being used to conduct business in the city just as that."
Fackler said it was an "effort to get (his) thoughts on paper," and that his office "could have" formalized the opinion. He says he stands behind the opinion "for the most part," suggesting that saying the Mayor's Office had "exclusive authority" over the parks was a misstatement that he would "step back from in a final draft." However, Fackler had "no intent" to actually sign the document.
"Make whatever changes you need to make and sign the document," Salem said. "I don't think it should have ever been circulated as a draft."
Salem was also incredulous that the General Counsel did not reach out to the Planning Department, saying it was "astounding" that outreach didn't happen.
Regarding the "executive action" of the Mayor, Salem noted alumni of previous Mayors' Offices were "appalled" by the removal, wondering if precedent had been set to remove other statues "without consent" of the City Council.
Fackler noted the Council could put restrictions on "the authority of the Mayor" and said the City Council could work with his office for that. Salem noted he is introducing legislation to that effect, and that ordinance already barred the executive branch from commissioning work valued at more than $100,000 without Council approval.
"I do not want this to happen again," the President said.
Salem noted Fackler was in the job for just three weeks before making the "flawed" process, and noted that he was a believer that the General Counsel "should be representing the whole city fairly."
"I have doubts about that right now," Salem said.
Finance Chair Nick Howland said the administration abandoned "caution" by not consulting the legislative branch, as he questioned which parts of the draft opinion the General Counsel still backed.
"Removing it was City Council's decision to make," the Republican said, wondering what the rush was.
Howland took issue with the donated "gift" money for monument removal, saying those dollars were really "revenue" that should have been appropriated by the legislators.
"I think we basically just had a blatant disregard for transparency in the process," he said.
Republican Councilman Kevin Carrico took issue with the claim that the monument wasn't a contributing "historical structure," with Fackler saying that it was "excluded" from a list of such structures despite being mentioned in ordinance.
"You found your way to getting to an answer that the administration wanted," Carrico said.
Fackler said no one asked for the OGC opinion, which he volunteered given the Deegan administration's interest in removing the structure. His office began working on the document last month, he noted.
"It's a little rushed," Carrico said, noting that some members of the Council knew the monument was coming down while others did not. A representative of the Mayor's Office said that lack of information was due to a "security concern."
No comments:
Post a Comment