2014-215 Appointment of Kimberly Scott to REGULATORY COMPLIANCE DIVISION CHIEF

[sheclown]

It's on the consent agenda. Springfield did everything it possibly could  -- short of setting ourselves on fire in the council chambers --  JaxUnicorn was up for that, but me and Joe, not so much.

There is a reason to put her in a position to regulate the environment, air and water, someone who "gets it done" regardless of the consequences to the public.   

Watch the video of the meeting.

[Noone]

How about Edward D. Lukacovic as a candidate for this position?

[strider]

I could write another complaint here about how we were ignored, but that would not be an honest statement.  We were not ignored.  The issues we brought up here were indeed listened to.  So much so that the Mayor's office spent some amount of political capital to counter those issues.  I suspect that we were presented as a small group of nuts who simply hated Kimberly Scott because she demolished a few historic houses.  The mayor's office has the resources to do a better job of getting their message out than we certainly did.  And they won.

Unfortunately, that means we, the public, lost.  Again.  Big money, bad governing won.  There is no doubly that promoting a woman who has been shown to either willfully ignore the laws or is so incompetent that her employees without here knowledge willfully ignored the laws for years is not in the best interests of the public. It can only be in the best interest of a few who want someone like her in that important position.

The fact that the Mayor's office took this seriously and made the Rules Committee put on their little show tells me something important.  We now know that Ms Scott is not simply incompetent.  We now know she willfully has been ignoring those federal laws, willfully ignoring the asbestos regulations and willfully disrespecting the public.  That all works for the Mayor's office and for whomever wanted Ms Scott in this important position. There is indeed something coming down the pike that is will be very advantageous to have MS Scott over those departments and very willing to ignore the right thing to do.

The question now is just how much more damage can Ms Scott and the Mayors office do to Jacksonville before the public gets smart enough to election someone new? 

[Cheshire Cat]

I could write another complaint here about how we were ignored, but that would not be an honest statement.  We were not ignored.  The issues we brought up here were indeed listened to.  So much so that the Mayor's office spent some amount of political capital to counter those issues.  I suspect that we were presented as a small group of nuts who simply hated Kimberly Scott because she demolished a few historic houses.  The mayor's office has the resources to do a better job of getting their message out than we certainly did.  And they won.

Unfortunately, that means we, the public, lost.  Again.  Big money, bad governing won.  There is no doubly that promoting a woman who has been shown to either willfully ignore the laws or is so incompetent that her employees without here knowledge willfully ignored the laws for years is not in the best interests of the public. It can only be in the best interest of a few who want someone like her in that important position.

The fact that the Mayor's office took this seriously and made the Rules Committee put on their little show tells me something important.  We now know that Ms Scott is not simply incompetent.  We now know she willfully has been ignoring those federal laws, willfully ignoring the asbestos regulations and willfully disrespecting the public.  That all works for the Mayor's office and for whomever wanted Ms Scott in this important position. There is indeed something coming down the pike that is will be very advantageous to have MS Scott over those departments and very willing to ignore the right thing to do.

The question now is just how much more damage can Ms Scott and the Mayors office do to Jacksonville before the public gets smart enough to election someone new?

Very well stated Strider. 

[duvaldude08]

Im not sure if I missed it, but is there an active federal investigation happening yet?

[sheclown]

Im not sure if I missed it, but is there an active federal investigation happening yet?

There was an audit done a couple of weeks ago.  Someone from HUD headquarters in DC sent an auditor down for a week --  the results of that audit should be available in a couple of weeks.

The city thought it was only on the hook for 8 properties which it demolished using NSP 1 funds in the historic district without doing the proper reviews; however, the city learned that ALL properties 50 years or older demolished with NSP 1 funds without the proper procedures done will have to be repaid.  It is somewhere around 170 or so structures.

What else was discussed in the meeting after the audit, I don't know.

[duvaldude08]

Im not sure if I missed it, but is there an active federal investigation happening yet?

There was an audit done a couple of weeks ago.  Someone from HUD headquarters in DC sent an auditor down for a week --  the results of that audit should be available in a couple of weeks.

The city thought it was only on the hook for 8 properties which it demolished using NSP 1 funds in the historic district without doing the proper reviews; however, the city learned that ALL properties 50 years or older demolished with NSP 1 funds without the proper procedures done will have to be repaid.  It is somewhere around 170 or so structures.

What else was discussed in the meeting after the audit, I don't know.

Thanks SheClown!

[Noone]

I could write another complaint here about how we were ignored, but that would not be an honest statement.  We were not ignored.  The issues we brought up here were indeed listened to.  So much so that the Mayor's office spent some amount of political capital to counter those issues.  I suspect that we were presented as a small group of nuts who simply hated Kimberly Scott because she demolished a few historic houses.  The mayor's office has the resources to do a better job of getting their message out than we certainly did.  And they won.

Unfortunately, that means we, the public, lost.  Again.  Big money, bad governing won.  There is no doubly that promoting a woman who has been shown to either willfully ignore the laws or is so incompetent that her employees without here knowledge willfully ignored the laws for years is not in the best interests of the public. It can only be in the best interest of a few who want someone like her in that important position.

The fact that the Mayor's office took this seriously and made the Rules Committee put on their little show tells me something important.  We now know that Ms Scott is not simply incompetent.  We now know she willfully has been ignoring those federal laws, willfully ignoring the asbestos regulations and willfully disrespecting the public.  That all works for the Mayor's office and for whomever wanted Ms Scott in this important position. There is indeed something coming down the pike that is will be very advantageous to have MS Scott over those departments and very willing to ignore the right thing to do.

The question now is just how much more damage can Ms Scott and the Mayors office do to Jacksonville before the public gets smart enough to election someone new?

Very well stated Strider. 

+1 Good to see you back Diane

[aintlion]

I can't help but wonder who Kim Scott has compromising photographs of?  They must be pretty bad.

[JayBird]

I think Kimberly Scott's history is well documented, and well known.  Also, I think at times those complaining get lumped into an anti-Jax minority in some council decisions. I have noted numerous times watching the council videos where MetroJacksonville was used as if it explained away the persons legitimate complaint/concern. However, I must say it is rare to see the entire MJ agree on the same point, and that alone assures to me that the accused is guilty. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, guess what ... its a duck.

So, is this just a matter of the council (or Mayor or whomever makes this decision) not having a qualified alternative? I know in my job many people have stayed simply because they are more harm outside of the company than as a part of it. Which is wrong, but a fact of life I guess. I would think if there was already someone whom would be better suited to fill this position, the appointers or council would be happy to curry favor. After all, election season is now on the horizon for a lot of them. Does Jax really just not have the qualified personnel?

[strider]

I suspect there are lot of qualified people around who could do a great job for us tax payers.  Unfortunately, I do not believe that was the point, to do a great job for us tax payers, but rather the opposite.  Let me put it this way.  I think Ms Scott uniquely qualified herself for the new position due to her lack of ability to follow the law and to do the right thing by us tax payers.  I think the Mayor's office knows exactly who they put in this important position.  We just have yet to learn why; what project is coming that Ms Scott's unique skill set (or lack there off) will serve the Mayor's interests best. 

Like I said, this was obviously "smart" politics on the part of the Mayor and the council but just plain bad governing. What is sad is everyone on City Council knew it and just didn't care enough to try to stop it. Or were part of it.

Now, we will have Mr Prado's appointment coming up as the new Chief of Municipal Code Compliance.   

[mbwright]

for example, Corine Brown has been in office for a long time, and she certainly is not qualified.  I guess she is good for some.

[duvaldude08]

for example, Corine Brown has been in office for a long time, and she certainly is not qualified.  I guess she is good for some.

Corrine has done an awesome job for her district and she will stand up for them no matter how people view it. Thats why shes still in office.

[strider]

Corrine Brown certainly helped bring the millions of federal dollars to Jacksonville. But I am afraid that she has done that "awesome" job not for her constituents but for a select few.  It seems to me that with politicians like Brown, Lee and Gaffney, the positives seen by the average tax payers are more unintended consequences rather than the main purpose.