Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??

[JaxUnicorn]

Here's a link to the actual video (03/31/14 Rules Committee meeting)  instead of the listing of all videos..    I begin speaking 25 minutes into the video followed by strider.

http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Rules_3-31-14.wmv

[sheclown]

Today's proverb -- brought to you by PSOS



art by Nicole Lopez

[sheclown]

Two meetings of note for Monday.

The first is 9am at the Rules Committee, council chambers.

The second is at 5:00 Ed Ball Building, the Environmental Protection Board. 

PSOS will be at both meetings.  We'd love company -- and we will report back.

[sheclown]

front page of the paper today:

Asbestos case, demolitions stir talk ahead of vote on Jacksonville compliance job
Posted: April 12, 2014 - 10:51pm  |  Updated: April 12, 2014 - 11:16pm

By Steve Patterson   

A Jacksonville agency was cited for having an unqualified contractor demolish an asbestos-tainted Arlington restaurant.

Later, the agency had two houses in Springfield razed, then had to return money for the demolitions to a special federal funding account because reviews the federal government requires were not done.

Now the agency's chief, Kim Scott, awaits a City Council vote on whether she should be promoted to director of the city's Regulatory Compliance Department.

And critics are lining up to second-guess Mayor Alvin Brown's office for the pick.

"At the end of it all is this: to run a regulatory compliance division, one ought to have a track record of complying with regulations," wrote a commenter on the blog site metrojacksonville.com. By Friday, the site had logged 5,355 readings of a thread headlined "Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??"

There's a lot that should be talked about, and publicly, a key City Council member said.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-04-12/story/asbestos-case-demolitions-stir-talk-ahead-vote-jacksonville-compliance#ixzz2ynfIwFdg

emphasis mine.

[Noone]

Streaming on coj.net right now.

[JaxUnicorn]

I am so disappointed in our City's Rules Committee decision to APPROVE Kim Scott's appointment to Director of Regulatory Compliance. They questioned Kim Scott about the demolition of the restaurant in Arlington and whether asbestos guidelines were followed but NOT ONE PERSON asked anything about the mis-use of NSP funds.

Looks like the Fox has just been given carte blanche to guard the hen house....

[avs]

Who is on the Rules Committee?

[JaxUnicorn]

No public comments were taken before the vote.  I was told by CM Jones that there are no public hearings for appointments.  We are going to speak after....

[avs]

JaxUnicorn, did each of them vote in favor? 

[JaxUnicorn]

There were 7 votes in FAVOR of the appointment.

I did not see the recommendation to ask the Rules Committee to reconsider until just now.  Given the fact that CM Denise Lee instructed the Office of General Council to "put this matter to bed" (referring to the use of NSP funds to demolish structures) while I was speaking, perhaps there is a precedent to have the vote reconsidered. 

One would think that the issue should have been "put to bed" BEFORE a vote took place.  And I was extremely insulted by Ms. Lee's treatment of both strider and myself.  We spoke, she responded, and then did not allow either of us to respond to her comments, which is really not.  If a CM asks a speaker a question, that in my opinion opens the door for dialogue and therefore the speaker should be allowed to reply/respond.  I don't know what the "law" says regarding interaction between citizens and CMs.

Both CM Redman and CM Lee were asking me whether the structures demolished using NSP funds were condemned.  I could not answer that, and to be honest, although I've not looked to see if condemnation language is in the regulation, it does not matter.  NSP funds are FEDERAL funds and in order to use them, the Federal Government REQUIRES following Federal guidelines.  If federal funds are to be used to rehabilitate or demolish, a Section 106 review is REQUIRED to be done on ANY property over 50 years old.  Ms. Lee asked if NSP funds could be used to demolish a structure and cut me off when I started to explain.  She wanted a yes or no answer.  The answer is YES, NSP funds can be used to demolish a structure.  But that's not the end of the story....if the structure is over 50 years old, then a Section 106 review is required.

It's all about knowing the regulation.  And knowing the regulation is now Ms. Scott's JOB.

[strider]

This got a fair amount of coverage from the media.  The Mayor's political machine was up and running and it did it's job better then we did.  Plain and simple.  The only real issue that was brought up by PSOS that was addressed in any way was one Asbestos case and she was given an opportunity to address it.  Otherwise it was about how wonderful of a person she is and how wonderful of a job she has been doing. Of course, Ms Lee said I was wrong because I should not make this personal though it seemed OK for them to make it personal. 

I said for the record that the appointment of Ms Scott may have been smart politics for them, but it was not good governing. That she either willfully ignored the Letters of Understanding she signed or all of it happened without her knowledge and she is incompetent.  It is pretty black and white to me.  And so is what the Mayor's office and this committee thinks of public input into what they must feel is only their affair. It is very disheartening to think that even ones you feel are the good ones can't be bother to get the facts and must vote politics over common sense.

[avs]

CM Lee loves to cut off citizens when speaking

How could any of this be personal against Scott, when none of the opponents know her personally, they only know her performance/job record??  What bunch of nonsense!

Get the Feds involved in the misuse of money, get one of the property owners to sue, that's the only way this Council will wake up!

[sheclown]

Wait...You spoke AFTER the vote?

286.0114 Public meetings; reasonable opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.—
(1) For purposes of this section, "board or commission" means a board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of a county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.
(2) Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. The opportunity to be heard need not occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes official action on the proposition if the opportunity occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionmaking process and is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action. This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided in subsection (4).
(3) The requirements in subsection (2) do not apply to:
(a) An official act that must be taken to deal with an emergency situation affecting the public health, welfare, or safety, if compliance with the requirements would cause an unreasonable delay in the ability of the board or commission to act;
(b) An official act involving no more than a ministerial act, including, but not limited to, approval of minutes and ceremonial proclamations;
(c) A meeting that is exempt from s. 286.011; or
(d) A meeting during which the board or commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This paragraph does not affect the right of a person to be heard as otherwise provided by law.
(4) Rules or policies of a board or commission which govern the opportunity to be heard are limited to those that:
(a) Provide guidelines regarding the amount of time an individual has to address the board or commission;
(b) Prescribe procedures for allowing representatives of groups or factions on a proposition to address the board or commission, rather than all members of such groups or factions, at meetings in which a large number of individuals wish to be heard;
(c) Prescribe procedures or forms for an individual to use in order to inform the board or commission of a desire to be heard; to indicate his or her support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition; and to indicate his or her designation of a representative to speak for him or her or his or her group on a proposition if he or she so chooses; or
(d) Designate a specified period of time for public comment.
(5) If a board or commission adopts rules or policies in compliance with this section and follows such rules or policies when providing an opportunity for members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to be acting in compliance with this section.
(6) A circuit court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction for the purpose of enforcing this section upon the filing of an application for such injunction by a citizen of this state.
(7)(a) Whenever an action is filed against a board or commission to enforce this section, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees against such board or commission if the court determines that the defendant to such action acted in violation of this section. The court may assess reasonable attorney fees against the individual filing such an action if the court finds that the action was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. This paragraph does not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or an officer charged with enforcing this section.
(b) Whenever a board or commission appeals a court order that has found the board or commission to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees for the appeal against such board or commission.
( An action taken by a board or commission which is found to be in violation of this section is not void as a result of that violation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2013-227.

I understand that you spoke two weeks ago on this topic, but is that really "reasonable"?

A violation of this state law pays attorney's fees. 

[JaxUnicorn]

Below are questions (I assume from City Council) and answers (again, assume from Kim Scott) that were referred to during the Rules Committee Meeting.

Front page:


Back page:

[JaxUnicorn]

Wait...You spoke AFTER the vote?

286.0114 Public meetings; reasonable opportunity to be heard; attorney fees.—
(1) For purposes of this section, "board or commission" means a board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of a county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision.
(2) Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. The opportunity to be heard need not occur at the same meeting at which the board or commission takes official action on the proposition if the opportunity occurs at a meeting that is during the decisionmaking process and is within reasonable proximity in time before the meeting at which the board or commission takes the official action. This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided in subsection (4).
(3) The requirements in subsection (2) do not apply to:
(a) An official act that must be taken to deal with an emergency situation affecting the public health, welfare, or safety, if compliance with the requirements would cause an unreasonable delay in the ability of the board or commission to act;
(b) An official act involving no more than a ministerial act, including, but not limited to, approval of minutes and ceremonial proclamations;
(c) A meeting that is exempt from s. 286.011; or
(d) A meeting during which the board or commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This paragraph does not affect the right of a person to be heard as otherwise provided by law.
(4) Rules or policies of a board or commission which govern the opportunity to be heard are limited to those that:
(a) Provide guidelines regarding the amount of time an individual has to address the board or commission;
(b) Prescribe procedures for allowing representatives of groups or factions on a proposition to address the board or commission, rather than all members of such groups or factions, at meetings in which a large number of individuals wish to be heard;
(c) Prescribe procedures or forms for an individual to use in order to inform the board or commission of a desire to be heard; to indicate his or her support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition; and to indicate his or her designation of a representative to speak for him or her or his or her group on a proposition if he or she so chooses; or
(d) Designate a specified period of time for public comment.
(5) If a board or commission adopts rules or policies in compliance with this section and follows such rules or policies when providing an opportunity for members of the public to be heard, the board or commission is deemed to be acting in compliance with this section.
(6) A circuit court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction for the purpose of enforcing this section upon the filing of an application for such injunction by a citizen of this state.
(7)(a) Whenever an action is filed against a board or commission to enforce this section, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees against such board or commission if the court determines that the defendant to such action acted in violation of this section. The court may assess reasonable attorney fees against the individual filing such an action if the court finds that the action was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. This paragraph does not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or an officer charged with enforcing this section.
(b) Whenever a board or commission appeals a court order that has found the board or commission to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees for the appeal against such board or commission.
( An action taken by a board or commission which is found to be in violation of this section is not void as a result of that violation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2013-227.

I understand that you spoke two weeks ago on this topic, but is that really "reasonable"?

A violation of this state law pays attorney's fees.

Yes, both strider and I spoke AFTER the vote was held. 

In addition, two weeks ago CM Jones told me that public hearings are NOT held on appointments.  I have sent two emails to Jason Teal with the Office of General Counsel, one on April 1, 2014 (copied CM Jones) and another on April 8 (copying CM Jones and adding Cindy Laquidara with the Office of General Counsel) and asked for clarification on that issue.  To date I have received no response from either Mr. Teal or Ms. Laquidara.