Good afternoon. Welcome to the Special Investigative Committee on JEA. Let's begin by introductions to my far left. Do we know that? Oh, I understand, Channel 4. It is being streamed. You can see it. Okay. If you can't see it, text me, and we'll see what we need to do. Thank you. Okay. Moving through the agenda, update on the JEA Employee Survey. Mr. Thiel, can you, and I'll jump in after you if I need to. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair of the committee, so this is on the council's agenda for tomorrow night for final action at the council. I believe it was amended in committees to require that the survey company make a presentation to the JEA board if the JEA board is willing to take such a presentation. And for us to send it to JEA upon receipt as well. Correct. And I believe that was always the intent of the sick, is to share that information with JEA. So I don't believe that substantially alters the JEA, or I'm sorry, the SIC's commitment to this. And Mr. Thiel and I will be meeting with the firm, assuming it's passed tomorrow night, Wednesday, Thursday, to begin finalizing the questions and hopefully get that survey out in the next seven to ten days would be my hope. Okay. Update on capacity fees. Mr. Parks. Yes. Through the chair to the committee. First off, there's not a lot that's moved between the last one and this. I was out for an extended period of time. Our staff has also been conducting the quarterly summary review that we normally do in this period. But we have kind of completed our initial research portion of this. We are starting to pull some of the data and everything else on the flows and on some of the amounts paid to validate. We have a series of questions and requests for data out to JEA as well that we sent right before I was out. I'll be following up on that later today. And so that's what we're working through at this point. We're kind of past the fact-finding piece and kind of into the starting to recalculate different things. Mr. Parks, how are you determining which entities that you're going to pull data on, companies, whatever it may be? The ultimate goal will be to look at overall. So is to get the mass data pool on the commercial side. And so we'll go through that and pull samples to validate different pieces of information that we get from them. On this initial piece, you know, there was an initial listing that kind of got out there. And we are kind of pulling some stuff on a lower level on those ones right now is what we're working through. Those, I think, 10-inch and larger meters and stuff like that that have been out previously. I'm going to ask you the question I ask at every meeting. Do you have a timeline when you might have some information such as the scope of this problem, dollars that may be involved, number of companies that may be involved from a big-picture standpoint? That is always a very difficult thing to state because it's what issues do we run into that causes the time delays. If the data, you know, and they've spent a lot of time over the past year on their end kind of validating things. And so what do we run into there will kind of impact. If we're able to validate and things look pretty smooth, that'll be a much smoother process. If we run into things and we have a lot of validation issues and we have to go through those, that is going to take a lot more time. And so we just need to make sure we get it right. And so there may be times, and we'll have to kind of see from our standpoint, we'll just be looking at what should have been done and not necessarily all the other legal things that may go with that piece. And so because of that, we may be able at certain times to provide certain pieces of the information, you know what I mean, in a smaller scale. So whenever we're able to do that and provide some examples, we will do so. But to give the overall piece in that, it's a little too early for us to really give a good date on that. Okay. Thank you. I know you all are working extremely hard, and we appreciate it. We just want to get to the bottom of this as soon as we can because there's a lot of people looking at us, and I in no way, shape, or form want to extend this committee any longer than we have to. Thank you. Number four, update on six requests for attorney-client privilege. We understand that the JEA board voted that down. I received an email this morning from MG Orender because I guess he saw that Ms. Ross was appearing today, reminding me of that. I clearly understand that, and I've responded to him in that way. But we have some other items that we're going to bring up in regard to Ms. Ross later. Other items, I did want to touch on committee members. You have in front of you the chronological emails that have been shared between me, Mr. Thiel, and various members of the JEA executive team. I just want to summarize that. I'm going to read this, which summarizes all that communication because I think it's important we get this on the record. Several weeks ago, I asked Mr. Thiel to reach out to Vicki Cavey and Jody Brooks to schedule a time for their testimony before this committee. On April 14th, Jody Brooks was invited to attend the meeting on April 27th and Diane Moser on May 11th. Due to a scheduling conflict, Ms. Moser asked to switch the two dates with Jody's testimony instead of being on May 11th. Jody's assistant confirmed that Jody was available on May 11th, and Jody was copied on the email. After Mr. Fackler indicated that Regina Ross would be able to present some material to the sick, I scheduled Regina Ross to testify immediately following Jody's testimony on May 11th. However, Ms. Ross wanted to check with the Florida Bar to see what limitations there might be on her testimony based on the attorney-client privilege issue. Diane Moser appeared on April 27th as scheduled. However, on May 6th, I was contacted by Ms. Brooks, who now said she was unavailable until June 8th, nearly a month later. Additionally, she indicated that the combined cycle presentation that was scheduled for today, this morning, would not be available until June 8th. And let me just touch on that for a second, because that's one of the more frustrating parts about this process. The J.E.A. Board has approved the combined cycle program. The J.E.A. administration people are meeting with individual council members on the combined cycle. I have a meeting scheduled myself, I think tomorrow or Wednesday, and yet they could not come today to present the combined cycle. Very frustrating. Furthermore, on April 6th, Jason contacted Ms. Kavey to request her attendance at the sick meeting on April 27th. Ms. Kavey never responded. On April 13th, Jason followed up on the April 27th request. Again, there was no response. Finally, on April 29th, Jason requested Ms. Kavey's attendance at the sick meeting on May 26th. On May 6th, I was finally informed, I was, by Jody Brooks that Ms. Kavey was unavailable on May 26th. I finally heard from Ms. Kavey that on May 7th, her first opportunity to appear before us is June 22nd. And we'll discuss that in a few minutes. So roughly six weeks from now. So Ms. Brooks indicated she was available on June 8th, and Ms. Kavey indicated she was available on June 22nd. I believe Ms. Brooks also indicated the combined cycle presentation could occur on the morning of June 8th with her testimony in the afternoon. So that's a summary of where we are and the communication we've had that's reflected in this packet. Any questions? Mr. Diamond. I don't have a question, but I want to share my frustration with you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I totally understand that Ms. Ross needed to talk to the Florida Bar. Protecting your bar license, number one job of every lawyer without question. But this other stuff is ridiculous to me. It looks terrible. It's delay, delay, delay, stonewall, refuse to appear, refuse to appear, failure to waive attorney-client privilege, failure to answer questions. I mean, what do you have to hide? What could have been said between the attorney and a member of the board that can't be public? Nothing. This is a public entity. They are owned by the people of Jacksonville, and they refuse to testify. They refuse to show up here. They're slow-walking documents. They're slow-walking witnesses. I've seen this game before. I saw this in 2019. This is what Aaron Zahn did to us. This is what Aaron Zahn did to the council auditors. So much so that I had to write a bill that says if the council auditor asks you a question, you have to answer it within 48 hours. So, look, I know JEA's plan, the executives over there, was to try and just wait out the clock with Kevin Carrico being council president. If you read quotes from Nick Howland, who no doubt will be the next council president, he's going to continue this on. He said it publicly. So, you can't wait out the clock. This is going to happen. You're going to have to answer the questions. We're going to get to the truth. This is just so frustrating. If I'm somebody sitting at home watching this, you're like, what? What's so hard? It looks terrible. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. Okay. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Thiel at this point. And, Ms. Ross, if you could come forward and have a seat. Now, is that not correct? I'm told that we do not swear in attorneys. I like this. Can someone help me? Through the chair of the committee, normally we don't swear in attorneys. Typically, their obligation as a member of the Florida Bar has a duty in and of itself in order to appear. And, Ms. Ross is actually the city council's attorney as well as the consolidated government. So, I believe that she also has an obligation there to answer questions truthfully. So, I don't think there's a need to swear her in. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Thiel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Ross, I understand your limitations as far as your ability to provide a complete testimony today. And so, really, the purpose of, I think, the questions that I have for you today as directed by the chair is to kind of get into what those limitations are as well as identify, you know, potentially for the board, a potential path forward in terms of your ability to participate in this process. So, if we could, I would just kind of like to kind of just lay the table for it. So, if you could just kind of just talk about, well, let me just ask you the question. You're an attorney with the Office of General Counsel, correct? That's correct. And when were you hired with OGC? Late summer of 2021. And where were you assigned? AEA. And what was your title at JEA? Chief Legal Officer. And how long were you Chief Legal Officer at JEA? Roughly four and a half years, close to five. Okay. And during your... Ms. Ross, could you pull that microphone a little closer? Sure. Thank you. And during your four and a half, almost five years as Chief Legal Officer at JEA, did you have an opportunity to work regularly with senior staff? At JEA? That's correct. And that included, I guess, initially, the CEO was who? Initially, the CEO was Chase Stowe. Okay. And then eventually, Vicki Cavey took over? Correct. And you worked quite a bit with her? Correct. And did you also work with her senior staff? Correct. And you were physically housed at JEA, correct? That's correct. Okay. And when you were physically housed at JEA, were you on the seventh floor? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. And that's the same floor as all of the other senior staff? Well, initially, we were in the old building, on the old JEA building. So I think we were on the 16th floor, relocated, and then in the new building, I think it's the seventh floor. Okay. But with Vicki Cavey and her staff, you've been housed on the seventh floor with them. And is it part of your duties, or what, well, let me ask you this, are you currently holding that role? I am not. And when did you stop being chief legal officer for JEA? Roughly October of last year. Okay. And while you were chief legal officer at JEA, was it part of your duties to advise JEA on legal matters? Correct. And it was also part of your duties to interact with both senior staff members as well as lower-level employees at JEA? And while you were there, did you have a regular opportunity to personally observe the working climate on the seventh floor and around JEA? So at this point, I probably should go into the information that I did receive from the bar. I did have an opportunity to speak, and I do want to address the committee. I'm here today to cooperate with the committee's proceedings as required by the city code of ordinances. And I take my representation of JEA as my former client very seriously, as well as my professional and ethical obligations. So I did do a lot of research as well as have multiple conversations with the bar, seeking guidance regarding the scope of testimony and things that I could reveal. And I was advised that as the former chief legal officer of JEA, I'm bound by a duty of confidentiality, which prevents me from disclosing information related to my representation of the agency, except as authorized by the Florida bar rules, by law, and by JEA. The confidentiality rule not only applies to matters communicated in confidence, but also all information related to my representation of JEA, regardless of its source, including information that's already been publicly disclosed. So I just want to make sure in answering your questions, if I have to pass on a question, make sure you understand the scope of the confidentiality. And so let's skip to that issue. Did the Florida bar advise you in terms of the difference between appearing at a proceeding such as this voluntarily versus being compelled to appear at a proceeding? Yes. And what was their advice to you in terms of the distinction between how you appear at a proceeding such as this? So the rule applies into instances where there is a judicial proceeding, which the rules of evidence take precedent, and it deals with confidentiality or how confidentiality is handled. In that case, you're dealing with the attorney-clining privilege. In a second scenario such as this, where I voluntarily appear, there is a duty of confidentiality, which is a very broad. Anything that has any information related to my representation of JEA, I cannot testify about. And so if this body were to exercise its authority to subpoena you, to provide testimony to it, would your restriction at that point in time only be limited to privileged information as opposed to confidential information? It would be privileged information. And so by subpoenaing you, you would actually be able to talk about more things than if you appear voluntarily. Is that correct? Correct, if it's a compulsory appearance, yes. And let me ask you this. So are you aware that there's an ordinance code provision that requires all city employees to participate in investigations such as this? I am aware. And did you have that part of the discussion with the Florida Bar in terms of compulsory versus voluntary? We did. And what was their response to that ordinance obligation as a city employee? Well, as you're aware, when you reach out to the Florida Bar, they will not opine on local rules. So that would be something I'd have to research a little bit further. But certainly they were clear on certain examples such as being required to appear. Okay. So the cleanest approach would be to have you be subpoenaed to appear before this body. Correct. Now, understanding that you can't answer these questions at this point in time, but I think it's important to, for this body to understand whether it's important to issue a subpoena to you. I want to ask you some questions that you probably aren't going to be able to answer today. But what I want you to do is opine on whether or not, if you're subpoenaed to talk about them, whether you would be able to address some of these issues. Okay. So, again, let me, the initial question that sparked all of this conversation is, have you had a regular opportunity to personally observe working conditions on the seventh floor and around JEA? Yes. Okay. And if you were subpoenaed, then you would be able to expand on your ability to talk about specific examples for your personal observations while you are stationed over at JEA? Any information that is not privileged. Okay. And second question is, have you personally advised JEA board members on the capacity fee issue? That's something I'd rather take under advisement. Okay. And if you were subpoenaed to testify to this body, would you be able to talk about more of simply, not what advice you gave them, but simply whether or not those conversations occurred? I would be able to answer questions that don't fall under privilege. Okay. And with regard to legal advice and guidance concerning the combined cycle project, is it the same answer? The other question is, is that if you were subpoenaed, you could talk about unprivileged, non-privileged aspects of that or advice, not advice, I'm sorry, but discussions that you've had with JEA? Information that does not fall within the privilege, correct? And same question with regard to the JEA board and whether or not you have advised them or have had conversations with them about the potential of a toxic work environment. Any information that falls, that does not fall within the privilege. So if you were subpoenaed to testify in front of this body, you feel like that would allow you under the Florida Bar rules and all the other adjacent laws and restrictions to provide this body with information that may be confidential, but would not be privileged on all of those topics that I just laid out? Based on the consultation I've had with the bar, now that I've had additional information regarding the scope of your question, I would like to consult with the bar once again. But as of right now, any information that doesn't fall within the privilege, I should be able to speak to. Okay. Do you feel like the board has been adequately advised and informed on those issues? I can't answer that question. I'm probably not the best person to answer that question. Okay. When the board voted— Mr. Teal, when you say the issues, you're talking about the combined cycle and the capacity issue? The toxic work culture, the combined cycle, basically the charge of the sick. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all thinking the same thing. And let me just preface all of this with all of my questions are going to be geared towards what's in the jurisdiction of the SIC. And so are you familiar with what's in the jurisdiction of the SIC? I am. Okay. When the board—and this is going to ask you to speculate because I know you weren't involved in any of these discussions. But when the board voted to deny the SIC's request for a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, do you feel like they were fully informed on all of these issues sufficiently to make an informed decision? I can't answer that question. I wasn't privy to any of that. Do you think it would be helpful for you to sit down and advise individual board members on your experiences with JEA and your advice to them? I can't answer that question directly or specifically. Is there anything in the Florida Bar rules or in any other law that would prevent you from sitting down with individual board members to talk about your time at JEA? I'm an attorney for the city, for the consolidated government. I'm also their former advisor, legal advisor. So there's nothing that precludes, nothing in the rules that precludes board members from reaching out or asking questions or from me talking to them. Okay. So the rules of confidentiality and the rules of privilege would not apply if you had conversations with your former client, JEA? The privilege belongs to the agency. Is there anything, knowing what the charge of the city council is or the SIC is, is there anything, any other topics that you feel like you can discuss today or provide testimony to the SIC? Not within the charge, no. Okay. That's all the questions. Thank you, sir. Hang on a second. I'm going to make a motion. Well, I'll tell you what. Mr. Chair, you might want to see if anybody else has. Yeah, I'm going to let Mr. Diamond make it. Sure. First of all, Ms. Ross, sorry you have to go through all this. It's no fun being in the crosshairs. No fun being in that. You've been a delight to chat with and so professional through this whole thing. So thank you for your service to the city. I mean that genuinely. It means a lot to everybody when people sit in that chair and they do the best they can. And I absolutely respect you protecting your bar card and trying to live by our very strict rules of professionalism. So thank you for that, too. I make a motion that the committee endorse a subpoena for Ms. Ross to appear back before this committee. And I would recommend that we go to the finance committee to issue it. I have a second from Ms. Pittman. Can I suggest something as a part of that? That I would include that she do meet with individual JEA board members about her experience at JEA. And through those discussions, there's the possibility that she might convince people that the privileged part of this could be removed. If you want to restate that, if you agree with me. Yeah, let me just try to understand the idea, because if we ask, separate and aside from a subpoena, this is, I guess, a request from the committee, right? I don't think we can do that as far as a subpoena. Okay. But my question is to the chair, is the idea to talk to individual board members, assuming that they pick up the phone, right, and say, hey, we have a one-on-one attorney-client privilege on the stuff that we discussed, and then to see if they'll waive it individually, as opposed to the board as a whole. I'm just trying to understand where that goes. That makes sense to me. I'm just trying to understand if that's what we're asking. Because I just want to make sure that when you leave here today, you've got good instruction. Mr. Teal. Through the chair and council member, I think the privilege applies to the board itself. So I think the board itself would have to make a motion and vote to waive the privilege. It doesn't, as a collegial body, you're one member of a collegial body. Therefore, the privilege applies to the client, which is the board itself. So I think the, I don't think individual board members could agree to waive the privilege for the rest of the board. Okay. Then through the chair, so we're just saying to have this conversation to see if maybe they want to take it up as a board. Correct. Well, I think it is dual purpose, right? One is because, in all honesty, the way we have heard it went down with Regina getting replaced as their legal counsel. I don't think that she has had an adequate time to be able to sit down with individual board members to tell them what she knows. And so I think that's the idea here is the sick encourages. You know, I think that you may actually even have the ability to require, because remember, she's in a unique spot as your lawyer too, as part of your investigation, that she educate the board members. Because we don't know that they know about the Mayo deal. We don't know that they know anything about the toxic work culture. We don't know that they know, you know, anything about, you know, what's happened in the investigation or who knew what when, you know, those kinds of things. Because I think that would be helpful for them to be educated on that point. I don't think there's any question that the level of knowledge of individual board members in the briefing is substantially less than what I think people are assuming it is. I agree with you wholeheartedly. So I guess the question would be, if I might, through the chair to Ms. Ross, is there anything preventing you from doing that? Is there any reason you can't do that? And I understand that your boss is right behind you. So what is, no, no, no, let's just get it out. Let's figure it out. Can you do it? There's no. Or Mr. Fackler, can she do it? And if not, why not? Sure. And I've had conversations and emails to the board about offering that type of thing. And then I will follow up after this meeting with an invitation to make sure all the questions are answered, as I do with all of my clients. Okay. Is it possible to include Ms. Ross? I mean, she's got all that background, right? I mean, she was there in the trenches. That's the concept. So it sounds like if I can jump in, it would be you, Ms. Ross, and the individual board member, the three of you. That's my concept. That's my invitation. I cannot force board members, of course, to take a meeting, but that will be an offer that makes sense to make sure that all of our clients are fully informed. I'm just optimistic that if they receive this information, they may reconsider some of the decisions they've made and take that to the board. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think that's a possibility. Go ahead. I hear you loud and clear. The whole country was so happy my microphone was muted. So I guess the question would be, can you report back who took you up on the invitation and who didn't? And that would be the only kind of feedback I would need. We have learned a lot about confidentiality, and that might fall into that confidential area necessarily. I'll subpoena you. That would be easier. There are public records potentially about that, who takes a meeting and so forth. Okay. To the extent there's a public record, there's a public record. We've been so educated, now I'm incredibly pedantic. No, I'm tracking. Well, Mr. Chair, I mean, so long as they make this offer, I do believe that there are certain board members who did not get briefed on especially some of these. And that's not any reflection on Mr. Fackler, just to be clear. I think this is just before they were kept in the dark, in part. And I would love to at least have a public opportunity to get into the light with everything that went on. That's all I want. If the board members are fully informed of all the facts, that's all that I'm looking for. And then they can make any decision they wish to make. So we're directing Ms. Ross to do that. Mr. Chair, the motion on the floor is... Yeah, I'm going to get back to the motion. Okay. I'm sorry. I mixed up two things, probably inappropriately. So let's go back to Mr. Diamond. Would you restate your original motion? Sure. So my motion would be that the SIC essentially stand behind a subpoena for Ms. Ross to appear back before this committee, and we refer it to be taken up by the Finance Committee. Did you have a date in which you wanted her to reappear? I would like to see her come back in two weeks, if that's ample time. Mr. Thiel? Through the chair, to Council Member Diamond, you may want to, since we've got at least on paper right now, that Ms. Brooks is available on June 8th and Ms. Cavy is available on June 22nd, is to have the subpoena direct Ms. Ross to appear on June 8th and if necessary on June 22nd in case... June 8th and if necessary, what was it, June? June 22nd. June 22nd. That works for me. I'm fine with that. We just need a second. I think Ms. Pittman seconded it. Okay. Any further discussion? On the motion, Ms. Pittman? Not on the motion? Okay. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Motion passes. Okay. Separately from that, obviously we'd like you to meet, make the effort to meet with all seven board members between now as quickly as you can so we have some idea of where we're moving in terms of those meetings. Okay. Yeah. You want to do the next one? Sure. Please. And so, look, I think that Ms. Brooks should have appeared today. Do you want to excuse the witness? Well, let's keep her though because we might even come back. Yeah, yeah, fair enough. I think Ms. Brooks should have been here today. I don't think there's any good reason that she's not in that chair right now. It just drives me crazy. This is a public body, a public entity, and so I would make a motion that we stand behind a subpoena issued and refer to the Finance Committee for Ms. Brooks to show on June 8th. And I'm fine with its contingent subpoena. Like, she shows up. You know, that's the date. We'd only have to look up, well, contingent's not the right word. We'd only have to look at enforcement if she doesn't show up. But I do think it makes sense, since we're having these issues, just go ahead and issue the subpoena. And since it already works and she already says she can come on that date, there shouldn't be any issue with both issuing it and complying. Can I add something to that? There may be some documents we want her to bring to that. Sure. So we can do what's called a subpoena at Deuce's Tecum and say we can go ahead and issue a subpoena. That means you have to show up. Deuce's Tecum means you have to show up with these documents. And so I'm fine if we want to come up with a list of documents that we'd also like her show with on June 8th or before. Most people send them ahead of time, but if she shows up with some photocopies, we could deal with that also. Mr. Teal. One thing I also wanted to mention, too, is that even though both Ms. Brooks and Ms. Kavey have indicated they're available on these two dates, since we're scheduling a witness contingent on that as far as issuing a subpoena. There's separate grounds for Ms. Brooks, or sorry, Ms. Ross getting a subpoena. But for scheduling purposes, you probably want to lock in. It's helpful that they've already committed that these dates are available to them, so it shouldn't be putting them out. But I think that it's important that the subpoena gets issued because we have these other witnesses contingent on them. Okay. I'm looking for a second from Ms. Pittman. Let me go to Mary. Rachis and the Q. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would recommend that if you're going to include a request that records be produced as part of the subpoena, if you can't articulate a list that you would be looking for today, because the subpoena needs to travel to the Finance Committee with what it is that the SIC is looking for, that you would potentially want to authorize Mr. Teal to generate that list, or that Mr. Chair, for you to generate that list, so that the committee can extend that authority, so that that can be developed between now and the Finance Committee meeting. We'll have Mr. Teal work with you and the committee members individually to come up with a list of documents we want her to bring. And is that, would you consider that part of the motion, or do you want to make an amendment to the motion, Mr. Diamond? I consider that part of the motion, and Ms. Pittman seconds it. So the motion on the floor is that the SIC is going to request from the Finance Committee issuance of a subpoena to Jody Brooks to appear on June 8th to include a list of documents that Mr. Teal is authorized to provide in the subpoena for her to produce. That is correct. Sure. Now we're into discussion. Ms. Pittman. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm in the right posture, because I'd like to send questions that I have, because I feel like today we're handcuffed, and we're not able to speak in terms of in-depth and questions about things that I want to know about when it comes to management and staff. And so I want to be able to do that. And I hope, I guess just like we did before, there were questions that we had, and of course we were able to get those questions back. But I also think that we should be able to be open to ask beyond those questions that we submit. So, you know, I just feel like today I would love, first of all, love talking and meeting, but of course there's not much information that we were able to share other than putting a face with a name. And so based on the testimony from Mrs. Mosier, I really want to dig a little bit deeper and also to be able to ask Ms. Cavey some questions and Ms. Brooks as well. So I just feel like we're, you know, I don't want us to be meeting just to be meeting, right? But I want us to be able to at least get some work done or have some closure to move forward in the information that we're trying to find out. So I do have some additional questions, one that I would love to ask Ms. Ross, and some other questions about staff, you know, regarding their background and how did we get here. Okay. We've got a motion on the floor on the subpoena. I'm afraid Ms. Ross is not going to be able to answer a whole lot today. On June 8th and the day later in June for Ms. Cavey, you'll be free to ask any questions that you want. My suggestion would be that you accumulate those questions, work with Mr. Teal, and get all those ready for those two days. Okay? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Motion passes. Mr. Diamond. Thank you. You know, I have to say I'm really unhappy that I'm having to make this next motion because I think whoever the CEO of JEA is should be very comfortable just showing up without a subpoena. But because of the games that we're seeing, we have to do this, and it's just so disappointing. But it's too important to get wrong, and JEA is too important to Jacksonville just to ignore. And so my motion is that we subpoena Vicki Cavey to come before this committee for June 22nd. Thank you. The only caveat I have, that's my motion, and to do it as a deuces teacum also with Jason coming up with a list of documents to the extent we need more that Jody Brooks can't provide. The only wrinkle I have, Mr. Chair, is that there's an off chance that I might be on orders on the 27th. So I'm a little bit worried about missing it, yeah, of June. Yeah, yeah, so the whole back end of June I'm worried about being put on order. So is there any way that we can just add, like, some room or within 30 days of that or something like that if I have to come back to the chair? Like, I'd like to have that be a date certain. I'm just trying to figure out is there any way we can fit in any flexibility on that. So through the chair to Council Member Diamond. Before you go, Mary, I do apologize, but I know that training's coming, so I would like to be here for that. So you're looking for an extension of what type? Just some flexibility in the subpoena such that it's, look, it's for the 22nd or 27th? 22nd. Yeah, 22nd, or within 30 days of that or something like that. Well, so June 30th, this committee expires unless extended by the next council president. Okay, let's do this. I have a better idea. Let's just do the 22nd. If I need to come back because I have new information, I'll come to the chair, and we can talk to the council president and perhaps the next council president. So I'll just stick with that motion. Okay. Mr. Chair? Yes. So Ms. Cavey also authorizes the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, or 26th. Are you out? Okay. Okay. 20 seconds are regular Mondays. The reason I identify that one is probably the most appropriate one. Okay. Motion on the floor. Do we have a second? We have a second. Further discussion. Let me mention that Council President Kevin Carrico has joined us. I see no one in the queue. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Motion passes. Okay. That's all. Mary, you look like you want to say. Oh, yeah. You were in the queue. Mr. Chair, if I could, and you may be able to articulate this, or Mr. Thiel may be able to assist, I had a conversation with you and with Council Member Diamond individually with respect to the subpoenas that you're requesting the Finance Committee issue, and this is also some information that would probably be helpful to the Finance Committee that you may address with them when the items are put on the agenda. We've discussed that the Council's authority to investigate matters of the consolidated government is a very broad authority, but it is, to an extent, ancillary to your legislative powers or your legislative authority. And so, to the extent that you think that the compelling of this testimony is in furtherance of this committee's charge or in furtherance of an ultimate legislative act or aim of this committee and the Council, I would encourage you to articulate that so that it's clear to the Finance Committee, when they take this up for consideration, how you believe this testimony would be in furtherance of that aim or that goal. Yeah. I'm through the chair to Mary, and for the record here, I'm happy to add some buckets here. First of all, we're sending this to the Finance Committee, which is going to be looking at the budgets for the next several years. So, the number one issue I have is how is JEA and JEA's future, the combined cycle plan and some of these other issues, going to affect risks to our budget and our approval of whatever they provide. So, that's number one. Two, we have authority as the City Council to write the ethics legislation for the City of Jacksonville, including employees and officers of JEA. The last time we did a SIT committee, I myself wrote several pieces of ethics-related legislation trying to avoid conflicts of interest, responding to Council auditors, and many other things. And what came out of that committee was a long list of ethics changes. So, I think we'll be looking at that again. Did we miss anything? Is there something else we need to do as far as ethics with OIG or Council auditors or anything else like that? The third bucket, I think, is highly relevant. It's just, from our purposes, beyond the stuff that's in the charge, whether it's a combined cycle plan or whether it's the perhaps improper use of authority affecting contracts and things like that. Like, there's a litany of legislative fixes to problems like that. But importantly, we have the authority to rewrite the charter for JEA. And that's what we did five years ago. This is not one where we have to go to referendum. We actually have more authority with JEA than we do any other entity. And so, to the extent that we missed something the last go-around, that would be where we would plug in our new rules or new law. And so, those are the three big ones that I would recommend as our legislative purpose for the SIC. If I can just reinforce one of those, it's the JEA charter. We left it open that we can modify their charter without going to the public as was completed for the JEA board member change. So, if we find out things that need to change, the charter would be the place that we could go. So, and I couldn't reinforce more the financial implications of some of this, particularly when we've got a combined cycle that's well over a billion dollars that I want to understand. And I know the council wants to understand fully to make sure that we're comfortable with the decision that the JEA board has already made. But we still need to understand it. Okay. Ms. Pittman, did you want to add anything? So, the chair can answer this. The number of board members that have been informed, you know what I mean? We took this on and didn't really know how much the board was even aware of what was going on. And so, as you request the information, would that be a one-on-one that can be done? Or would it be an entire board meeting? How would that work? Or can it work as a group? Or can you do it as one? One-on-one? Mr. Teal. Through the chair, Council Member Pittman. So, as you're aware, the JEA board is a sunshine body. Right. And so, obviously, you know, meetings with multiple board members at the same time would require a noticed meeting. As far as advising them on specific aspects of all of this, I think you've got a lot of flexibility. Now, you can't compel the board to place something on their agenda, you know, as far as a presentation, as we discussed at the committee meetings on the employee satisfaction survey and the reporting of that. But, you know, to the extent that they're open to, you know, you have dual school board and city council meetings. You know, you have the flexibility to do that. You have the flexibility to meet just because you are each part of a sunshine body doesn't mean that you can't meet with one of them individually. Right. And so, you always have the ability to do that. So, you know, if you feel that there is a strong desire to meet with individual board members to discuss what did you know, what didn't you know as a city council member, you have all the right to be able to do that that you want. There's no restrictions on that. Well, it just, you know, it just occurs to me, just like we have noticed meetings and if everybody is hearing the same thing when you're asking the same thing, even though this happened, we really don't know exactly who knew what. And, you know, having a noticed meeting gives everybody an even, you know, level feel and it gives us that opportunity to know that we ask the right questions and or instead of just kind of dragging this on. And, you know, I really want to finish the work that we're charged to do because, you know, Chair, I don't want to just keep this on and on and on. We need to get it finished. Ms. Pittman, it was my goal to finish this by June 30th and I had a plan for that. You might remember I had a plan for the stadium deal and we got that done by June 24th, a day that I'll never forget. I had a plan to finish this up until Ms. Cavey and Ms. Brooks changed the dates. So I can't, I'm doing my best and I agree with you 200% that I don't want this to drag on a day longer than it has to. But we need everybody in the soup, so to say, to cooperate. And, but I agree with you. We will finish this as quickly as we can. Okay. And I am your liaison to the board. And if, if, if we need to have a notice meeting to, to, to object to that. No, not at all. All right. I think the, the present board chair will be much more interested in hearing my point of view. And he's indicated that to me. We, I appointed him, we have a great relationship and I think he'll be very open to hearing the views of the city council through the, through their liaison. Okay. Any other, so it sounds like the meeting two weeks from now, um, will be, we probably won't have a meeting unless we need to meet on the capacity issue. Mr. Teal, do you agree with that? Yes, sir. I think that the only, uh, next step, unless something changes, obviously, uh, is to, to get the survey up and rolling. Right. Um, and just to remind the sick, uh, we structured the legislation for that is, is it's, it's executable by the council president. Uh, and so, you know, this isn't the normal turnaround time for waiting on the mayor and, and veto and all of that stuff. So, um, so, uh, that should be quickly, uh, assuming that it gets the votes tomorrow, that should be quickly, uh, up and running. Um, I don't know if you want to have, uh, think about having a full committee meeting to talk about the individual questions on the questionnaire, or once we get into that process, maybe wait and see what we come up with as far as the survey company selection link, um, to decide whether or not you think it would be beneficial. Well, why don't we do this? Let's hold that meeting two weeks from Monday until you and I get more information on the survey. And just a reminder, it's Tuesday because of the holiday. Right. Right. Thank you for reminding us of that. So, uh, we will, uh, we will hold that date and then determine at a later time if we're going to meet. Okay. Any other business? Mr. President, did you have anything to add? Dr. Johnson, did you want to add anything? Okay. Then we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.