Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and get started with this special meeting of the Finance Committee regarding JTA. We'll go ahead and start with introductions on my left. Let's start with Ms. Hampsey. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Mary Stapopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Phillip Peterson, Council Leader. Ryan Parks, Council Leader's Office. Good morning, Rockman Johnson, District 14. Good morning, Rory Diamond, District 13, The Beaches. Good morning, Chris Miller, At-Large, Group 5, Will Land, District 3. Mike Gay, District 2. Randy White, District 12. Nick Howland, At-Large, Group 3. All right, good morning, everybody. So item 2 on the agenda is testimony from former JTA CEO Nat Ford or discussion to otherwise address Mr. Ford's testimony before the committee. I'm going to recognize the JTA liaison, Council Member Diamond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't think there's any actual motion or work to be done on item 2, but just for the purposes of everyone here, I'll just sum up how we got here and where I think we're at. So on Tuesday, we had a finance committee meeting. We took up a subpoena of Nat Ford, and it passed the committee. Later that day, I kind of back-channeled with Mr. Ford's team, found out that he was unavailable to respond to us directly that day when we had reached out. And the message came back that, look, just work with Mr. Ford. He's never once not come before the committee. He's always, and to his credit, he's always kept his word and come to the committee when we've asked him to do, and that's what will be true going forward. And so he wasn't served on Tuesday. Then I was informed Thursday morning he was served at his home. So in my opinion, this is Rory speaking, service was effectuated, and Mr. Ford is currently under subpoena but was not expected to show up here today. So in my opinion, he's not thumbing the nose of the committee not being here, but did not expect him to be here. And so since he's still under subpoena, my expectation is that we'll simply work out a date for him to come at some point down the road. So that's kind of my view of it, and I don't think there's any work to be done here. And just to clarify, Council Member Diamond, you will be the council member working with Mr. Ford to find a date agreeable for all, correct? And I'll do that, one and two. I think it makes more sense now because there's a lot of work to be done with the CFOs and looking at documents and some of these other things to kind of get ready for testimony like that. So, yeah. So, you know, I take leadership from the committee chair and the council president, but happy to do it. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The facts that Mr. Diamond laid out are exactly as I understand them. The only question I have is the subpoena that was served to Mr. Ford requested he show up here at 1115 for this special committee. So we might have to take action, I believe. We can clarify with the general counsel. So Mr. Ford is not held responsible for not meeting the subpoena. We might have to extend the subpoena out several weeks. I'm not sure what the process is there, and I believe Mr. Fackler is here. So, Mr. Chair, I might ask Mr. Fackler. Yes, my understanding is we did not need to do a specific motion, but Mr. Fackler, if you could chime in on that, then I'll go to Dr. Johnson. To the committee through the chair, that's correct. He is still, or Councilman Diamond said it correctly, he is still under subpoena. Typically, when this happens, the parties work together if a date is not available. He remains under subpoena, still obligated to come. The parties can pick a date. I don't believe there is any need to formally reissue the subpoena with a second date as you've got him under subpoena, and you're cooperating to find a mutually convenient date going forward. Okay, understood. Thank you, Mr. Fackler. Dr. Johnson, you're no longer in the queue. Is that accurate, or did you want to speak? Okay. Okay, well, as of now, there is no more rest of the discussion. Committee members, I have no one in the queue. As the general counsel said, we do not have any action that we need to take. Did you want to speak, Dr. Johnson? That was my question. Because here's the thing. I'm still a little bit concerned about us having the subpoena. I'm certain I do not have the votes, but I'm going to do it anyway to move to remove the subpoena, especially since my colleague has said he's spoken with the team. We all got the letter from the office, I believe, that was copied to the Finance Committee on yesterday. It was also said that Mr. Ford has been responsive any other time that any of the other people have asked him to come. And I just think it's a little bit disingenuous, as I've said before, of us trying to play well in the sandbox and still then going ahead and issuing a subpoena. I feel as though we didn't do the same thing for one of the other independent authority CEOs and gave them time. And I don't think that happened in this case, and I stand by that. And I think there should have been some kind of equity or parity or something in the two of those situations, and that did not happen. So I believe the best-case scenario would be for us to continue to work with his team. But is it necessary to have a subpoena to have him testify? Dr. Johnson, just to clarify, are you making a motion? Not yet. I would like that question answered. Is it necessary? And I will make a motion, whether it's seconded or not. But can someone on the legal team, for him to come and testify, is that a necessity to have it subpoenaed? Mr. Fackley, you're recognized. Yeah, through the chair to the committee, there are two parts to that question, as I understand the question. From an optics and politics matter, that's a question for you, for the committee to decide. As a legal matter, I'm hesitant to make a recommendation, but you lose leverage. There's no other way to say it. If you release him from the subpoena via motion, then you're relying solely on his goodwill. His goodwill might be sufficient for you to feel confident to move forward. That's a decision for you gentlemen. But from a legal perspective, you do lose significant leverage. He is now under a validly served, validly issued subpoena, and we're working to get a date. If you release him from that subpoena, then you have no legal hammer, for lack of a better term, and there's got to be a lot of better terms out there for that. You don't have the hooks or the carrot and the stick. The stick would be you're not complying with the subpoena. While he's there, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that, Mr. Fackler, to the chair, to the general counsel, what is the legal hammer, since we're using that extremely legal term? What would those teeth be if there are penalties that would be imposed? Is that something, and forgive my ignorance in this process, is that something that we would need to send to the full counsel, they adopt, and then it goes to a judge? What's that cycle look like, and what would the penalties be if there was an ignoring of the subpoena? Through Councilman Johnson, through the chair, Ms. Tapopoulos and I talked about it. The rule doesn't exactly contemplate a complete disregard of the subpoena, so it's kind of a process that we would have to work through to see. We believe it probably should go to counsel for their action, and then from there, ultimately, it could end up in front of a judge to issue a civil contempt order, a capius, which is essentially an arrest warrant, and I don't think anyone's talking about that at this point, but just talking about through the potential ramifications. We have not done a deep dive into the exact process. The rule contemplates if you show up, refuse to answer questions, or refuse to provide documents, we would have to make sure that we understand the exact process if someone just ignores it completely, whether the subpoena on its own is sufficient to move to the next step of trying to enforce it and find them in contempt. Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. General Counsel. Before I make this motion, I also want to draw attention, and I was rotating off of the JTA board when this came up, but I believe that there was a, and I was looking back through some of my notes, there was a Deloitte report through the chair to the auditor. Do you remember that report, Mr. Peterson? There was some kind of Deloitte report. I was rolling off, and I was passing information on to Councilman Diamond. Through the chair to Councilman Johnson. So I've heard of this Deloitte report. We have requested a copy from JTA. To this point, we have not received it, so I can't speak to the contents of it. That's one of the things I wanted to see, because I believe it would give us information. So like you, I want to see that report. I remember it. I just don't have a copy of it. I think that would help this committee too, Mr. Chair. But as I close, I'd like to move that we remove the subpoena and work with Mr. Ford's team and him to try to just get him and find a date and time so we can at least try to do it without the legal ramifications that are there. So we have a motion on the floor. I have not heard a second yet. The motion is to remove the subpoena on Mr. Ford. Is there a second for that motion? Okay, we have a second for discussion. I'll recognize the Council President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I was interviewed by the Times Union after the Finance Committee on Tuesday, after the subpoena was issued, I referred to it as a friendly subpoena, not an adversarial one. Mr. Ford did spend 14 years as CEO, and during that time, right at the end, there was a near complete collapse financially of the organization. So I think the citizens of Jacksonville deserve his testimony, and I think he'll certainly give it, and he's expressed in writing his willingness to do that. But he's no longer in Florida, so I would prefer to keep Mr. Ford under subpoena and just work collaboratively with him to arrange for him to give testimony to a special meeting of this Finance Committee. Thanks. Council Member White. Yes, or just a question through the Chair and to the President and to you. Is there a compromise, like, could we put in writing that we're going to hold a subpoena for 14 days? And within that 14 days, if he calls whoever and sets a date and comes voluntarily, then it's rescinded. If not, it stays in place. I'm fine with a subpoena. I'm just trying to see if that would soften things up for both sides. I'm going to go to Council Member Diamond and then Mr. Fackler to answer Council Member White's question. Perhaps the easy way to do this is, you know, I'm probably more comfortable than anybody else with subpoenas. Like, I'm an Army officer who does this all the time, and then as a former federal prosecutor dealt with tons of subpoenas, so they don't make me nervous. They don't mean anybody has done anything bad. It's just a request for you to come here. It also means that, on the flip side, if someone gets a subpoena, they can go to their employer and say, I need to be in Florida to comply with this, and all sorts of other things that actually protect the witness. So that's why I'm personally comfortable with subpoenas, and I'd be fine with this. But I understand what Mr. White is saying, that, look, this is, friendly subpoena is an odd phrase, but I understand what you're saying. It's cordial, and I really do trust that Nat is going to show up at that podium and give testimony. I just do. So perhaps what we can do is, since I've been appointed this, I will try to get with Mr. Ford over the next couple of weeks. He's got a new job to start next week. We're not trying to ruin his life on the other end. But if I get nothing back, then the subpoena could stay. But if we come up with the time, I'm fine with me. If that's what he wants, then we could release it. That's just Rory speaking. But that's only once we have, you know, something in writing that says, this is when it's going to happen. But again, there's benefits to having a subpoena, too, for the witness. I'm going to go to Mr. Fackler, then Dr. Salem. Through the chair. Mr. Teal pointed out that the code provides the legal hammer, as we're now calling it, to a failure to appear. And that's in section 1.34.105. And it's, I'll be guilty of contempt of the council on a class D offense. So that's section 1.34.105. And thank you, Mr. Teal. Dr. Salem. I got it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Fackler. Is the subpoena active for weeks, months? Is there a specific time where the subpoena, if we don't bring him in, ends? To Councilman Salem, through the chair. I will tell you, that's how it's done in practice. You issue a subpoena. There is no specific end date if you're cooperating with the party. It's the point where they are no longer cooperating that you move to enforce or move for it to be held in contempt. So the Florida statutes, as far as I know, do not set an end date. Our rules, our code and our city council rules do not set an end date. And the general practice is, no, there is no specific end date that it's good for 60 days or 90 days, and then it, on its own, is released. Thank you. The other point I would make, and I think Council Member Diamond mentioned this, there are other people, personally, that I would like to hear from before we brought Mr. Ford in. I said this the day we issued the subpoena, particularly two or three of the CFOs that we've identified that were in that time frame. So I'd like to see us get through that period so that we're, it's all teed up. So when he does come in, we're not, we're, we know exactly the questions we want to ask. That number one, that's number one. And because the finance committee issued the subpoena, does that mean he comes here? Does he come to the, to the, the oversight committee? Can, can someone clarify that for me? Or could he come to the oversight committee? Mr. Favlis? Through the chair to Council Member Salem. So the witness would come to testify before the committee that issued the subpoena. So it would be before the finance committee. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Mr. Favlis, is there a way that those two committees could essentially be combined? So it's both the select committee and the finance committee, or would it just be a matter of the select committee members making sure they attended that finance committee? It could be as simple as that. You would issue it as a notice of a meeting of the finance committee, whether it's during a regular meeting or a special meeting like today, and then you could have them attend. We could also talk about jointly issuing a notice for a FAO select committee at the same time, but we've not really done that before. I think it would be sufficient that you just notice the finance committee and invite and encourage those members of FAO select to be present. Gotcha. Okay. Mr. Gay, then we'll vote on this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm still in the mindset we keep the subpoena in place, the standard operating procedures. I mean, that's why we enacted it to begin with. I think it's our insurance policy to be for sure that we can achieve the information that we need to get as a council committee, and I too as well, like Dr. Salem mentioned, about getting others in here to answer other questions as well. So I think we can combine all that together and coordinate it and get what we need. So I'm not going to support removing the subpoena. Thank you. I got Dr. Johnson again. Very quickly, how does, through the chair to Mr. Fackler, maybe, how does 134 differ from, it looks like section five of the charter? I just want to make sure, one of the reasons that I was kind of reticent against the subpoena is because of enforcement and capabilities. Like I heard earlier, and I don't remember who said it, like we're not trying to mess up someone's life. That's the first part of the question. Is this a little less, kind of in the president's way of speaking, friendly subpoena? I don't think there is one, Mr. President, but is there, in this way of speaking, is the 134 a little less than the section five? I believe Ms. Stapopoulos' eyes lit up as if she knew the answer out of the top of her head, so I'm going to defer to her. Mr. Stapopoulos. Through the chair to Council Member Johnson, so I think you're referring to section 5.09 of the city charter. That provision provides that a failure to, or a refusal to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of the powers of the council to conduct its investigations, which would include subpoena of witnesses, is that that individual would be guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 60 days or both. So the code provision that was referenced addresses that it's a violation of our code, a class D offense of our code, as well as that the individual would be in contempt of counsel. So I think in this regard, you have both provisions at play. The section 5.09 of the charter, and there's also a provision in Article 18 of the charter that reads similarly, although it says 90 days imprisonment, that is a little bit heavier of a hammer, and I think it would be a matter of, you know, which avenue you have a couple of choices on how you would enforce or what level of crime, so to speak, would be applicable to the refusal or failure to obey the subpoena. Thank you for the clarification. I still stand by my belief that we don't need this subpoena, but I hope that, like I said earlier, that if we're going to treat one entity or one independent authority CEO one way, we should treat all of them the same way or not at all. And finally, I hope, while this is away from this motion somewhat, I do hope if we're going to subpoena one, as was said earlier, we need to be requesting board members because the board makes the final decision, as well as the CFO and others to come. Thank you. Okay, I have no one else in the queue. While I appreciate Mr. Ford's, what appears, his willingness to come before us in the letter he sent us, I'm not ready to release the subpoena yet, so I'll be a no on this motion as well. So a yay vote is to remove the subpoena. I believe that's the right verbiage. And a nay vote will be to keep the subpoena as is. All those in favor of releasing the subpoena, raise your hand. We have one. All those opposed? The amendment fails. With that, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Fopolis, I don't think we need to do any other actions at this time. That was the only one because it was on the table, or it was laid out before the committee. So I think we're ready to wrap up. Does anybody else have any more comments before we adjourn this committee? Okay, with that, have a great weekend, everyone. We are adjourned. Thank you.