Kim Scott: Fox guarding hen house??

[Cheshire Cat]

Very disappointed, especially in Lori Boyer and Mayoral Candidate Bill Bishop.  Seems he could have staked out a difference from Mayor Photo-Op by voting "no" on this.  Especially as it was obvious she was going to get enough votes ... then, if (when) the fecal matter hits the ventilator, he could be on the side of the angels.

He has got to show himself as having some respect and concern for the serious issues discussed as opposed to rubber stamping the decision along with the rest of council.  Right now, politically he is saying he agrees with Alvin Brown and that overrides the concerns of the community.  I like Bill as a person, but do not see him as a guy who will offer a real challenge to Brown next elections cycle. 

[Charles Hunter]

However, since Bill is courting the Developer Support and Money (hence, the proposal to further weaken the Mobility Fee), perhaps develpers like Kim Scott, so he has to dance to that tune.

[Cheshire Cat]

However, since Bill is courting the Developer Support and Money (hence, the proposal to further weaken the Mobility Fee), perhaps develpers like Kim Scott, so he has to dance to that tune.

Quite possible.  I have seen Bill change during his years on council.  It seems he has been pulled further and further into the culture of City Hall politics and away from his greatest asset which was independent thought and action.  Again we are seeing politics as usual.

[Noone]

the city is being investigated

That is the spark that needs to immediately happen. I'm planning a RICO paddle. The total absolute crushing of the Public Trust in Jacksonville Florida.

Rules got it wrong. Council can get it right.

[sheclown]

Regarding the investigation. "We're slow but we are final"

[Cheshire Cat]

Regarding the investigation. "We're slow but we are final"

Way to do it.  Slow, steady and final. 

[JaxUnicorn]

We will not give up.  We have proof.  And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP!  I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. 

How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding?  If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this?) then the appointment should be delayed.  Period.

Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well.   

[Noone]

We will not give up.  We have proof.  And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP!  I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. 

How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding?  If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this?) then the appointment should be delayed.  Period.

Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well.   

+1

[Cheshire Cat]

We will not give up.  We have proof.  And I personally will shout it from whatever FEDERAL ROOFTOP I have to in order to get someone to WAKE THE F UP!  I don't like politics...I don't like how it seems people fold because their backing will be pulled if they don't vote a certain way, or decide for whatever reason to vote in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. 

How can they possibly move this forward when CM Denise Lee instructed OGC to "put this matter to bed" by issuing a statement of the NSP funding?  If there is outstanding questions (how long have we been talking about this?) then the appointment should be delayed.  Period.

Not a way to run a government...but then I guess this happens at the federal level as well.   

Absolutely do not give up.  You have the documents to take this where it needs to go.  Just understand that it is going to take much longer than anyone imagines to get the nonsense in Scott's department under control.  You are seeing the power of political cronyism at it's worst.  You have a great chance of getting this issue dealt with but it may be at the cost of the city losing future Federal Funding.  Unfortunately that may be what it will take. 

[sheclown]

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....

JACKSONVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION CLARIFIES RIGHT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LAW

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 12, 2014 – The Jacksonville Ethics Commission received an opinion from the Florida Attorney General that helps to clarify Florida's new law regarding the public's right to comment at government meetings.  The Ethics Commission requested this opinion after a local citizen brought concerns to the Commission.



In a request letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Ethics Commission sought to clarify the statute in two ways.  First, is the right to be heard effective for every type of meeting of a board or commission, including subcommittees or workshops?  Second, is public comment required on each proposition upon which a board or commissions acts, including any amendments taken up to a proposal?



The opinion from the Attorney General's office addresses the first question stating, "It would be advisable to adhere to the mandates of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, when a board or commission is taking official action on a proposition regardless of the formality of the meeting."  Further, while the opinion did not define the types of propositions requiring a right to public comment, the opinion states, "a board or commission should err on the side of allowing the public to do so."



Earlier this year, Jacksonville resident Connie Benham sought assistance from the Ethics Commission concerning Florida's right to comment law, Florida Statutes section 286.0014.  She explained her experience in attempting to assert her rights to publicly comment: "The interpretation of the statute was extremely subjective to the point of frustration.  It became increasingly hard for my voice to be heard.  I knew it just wasn't right yet no one would listen to what I had to say.  That is until I brought the problem to the Ethics Office."



The opinion from the Office of the Attorney General is attached as well as the Jacksonville Ethics Commission's request letter for the opinion.  For further information, contact Carla Miller, Executive Director of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 630-1476, or Joe Jacquot, Vice Chair of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 402-0303.

[strider]

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....

JACKSONVILLE ETHICS COMMISSION CLARIFIES RIGHT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT LAW

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 12, 2014 – The Jacksonville Ethics Commission received an opinion from the Florida Attorney General that helps to clarify Florida's new law regarding the public's right to comment at government meetings.  The Ethics Commission requested this opinion after a local citizen brought concerns to the Commission.



In a request letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Ethics Commission sought to clarify the statute in two ways.  First, is the right to be heard effective for every type of meeting of a board or commission, including subcommittees or workshops?  Second, is public comment required on each proposition upon which a board or commissions acts, including any amendments taken up to a proposal?



The opinion from the Attorney General's office addresses the first question stating, "It would be advisable to adhere to the mandates of section 286.0114, Florida Statutes, when a board or commission is taking official action on a proposition regardless of the formality of the meeting."  Further, while the opinion did not define the types of propositions requiring a right to public comment, the opinion states, "a board or commission should err on the side of allowing the public to do so."



Earlier this year, Jacksonville resident Connie Benham sought assistance from the Ethics Commission concerning Florida's right to comment law, Florida Statutes section 286.0014.  She explained her experience in attempting to assert her rights to publicly comment: "The interpretation of the statute was extremely subjective to the point of frustration.  It became increasingly hard for my voice to be heard.  I knew it just wasn't right yet no one would listen to what I had to say.  That is until I brought the problem to the Ethics Office."



The opinion from the Office of the Attorney General is attached as well as the Jacksonville Ethics Commission's request letter for the opinion.  For further information, contact Carla Miller, Executive Director of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 630-1476, or Joe Jacquot, Vice Chair of the Jacksonville Ethics Commission at (904) 402-0303.

Here's the thing, we asked to speak on Ms Scott's appointment and were denied that opportunity. A vote is required to confirm an appointment not just by the Rules Committee but also City Council.  Therefore, from the above, Mr Jones broke the law when he denied us the right to speak prior to the vote. It makes it clear that simply allowing us to speak on something already voted on during a public comment period was not enough.

[Noone]

Maybe its just me, but I was sort of hard-wired to accept the fact that the government acts in a benevolent way towards the citizens -- sure, I figured that there is a bit of corruption here, a pocket of self-interest there...but all in all, at the end of the day, I just figured that those who run this city love it as much as I do.

But this is what happens to someone as naive as me...

You start digging around,  start reading emails,  start reading other documents and you think WTF!

Even if you don't care about the demolition of a historic district (or of LaVilla for that matter).  Perhaps the urban core is of no great concern to you, surely you must care about the air you breathe, the water you drink.

Having an effective and independent Environmental Quality Division is paramount to your public health.   How can this NOT matter to you...to your council rep?

Even if we forgot about the past mistakes and misdeeds....what would our future hold with this type of leadership?  And should the EQD be forced to ignore the public safety issues in the future, what will the consequences be?  And who will stop the damage?

Sure, I'm mad about the senseless demotions in Springfield -- about the mismanagement of federal funds.  But I am totally blown away by a mayor who is so unconcerned about this that he rewards this behavior.  And I am frightened that the system is so entrenched in Jacksonville, that no one is willing to ask the tough questions for fear of retribution from the Good Old Boy network.

+1

[mbwright]

There also does not seem to be any consequences of not following the law.  No fines, or lawsuits, etc.

[sheclown]

2014-0215    RESO Conf Appt of Kimberly Scott as Director of Regulatory Compliance Dept. (McCain) (Req of Mayor)    3/25/2014    Introduced

Four days after the audit was complete, this was introduced.

Clearly the city knew there was an audit going on.

Clearly the city knew what the Feds would find.

[sheclown]

Asbestos case, demolitions stir talk ahead of vote on Jacksonville compliance job

By Steve Patterson Sat, Apr 12, 2014 @ 10:51 pm | updated Sat, Apr 12, 2014 @ 11:16 pm
The city's Code Compliance Division was cited in 2011 for hiring a demolition contractor not qualified to work around asbestos. City of Jacksonville
City of Jacksonville
The city's Code Compliance Division was cited in 2011 for hiring a demolition contractor not qualified to work around asbestos.

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.

"They need to have a detailed response," said Councilman Warren Jones, chairman of the Rules Committee, which will take up legislation confirming Scott's appointment before a full council vote.

Jones said he told Brown's aides he'd like to hear point-by-point answers to concerns raised by members of the historic preservation group Preservation SOS, who have talked to the full council and to his committee about the appointment.

If those answers aren't ready when Rules members meet Monday, Jones said he may defer action on the bill (2014-215).

The department she would run is a new incarnation of what was once the Neighborhoods Department, with divisions for the environment, animal care, code compliance and mosquito control.

Scott has met with committee members individually, and Jones said he's comfortable with her selection but thinks people deserve a public accounting.

"These allegations have been made," he said Friday. "And if they're not true, which I'm told they're not, someone needs to respond."

One thing council members are already asking about is a citation the city's Environmental Quality Division wrote in 2011 that said the Code Compliance Division hired a demolition contractor who was not qualified to work around asbestos.

That should be simple to sort through, said Councilman Bill Bishop. "It's not that complicated to make sure the contractor has the appropriate asbestos removal certification," Bishop said. "If you can't provide that, then you've got a problem."

The citation was about tearing down a shuttered Chinese restaurant, the King Dragon at 1126 University Blvd. N.

The code division got involved after the building's owner hired contractors who started work on the property, then walked away with old asbestos exposed, according to city records.

A company that had planned to finish the job told the city someone else had torn the building down, which started a chain of interviews that led inspectors to Michael Lloyd Hauling, a demolition company that works often for the city.

Environmental inspectors first said the company had not given the advance notice the law usually requires.

But Scott said the building was taken down on an emergency basis, over a weekend, to keep from exposing children at neighboring Arlington Elementary School and a day care to asbestos dust from the half-wrecked property.

When environmental officials asked, Lloyd's company couldn't prove it had someone on the job with the training needed to work with asbestos, and that made the work illegal, the city's former environmental division chief wrote in 2012 email about the case.

A city agency that hired Lloyd "has the responsibility to ensure all contractors meet required regulations," wrote Vince Seibold, the former environmental chief.

It's not really that simple, said Scott, who did not sign a consent order the environmental agency drafted to settle the citation.

Scott said her old division approves hiring somebody to demolish buildings but depends on the city's Procurement Division to line up bids from qualified companies and make it easier to get the best deal. She said the division, also called MCCD, wasn't going to dispute any company's qualifications for a contract just because another office questioned it.

She said the agency would be careful about second-guessing Procurement's decision on who is qualified to bid.

"If MCCD is going to raise a concern about a contractor, they would need proof to present," she said, noting it was the environmental division that issued the citation. " ... We would put the city at jeopardy if we make an accusation we have no proof about."

Apparently no one has taken that chance.

Procurement Division Chief Greg Pease said Friday he hadn't heard discussion by anyone until last week about whether Michael Lloyd Hauling had credentials for working with asbestos.

There isn't a problem now, anyway.

After being cited in 2011, Lloyd "has now attended the required ... training," Seibold wrote in 2012, and city files contain a certificate showing he completed an annual refresher course as an asbestos contractor/supervisor last year. He's legal to work until the certificate expires in September.

Regardless, there are other things for council members to think about from Scott's appointment.

Jones said Friday he's more interested in talking about how much money the compliance division has to return to an account that held cash from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

The program helps cities pay for work in struggling neighborhoods, including demolishing decayed buildings.

The city spent about $30,000 demolishing two houses on East Second Street in Springfield's historic district last year but later decided that cost couldn't be covered by the stabilization account because it had not reviewed the demolition's impact on historic preservation, a federal requirement.

The city began a review last year of whether demolition expenses in other areas would have to be reimbursed to the stabilization account, but a city spokeswoman said last month that review was still underway.

Preservation SOS members, meanwhile, noted last month that demolitions at more than 150 addresses seem to be listed in a city breakdown of expenses, from a couple of hundred dollars to more than $60,000, tied to the stabilization fund.

The same way federal community development money comes with rules that aren't clear, Jones said the stabilization account may have limits on its use that are not fully understood — but need to be.

Council members also may not exactly understand what's involved in voting on Scott, a city employee for nearly 30 years who has been a division chief since 2007.

Her fans point to streets they say are better after having someone buckle down on neglected properties, and critics point to buildings they say were torn down unnecessarily.

Bishop said he's trying to weigh some facts in conflicting stories but last week had not decided whose arguments made the most sense.

"I haven't gone through all of it," he said.

Steve Patterson: (904) 359-4263

so any answers come out from this?

I believe there is STILL an open EPB investigation on the books.  Preservation SOS has NOT been able to find any resolution.  If the contractor has obtained the necessary training, does this mean the citation has been closed?  Who closed it?  Did DEP do the investigation?  That was suppose to happen to avoid any conflict of interest?  Where is the paperwork?

Has the Environmental Protection Board addressed this outstanding violation?