Let's begin with introductions to my far left. Stephen Libby, Council Research. Mary Staphopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Kim Taylor, Council Auditor. Good morning. Roy Diamond, District 13, The Beaches. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. Good morning. Roy Arias, District 11. Okay, why don't we, we have copies of the telehealth report on its way down, but I'll turn it over to Council Member Diamond, and I'm going to make some comments as well, and maybe Council Member Arias as well, and we'll go forward from there. Sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, so we get to kind of land the plane today, which is exciting. It took a little longer than I would have liked. I prefer, you know, maybe a couple of months, but this was a lot more fact-intensive than we realized, and so the headline is that we have shown in documents and in just, like, plain common sense that we could have saved $2 million had we not done the Telescope Health contract. There's simply no other way of looking at it. The Telescope Health was providing telehealth to those who might be interested in going to the ER when someone dials 911. There is a free option. It's not just RightSight. There are multiple free options that the city could have contracted with, but the city does have a contract, a longstanding one now, with RightSight. The difference between Telescope Health and RightSight is that Telescope Health just billed the city for more than $2 million for this, whereas RightSight and other entities don't bill the municipality at all. They bill private insurers, Medicare and Medicaid, and for an integer person, they charge nothing, but it all kind of averages out. So it begs the question, why on earth would the city pay $2 million if they could be getting it for free? And it's my strong opinion that the headline of this is that we shouldn't, that we can get this service for free. So in order to get there, you have to have JFRD actually utilizing the service. Whether it's RightSight or another entity, we ought to be doing the free option. There are half a dozen of these entities that I found across the country, so it doesn't have to be any particular one, but whatever we're doing, it's important that we're trying to get the best bank to the taxpayer dollar. One of the policy issues here is that the push on this has been that we're going to save the city money. And the truth of the matter is that we save the city $0. Taxpayers save $0 using Telescope Health. The people who save money are the hospitals, which is fine for the hospitals, but it's not our job, I believe, as the city to try and save hospitals money. It's like saying we ought to go out and start fixing people's Fords and Chevys so that we can save Ford and GM from having to live up on their warranty claims. That doesn't make any sense. The people who are doing the service who are in the business of doing it ought to be the ones who are paying. Other findings from the report are that, and this is just a fact from the math, that I'm going to use the nicest language I can, and Telescope Health exaggerated their numbers. First, they said the city was saving money. The city is saving no dollars, not a dollar. They also inflated how much we're saving as far as emergency room visits and all the rest. And in the report, the math is all listed out there, and it's really undeniable. We provided them a copy of the report so that they could respond. I don't think anyone is here from there today, but they were more than welcome to do it. We also, I had multiple meetings with the folks at Telescope on the phone and in person and was able to get a lot of their feedback. I think it's important to also note that there are other stuff that we looked at where we find, when we have foundings that were positive for Telescope Health. So if you're going to say things publicly, I think it's important to get everything right and to be very public about it. So one of the issues that was brought to me when we brought this up was that there was Medicare and Medicaid fraud going on. And as we just started picking at this, it was clear that Telescope Health wasn't billing Medicare and Medicaid patients. And so we just stopped that investigation and made no conclusion, either positive or negative, about Medicare or Medicaid fraud. I'm sure that that language is in the report because I think you need to be fair and honest about it. The other issue was whether or not there was illegal conflicts of interest going on. And from a distance, it looked bad because you had one person, Dr. Thompson, wearing three hats and some city entities and then non-city entities. And so it looked bad from a distance, but we did the due diligence on each of those pieces and found that he had filed the proper paperwork and had not violated any state statutes. So while it may look bad, he had followed the law. And I think that if you're going to do these things publicly, you have to do the last part publicly too to say what you found and what you didn't find. So we didn't find that he had violated any law or that anyone at Telescope had. But going back to the beginning, which is to say there's $2 million that the city could save over a four-year term. That's $8 million that the city of Jacksonville can recoup from this. And so I think this has been a great bang for the buck as far as investigations go. And I strongly encourage my colleagues when the budget comes around again to scrutinize not just this contract, but all these little plans and games when we start getting out of our lane to say, are we actually saving money? Does this actually make sense? The other piece of this puzzle, which is a little bit disturbing, is that this was a no-bid contract. I just think that anytime that we have a sole source provider, that we've got problems. And so, again, we seem to just waive those things or just look past them on the city hall. And I really think we ought not to. So that's the quicker version. We actually have work to do, Mr. Chair, which is to adopt the report. And so I will move that we adopt the report, which has just been handed out. Okay, let's have some further discussion. Let me mention Council Member Carlucci has joined us. Let me make some comments myself, and I will duplicate what you just said, Council Member Diamond. I was never in favor of this contract. I think it's overreached by the government. I'm a health care person, but I feel, and I've said this in the finance hearings all along the way, I think we're getting way beyond what I think is what this government should be providing in health care. There was a lot of other spending for clinics and such that I voted against in the finance committee and on the floor of the council. So let me mention that. I was also, and I did a lot of reading of the roughly 30,000 pages or so that were part of this, and I was astounded over the training provided by right side to JFRD, and for reasons that aren't clear to me, right side never seemed to catch on within JFRD. I'm not sure why that is. I think that's a whole other question, but there was significant training provided and significant offers for additional training, and for whatever reason, it never picked up, and if it is going to become the telehealth provider as a free service, people have got to rally around it and believe that's the one we ought to use and embrace it, so to speak, if it's going to be successful. Number three, I asked numerous times during the finance hearings and at the final budget process, why aren't the hospitals supporting this program as it, quote, is, quote, saving them money, and the response was always, well, we're working with the hospitals trying to get them on board. We found out through the documentation that we received that Baptist Health is a 10% owner of telehealth, Telescope, this provider, and that was news to me, never revealed throughout our process, and that was disturbing to me to find out through this process. We know that Wrightside has been very successful in other cities, and as you stated, Council Member Diamond, there are other providers other than Wrightside, but Wrightside has really taken off in the Atlanta area and in Austin, Texas as well, so this model can be successful if it's embraced by the entities that are involved, JFRD and others, and lastly, as I said many, many times, the cost savings are not to the city of Jacksonville, never were or not, they may be saving the hospitals money, they may be saving Medicare money, but they are not saving any dollars for the city of Jacksonville budget. It's just not true, and I said that multiple times. I did everything I could to stop this contract, but 10 votes, and you can get something done like this. I agree with you. Hopefully, if it does come back, there will be a lot more scrutiny over this process going forward. Council Member Arias. Oh, let me go to Mary first. Council Member Arias. Mr. Chair, I just had a couple of recommendations with respect to the motion that's on the table right now, but I can wait until you all are ready to address the motion and allow you to continue to take comments whenever you're ready. Why don't we have discussion, and then we'll take that vote, and we'll come back to you. If you could come back to me before the vote, I would appreciate it. Sure. Thank you, Chair. All right. Council Member Diamond, I just have some questions for you since you've obviously been the one spearheading this information for us. How many years has RightSide been with the city of Jacksonville altogether, roughly? I think it's four. Four years. And is there a reason why we decided to choose telehealth versus RightSide? Has there been any issues with RightSide? It's a free service to our community. Yeah. So why did we decide to go with telehealth? Yeah, so through the Chair of the Councilman Air is the issue here is JFRD has to direct someone who dials 911 to use the free service, right, whereas Telescope Health and the city and the mayor's office set up this HealthLink JAX program and then spent $2 million. But if they change that model to billing Medicare and Medicaid patients and if they change it to include insured patients, they could not charge the city at all. It could be free. So it's the model is broken, and the only reason, and there's no good reason we should be spending the money. It just doesn't make sense. It's $2 million. So, you know. And I have three more questions for you, sir. So other cities, aside from Jacksonville, here in Florida, I only care about Florida, are they using RightSide or services like telehealth? Like, are they using the free services or are they paying for these services? Yeah, so my quick view on this is that Tampa and Orlando and South Florida all have different flavors of this going on. but the heavy lean for smart-run cities is to use a free service, and why wouldn't you? Yeah, okay. So if there hasn't been any issues with RightSide, aside from just JFRD or anybody really pointing their direction to people to say, hey, use RightSide, why do you think we went with, I want to say the word investing $2 million into telehealth. Why did we go that route? What was your rationale? Do you think that the city decided? I mean, I've tried not to be too partisan up here because it's an investigatory committee, but I mean, you just have to look at the campaign contributions of the mayor's team and you can see maybe why she chose this provider. I mean, tens of thousands of dollars. Okay. You brought up the no-bid contract part, and I think you're spot on that. Is there legislation that we could file or create where it says anything over X amount of dollars has to automatically go for a bidding? Yeah, through the chair. We do have that rule, right? I mean, almost everything, but the problem with the way we legislate, and this is just my big beef with this, is that we do the waiver for sole source contracts all the time, or we write contracts such that they're only one entity. I'll give you an example. If we had a contract to say, hey, we really want an NFL team here in Jacksonville, you know, only the Jags could say, yeah, we'll be your NFL team, right, because they're the only ones who can do it. So we write a lot of contracts where only one entity responds to the bid. I see. Okay. And then the last one would be, obviously, this is going to be primarily focused on next year's budget. Let's say, in this scenario, that we decide not to adopt telehealth next year. What would happen with the $2 million that we just, once again, invested in right now, and what would happen with telehealth services with the city of Jacksonville? Yeah, I mean, if JFRD utilizes RightSight, then we could just save $2 million. $2 million could be used for anything else. We could go do any other, I mean, everybody likes to spend money. I'd rather return it to taxpayers, but you could do anything else with it. And with all the challenges we have with our finances next year, why wouldn't we? Yeah. All right. Well, thank you, sir. Let me just add something. RightSight, presently, I believe, is Monday through Friday, 16 hours a day. They're happy to go to 24-hour service, but there's got to be volume for them to go to 24-hour service. So it's kind of the chicken or the egg in terms of that. Councilmember Carlucci, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you letting me participate today. So there was accusations of fraud, and there was no fraud, I guess. At least I just got my copy. When did y'all get your copy of the report? I just literally got mine. Yeah, the last 24 hours, the last day or two. Why didn't I get one? It was my thought to bring it to this committee and release it from this committee. Well, why didn't I get mine as soon as you got yours? I think you did. I didn't, sir. No, no. I said I wanted to bring it to this committee and release it to the media from this committee. No, but why didn't I get a copy as soon as you got yours? Well, Diamond was the chairman. Well, then why didn't I get mine through the chair to Councilmember Diamond? Yeah, please. I happily respond through the chair. You're not on the committee. We were doing committee. I'm a council member. It's fine. Then ask for it. All you had to do was ask. As soon as you asked, I'm sure you got it. I did. I asked this morning. I'm sure you got it. I got one just handed to me. Congratulations. You got it as soon as you asked. Councilman Diamond, that's not good decorum and it's not fair. Second of all, I find it highly unfair to adopt a draft when I hadn't even had a chance to read two pages of it and for me to be able to weigh in. I'm as entitled to weigh in on this as anybody else. Third, I'd like to ask through the chair to our council auditor, was this a no-bid contract? Because as I understand it, it was adopted through an RFP. Is that correct? Through the chair, if I may answer. Are you talking about for the telehealth, if I can clarify? Telehealth or telescope? Yes, sir. For the telehealth contract, there were actually three bids on that. RightSight did not bid on that contract, so there were three providers and then telehealth was selected from those three as part of an RFP process. Okay. So then it was not a no-bid contract. Did y'all hear that? It was not a sole source, as we just stated. Y'all do what you want to do, but I'm going to tell you, I have so many questions on this. I have so many questions on this. It's just simple fairness to me is not being exercised here, and it hasn't been. It started out with allegations of fraud. No fraud. There were other allegations. And then RightSight's going to do it for free. Well, RightSight could have bid on this if they'd have wanted to, but as I have learned everything about RightSight, they only respond to people with insurance in that they build the insurance companies. That's why they can do it for free. Telescope responds to people without insurance, so they have to be paid by somebody. I haven't had a chance to even hear what telehealth or telescope has to say about this. I tried calling them this morning, and one was out of town, and the other was out of town. And we're going to adopt this. This committee can do what you want to do, but I'm going to tell you, the reflection of this committee's credibility is going to be on the line when you vote because you have not had this even for a day or a day and a half, and I just got it. I want you to put yourself in my shoes, and I don't think it's fair. And I'm seeing so much unfairness going on in this council to the extent that it was claimed that this was a no-bid contract, sole sourcing, and we just heard that it was done by an RFP. That's not fair. Shame on y'all if you vote to adopt this today. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci. I appreciate your time. I'm not sure you do, but you're welcome. Mary? Well, let me go to Council Member Arias first, and then Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Chair. This is actually a question for Mary as well, too. So if I understand correctly, this is a subcommittee, right? And if we were to adopt this report... Special committee. Special committee. If we were to adopt this report, would it then, Mary, Mr. Fopolis, would it go to one of the standing committees for a full consideration of council members to have weigh-in input and also then officially vote on it? Is that the correct steps for this after we vote on it today? Through the Chair to Council Member Arias, so there was a couple of... That's touching on what I was going to address with the committee with respect to the motion. So a couple of things. This is referenced... This document has draft on it. And so to the extent that the committee members may have wanted to articulate changes or to address items within the report, coming to you as a draft is appropriate, but I think that you would want to clarify in the motion if the intent is to adopt this report as was presented today and discussed today, that the direction be to the drafter, that it be finalized and made a final report and not a draft document for the committee's adoption. The other thing that I was going to ask was what was the intent with respect to the committee's direction on what to do with this report. I would say that traditionally, and you're aware of having chaired a special committee in the past, special committees issue a report at the end to explain all their findings and make their recommendations. And traditionally, that report is addressed and sent to the council president. You may want to address the what next in the recommendations in your report. Maybe that's something you would add to this as a final product coming out of the committee. And so I would recommend, if the draft is finalized and adopted by this committee, it would be addressed to the council president as a final report of this special committee. And then you would identify specifically those recommendations that you would want to see carried forward. With what's left in the council year, you would probably just want to be cognizant that to the extent anything is a longer term, if there's a cost-benefit analysis and you want to give direction to the council auditor's office to address that, and Ms. Taylor can speak to that if you would like her to, then I would say you would adjust those recommendations to make those directives or recommendations to the president for directives that would occur. If there's things that you would seek input from a standing committee on, you would adjust the recommendations to reflect that maybe you would be seeking specific input and discussion on it from whatever standing committee. So there's different ways you could structure it as a special committee. Okay, Mr. Chair, one more question. So Mary, yes, as when we've concluded the special committees in the past, we sent them to the president, and then that final report eventually goes through the standing committees for action as well, too, depending on if we need to take action, obviously. And in this case... Traditionally, what comes out of a special committee in the form of legislation is what you see going to the standing committees, but they don't necessarily take action on a report unless the report says, ask that the finance committee take up this item for consideration and input. But, you know, they're essentially doing the same thing that the special committee is doing at that point. They're just giving input on an item, not necessarily taking some form of action. Traditionally, that would need to be in the form of legislation. Got it. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And yeah, I think the drafter, just kind of add those little things that Mary said, and we'll be good to go. Thank you. Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly responding to our former guest statement, as I said, if a contract is written in a way that only one entity is going to get it, that is a sole source contract. That was my point there. I know it was complicated, but, you know, we use our brains. We can get things done. The second piece of this puzzle is I do think we ought to all amend my amendment, my motion to say that we should take Section 4 to the recommendations of the Council President. In addition, for number one, and I didn't want to, like, piece go too much into detail here, but on, you know, to me, this isn't about Telescope versus RightSight. It's very strange. The mayor just did a press release comparing Telescope Health to RightSight. I mean, the point isn't that it's RightSight. The point is that these entities exist to do this for free, whereas the mayor wants to spend $2 million on it. The mayor's taking campaign contributions from them. Like, this is very strange to me that she spent all that time and effort this morning trying to defend Telescope Health against RightSight, but I would like to just put in here RightSight or similar provider, wherever we have that in the recommendations. And then the... Is someone taking these down? Mary's always on it. Mary is? Okay. Mr. Chair, if I could just... So you're looking at item number four under the recommendations, correct? You referenced item number four initially. Yeah, sorry. Recommendations is Section 6. Okay. And then under there, the first unnumbered paragraph would say recommendations to the Council President. And then in... Section 4, you were wanting to reference RightSight or other similar providers? No, it's not Section 4. Let me just get the section right. I think it's Section 1. And this is about a recommendation about city council auditors looking at this. But it's not about utilization of RightSight. It would just be utilization of RightSight or a similar provider. And then the second one, just so everyone knows, is to have OGC and City Ethics Office review dual employment issues, which I think is intelligent recommendation. No changes to that one. Three is... It says require JFRD to implement and document mechanisms. I think it's going to be a recommendation. Like, the Council President should recommend to JFRD that, hey, we've got this RightSight. You've got a MOU with them. You know, use it. And we can save the city money. If I could, Mr. Chair, to go back to item number two, Council Member Diamond, and I know you're familiar with this. So, with respect to it being a directive that the Office of General Counsel and the Ethics Office review... It could be a request. Fine. I wasn't going to pick at that. Okay. However, as we've discussed with those of you that may have dealt with various conflict analyses and things like that, so what you're not calling for, you are calling for and advise accordingly. I would respectfully suggest that it would be to advise Dr. Elias accordingly because, as you know, when you're addressing an individual's particular conflicts, we don't report on that to a body. We address that with the individual because it's their conflict. Yeah, let's go ahead and say that. So, I would like... Okay, thank you. And then, same... So, we talked about number three. Number four, say, explore opportunities to expand RightSight's availability. And then I would add in there just like, or similar providers again. And the same thing with number five. Just to me, it's like, I don't have any issue with which provider we use. I just want to use one that doesn't cost us any money. Similar no-cost providers, maybe? Yeah, that's great. I would just point out that on a couple of these, you know, recommendations to the council president with respect to exploring opportunities to expand RightSight's or similar no-cost providers' availability. And number five, institute a community outreach and educational program to afford citizens about their opportunities and the use of the service. Some of this, I think, may not be something that this president would be able to accomplish in the remainder of the council year that we have, being that it ends June 30th. So I just, you know, to the extent that he would pass on these recommendations to the incoming president-elect at the time that's appropriate. With respect to exploring opportunities, you know, some of this may be something that you all would discuss with the incoming new president. Does it make sense to initiate a new special committee or some sort of an ad hoc committee to do those things? So kind of a continuation of the work of this committee so that that can kind of be an ongoing mechanism that's enforced through these recommendations. Otherwise, you might be requesting that the administration carry out some of the functions and then you could have those discussions as you see appropriate. You're done? I just wanted to make one additional point regarding this whole contract and three providers. Right side is dependent upon insurance as their model. Medicare, private insurance, Medicaid. They can take a fair amount of indigent if there's a commitment to use them for the insurance patients as well. And they have said that repeatedly. But there's got to be a commitment. We are the telehealth provider and we'll take them all because if we get them all, we know we'll get enough of a mix that we can make money and it'll be a free service. That's the difference. The bid, as I understood, that Ms. Taylor recommended was all for indigent care. It didn't involve the insurance patients, which is why they didn't bid on it. If the bid would have been more broad for insurance and everything else, they could have done it. That's the point that gets lost in this. Okay. So, back to Council Member Arias. Let me mention Vice President Howland has joined us. I'm sorry. Do you have the ability to get on the queue if you want to? Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Okay, Chair. Yeah, I was actually going to have clarification on that because I heard that right side does do indigent care, but then I heard from somebody else that was visiting that said that they don't, that it's only telehealth. So, that's why I wanted to clarify that part that right side will be able to do service everybody in Jackson, not just people with insurance. Just one thing to note, and I just have a question for clarification to see where we left off. Recommendation number six, and this is a very minute technical thing, but it says special committee in six months. Two things. What if there is no special committee in six months? Number one. And number two, I thought we were going to do a motion to create a standing committee and this be a standing committee, not a special committee moving forward in next year. That's what I wanted to know. So, if we do become a standing committee, obviously the verbiage needs to change, and secondly, there's no special committee in six months. Could we have a default report back to a rules committee or something, right? That's all. I would say finance. Or finance. Yeah, that would be ideal. Would you like me to address that, Mr. President? Yes. Through the chair to Councilmember Aria. So, that's exactly correct what Dr. Salem indicated is that you could just address that to a standing committee that exists today because with respect to the oversight committee that you all are going to discuss, that's a piece of legislation that would need to go through Council to create that committee. So, to the extent you want this to be a finally adopted product and report coming out of this special committee, you may not want to wait until that legislation finishes its way through the legislative process to identify that it would go to a standing committee not yet created. So, you may want to consider finance committee might make the most sense with respect to the charge of that existing committee. So, you may want to address that in the motion whether it's an amendment or Councilmember Diamond, you want to include that. Okay, let me, Ms. Taylor, you've been up there for a while. If I can go to Ms. Taylor then I'll go to Councilmember Howland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In seeing this, the recommendation won to our office, I just wanted to clarify given our work with JEA Sick and many audits, the six-month window with budget coming up as well, July to kind of September with the council break in budget, getting back and getting exactly at, hearing the comments from this committee, maybe getting better clarification on exactly what we would need to do to meet the committee's wishes here in the report. Councilmember Diamond wants to jump in on that question. Through the chair to Ms. Kim. I think the issue is the finance committee is going to take up the budget. I'm sure the mayor is going to put this back in the budget and so I think we just need enough information to say from your office because, I mean, look, everybody trusts you. if the conclusion is correct that there's a free option, I think that's what the committee will need to know, the finance committee before budget starts. I think it's a very narrowly tailored question. It is not a full-blown report. It is a, is there a free option? Does it basically cover the same thing? And if that's not the right bucket from council orders, just let us know. Like, that's fine too. Through the chair to Councilmember Diamond, I think we can do it. I just want to make sure we meet the goal of, you know, the wish of the committee. As you stated, I mean, they're slightly different in that, to the chairman's point, they didn't bid on the contract potentially. That's a good point on because of the population was uninsured, targeted towards that population. So, obviously, we know there's a free cost available. if you'd like us to maybe present what the challenges may be or implications of going with that so that the finance committee has that, we can definitely go down that route of, you know, one that I had just considered, this is just me thinking of, does it in any way increase the 911 calls because their model is based on 911 calls? So, are there things, maybe things to consider, something along those lines for the committee to take into account? Through the chair, Ms. Kim. And so, look, you're going to be looking at a $2 billion budget so you've got a lot going on. But this is $2 million, right? And so, again, I think the question would be, do we get down to zero or does it increase costs somewhere else where we're not looking at some bank shot that we're not capturing? My guess is, having been neck deep in this since November, there is no bank shot. San Antonio is a great model. They take tens of thousands of calls and cost nothing to the city and they're diverting from the ERs or doing all the stuff that we're saying we want. And I talked to the folks over in San Antonio. They've told me that it's working and that they don't have if anything, they're actually saving money from fewer 911 calls because people are actually getting services. So, I think that would be the question. Okay. Council Member Howland, Vice President Howland. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening to the whole meeting while I've been driving in and I parked and as I walked from parking to here, I missed the motion on the table. So, sorry to belabor it, but Mary, if you don't mind what the motion on telling me what the motion on the table was. Through the chair to Council Vice President Howland. So, the general gist of the initial motion was to adopt this draft as the final report of the special committee with respect to the telehealth matter. But during the discussion, the committee's been looking at one of the things I recommend is we convert this into a final document, not a draft document, and that the final document include recommendations to the council president for further actions that could be taken based on the information that's been gathered. One thing I would just recommend to you, Mr. Chair, is that based on the number of changes that are kind of being discussed and massaged by the special committee, you may want to just direct us that we create a final document and I can do it as a red line to make sure it's exactly what the committee's intent is with respect to the changes that are being recommended or proposed here and we bring that back for formal final adoption by the special committee at your next meeting just because I think there's a lot of moving parts that are being discussed. We might want to flesh out the direction to the council auditor's office to make it kind of accurately reflect what it is that's being sought that they could provide. So if you want to consider this a motion to adopt a draft final report and then I can bring back a final and you can bless the final product before it's issued to the president. Okay. You okay with that? That's good, but I have a couple more questions. And there are more questions about the report which I wish I had been there from the beginning when you commissioned it, but who authored the report? Do you want to answer it? Oh, Jim, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Sorry, just because I was quarterbacking this, but for the chair to Nick. So the report itself, you know, I would say 80% of it drafted by counsel to the committee, right? So they drafted it. Mr. Teal assisted as counsel to the council and then I had my edits in there. I think Dr. Salem had his edits in there. Just the trying to narrow it in to make sure it was properly reflected by the committee and the facts. Yeah. Was the charge to the author of the report to investigate Medicare and Medicaid fraud at Telescope or was it to give a whole kind of detail on telehealth in the city writ large? I would say through the chair. I think it was like multifaceted. So first, the number one issue we were concerned about was that, but we were able to put that to bed like almost immediately because they weren't doing Medicare and Medicaid services, right? So put that aside. Then it's the, okay, does the math, math that they're saying they saved the city like over $10 million? It turns out they saved the city zero. But okay, did you save hospitals money by diverting patients? Me like, yes, but it was inflated. You know, I think we use the word exaggerated and I'm trying to be kind there. Maybe they didn't know their math was wrong. I think almost everybody does a good sales job with their math. So that was off. Then the question was on, was there other services available for free? And that conclusion is really strong. Yes. And you just have to change the model from one of a hybrid of, of having paid for services through Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and indigent care to not just doing indigent care. When you blend it across, you can give a free service to the city. Was the charge to the author to just look at then a telescope and write site or was it to look at all providers like this writ large? The reason, I think write site was high on the list because we already had an MOU through JFRD for write site. And the concern was that we were intentionally diverting to telescope and creating an unnecessary contract rather than using the free service for which we already had an MOU. And so write site was front and center. But as you're hearing me talk about this, I don't care who does it. Yeah. So long as it's free. I have no, I have no dog in the hunt. I just don't like wasting money. No, I would agree. And I would say because of the suspicion that surrounds both entities and whether it's true or not or allegations, whatever, I would say the right approach. I'm not going to get in the way of any report adopted by the Doge Committee or going through council committees. But I would say the right answer moving forward is if possible, and I'll ask Mary if this is, is just for the administration to cancel the contract, re-let it, and do an entirely competitive bid. And let's find the provider who will give the best services for the people of Jacksonville at the right price. The right price might not be free. The right price might be something that's a service provided that is going to result in more diversion from emergency rooms. But to me, the answer is let's not take care of telescope. Let's not take care of right site. Let's take care of the people of Jacksonville. And to me, that's re-let and a competitive bid. Is that possible, Mary? Do you know? I don't know if you've studied the contract. Through the chair to Council Member Howland, I have not studied the contract, so I don't know what the termination provisions would allow for. recognizing it was bid through an RFP. The provisions tend to be favorable to the city in those kinds of contracts, but that can change depending on who we end up actually contracting with. I would say that you can ask that that be the case. You can't require it, but you can ask it in a couple of different ways. You can ask it by making it a recommendation or in this special report, this special committee's report. You can also, as a council, take an action through a resolution to request the city administration consider terminating the existing contract and rebidding it to identify a new provider that could do it at no cost to include indigent care as well as insured care, which was what was discussed earlier by the special committee. And I'll be glad to have that conversation with the administration. I was just thinking through it as this conversation was going on now, but I'll reach out to them with that. Thanks. If I can just add one point to yours, I have no issue with what you're suggesting as long as the RFP is broad enough to include all patients, not just indigent patients. If it's all patients and there's a better apple out there, the right side, I'm all for it. Okay. Councilor Mayor Arias, and then we're going to take a vote. All right. Thank you, Chair. The question that I had earlier to Mr. Diamond was exactly that. I guess I phrased it incorrectly, but what would happen if we don't fund telehealth next year? Will the contract be then done? Because Council Member Vice President Howland just asked, is there a contract provision where we have to renew them every year? Well, if we don't fund them next year, then technically there is no contract. So are we, is this a one-year contract or is it like a recurring every year during the budget cycle or is it like a three-year contract? Where are we at? Because if we don't fund them next year, are we out of compliance now? That's my initial question. If I can, I think it was a multi-year contract based on our funding of that contract, as I recall. Right, Chair. So if we don't fund them next year, contract is over and we can now rebid as Council Member Howland just mentioned, correct? Mr. Fopolis or anybody? Just want to know what the process is to open up the rebidding process. Mr. Taylor. Through the Chair to Council Member Arias, I believe it was a multi-year contract. Usually there is the provision in there subject to council appropriation, something along those lines each year so that the funding, when it's put in place, then you have the funding. So if council decided not to fund it, then the administration has to come up with another way to fund it if they're, you know, wanting to keep that provider. To your question on whether, again, as Ms. Fopolis said, my understanding has always been legally you can ask, but the council cannot direct the contract be terminated, but without funding, obviously, they're not able to provide services if, from council's standpoint, you control the dollars and you control the appropriation. It's too high of an amount for them to TD money around, so they would be prevented there from funding. They could fund up to $500,000 potentially, but other than that, they would not be able to fund the full program without council appropriating those dollars. Okay. Did you want to speak, Council Member Howland, or are we ready to? Yeah. That was really all I wanted to say, but I did want to also throw on behalf of council to Telescope. I don't know their return. I don't know if they're providing the benefit that they say they are, but I do know that they were accused of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and that was found not guilty, so I think not to owe them an apology, we have to research that when we see those kind of things, but I feel bad for them that if they suffered any reputational risk along those lines. Thanks. Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second to adopt the draft. Is that correct, Mary? Yes, Mr. Chair, and what I will do is I will work with Council Member Diamond as kind of the primary individual who's been quarterbacking this, as he said, for the special committee to create a red line and make sure it reflects what he intended for a lot of the items that he made addressed as part of his motion, and then I'll circulate that to the special committee at the next meeting in both red line and final clean draft that would be the final report subject to any additional changes you may make at your next meeting. Do we need to take a vote on that? Yes, Mr. Chair. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. We're done with telehealth. Correct? Okay. Oversight committee. Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is for discussion purposes only. You know, we, Ms. Mary and I, you know, kind of got this thing going and then circulated it last Doge hearing for us all to discuss. Here's my argument for this. At every level of government, whether it's in Congress, whether it's in Tallahassee, any of the state governments, and in most municipal governments, you have some sort of permanent oversight committees. And I think the better model is not in Tallahassee, but it is in Washington. The oversight committees essentially have the right to ask questions about anything in the city, in the federal government. And they do. And they meet at their own leisure. So, essentially, they're like, hey, we've got an issue. We need to get a committee hearing scheduled. And then they go ask questions. For example, when Ron DeSantis was a congressman, he wanted to have an oversight committee on service dogs being provided by the VA. And he called it. And then I testified in front of him. And he was able to ask those questions and be like, why aren't we doing this? And all the rest. So, every form of government has that. We don't. We've got reports. And we have, I think maybe the problem is our auditors and our IG and our ethics officers are so good that people are like, we have these functions and we don't need it. But just personally, looking around the corner and seeing what the, you know, Jacksonville getting bigger, more complicated, more things going on. I think having permanent oversight as something that the council does regularly and intentionally is important. And I think for those of us rolling off council, I think that's a good legacy to leave because we, I don't think, you weren't there Nick and I know you weren't there yet Raul, but 2019 we had no place to trudge through what was coming in from JEA. And it doesn't matter who the mayor is, right? Whether it's Republican, Democrat, whether we like him or not, they're off doing their thing and they have their agenda. We're 19 people and it's really hard when something weird is going on to figure out where's the right place to ask that question. And so you get a call saying, hey, this entity has got Medicare or Medicaid fraud going on. You need somewhere to go ask those questions. You hear, you read an IG complaint that says X, Y, and Z and be like, well, let's ask those questions. There is no place for that in our city council government as it exists today unless the council president says I'm going to create this committee. And I don't think that's the way it should be. And again, it doesn't matter who the council president is. To me, there should be a place to ask questions. And I think the right venue for that is like a three-person standing committee that anyone can come to and say, I found something weird. I would like you guys to at least know that this exists and then the oversight committee could pick it up or not pick it up. So that's my view of the world. But I'm super open-minded. I just want to make sure that we're leaving a legacy of oversight. And for those of us who had that last nightmare from our first term, it's just, it's a missing piece of our government. I'm going to comment and then I'll go to Council Member Vice President Howland. I've gone back and forth on this. One part of me says you've got the finance committee that could step in into that role or some subcommittee of the finance committee could step into a situation that came up or having an oversight committee that's not a standing committee, but I use the word PRN because I'm in medical. It's sort of an as-needed committee that is set up through the president, through his appointment process that he goes through in May and June that Council Member Howland will be participating in. And you just set up a committee that if an issue comes up, oversight, take a look at this. And they would set up a schedule of meetings and look at that particular issue. that's my feeling that it'd be more of a as-needed whenever an issue comes up that the president wants some oversight on versus meeting continuously and not necessarily having issues that are in front of them. But that's just my opinion. Council Member Howland. Sure. Yeah, please. And then I'll go to Council Member Howland. Again, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you guys, but maybe there's a split that may be on this, which is to meet every quarter, right, permanently. But then to be and have a permanently appointed panel for the year, right? So let's assume that I'm just using it. This year happened instead of having DOGE, which has got all sorts of connotations, which I love, but other people don't like. If it was us three, we would meet once a quarter and we say, is there anything we want to look at? One. And then two, the council president, whoever that happens to be that year, can be like, hey, you guys need to go look at this. And the processes already exist. You don't need a charge and all the rest. You can just go do the stuff and then only do as much as you need. One of the problems with SIX is that it tends to be, gets a lot of media attention. It sounds like there's a, you know, all this stuff going. Yeah, it says SIX. Sometimes it's literally just asking the questions and trying to get to the truth about something. Anyways, so I think we could split the baby on it, actually. Council Member Howland. I agree with both of you. I think you're both right. The, we, this council needs to provide oversight. And I was on this week in the 904 recently saying that we do have financial and audit oversight of all the independent authorities. That's our role. That's why we're elected. It's clear in the charter. And so oversight is necessary. We have our fantastic auditors. We have our IG. We have SIC. We have DOGE. And we have the finance committee. But one thing you do know is sometimes things pop up that the finance committee doesn't have time within their three hour window every week or every other week rather to address. And we've been doing that by standing up DOGE or we've been doing that on a item by item basis by standing up in SIC. One thing that I thought about and Mary brought it up in the last DOGE meeting I wasn't here was a select committee. We haven't had a select committee in a long time. It would be a committee that would be named the financial audit and oversight committee. And it would be a one topic. It would be a permanently manned. People would be permanently assigned to it but it would only be convened at the request of the council president when there's an issue big enough to get that deep dive financial audit and oversight. For example, it could be made up of the council vice president and either the chair or vice chair of finance and chair or vice chair of rules. And they could look at something. For example, maybe they want to look at the uncollected water capacity fees at JEA or maybe in the future something arises with NAVI and they want to look at NAVI spend. Something that is less political than a standing committee that could just get the news of the day. Something that the council president would set up and those three leaders on council would staff. So how does the select committee work, Mary, and how long has it been since we've done one? Through the chair to council vice president, Halland, I don't know the last time a select committee was convened. They operate a little differently than special committees do, but you are correct. It's an ad hoc committee and it's intended to just be something that gives exclusive attention to a single subject matter. Special committees can have a little bit of a broader charge. I think the select committees are really honing in on a specific single subject matter that's not necessarily always part of the council business, but would be within its legislative jurisdiction to look into. So they're created, as you indicated, by the council president and they only have a 60-day window traditionally to conduct their work and to do their review of whatever is put in front of them. It can be extended by the president, but it really is a very succinct type of committee, single subject matter, limited period of time, as determined, appropriate, and needed by the council president. Thank you. That was put as way more eloquently than I was able to do so. So having a kind of a permanent standing committee with people named but called at the request of the council president for a time-defined period and an issue-defined period, I think it would take kind of the politics out of it but allow us to deep dive on the key issues of the day that we as city council have responsibility for. That's my thinking right now. That's pretty consistent with what I've said. I'm going to go to Council Member Diamond. Well, let's go to Arius first. Thank you, Chair. Listening to both options, I like them both, to be honest with you. However, I do have a question for Council Vice President Howland and that's that here throughout the Doge Committee, we've addressed a lot of action items throughout the budget and upcoming potential savings such as the Bailey Group Insurance Review. That's not a key issue. So how will we still conduct that business if we have a select committee? Because I think the committee that we're talking about, the Oversight Committee, would also still look at Bailey Group Insurance Reviews and all that as part of the monthly or quarterly meetings. So would you still task that committee, whether it's yourself and finance and rules chair, or would this be an additional committee to then address potential cost savings to our city? That's a great question. Because what I, the purpose of having a select committee prevents scope creep. And you know, the SIC committee started with two charges. It's now upwards of five charges. And I think DOGE has crept a little bit as it's gone on for the last year or two. So the purpose of the Financial Audit and Oversight Committee is to deep dive on one issue, solve that, get it resolved, turn it into legislation as necessary to go through committee, likely finance committee and rules if necessary, and then go to council for full approval. And then we go to the next one. But you don't convene it for small things. You convene it for major things that we have responsibility for as a city council. And being a select committee with one issue, it prevents the scope creep. And so therefore, it prevents any kind of politicalization of that committee. Council Member Diamond. Politicalization. Yeah, it's funny. I actually like scope creep if it makes sense, right? You know, you start digging in on something and all of a sudden you're like, wait a minute, there's a problem. Also, so I get what you're saying. I'm tracking. My issue is, I want to make sure that, like, look, again, one day you'll be a council president and one day you'll be a former council president and then there's 18 other people out there who need to have a venue where they can say, I need to start asking questions about something. So I need it to be a little bit more egalitarian for the rest of the council for it to make sense. That's why I thought having a quarterly meeting where everybody just sits down and says, is there anything we need to look at, right? And don't have to be forced into just one narrow category. I agree with you on the politicization though. Like, it's almost inevitable because we're a political body, but I would love to take that out. That's why I don't want to call it Doge and all the rest. I definitely want our Democratic colleagues to have a seat at the table to talk about how we're doing this. So maybe here's my recommendation, Mr. Chair, is that I notice a public meeting on an oversight committee and then have a couple of models circulated on City C so people can look at what different models might be and we can have a meeting about it. Like, there isn't like some crush rush. I haven't filed this bill. I typically just file my bills as fast as possible. Poor Mary, she knows this. And then deal with the amendments later. But I can just wait, do a public meeting, hear from our Democratic colleagues, hear from our, you know, our Rhino colleagues, you know, hear what they have to say about what oversight should be for them. I like that idea. But Councilor Howlin, and then we're going to move on. Another answer I should have given to Raul is nothing prohibits any council member requesting the council president to stand up an SIC if something else pops up or something different pops up. It's not like the FAO is just limited to one issue and that's all we can look at. It's just the FAO is investigating one issue. You can always stand up at the SIC. I think we've been averaging an SIC every other year or so, so it's still available. Thanks. And I should also add I'm doing everything I can to wrap up DOGE by the end of June, the major issue being the healthcare issue, which has documented millions of dollars in potential savings if the administration will adopt them. We can't do that. They have to. Just in the prescription drug plan, we've shown roughly $5 million in savings by making one change to the provider. That's all they have to do. So, to suggest that there have not been substantial savings presented, it's just not true. They're there. Unfortunately, we can't do it. The administration has to. So, Council Member Diamond, I think that's a great idea. Let's move with that. Okay? 2% lapse. Anything new on that, Ms. Taylor? To the chair, no, sir. We have not heard from any departments. Let's go to P-Cards. Just, you all may recall when DOGE was first getting started, I raised this issue of P-Cards. I gave the story that when I was in the corporate world, I never wanted a corporate credit card. I used my own. I was always fearful it would get lost in the charges. And I've seen employees use those corporate cards when they get into financial trouble and start running up personal expenses. It's eventually caught, but it sometimes can take time. I'm not a big fan of P-Cards unless they're limited to emergencies, hurricanes, I understand, and there may be departments that need to go out and buy something very quickly. But, and at that time, Ms. Taylor said, we are starting a P-Card audit. Give us a chance to complete that audit and then we'll bring it back. Well, we are now at that point. Ms. Taylor, would you review your findings to the P-Card audit? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a copy of the report at your desk. I'll go through each of the findings. I do want to mention that for P-Cards, as the chair said, this is an individual card. It's mostly assigned to individuals for things like training, travel. There are things like food that has to be purchased at Animal Care and Control, for example. There are other items that land on there when a purchase order cannot be used for the type of food that's needed. So there are a lot of different things. The bulk of it's travel and training and dues. The Treasury Division, Accounting Division, and Procurement Division are responsible for overseeing these items. So it's the three in joint working together to ensure that controls are in place. So there were, at the time of our audit, 111 active P-Cards across 33 departments. 109 of those were individuals. Two are at the department level for emergencies, mainly in the Fire and Rescue Department. So for the calendar year that we looked at, which was the 2024 year, there were 6,507 transactions, totaling $2.1 million. So what we looked at is overall, were they appropriate the charges, whether they were sufficiently documented, properly approved, accurately recorded, and whether they were done timely. We did find some significant issues with timeliness, that whole process that I'll go into further detail. And then in every audit, even though we may conclude overall based on materiality of what we found or number of transactions, there are always issues that we see from an internal control standpoint that can usually be improved. And then some findings that while not, don't change the overall conclusion, they are important and need to be addressed. So I'll walk through those. Starting on page four in our report, just going through these internal control weaknesses, we found a lack of written policies and procedures in that first one in the accounting division. And these are things that help move these transactions through the process. So when somebody charges it, it works just like your own charge card. There's a process where people have to get an expense report in the system and then further process by accounting to ensure that that expenditure is recorded. If it's not recorded, what happens is people could be hitting that charge card, spending it, and that department may not know that they don't have budget capacity for something because it's not reflected as an expense. So all the policies and procedures to address that whole process we've documented there on page four the number of items those things were lacking so they are going to be addressing those items. Internal control weakness number two that we had on page five, just like a bank reconciliation, the P card, all of these transactions that are paid for ultimately, they need to be reconciled to the expenses in the system. So no difference so that accounting and treasury areas that they can pick up on, do we have things that have been charged on this card that aren't recorded in the system? That's the biggest thing we want to catch just like doing a bank reconciliation. Do we have differences here that reveal problems or issues or things that we need to keep up with? And so they're going to address that as well. And another, our last internal control weakness that we had on page six is there are merchant codes that can be put into the system to prevent risky type charges that you just know we don't want it ever to be allowed to be used for things like internet gambling, timeshares, amusement parks, things like that. We found 22 other codes that again, this is a front end control that can be put in place in addition to the 45 that they have in place that just outright prohibits it from the get go so that you don't have the risk of transactions even being able to take place for things that should never be allowed within the city government. We're not saying that we found something like that, but again, that internal control on the front end. For some of our findings that we found starting on page six, there were P cards with missing transaction, missing expense reports. So when we looked at our sample of 202 items that we, excuse me, out of our population, we identified 202 items that did not have the proper support initially, so it was $94,000. And we're talking out of 2.1 million for perspective. So within the financial system, some sitting for 210 days that hadn't been processed, that was the average, of had not made its way through the approval system, approval path. And we had over 55,000 out of that 94 that just did not, had not been reviewed or approved at all. And so expense reports created. These are risks, again, of where you want to pinpoint we need to be looking at all these transactions to make sure that things don't fall through the cracks on improper spending. What we did find, we looked at it again in two months after our time period when we did the initial testing because we were wrapping up our testing. Because of the risk involved with 94,000 really being unsubstantiated, not knowing what those expenditures were, we looked at them again. And there was still a little over 10,000 that at the conclusion of all of our testing, we do not know what those expenditures were for. They were not for, didn't have the support in the system, I should say, for those. So unable to verify the legitimacy of the purchase without that support being there. So those are items that accounting, you know, we definitely recommend that they take a look at. Some of that was due to terminated employees leaving, and so things were kind of left pending, no support submitted. So this is definitely an area that they do need to look into. I'll mention on page 8, finding 2, there were a couple of cards that were not canceled in a timely manner. Of course, whenever you have people leave the city, we want to make sure these cards are canceled. In fairness, the department did reach out. This was fire rescue, and there had been a changeover in the administrator for the person responsible for canceling cards, and so we've just recommended it goes to a generic email notification so that you don't have this issue again and so that cards can be canceled timely. Finding 3 on page 9, we did find that some P-card purchases lacked proper authorization. There were three of them. Two were related to travel, and there's a pre-approval that needs to be there, was not there, and then for gift cards, gift cards can be purchased with the P-card, but there's a form that has to be filled out. One of the areas, for example, that's more predominant use is military affairs because they do give gift cards for veterans to assist with various items, so that's one of the areas that just didn't have the proper authorization. Because of that, we expanded our testing. The area that we found, risk management, was one of them that was lacking a lot of these pre-approvals of travel that needs to occur, so again, having that in place. And then for gift cards, we did expanded testing and found 2,350 for gift cards that just lacked that required form that requires the person charging it to submit what exactly it is for, how many you're getting, and the use of all that so that there's good documentation on the purpose for that and justifying the public purpose. Page 10, on finding 4 for P-card processing timeliness, this is where we found a lot of issues of just getting these from the time of being charged by that card holder. They're required to submit within 7 working days, and we found 36% did not. So that needs to be done, and I'll go into an incident that occurred, and that's what, the purpose of this is to prevent it. And then manager approval always within another 7-day working requirement, and then the accounting division, that expense auditor, approving it as well. So timeliness issues throughout there, but the importance of this and that card holder really saying, let me make sure all the transactions that I've done are legitimate and are mine, is that we did find one fraudulent transaction, and when we did further testing, the sheriff's office did find out about it. It was within their department, but there were 59 fraudulent transactions totaling over 18,000 that were charged to that card. So completely unrelated to the city, somehow the number, you know, had been, I guess, utilized by an outside party, but if that card holder does their job and looks through and creates that expense report, they're going to know, I didn't charge this, this is not one of my transactions. You're going to immediately identify and get on the front end rather than, it did take 81 days for that individual to be identified and for those transactions to stop. So it's, all of this timeliness of approval is tied in with preventing things like that from happening. On page 11, finding five, again, some of these items get stuck in a part of the process that's ready for payment processing. So we had some issues totaling $13,000 where they're just stuck in the expense module, they're not further processed on. We did some further testing and found another $27,000 and this distorts the department's expenditures. It doesn't reflect what is truly expended and departments also think they have budget capacity that they don't have. So you can create some budgetary issues as well. So part of this was due to some, there are court employees that are part of the city's employees but they're considered contingent employees and so when you have employees set up in the system like that, it created some issues. Accounting's going to be working for those type of anomalies but we do want to stress that we've got to have accurate budgets within the departments to know what's being spent. Finding six on page 12, a few transactions where we did have sales tax paid on the P-card, that's prohibited in their policies and procedures. We're not talking large dollar amounts. It was a total of $211 but we do want to emphasize that that is part of the policy that they need to make sure any cardholder that you're not charged for any sales tax. On page 13, finding seven, this was P-card transactions with credit card fees included. Again, not large dollars but we did have $153 in one part of our testing and fees and then $85 in another. What they've come to the conclusion, they will be switching banks for who their cardholder is. I believe it's to JP Morgan and they are going to be getting rebates for some of the charges that they are able to do and so they do feel like allowing purchases that may be cheaper to do while you are still paying fees, it's still less expensive to do it so they feel that the rebates will offset those so they will be allowing transactions to be made even if there is a credit card fee transaction. And then the last one that we had was some analytical testing that we did to see if there could potentially be any split payments that were done during the time of our testing. We did find two items that appear to be almost like a split PO where it was under the spending limit if they had tried to do it, it went over it but within mosquito control and then within the mayor's office, it was same day, same cardholder, the transactions were split so that they were within every cardholder has, there's various limits, they do vary across the cardholders but to try to keep those per transaction limit and then also a per month limit but we did find over the 13,000 where that appeared to be done to split it so that they could do the transaction. And that concludes our report. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you letting me go into so much detail in this committee and I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm going to start off, Ms. Taylor, if I can. I want to walk through what I think you've said in terms of the process. You have 109 of these go to an individual to or departmental I think you said so let's assume I have an individual card. I'm going to travel. I'm going to go to a meeting in Tampa. I have to get that pre-approved to use that P-card while I'm on that trip. Correct? Through the chair. That's correct. Any travel has to be pre-approved by your supervisor. Okay, so I have that pre-approved. I'm going to Tampa and I'm using that card for the hotel and meals and those types of things. I return. I am supposed to submit that report to my supervisor within 30 days of returning from that trip. Is that correct? Through the chair. I believe it's seven for the P-card transactions. Seven. Okay. And I also do want to clarify they should not be putting per diems on there. That's going to come we're actually working on an employee reimbursement audit was kind of the third leg. We did accounts payable this one and that and that's going to fall under there but you're correct on everything else that you stayed in. Per diem that's for meals. They get a per diem for meals that are not on the card. Through the chair. That's correct and you'll seek reimbursement when you come back from your trip. Okay. You, okay. That's probably a bit more. So within seven days you're supposed to submit that back to your supervisor for approval. Correct? That paperwork from that trip to Tampa. Through the chair. I'm going to make I'm going to I believe it's seven days. There are some issues when there are advances that kind of dictate that. So it may be 30 within the policy as you stated for overall but I do need to clarify because that's getting into more of the reimbursement side rather than the P card side. The P card when it's charged as to your example of hotel and all that your card holder in your department is processing that. They're supposed to create an expense report to say here's what it is within seven days of within seven working days of I believe it's either when the traveler returns or from that charge. Okay. There is an online portal that someone can go to to verify those charges are all correct if you're the supervisor. Through the chair. The card card holder is responsible for initially going through to detect if there's any fraudulent transactions. So if they say this is not on there but then there's also a backup person that is supposed to be in place that reviews that credit card statement that the card holder of those charges of the card holder to make sure that there is not something inappropriate that that card holder has done. There's a statement generated per card. That's correct. Yes, sir. Okay. So if all that is done correctly submitted to your supervisor everything's okay then we're good. Obviously that's not occurring consistently. Through the chair you're correct. It's having those controls in place to prevent problems but we definitely found that there were multiple issues that need to be addressed. Let me ask you as I recall when this subject first came up and I think you were involved in this there was a third party vendor that came into City Hall and for a fee could track these cards make sure all the people are responding timely to their charges identify if someone's purchasing things inappropriately on their card things that aren't for the government so to speak and all those things. Do you know what happened to that vendor and where we are with that? To the chair yes sir accounting is responsible for that contract and it's with card integrity and they are overseeing mainly from the standpoint of looking to see are there any transactions that appear out of whack do not appear to be in compliance with the policies do not appear to be places that the city should be charging to all of that more to your point of trying to find things that just don't look appropriate under the charges they are not looking accounting division is looking for timeliness and they are now triggering some system control that will automatically notify the cardholder hey you haven't turned in your expense reports this is not hitting the system yet there are some issues with the system on doing some of the multiple notifications but we do have a third party vendor that is keeping a watch on identifying basically flagging an item that may not be appropriate or to help identify like the split item that occurred to try to see if there are you know any circumvention of that that's what that third party vendor software should do that one case you mentioned where the card got used by someone else and there were clearly inappropriate charges was that caught by this integrity system how was it picked up on through the chair or to the chair it was actually caught it was within the sheriff's office and they caught it it just took it was 81 days had elapsed and there were multiple transactions so it was after review by the card holder and managers within JSO that they caught that this had occurred why didn't that integrity system work in that case and flag it much earlier than that to the chair I don't know if it was in place at the time because this was back in 24 calendar year that this occurred so it may not have been in place at that that integrity system is new is what you're telling me it's been put in place recently to the chair I believe since doge and when it was first brought by miss O'Leary I believe it's been since then that that has been put into place I don't know if there was a previous system in place I would I would have to verify that okay you know what we're paying for that service no sir I do not but I can certainly find out I'd be interested in that okay I just this really bothers me I just in corporate America you'd get yourself fired if you're not you've got somebody from accounting on you immediately if you're if you're not submitting it monthly I mean we used to submit ours monthly our expense reports for travel mileage whatever it is and if you had a major trip you may submit that separately it just bothers me that we've got this type of activity going on I made recommendations back when we first got in this to Miss O'Leary about reducing the number of cards and I I think she did I think there was 10 or so that were reduced I just I just wonder why 109 people in this government need a card it just it's with the potential for fraud and abuse on these cards I'll stop there Councilmember Arias thank you chair I feel the same sentiments as you you know me I have a list of questions so I'll make it brief but I'm going to go in order to the chair who controls the P cards is it the administration or can council have any input into obviously you stated how you reached out to him last year but do we have any kind of oversight or say over the P cards at all I'll let Mr. Taylor respond through the chair to Councilmember Arias no sir that is an administrative function and so that would be up to them to determine the number of card holders how the process is implemented and such okay thank you ma'am all right so number one on your introduction statement you said you have 111 active cards can we get a list of the breakdown of like who has a card and what department has a card and then totaling how much does each department use and how much each individual uses because this report is great but it doesn't really tell me the whole story that's one the second part is there were 6500 current transactions I can't remember what year you stated this was for totaling 2.1 million dollars is that a normal reoccurring transaction for an annual basis or was that higher than normal that's another question that I have for you and if you want to just keep on going and then you can just come back to me all of them all right my second question is MCCs the merchant category codes I saw on the report on one of the pages I think it was five or six that there were 931 current codes of which 45 are not allowable and then you looked at 22 more so then my question is can we get a breakdown of all the codes that are currently allowable do these individuals who have P-Cards understand which codes are allowable and not allowable because they may be doing usage by mistake if they don't know are they getting I see that you have internet gambling timeshares and amusement parks as potentially allowable codes how can we as a council look at all these MCCs and give you guys an input say hey these codes should not be usable or allowable at all because I mean out of a 931 current codes I'm pretty sure we could easily break that in half to say that these are not allowable uses because like I said timeshares and amusement parks should not be part of that and so my question earlier was who can make recommendations to make them not eligible is it us or is it the administration obviously it's the administration but can we at least as a body send a list to the administration saying hey we don't want you to have these as allowable codes and then my last question would be on page 9 gift cards how is that even possible I mean there's so much fraud that could be done in gift cards because you can't really detail what's being used on the gift cards that should be the first one I would just automatically remove from a code so those are my three questions I know there's a lot of questions within that and I can email you all the questions I have if you want to send them to me but my biggest thing is how can we as a council get involved to make sure that we eliminate some of these codes and also have a better breakdown as to how these expenses are being used by who and which department so that way we can hold them accountable moving forward and also I think that some of the individuals may not know that these codes are not allowable so I would hope that they're getting proper training and if not hopefully this conversation will at least enlighten them and to say hey you're not allowed to use it for this matter thank you council member diamond so I've served in every level of government federal state and local now and these cards are always a problem it doesn't matter what level of government you're in I actually think the army does it the best and maybe what I have to do is just have so literally implement the army policy I don't know if navy is the same way but if you're going to have this is how we do it in the army if you're going to travel or do something you have to go and get your own credit card that's issued through the army system through a private provider and it's on you and on your credit and you have to pay it no matter what right it's on you but the bridge between that payment time is your time to submit your reports so that that gap gets you don't pay anything on the dime for the money and I don't know if the navy is the same way but I imagine all of defense spending is the same but look these p-cards they're always a problem maybe we can just adopt the policy it says we need to adopt a system I mean we can do that legislatively the city of Jackson will not have credit cards that employees have to go and use they will have to get their own credit cards adopted through our system right they are mandatory to permit they don't hit your credit but they exist through our system and then you have to pay it otherwise it's on you that's what I would recommend and trust me I go on deployment for two weeks of training and I've got $4,000 in a hotel bill I make sure my reports are filed otherwise I have to pay it and sometimes it lags if you're not really fast I would suggest that as a nice reform for the city of Jacksonville I bet you some other city has done on that system as opposed to having P-Cards even if they are relatively closely controlled when I worked for W he looked at the Clinton era credit card problems they are nothing compared to what we've got hundreds of thousands of cards out there with billions of dollars on them but I think we can operate more intelligently as I said I was in corporate America for 40 some odd years never had a corporate credit card used my own credit card I got the points on it that was the advantage of that but did not want a corporate card because I was always fearful what might happen this is a situation just like with the health care proposals we're making I glanced at this mayor's press release where Doge has not documented any cost savings it's laughable it's laughable it's unbelievable what they can say just looking at telehealth so any other comments from the committee we stand adjourned thank you thank you for me to thank you for me