Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, October 20th meeting of the Finance Committee. We'll go ahead and start off with introductions, starting with Ms. Norris. Brittany Norris, for the administration. Colleen Hamsey, Council Research. Mary Stafopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Heather Reber, Council Auditor's Office. Phillip Peterson, Council Auditor. Good morning, Rory Diamond, District 13, The Beaches. Good afternoon, Chris Miller at Large Group 5. Will Landon, District 3. White Gay, District 2. Randy White, District 12. Good afternoon, Michael Boylan, District 6. Good afternoon, Nick Holland at Large Group 3. All right, welcome, everybody. So the flow of the meeting today, we'll take up public comment first. We then have, I don't see him here yet, I believe Mr. Freeman will be down here for our quarterly single source presentation. We're then going to go through the agenda as is. It is not a too long of an agenda. I know there's some first responder bills on here, but we'll go to them pretty quick soon as we start. And then you may notice on page 18, there's an additional finance committee discussion item, and that's a discussion on the issuance of a subpoena for Nat Ford for testimony at a special meeting of the finance committee on October 23, 2026, which is this Friday. We will take up that discussion and any action on that item at the end of this meeting. So with that, do we have any public comment? All right, we have one. Carnell Oliver, you have two minutes once you get to the podium. Oh, yeah, I want to speak to the bill involving Nat Ford. The argument for me is very simple. There are laws on the books, and there's a level of accountability that is associated with it. Dealing with the 81 section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for the number of employees that were laid off. You don't even know which one of them are heritage black Americans. Now, I've explained that a number of times. I've received a response from public records for JTA about that, and they're going to be responding to me by their time frame. But the thing about it is is that a lot of you white folks, you already knew what was going on at JTA because I blew the whistle before many times by COVID-19 funding, even in y'all jurisdiction of the city council. Many of y'all are now trying to cover your own butts for the damage that was already made. As much as you want to get in front of this camera and you want to act like you're innocent, you're really not. You hear everything, but the only thing that you're doing right now, you're putting on a show. Yes, Nat Ford going to be down here, but who really should take responsibility? You should be taking responsibility, specifically every last one of y'all in these seats because you never really took your job seriously. Just like I'm beating up on the mayor's administration with the things that I know, I'm doing the same thing with y'all. Because I take what you do more serious than you. Y'all have failed the people. You have failed me because you're a joke. Just ran along with her administration. And right now, they're large seat five trying to look good for when the election time come around. He's all in front of the camera. Look all wide-eyed, look all good for the public. But you're a joke. I'm telling that to your face. All right. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Is Mr. Freeman down here? Okay. Well, we'll push off Mr. Freeman to a future presentation. With that, we'll go ahead and start at the top of the agenda. Item number one, 2024-966 is deferred, as is item two, 2025-361. Three and four also deferred. The first at Council Member Diamond's request. The second at Council Member White's. That's 2026-0227-0320. Item five, 2026-377, deferred at the request of Council Member Johnson. Item six, deferred, 2026-0541. Item seven, 2026-0672. Can I get a motion on the withdrawal? Got a motion to second on the withdrawal. I have no in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. Fire actions. We have passed. Item seven, 2026-0672. Item eight, 2026-0677. This is deferred. This was deferred until after the Amendment three vote. I do want to point out, we are going to be talking about a different bill here in a few. I mentioned on budget night that we had $9 million of items pending for affordable housing. This one was six of it. The one we'll be discussing is $2.8 million, but for now, that item is deferred. Item nine, 2026-0687. Can I motion a second on the amendment? Ms. Reber, could you explain that one to us quick? Through the chair to the committee, the amendment will correct a whereas clause regarding the city's original intent, and correct some formatting to reflect a strikethrough and underline of a revised code section within the bill, and correct other scriveners' errors. Thank you. I have no one in the queue. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Amendment passes. Got motion a second on the bill as amended. I have no one in the queue on this. I will note that this is simply codifying what our actual procedures have been relative to the corrections employment-defined contribution plan. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays, zero nays. By our actions, we pass 2026-0687. Item 10, 2026-0749. Got a motion second on the neighborhood's amendment. Ms. Reber. Through the chair to the committee, the NCS-PHS amendment will allow the $12 million in matching funds that may be satisfied by any verified direct costs not previously reported that meet the scope of the amended agreement. This $12 million was originally done through Amendment 6 and was for a particular phase of improvements, but now we're just allowing that $12 million to be applied to any other phase that has not been reported previously. Thank you, Ms. Reber. I have no one in the queue. All those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Amendment passes. I got a motion second on the bill as amended. I have no one in the queue. I just want to point out that this is not incremental, but rather the timing and the overall five-year grant that this was. So I'll be supporting. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By our actions, we approve 2026-0749. Item 11, 2026-0751. Got a motion second on the bill. I have no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By our actions, we have passed 2026-0751. Item 12, 2026-0752. I got a motion second on the rules amendment. Ms. Reber. Through the chair to the committee, the rules amendment will correct extension language in the bill to allow for the 12-month extension, and then place a revised agreement on file to revise the general partner annual distribution limit from $500,000 to $280,000, which is 10% of the general partner's loan and consistent with similar contracts and correct scrivener's errors. Thank you. I have no one in the queue. All those in favor of the rules amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. The amendment passes. Got a motion second on the bill as amended. Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this, you know, fine with all this. VESCOR has a great track record with this city, and they just paid back like a $20 million loan, so, you know, as a fiscal conservative, I feel comfortable with this, but you made a motion, an amendment in a prior committee that I'd like to just essentially reiterate your same amendment, which is to take it out of the money that we already set aside for housing. I don't know why we would go to another pot if we already did that during the budget process. In fact, my recollection is that we were thinking about projects just like this when we put money aside for housing. So, that's my motion. If that makes sense enough, Mary, if I can get a second. So, we have a motion second of the Lane and amendment that failed in rules yesterday. Yep. And while they're putting that together, to your point, Council Member Diamond, we approved $4.9 million, which, again, budget night wasn't whether we would spend $0 or $5 million. It basically changed it from $39 to $44 million of affordable housing initiatives we had in front of us. And of that $4.9, which I wasn't going to make the motion again today, because I think I see where it's heading, but I'll certainly support it if you bring it up. But of that $4.9, it was nearly all unallocated. So, my motion was to use $1.4 million from the capital stack and $1.4 million from the, I believe it was the utility tap-in fund there. So, Ms. Reber, Mr. Peterson, do y'all want to articulate what the exact amendment would be? And through the chair to the committee, the amendment that was offered in rules and then it's now being offered here in finance was to use $1.4 million from the capital stack of the $4.9 million and then $1.4 million from the utility tap-in. Thank you. And that is Council Member Diamond's amendment, and there's a second from Council Member Gay. Mr. Boylan, on the amendment, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, as a member of the rules committee, we spent some time on this conversation, and I think members of the committee, you were the ones who supported it, frankly. And I think the rationale was a couple. Number one, the focus at one point, or the $4.9 million was really on homeownership, allowing families the opportunity to, you know, own a home. And the tap fees, obviously, are the big part of that conversation. I think this is stepping back away from that commitment, although I didn't support it on Budget Night. I supported it now because, as a majority of the Council, we approved it to be used for that intent. I'm not dismeaning. This project is great, but this is not homeownership, as I understand it. So I just don't think it's a switch in bait that I'm not comfortable with in us moving forward. Thank you. Council Member Diamond, and then I'll speak on the amendment. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, Council Member Boylan. The missing context to me is a $100 million bond request from the Jacksonville Housing Authority for homeownership and down payment assistance and all these other things. So with that context in mind, I was like, we are going so far out on a limb on some of these things when, frankly, this stuff isn't paid for yet. And so we have $100 million in unpaid for stuff. So that's why I'd like to use the money we already put aside for something that's happening now. If it doesn't happen, like, you know, so be it. But let Council decide on, as a whole, on Tuesday. Okay, Council President, I'm going to go to Ms. Tafopoulos first, because she just popped in and may have some information for us. Thank you. To the Chair and through the Chair to the Committee. So I know it was moved as an amendment, but to the extent it's approved, I would recommend it be filed as a finance substitute to the bill, because there are a number of changes that would need to be made to incorporate what is now would be the addition of an appropriation. I would also recommend, and it's ultimately the Committee's decision, but I would also recommend that you consider re-referring the bill based on that, because it did not contemplate an appropriation as originally filed, and therefore the public would not have been aware that it contemplated that appropriation from those dollars. Again, that is a decision of the Committee and how it moves forward with the legislation, but it's a recommendation of our office that it be a substitute and re-refer. I'm going to recognize Councilor Diamond, it's his amendment, and then come back to the Council President. Yeah, I don't want to hold this train up, right? So we're not doing that today, at least not from me. So, but I disagree that it has to be a substitute. I mean, it's really the Council can decide on Tuesday if they feel like there's been a procedural error with the amendment, and then can just reject it. The request for the substitute was simply to make it easier for myself and the Council Auditor's Office to produce the document. It's not that it's so substantive, the re-refer is a separate issue. Yeah, that's my issue, it's the re-refer through the chair to Mary. I don't want to do a re-referral. I don't think, to me, like, the public's on notice that we're doing this. The public is on notice last time when we put this money aside. Like, to me, that, like, we've hit our notice requirements. One way or the other, I want to make sure this train keeps going. Understood. And so, personally, like, the only people who would, you know, make an objection if you think there's a procedural problem, like a member of the Council, but I don't think there is, personally. That's just me. Understood. It was a recommendation from me as the attorney to the committee, but I would still request that if it does move forward from this committee, that it be moved forward as a substitute, whether it's re-referred or not, as a recommendation or report from the committee, it would just be as a substitute. Okay, I'll withdraw my amendment if I can get the seconder to withdraw, so then I would just move it as a substitute, if I can get a second. So, we have a motion to second on the substitute. Now, that would still contain the same language. Yes, thank you. Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go on record supporting the substitute, because this new source of funds would still produce 180 affordable housing units. It would, this project combines public and private investment, and it's consistent with how we've handled affordable housing in the past. I think it does a lot of good for a lot of people, as long as it doesn't slow it down as a re-referral, and it won't, because we're now doing it as a substitute. I'm happy and supportive. Thanks. I'm going to recognize Dr. Johnson is here, and then recognize him to speak. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. I just had a question, procedurally. If the bill, through the Chair, and I think this is Mr. Fopolis, if this is, I understand wanting to keep the train moving as the Council President, as Councilman Diamond said, but I also do want people to be able to weigh in on this. If the re-referral, what is your recommendation? What is your rationale for the re-referral? One, and then two, it could still be re-referred with a majority vote if that comes up in the full body, correct? Through the Chair to Council Member Johnson. So, my recommendation for the re-referral is because when this bill was originally advertised for consideration by the committees and the Council, it was with respect to authorizing a loan in the amount of $2.8 million that would be funded in a future piece of legislation. So, the public was not on notice that any monies were being appropriated through this legislation for the purposes of a loan that would come due in a couple of fiscal years. So, when we see a more substantive change like that, our office will often recommend that just for the purposes of transparency to the public, because when they saw the initial bill as advertised, they may not have felt the need to approach the Council to address it, but may feel the need or feel differently about that with the expectation now that there would be an appropriation included. And so, when those kinds of changes are made, we will often recommend that it be re-referred. If it's re-referred and that's approved as a re-referral by Council next Tuesday, it would come straight back to committee. It would be advertised and come straight back to committee and then go to Council on the phone. So, it would add two weeks to the process. Last question on this specific space. I think I know where I am on this, but the last question is, based on your legal knowledge, obviously we can't predict what would happen or not, but are there actions that someone could take saying that we did not follow proper procedure with advertising or noticing the public or what have you? You know, I think if a member of the public felt strongly that they would have addressed the legislation and there could have been a due process or some other sort of argument, I think it's limited. But to the extent that there is an interest of a member of the public, they could find a cause of action with respect to their not having had the opportunity to address the legislation as formally, finally acted upon by Council. Again, it could be limited, but we, you know, it is, it is a, it's a part of the risk analysis when we give you all Council and help so that you're making a fully informed decision. Council Member Gay and then Ms. Norris and then back to Mr. Boylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to weigh in on what Council Member Boylan was saying. This is coming out of the $4.9 million that we set aside for affordable housing to the Chair, so there's two buckets, $1.4 million and then $1.4 million. Is both of those buckets coming out of the $4.9 million? Yes, that's the intent of this amendment. I'm speaking for the introducer of the amendment, but it's the same one I introduced yesterday. Right, so with that, if I remember correctly, when we did the $4.9 million, not all of that was for down payment assistance. That was only... If I could, so $2 million of the remainder is for down payment assistance, which is untouched by this amendment. Okay, so that's still in there for home purchases, so, okay, I'm comfortable with it now. Thank you. So, back to Council Member Boylan, then Ms. Norris, and then we'll vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to raise a concern. I'm not sure where the body stands as a whole in supporting this amendment. I don't want to compromise this bill by having an amendment that may have some controversy in the process, so I would be careful in that regard. And if I could, like I said yesterday, rules that I'm a no on the overall bill. If we cannot use money, we budgeted for affordable housing, for affordable housing, which is what this amendment is. Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chair. I do want to offer up that Travis Jeffries with the Neighborhoods Department is here and can answer any questions anyone might have. But also, that $4.9 million might not be encumbered at this moment, but its use is planned. The utility tap-in, the down payment assistance will be utilized as we have folks step up to the plate and be available for those funds. So, there's a rationale to having those available and also being in the trust fund, ideally to make this, at some point, a self-sustaining fund. So, this does kind of cut us there. Thank you, Ms. Norris. And on the amendment, again, what this amendment is doing, it is using money we budgeted for affordable housing on affordable housing. We can either use cash for this development loan, and VestCorp does great work. This isn't anything for or against VestCorp. It's just the fact that if we don't approve this amendment, we are adding it on to our approaching $100 million now in unbudgeted grants and loans we have to find a way to budget for the next couple of years. And, again, whether Amendment 3 passes or fails, this $100 million remains unbudgeted due to commitments this council has already made. So, that's why I thought the wise financial responsibility is let's use money we budgeted for affordable housing for an affordable housing initiative. So, with that, Dr. Johnson. Quick. Mr. Jeffries, can you come up just quickly through the chair to Mr. Jeffries? Where, if this is, and I'm just curious about, while I certainly understand the chair's admonition about where the funds come from, mine is more about if the re-referral comes up, just so people get a chance to hear it, if it elongates the process, where does that leave what you were trying, what is trying to be accomplished here? Through the chair, to Councilman Johnson. Currently, the programs we're working on developing the process for those two programs, for the Capital Stack Program and for our TAP program. You know, we've had them previously in the past. We're probably going to mirror what they looked like before. But we're on the precipice of getting those launched now, right after the beginning of October 1. We just received the funding, so. So, if this doesn't go the way it is put here, it would then push that program, start out much further? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. How, I guess, just until the legislation is approved? Or until we receive, if they pull the money back, until we receive additional funding. Got it. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. With that, all those in favor of the Diamond Amendment, let's do this by hands. Raise your hand for aye. All opposed? I have two nays, Council Member Diamond, or I'm sorry, Council Member Johnson and Boylan were the no's. So, the amendment passes. Can I get a motion? We got a motion and second, and I believe this will be, Ms. DeFopolis, put some of the posture on what the correct motion should be. So, assuming that the committee doesn't have a desire to re-refer, it would be move the bill as substituted. But I would also ask if we could roll the rules amendment into that substitute. So, it's just one substitute out of finance? That is fine. Okay, thank you. So, it just... I got motion and second. On the bill as substituted, and just so I'm clear where I stand, I will vote yes on this now. If the amendment, if the finance amendment fails next Tuesday, I'll go back to being a no on this bill like I was in rules yesterday. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. One nay. Fire actions. We have passed 2026-0752 as amended, or as substituted. I'm sorry. All right. Let's see. We're up to item 13, 2026-0753. I got motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reber. I'm the chair to the committee. The amendment will correct the appropriation fiscal year, attach a revised BT to correct an account name, and attach the ship disbursement schedule as a new exhibit. Thank you. I have no in the queue. All those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Amendment passes. Got motion and second on the bill as amended. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Eight yays. Zero nays. Fire actions. We have passed 2026-0753. Item 14, 2026-0755. Got motion and second on the amendment. Ms. Reber. Through the chair to the committee. The amendment will reference ordinance 2025-186 to clarify that those funds will also be able to use the funds for the electric bike speed limit sign. Excuse me. Thank you. Dr. Johnson. I'm curious. This is procedural, so I'm not sure who to ask, Mr. Chair, but if, and I think most of us are good, but if there are those of us that could share those funds with another district, let's say, that needs it more, is that permissible? Ms. DeFopoulos. Through the chair to Councilmember Johnson, currently, as it stands, they're only specific to each district, so they're in separate accounts. To be able to do that would require filing additional legislation that would authorize that kind of action. And just kind of waive the rule to put, through the chair, waive the rule to put it over to someone else's district. Well, it would be to adjust the authorized uses of the original appropriation in this additional appropriation to allow it to be utilized outside the specific Councilmember's district. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Boylan. All those that bear the amendment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Amendment passes. Got motion. Second on the bill as amended. Mr. Boylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to hand out, let you know what funds are available to a fast number of us. $45,000 was allocated. Some of the colleagues have not even touched it. And doing my little shopping on my own, e-bike signs, roughly depending on the size, anywhere between $50 and $75 apiece. So you can buy quite a number of those. Don't need thousands. Don't need thousands. Be selective as to where you place them. And I'm sure HOAs will love to have them as well. So with that, I encourage your support. All right. Got no one in the queue. I'll support this, Mr. Boylan, because using budgeted district money for district things is like using budgeted affordable housing for affordable housing things. So I will support this. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Eight yays. Zero nays. Fire actions. We pass 2026-0755. Item 15 is deferred. 2026-0756. Item 16- Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I want to be recognized. Just real quickly, the deferral on item number 15, because it was not taken up in neighborhoods in the last cycle. So we're just letting the neighborhoods get caught up on this, and there are no issues with the bill per se. Thank you, Mr. Boylan. Item 16, 2026-0765. Got motion. Second. I have no one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. One nay. By our actions, we have passed 2026-765. Item 17, 2026-778. Got motion. Second. No one in the queue. All my questions were answered during rules. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Eight yays. Zero nays. By our actions, item 17, 2026-778 is approved. 18, 19, and 20 on page 13 are all on second. That's 2026-800-802-804, as is 21, 2026-805. Item 22, 2026-806 is on second, as is 23, 2026-808. Item 24 and 25, 2026-809-810 are on second. Item 26, 27, 811, and 813 are on second. Item 28, 2026-814 is on second, as well. Ms. Reber, Ms. Staphopoulos, I believe I've taken all action items except the last item. We are going to recognize Mr. Freeman at this point to go over his quarterly single source report, which Mr. Peterson is passing out to us right now. Mr. Freeman, the floor is yours. Mr. Chair, committee members, my apologies for my tardiness. Murphy is alive and well. The report in front of you, Dustin Freeman, Chief of Procurement, the report in front of you is the fourth quarter single source report for FY26, as per section 126-306-F of the Procurement Code. This report reflects all single source purchases, over $50,000, and the agency's justification for each are part of your backup. This quarter, procurement processed 11 single source purchase orders, totaling a little over $1.6 million, and eight purchase order agreements, totaling a little over $2.1 million. There's one purchase order that I would consider unique, and that's item 9 in your packet. That's JSO support services for a little over $64,000. This was the JSO 9-11 site move to the new JSO headquarters. This concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions related to procurement of these single sources. However, I will defer to the using agency if there's any technical questions regarding the requirement itself. Thank you. I have no one in the queue. Mr. Freeman, thank you. Thanks, sir. All right. We're now going to go to page 18. We've completed all other action items for this meeting, so now we're on the additional finance committee discussion item, and that is discussion on the issuance of a subpoena for Nat Ford for testimony at a special meeting of the finance committee on October 23rd, 2026. I'm going to turn it over to our council liaison, council member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have a motion, and then if I can get a second, I'd like you to speak on it briefly. We have a second from Council Member Gay. Well, I need to make the motion first, but I appreciate the confidence that I'll say something smart. So I make a motion that the finance committee subpoena Nat Ford within less than seven days, so essentially for Friday. Nat Ford has been contacted by, as I understand it, and has not responded, so he has been requested to come before this committee. He's been requested to come before the special committee looking at it. And because, as we know, Nat Ford is leaving Jacksonville to start up at DART in next week, I assume, or his last day here is tomorrow, that's what underlies the need for an emergency. So my motion is to have that subpoena issued by this committee for a finance committee meeting on Friday, this Friday. I need a second. Can I get a second? Okay, we have multiple seconds. So now it's a discussion on the motion, so we have the Council President, you are in queue. Or I apologize, Council Member Diamond, did you want to speak? Yeah, I just want to explain my motion. Go ahead. Yeah, so, you know, I make this motion reluctantly, but given the timeline, we really have to issue this as fast as humanly possible, because Nat is leaving. And I don't want to have to issue a subpoena to anybody, but this is essentially a preemptive subpoena. I'm asking that, Nat, just come here voluntarily. Don't be, don't force the enforcement of a subpoena on somebody. Just come before the committee and answer some questions about what's going on at JTA. And then anybody who's listening might ask, why should he have to answer these questions? And I'll just lay out the predicate just briefly here. Like, JTA, in the last two years, has gone from being solvent to insolvent, $40 million in the whole. And during this process, we've now had to, as a council, change LOGT2 money, $30 million of it, into a temporary loan just so they can pay their bills. 200 people who have done nothing wrong other than show up to work and work the last few years got fired two and a half weeks ago. And so it is an absolute crisis nightmare at one of the most important things a city does, a community has. And the CEO for that is leaving town. He's literally on his way to Dallas before he goes. I'd like him just to explain to the people of Jacksonville what happened, why did you keep pursuing this course even though you couldn't afford the money just for normal operations, and to answer those so that everybody who lost their job, everybody who now can't get to work or school as efficiently as they used to, and for frankly all the taxpayers and the rate payers in Jacksonville can get the answers from the horse's mouth. So that's the why. We deserve answers, and I'd like to get them. Council President, then Council Member Salem. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I concur entirely with Councilman Diamond. I don't think this is a witch hunt. We're not trying to forcefully demand his presence if we don't have to. That's not how we stood up the select committee. That's not what I think this council needs to do. This council does need to get to the bottom of how we got where we are so we can figure out how to fix what we have moving forward. That said, last week I watched the select committee meet, and I spoke with several board members, and as far as I understand it, the council auditors and the board members could only go by the financial projections presented to them by the leadership at JTA. So we're at a position where we now have to get testimony from the leadership at JTA and how they prepared those projections. That's why we need Nat Ford to present. And as I'm reading it and understand it from Councilman Diamond, this is a testimony subpoena. It's not a document subpoena. We just want to hear what we had to say. He ran this agency for the last decade, so we need to hear from him how it went. I suspect, because I'm a bit of a Pollyanna, I always have wishful thinking, that he did nothing wrong. But I'd like to understand where it went wrong. And for us to understand that, we need Nat Ford's testimony. So I called him this morning. I've not gotten a call back. I wanted him to say he'd come in anyways for Friday. I believe that the chair of the select committee has sent him an email and probably hasn't heard back yet, although my call this morning and the email were both today. So, Councilman Diamond, are you getting this in advance? Do we want to give him more time to voluntarily say he'll come before we issue this? Is that how you'd like to do it? Through the chair to the council president, no. I'd like to issue the subpoena, and then he can voluntarily come. And if I had been in Jacksonville for 10 years, had appeared at this podium for so long, and know that a subpoena's hanging, I would just come. Agreed. And look, and for anybody who's really wondering, like, the state of Texas can assist us with a subpoena. The attorney general of Texas can assist us with a subpoena. Let's just get this done. Let's get the answers, and then he can move on with his life. And if I still can, Chair, then I agree with you. I mean, I don't want to force him. I'd hope that he comes back and says, yeah, of course I'll come and talk to you, and responds to Mr. Miller or gives me a call back. But in the event he doesn't, we'll have the subpoena here to try to bring him back when he can. I would like to ask, Mr. Chair, timing-wise, for Mary, what is the timing here in the subpoena? So the subpoena is saying, please come to us by Friday, October 23rd. When does this need to be signed by the council secretary and served by JSO? Through the chair to council member or to council president Howland, thank you for the question. So one of the things that Councilman Diamond ensured to include in his motion was that the subpoena was being issued for testimony on a date that is a period of less than seven days out. Because under the council rules, traditionally, when you issue a subpoena to compel attendance of a witness, it should provide for at least seven days' notice prior to that testimony being elicited in front of the committee. But the committee can authorize the issuance of a subpoena through a majority vote for a lesser period of time. So based on that, and because I understand there's an emergency need, there's an emergent need to get Mr. Ford here prior to his departure to move to the state of Texas, I would recommend, and the council secretary, and I have discussed it this morning, and he is prepared that if the finance committee does authorize the issuance of the subpoena, he would be prepared to do that immediately after this meeting because we have to coordinate with JSO for service of the subpoena. And also the notice for the finance committee special meeting on Friday would need to go out immediately to ensure there's as much advance notice, both to the witness as well as to the public of the special meeting. Okay. Thank you. And through the chair, please, if I can, Mary, both those things could be done right after this meeting if we needed to. That's not a problem. Here's a question, though. What if Mr. Ford comes back and he says, I'm glad to do it. I can't be here Friday, but I can come back, you know, two weeks and appear before a finance committee. Through the chair to counsel, President Howland, I think to the extent that that is his response, the committee could choose to then have a special meeting at a different time and allow him the opportunity to come back at that subsequent date to testify in front of the committee and work with the witness to schedule it for a different time. Okay. Then in that case, I'm supportive of the motion by Mr. Diamond of whoever wants to make amendment to reduce it from seven days under council rules. That was part of his original motion. Oh, that's part of it. Okay, good. And then we'll do the subpoena right afterwards, notice the meeting on Friday right afterwards, and then if he can't make it, we can always change that notice meeting. I'm happy with that. Thank you. I'm going to take a chair privilege real quick. Mr. Fopolis, how would we know, like, who is the right person that Mr. Ford would potentially communicate that to? Is it our liaison? Is it the council president? Is it the finance chair? Or is it just whoever hears from him first? Like, how would that process work to know whether there's an alternative? And I noticed that the time is blank on this draft subpoena, so I think that's a discussion we have to have after we vote on the motion here. But I'm just wondering ahead of time, is it just if one of us is contacted by Mr. Ford, should we then immediately reach out to you, and it could be some sort of one-way communication as to a proposed new date for him to come in and talk to us? So to the chair, traditionally, because it's the finance committee that's issuing the subpoena, that kind of communication would go through the chair of the committee. However, if you wanted to allow for that to be delegated, not necessarily delegated, but delegate to Mr. Diamond as the JTA liaison, or if the president would prefer to be that individual who receives that communication, has that communication with Mr. Ford, I think you could address whoever would be responsible for that. I do think, though, it would be appropriate to allow one individual to be the point of contact to avoid miscommunication or lack of communication because of different parties being involved. I think that's a good idea. And so to clarify, it sounds like the finance chair can directly delegate the JTA liaison to be that person. I think you could in this instance. All right. So Mr. Ergut? So if that's your wish and the motion passed and we come up with a time, I will immediately send a note to Nat and tell him just get back with me or have his attorney get back with me. And I feel like that's probably the best way to handle just having our liaison be the liaison through the whole process. Okay. With that, got a number in queue. I did have more committee members pop up, so I'm going to go Boylan, Johnson, Salem. Thank you, Mr. Jarrett. I fully support the motion. Just a suggestion and a comment. Obviously, the council auditors were very specific in their concerns. I think as we take a look and ask Mr. Ford to speak to the issues, we can ballpark them all we want. But start it off with there are three critical issues with respect to the council auditors report. Be prepared to speak to those issues in particular so that we've got a starting point in the conversation and he knows what he has to speak to more specifically. So I would say in direct response to the council auditors' concerns and report. If that suggestion, I'm not saying amend the motion. I'm just giving you some direction as to what I think might be the best way to handle this. Councilman Diamond. To the chair, to Mr. Boylan. I agree with you. It's good to have direction. And we can have including but not limited to, and then we can focus on that. And, Ms. Mary, I don't know, through the chair to Mary, last time we issued subpoenas during JEA, we had some specific topics we asked for people when we had subpoenas. I think that makes sense to go ahead. I don't know if you need me to articulate those now. Through the chair to Councilmember Diamond. And so you each have a copy of the draft subpoena in front of you that Mr. Thiel has prepared in advance of the meeting. And it does address that you would be eliciting testimony relative to the FAO Select Committee's charge. However, we could always add the specific issues that are addressed in the council auditor's report and findings and include those as part of what he would be testifying. I think it just makes sense to have that direction embedded. Yeah, if I might, can we just add that specific one in front of this list? Sure. Right? And so it's including but not limited to. We'll narrow down because really those were, hey, the red flags from council auditors. We'll clarify those from council auditors. Why did we ignore those? We'll clarify those from council auditors and make sure Mr. Thiel is here so he's able to take this information back. But we'll clarify with Mr. Peterson what might be the best way to identify those items in here and include them in the subpoena. Thank you. From my perspective, I just want to see the meeting be as productive as possible. I want to ask the structure and give him a chance to prepare for it. Dr. Johnson. Then Dr. Salem. Thank you. Just got a couple of questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As it relates to the subpoena, I did hear you say, and I just want to make sure we're in the same space, we did reach out as a committee or did, and maybe to you, Mr. President, through the chair, did you just reach out to Nat directly or did we reach out officially? Can you help me understand that? Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Councilman Johnson. Yeah, I called him this morning. It just said, you know, I was out last week, but noticing last week through the select committee and seeing folks interviewed, they want to hear from you. Would you be willing to come before a committee? And then I believe Mr. Miller now has sent a direct email on his own letterhead as the head of the select committee doing the investigation right now, asking the same. Thank you, Mr. President. Was that your first time reaching out to Nat Ford? Yes. Gotcha. And that was this morning? Yes. Through the chair to Councilmember Miller, Chairman Miller for that committee, for the select committee. When did you send that communication to Mr. Ford or to Nat Ford to request him to come to the special committee? That was just before this meeting. So there hasn't been much time receiving it, but I also copy furnished the acting CEO as well so that in case there was some type of concern on the email address or a change from his previous CEO email address, wanted to make sure that JTA leadership was aware of that. So he hadn't voluntarily had enough time to say he'd come or not yet? No, and I think that's fair, and I think that's also why I like the discussion on him being able to respond and be able to say, you know, I'm going to be there and I'll, or to propose an alternative date that works better with his schedule, if that doesn't work well with what he's got planned. Then we would subpoena. No, what I'm saying is I like that discussion and that opening. If he comes back to us with that, an alternative date because the date of this Friday isn't working for him, I think that's a good opening, a good option for us because this has been a short timeline. And, you know, so I think the hope is, and in my opinion, the way I put it in the letter, it was a very non-confrontation, just an invitation to come on Friday to our meeting. And so I'm hoping through this process there's just a willful agreement. Yes, that is the best thing. Since I was the CEO for the time in question, I should be the point person for JTA to be able to respond. Understood. Mr. Chair, to you, if we, obviously there's nothing on the floor yet because the council member is going to propose an action, maybe. No. It is, what is the motion that's on the floor right now? Because that's where I'm a little confused. That's why I'm asking, I'll tell you what I'm getting to. We have a motion and a second to what, Mr. Foplas, do you want to... Which is the subpoena. So the motion on the floor is to issue a subpoena for a period of less than seven days to Mr. Ford to appear before the finance committee for a special meeting on Friday, October 23rd. And the time is yet to be determined on that date, which will be discussed as part of this process. That was going to be the next question. So with this motion comes, through the chair to Mr. Foplas, with this motion comes an official Friday date for a meeting. Correct. Which we have to decide the time, but the date of Friday for the meeting will happen. Wanted to make sure of that. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with jumping to support a subpoena when the council president called this morning. The chair of the special select committee sent an email this morning. And I know I'm still pouring through emails from yesterday and phone messages, and I just don't want to jump to a subpoena when it is maybe we haven't given enough time to at least answer the question and say, hey, we can come about. Because then it turns into almost an adversarial process unnecessarily, I think, unless we ask and then they are saying we are not coming. That's just my thought on the matter. Thank you. Thank you. And just to be clear, that was one of my questions. I don't know if we need to figure out the time before we vote on this, but I'm sure Mr. Foplas will let us know that in a couple minutes. Councilman Diamond. Yeah, through the chair, just to respond to my colleague, I agree with you. That's a very tight timeline. That's why it's done, pardon the front, like gentlemen, which is to say, I'm going to send Nat a letter today after this, if this passes and says, this is the subpoena. Reach out to me and let me know, does Friday work for you? And if it doesn't, we'll find another day. But if he's like, absolutely, I'm not coming, or no response at all, right, then Friday comes and goes and he doesn't show, then the next step is to then come back to the standing committee to see, do we want to enforce this subpoena? And then it goes to the council as a whole. Do they want to enforce the subpoena? And if the answer is yes, Mary, I think I got this right. I've done this before now. Then we have a vote. But hopefully we don't have to go down that road. That's like a whole journey that's totally unnecessary. So that's why, to me, it makes sense. Go ahead and get this done. This is going to exist. This process is going to happen. We are going to talk one way or the other. Let's do it easily on Friday. Okay. I just want to make sure, and forgive me for, you're the lawyer, so that's why I'm asking you through, and Mr. Voblis, of course, through the chair. So in this space, once we vote on this subpoena, does that, it still needs to go to be ratified, so to speak, by the entire council? No. Once we issue the subpoena, they can come. So the next question is, can we then turn around and withdraw the subpoena if he agrees to come, once we've heard from Nat? Mr. Voblis. Through the chair to Council Member Johnson, yes, at that point you could release him from the subpoena. And then if he fails to appear or you can't secure a date and something continues to change, then you can make a determination if you want to issue a new subpoena. New subpoena. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I just wanted to understand procedure. I appreciate you. All right, Dr. Salem, I promise we'll get to you, but first, Council Member Miller and then Council Member Howland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real quick, through the chair, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware we currently have a scheduled meeting of the select committee Friday at 930. So there is a time and this location reserved for that meeting. You know, we can move the current announced agenda to accommodate if the Finance Committee so desires to do so. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to Councilman Johnson's point, yeah, you've identified an important thing, which is we've only called him this morning. We've only sent an email to him today, and we're about to issue the subpoena this afternoon. But that's why I started out saying this isn't a witch hunt. This is a, quote, friendly subpoena. And part of that is driven by the fact that he is on – he's off payroll tomorrow, and he starts his new job in Dallas Monday. So a lot of this is, uh-oh, we just discovered last week that a lot of the issue we have here is projections provided to the board and to the auditors were likely faulty. And so we need to understand how those projections were prepared. And so now is the time to get him. This is a subpoena kind of to have as necessary. We understand his, you know, schedule. And he probably will be willing to come before us. So, again, it's trying to be flexible. If he can't come Friday and tells us when he can come, we'll make it happen. So we're trying to be as accommodating as we can. But I think the city and the city council deserves this testimony, therefore, going through this process. Thank you. Council past president, Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I have – through the chair to Ms. Mary, it's a majority vote of the finance committee to issue the subpoena. And if this committee issues it, does that mean the testimony occurs at this committee? Through the chair to Council Member Salem, I appreciate the question. Yes, it's a majority vote of the committee. In addition, it's important that – that also requires a majority vote of the committee to issue a subpoena for a period of less than seven days out, which is why that was included in Mr. Diamond's motion. And, yes, the subpoena is to have the witness appear before the committee issuing the subpoena. Okay. Colleagues, I have a sort of a different approach, which is one of the reasons I wanted to run down here. One, I am very concerned about the timeline of a phone call this morning and an e-mail that occurred 45 minutes ago. In addition, at our oversight committee that we had last week, we asked for a timeline of CFOs within JTA. So we could, I think, the three of us and the committee identify exactly who was the CFO when this thing went south. Maybe it's more than one. I got advice from Council Member Diamond, my colleague. You always start below and then you move up. And I think to jump to the CEO without getting information from the CFOs of what they were doing, what they knew, and why were the numbers so off before we even talked to the CEO, I think is – it's not appropriate in my mind. I mean, I remember, as Council Member Diamond does, I'm sure, you know, subpoenas by the city council were not well received in the community just several months ago. And so I think we should be very careful and not use subpoenas if we can avoid it. I don't know whether – and in addition to that, he's got subpoenas from the Attorney General. I would be very concerned about talking, if I were Nat Ford, talking to anybody, and I'm sure he might be getting that advice from his attorneys right now. The fact that he's going to Texas doesn't prevent us from getting some information from him. One of the things that you might suggest – I would suggest is we develop a list of questions. Have the auditors help us develop a list of questions for Mr. Ford. You know, what did you know, when did you know it, and get that to him, and maybe he'll respond to that versus testimony. But in summary, I would start with our Friday meeting, learning who these CFOs were, determining who was in charge when it went south, it may be more than one, and get them in here. And then, depending on what they tell us, if they were directed to do something with the books that was inappropriate, then obviously it goes up. And at the same time, have the auditors develop questions for Mr. Ford that we can begin developing and get to him. I know that's a lot different than what you were just discussing, but having been through this thing with subpoenas, I just think we need to slow down as a council. Thank you. Dr. Johnson, then Councilman Diamond. Thank you. And, Dr. Salem, I actually had some notes. I appreciate, through the chair, to Dr. Salem, those comments, because I kind of think we're moving a little quickly to rush to a subpoena. I want to say, as I was, like, looking through things, not just the chair, obviously being a liaison prior to Councilmember Diamond, I've gotten all the questions, a lot of questions from not just the community, but the media and others as well. And one of the things that I have constantly reminded everyone is while there was one person who was the CEO and there was the CFO, there was also a board who made the final decision. And so it may also, one of the things I put in my notes is that it may be incumbent upon us to maybe bring in the board chair at that time as well. So that way, if there are questions about while there were some finance things that were presented, perhaps there may be questions that exist for not just one person, but to look at those who had the decision-making authority to say, this is what we will do, and that authority rests with the board. So at this point, I don't think I would be voting to support issuing a subpoena until such time that we've heard from Mr. Ford. I don't want that to preclude the fact that I want to hear this testimony. I want to hear from the board. I want to hear from the CFO. I want to hear from the CEO. I think it's important. But I also think due process is important, and I think we should give those individuals an opportunity to either say, I can or can't get the advice from their counsel, but to rush to a subpoena and rush to a thing on Friday without giving them the opportunity to prepare for it, I think is not in the service of this council and certainly not in the service of this city. Thank you. Mr. Diamond. Yeah, my colleagues' points are well taken, but let me just say this. First of all, I think the community is going to receive the subpoena very well, given the circumstances. That's one. Second, two, the timing here, I would agree. If Mr. Ford had like six more months on his contract, he was going to be here for six more months, I would start at the bottom and work my way up, get the documents first, get a really nice set of questions. I would love to do it that way. That is how you run an investigation. I've done literally hundreds of them. I love doing them properly. But Mr. Ford is an employee of JTA until the end of today, tomorrow, and then will be headed to go be the CEO of DART next week. So that timing is what we're stuck with. It's just what it is. And the people want to have the answers. Subpoenas happen all the time, every day. They're not the end of the world. It's not a conviction. It's nothing like that. It's simply a legal demand that you appear. And so we need to make the demand, in my opinion, for Mr. Ford to appear on Friday. If he can't make it, if he tells me I can't do it, we'll find another time, right? And we'll be rational and reasonable about it. But we do need to issue it, in my opinion, while he's still working for JTA and is still in Jacksonville. Because that itself has legal weight, in my mind, that while you're taking our money and you are in our city and you're subject to the jurisdiction of this committee, you're subject to the jurisdiction of the city, you're subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of Florida, now is the time to issue a subpoena, not after he's gone. That would be a strategic mistake by this committee if we waited. Thank you. Okay, no one else in the queue. My thoughts, I don't love the speed at which we're doing this, but two things, right? One, I think it's going to be easier while he is still here in Jacksonville before he starts a new job. And also, we'll be talking to a former CEO. We've been talking about working our way up. We'll be talking to a former CEO, not a current CEO of the independent authority. Ms. DeFopolis, so with regards to the motion, before we vote, do we have to fill in the blank on the time here? I heard Council Member Miller said, that sounds like you have some flexibility on Friday, that we could essentially make that the meeting of the finance committee at 930 instead of the financial audit and oversight committee. Is that correct? I think if we wanted to, through the chair, to the chair, we could move back that agenda. And then if we get through, if he's able to come and decides this works and we have that as the main focus item for that start of the meeting, if that doesn't take long, my preference would be then we move on in as a committee to the other things that we had planned to make best use of that time. So I don't know if that hits what you just said, but that would be my recommendation. Thank you. So that's part one. Part two is I'll look at my colleagues here. We still have to have a quorum of four at a minimum for the finance committee, not the financial audit and oversight committee. So I'll just look from left to right, who thinks they can make it Friday at 930 if we approve this motion. I got a yes from Johnson, yes from Diamond, yes from Miller. I'll find a way to make it. Council Member Gay, Council Member White. All right, we got a possible to probable from Council Member White. Boylan is good. You can help with the quorum, yes. And Dr. Salem, you were going to be here anyways for the FAO meeting. Mr. Diamond. I'm trying to work with our staff here with 1030 work because I want to make sure the staff that needs to be here can be, and I know some of them have stuff that they can't miss. So if that's the case, first off, does 1030, is 1030 just as good as 930 for most folks? Okay, so I guess legislative services, I'll let you all figure out how best to get rid of the 930 FAO meeting, do the 1030 finance committee, special finance committee meeting, and then find a way that I guess you move the FAO to after that if there's time remaining. We can talk about that after the fact, but for now, 1030. Dr. Johnson, you're in the queue. Yeah, you're recognized. I, like most of us, have things on the schedule. I'm going to make it work. This is important. We need to get this information. I hope before we take this vote, though, that we really think about it. I just want us to think again. Imagine any one of us who just did not have the – think about it. We've also asked Nat to come to other meetings, and he's come, and Cleveland and Jessica and the entire team, Raj, whomever was there. I just think, and I have to agree with you, Mr. Chair, that we are moving at the speed of light. And just because Nat is going to stop getting paid by the city, I think that they're – just in having conversations with him as the liaison, I just want to be fair. And I think this is a totally unfair thing to do, to jump from request to subpoena within hours. I just don't know that that makes – I've never – you know, I'm not a lawyer. I don't understand parts of the process. But I think this is very uncomfortable for me to support a process that doesn't even give a person a chance to catch their breath and say yes or no, and then we subpoena them. As was said earlier, you know, it's not like he's leaving the country or leaving the time. He's going to be here. And I don't think, as a professional who's done transportation for decades, that he's just going to disappear. So I cannot support this in the way that we're doing this, and I wish that we could find another way to at least try and then move to subpoena, escalate, but not just become antagonistic, especially in light of the fact where – that was shared earlier, that there are subpoenas from other entities that that agency and Nat himself is dealing with. Thank you. Thank you. No notes in the key. One other comment I meant to add. If Mr. Ford does contact Mr. Diamond, if there is a better time, I would like to be flexible around Mr. Ford's schedule as well to the best extent possible. Okay, so with that, we are going to take a motion on the motion that Council Member Diamond has before us. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. I have one nay from Dr. Johnson, so the motion on that passes. Ms. Stefopoulos, any cleanup items we need to do with regards to the potential scheduling, noticing meetings, et cetera, that you need us to give you input while we're all together here on the dais? Thank you to the chair and through the chair to the committee. So based on the discussion, we will update the subpoena draft that you have in front of you to include at the beginning of the list, the three items from the Council Auditor's report with respect to the topics of testimony that would be elicited from Mr. Ford. We will insert the time of 10.30 a.m. on the morning of Friday, October 23rd for the start of the special meeting of the committee. And then we will work with Mr. Thiel and legislative services to issue those subpoena and put out the notice of that special meeting as soon as possible. My only question to the committee, and more with respect to Council Member Miller with the FAO Select Committee, just so that legislative services has the information and can act on it, do you still want to have at least a portion of the FAO Select Committee meeting at 9.30, or do you intend to cancel that meeting and just reschedule it based on what ends up transpiring on Friday with a special committee, a special meeting of the Finance Committee? Through the chair, thank you for that question. Now that it's been, I believe the plan is to go to 10.30 with the special finance meeting, right? I think it's fine for us to go forward with the 9.30, and then we can cover hopefully a good portion. And JTA has prepared for that session, and so I would rather, given all that they have on their plate with the state attorney general and others, they're prepared to do that. We gave them a couple, an extra week to be able to do that. So I'm glad you asked that. I would prefer we do as much as we can with the Select Committee at 9.30, and then transition to this special finance meeting. Through the chair to Council Member Miller, thank you very much for that. So I will coordinate with Legislative Services, and we will coordinate with your ECA, Ms. Register. I think there's just a, so if you start at 9.30, they're just going to need a little time to turn over the dais for the special meeting of the Finance Committee, so you might be able to go up to, like, 10.20 and allow for that turnover for the 10.30 meeting. So we'll work with you all to make sure that that's coordinated appropriately. Dr. Salem. Thank you, Chair. Councilman Miller, you were getting into what I was going to suggest is go ahead and meeting at 9.30. But if he does not appear at 10.30, can we structure the meeting to the Oversight Committee to continue as it would have so that we don't have to stop it at 10.30 because it was noticed that way, because I think we have enough business to continue past 10.30. Through the chair to Council Member Salem, the committee doesn't have a hard, the FAO Select Committee doesn't have a hard stop on the notice. However, the notice for the special meeting of the Finance Committee will be at 10.30. So based on the notice for this committee, you would have to shift over whether he's present or not. If we find out in advance that he's available at a different time on Friday and we can confirm a quorum with the Finance Committee, we can issue an amended notice for that meeting for potentially a new time, but ultimately the notice for this committee will state 10.30. Ms. Mary, can we just make ours for Finance 11 or 11.30 then, make it closer to lunch? You can start the meeting whenever you would like, but that would need to be a discussion because we need to put that in the subpoena. Right. So to Mr. Miller and Dr. Salem, would 11 work better? That way you'd have a full hour and a half, assuming that we – okay, let's just do 11. That has been our standard link, so I would think that would work and would not inhibit our continuing function, but I'll leave it up to the chair and then jump in at 11. Okay. I would tell you that Legislative Services has indicated they need 15 minutes to turn over the dais, so that would mean they would just need to stop at 10.45 to allow for the turnover to 11 a.m. Or how about we start at 11.15? Again, whatever time the committee – this committee selects, that's what will go on the subpoena and the notice. I just want to make you all aware of kind of the need for transitioning the dais. All right. 11.15, final answer. We're going to be at Saturday morning if we keep on pushing this anymore. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, committee. Anybody else? Any other questions or clarifications? In a nutshell, Finance Committee, we have a special Finance Committee meeting at 11.15 now on Friday. I'll trust our JTA liaison will keep us in the loop as to if we hear something different from Mr. Ford. Like I said, I'll do my best to be flexible if there's a time that works better, and I do hope it truly goes down the route of being voluntary. Dr. Johnson and then Ms. DeFopolis. Quick question. I know I brought up some of the other people. Would there be an appetite to include them, or this would be something we would request them to come in the future, Mr. Chair? To Dr. Johnson, are you talking about a potential subpoena for other people or for current and former JTA employees? Who do you mean by other people? The ones I mentioned in my initial soliloquy, the CFO and the board chair at the time. My guess is we do not want to add additional to this meeting because I believe there's going to be plenty of questions for Mr. Ford. But we, I guess, couldn't. Just to clarify, I believe you're asking questions of Mr. Miller's committee, not the special finance committee on the subpoena. No, special finance committee, because I don't have any control over that. We do have control this committee over this, so that's why I'm asking you, since you are the one that's, or this committee would be the one subpoenaing this individual. What we want is the information. And as was alluded earlier, the CFO and maybe the board chair, because the ultimate decision lies with the board, would be additionals, but we're saying there's no appetite to only want to talk to the CEO. Just want to make sure that that's what I understand. At this specific meeting, I have no appetite to bring in an additional meeting for what I believe will be an hour meeting. Thank you. Mr. Popolis. Just one other thing to make you all aware of, and to the extent that there's communications that are pending with Mr. Ford, the Sunshine Law Compliance Act requires 24 hours, at least 24 hours notice of any meeting. We like more, so obviously we're going to notice that Friday meeting today at that 11-15 time. But we would need to just be sure that whatever communications with Mr. Ford occur, if we need to nail down a different time, we have to have at least 24 hours to be able to notice a different time for that day. Councilman Diamond. Through the Chair, Mary, my suspicion is if there is an agreement on another time, it's going to be weeks of notice, and there will be plenty of time. That's my best guess. But if it's Friday, it will be notice. There we go. Anything else from anyone up here? All right. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned.