Planning Commission member refuses Jacksonville Mayor Curry's request to resign

[tufsu1]

This so called petition sounds like 18 year College Republicans being douche bags.   

let me help you with that

[RattlerGator]

I guess it would be too much to expect her to graciously step aside, as requested. You know, like the others who apparently have some home training.

[vicupstate]

I guess it would be too much to expect her to graciously step aside, as requested. You know, like the others who apparently have some home training.

Her term has not expired. Being asked to leave mid-term is unprecedented. And there are TWO people not doing so. 

[tufsu1]

^ maybe a better reference would be something like the FCC.  Not sure how often that happens.

[strider]

I guess I am a bit confused.  How are appointed positions serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, whether or not their removal and / or appointment is confirmed by City Council, anything but political? Why would anyone be surprised by being asked to leave by a new mayoral administration, other than it being usually not done at this Board level?  And what if there truly is cause for the requests (As Stephen has implied for at least some of them)?

Frankly, I personally have seen cause for concern about Lisa King, but know little about the others.  I guess some could be personal and others could be expedient (to give someone else a favor).  But they all could just as easily be valid for positive reasons.

[RattlerGator]

Well now.

How are appointed positions serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, whether or not their removal and / or appointment is confirmed by City Council, anything but political?

They quite clearly are 100% political, as any honest reviewer knows. But, when your politics don't agree with that of the requesting party, you shout and scream about how these things are supposed to be above politics.

Nice trick, but rather sophomoric.

She missed out on some home training. And she needs to be booted off, given that she doesn't know how to graciously resign. Further, she quite likely doesn't know how to graciously resign precisely because she's highly partisan.

Above politics, indeed. Keep whistling Dixie, Stephen, keep right on whistling.

[vicupstate]

If these positions were intended to be political, the Charter would have structured them as such (as purely appointed by the Mayor with no term of office prescribed). They were given election-spanning terms of office specifically to take political considerations out of it.  No doubt also to achieve some experience and continuity for better governance.  That is the way it has been done too, until now it seems.

This is simply a power grab and partisan reward. This provides a  compelling reason for going to non-partisan elections at the City level. 

Exactly what have the ones asked to resign done, that you don't approve of? Besides not being partisan Republicans?   

[Steve]

If these positions were intended to be political, the Charter would have structured them as such (as purely appointed by the Mayor with no term of office prescribed). They were given election-spanning terms of office specifically to take political considerations out of it.  No doubt also to achieve some experience and continuity for better governance.  That is the way it has been done too, until now it seems.

Agreed. The mayor appoints people to a lot of boards and commissions, like JEA, JTA, JAA, JPA. This is one of those situations where the letter of the law doesn't match the spirit. Clearly these positions are designed differently than say, the Director of Public Works who is an appointed official that, indicated in charter, serves at the pleasure of the mayor.

[Tacachale]

First off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented. The "unprecedented" part is only in the extent to which Curry has dropped the axe. One may question the wisdom of spending so much political capital on board seats just three months into the term, but it's certainly within his authority to do it - again, if the Council approves.

In addition to the political capital, the board change will have additional cost to Curry if it doesn't end up being productive. In the past, the boards weren't necessarily seen as political positions, and therefore they didn't reflect poorly on the mayor when they screwed something up. Now that Curry has been so public with wanting to fill the boards with his own appointees, if the boards do something wrong (or unpopular), it's going to reflect back on Curry. So it's not like he's unaccountable for his actions.

All that goes to the performance of the boards. So far, I think most of Curry's picks have been very solid and I expect many others would agree if it weren't for the circumstance of how they were made. In some cases, ripping the band-aid off will probably be a good thing. I don't think anyone could argue that the JEA board didn't need a few kicks to the tires, for instance.

[vicupstate]

First off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.

As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented.  Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes.  If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.   

Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.

While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.   
   

[Tacachale]

First off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.

As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented.  Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes.  If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.   

Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.

While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.   
   

It isn't "unprecedented" for the mayor to remove people from boards, so far as I know. It's the timing and the scale that's unprecedented. Again, the Charter specifically authorizes this measure, without putting any conditions on it. This is the actual wording:

"A member may be removed by the Mayor during the member's term with the approval of City Council".

Section 3.5, Page 6 here.

I don't know that this is a matter of the spirit of the charter. If the board seats weren't intended to be chosen by the mayor, the bylaws would be written that way. And if the boards do a bad job it will reflect back on the Mayor in a way that it usually hasn't before. It certainly has so far.

That said, you're right that it cuts both ways: if a good mayor can remove bad appointees, a bad mayor could remove good appointees. That precedent is possibly troubling in that regard. But the previous tradition didn't prevent messes like the JEA. The problem with our development policies is less politics than a lack of consistency or sense on the city's end. The previous "apolitical" way of staffing the Planning Commission didn't stop, for instance, Toney Sleiman from somehow receiving $11 million in Mobility Fun Bucks at a time that less well connected business people had trouble just getting through the various levels of pointless bureaucracy.

[strider]

First off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.

As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented.  Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes.  If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.   

Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.

While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.   
   

From what I read, the appointments to the Planning Commission are as political as any appointments.  See the pertinent parts below.  The Mayor has full power to appoint or remove as he or she sees fit.  Nothing in the by-laws says otherwise.  The only safe guard is the fact that the City Council must approve both the appointing and the removing of any candidate. The fact that no one has ever removed a Planning Commission member during their term before, assuming that is truly the case, has no bearing on this what so ever.  Calling it other than perfectly allowable and saying that it is not in the spirit of the Charter is a bit disingenuous.

3.0 ORGANIZATION:
3.1 Appointment and Confirmation: All members to the Commission shall be
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council.
3.2 Membership: The Commission shall be comprised of nine members, and three
alternates, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Six of the nine
members shall be appointed from and reside in each of the designated City of
Jacksonville Planning Districts. The three alternates and three members shall be
appointed to represent Duval County at large. Failure to reside in these designated
geographic districts shall automatically remove the person from membership.
Additionally, a representative of the Duval County School District appointed by the
Duval County School Board shall be included as a non-voting member of the
Planning Commission. A representative of a military installation acting on behalf of
all local military installations shall be included as an ex officio, non-voting member
of the Planning Commission.
3.3 Terms: Members shall be appointed for a three-year staggered term (except
appointments to fill vacancies). The term shall run from October 1 through
September 30. No member shall serve more than two consecutive full terms.
Appointments made to fill unexpired terms and initial appointments for less than
three years shall not be deemed to be full terms.
3.4 Resignation: Any Commissioner may resign from the Commission by tendering
their resignation in writing to the Office of the Mayor with a copy to the Chair of the
Commission and the Director.
3.5 Removal: A member may be removed by the Mayor during the member's term with
the approval of City Council.

It appears to me that the Mayor has put new people in place that he feels will work better with Bill Killingsworth and that is a good thing.

[Kay]

The message I get from the Mayor's Planning Commission removals and appointments is that he expects the commissioners to say yes to every and any development, rezoning, etc., and concerns that neighborhood organizations, residents, and environmentalists may have will not matter. 

[Jax native]

Frankly, I personally have seen cause for concern about Lisa King, but know little about the others.  I guess some could be personal and others could be expedient (to give someone else a favor).  But they all could just as easily be valid for positive reasons.

Striker, can you inform us of the "personal cause of concern about Lisa King'?  I truly am interested.

[RattlerGator]

Could it have something to do, Jax native, with her likely being a clearly partisan Democrat? Maybe kinda sorta? Given that she's a State Committeewoman for the Democrats? You know, the sort that might casually spew a caricatured understanding along the lines of, oh -- I don't know -- something like this, maybe:

The message I get from the Mayor's Planning Commission removals and appointments is that he expects the commissioners to say yes to every and any development, rezoning, etc., and concerns that neighborhood organizations, residents, and environmentalists may have will not matter.

Because, of course, those crazy ass Republicans don't care "nothing 'bout no" residents, neighborhoods or the environment. No siree, Bob! They're barbarian crazies, I tell ya !!!

The precedent he is following, Stephen, just in case you're confused, is one of following the law. That, if anything, is the precedent he's setting. One, by definition, isn't being overly partisan when the law specifically not only contemplates one exercising the authority being exerted, but explicitly grants it.

Nope. Not overly partisan. No matter how much quite partisan opponents scream otherwise.

Be gracious, State Committeewoman. Step aside.