Special Investigatory Committee on JEA | Session Two - Jun 08, 2026

Good afternoon. Welcome to the special committee on JEA. It's one o'clock and I'm calling the meeting to order. Let's begin by introductions to my far left. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Mary Stifopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Brian Parks, Council Auditor's Office. Philip Peterson, Council Auditor. Jason Teal, City Council Legislative Council. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. Jacoby Pittman, District 10. Matt Carlucci at Large, Group 4, just visiting. Welcome, Mr. Carlucci. Okay. Number two, can we get an update on the capacity fee issue from our council auditors? Through the chair to the committee, we have received preliminary data from JEA. They've been very cooperative throughout the entire process. We will be sending them an additional request either later this afternoon or first thing in the morning for some additional data that we think we need to do this. We are proceeding with it, but given the state of what happened last week with the ballot proposal and the legislative action in Tallahassee, we got a little sidetracked, so we hope to get back on the train this week and be moving forward. I don't know that we'll have a number or numbers for you at the meeting two weeks from now, but as stated previously, we intend to proceed until we are able to get something to deliver to the council. I would just add to that. I think the city council, from what I've heard from the JEA board, all want this capacity issue research completed, and so we all understand exactly how far it goes back and potentially who owes what. So continue on, and hopefully we'll get some direction on the 28th. Okay. Update on the employee survey? Yes, Mr. Carlucci. Sure. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair to Mr. Peterson, when did the city relinquish the water and sewer over to JEA? Was that between 99 and 2003? 97, I think it was. Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, it was in 1997. Nineteen when? 97. 97. Okay. How much of the capacity issue occurred prior to 97? Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, and that is part of the larger or the more difficult question. There's kind of three tiers of data, if you will, that relates to the capacity issue. It's prior to 2002, 2003, when JEA implemented a new system. So everything prior to that, and then obviously pre-97, all of it was in the city records. And you go further back, and it's probably hard records. That 2003-ish timeframe to about 2022, I believe, JEA implemented a new system in 2022-23 that makes it much more easier to track. So it's looking at those three tiers of customer bases, three tiers of when entities paid into the capacity fees. That is what we're trying to determine the impact of the payments in. And when did Mayo get here? I'm trying to remember. Through the chair to Council Member Carlucci, I'm being told it's the late 80s. Okay. I have a few philosophies on, or theories on capacity fees in Mayo back in the pre-JEA days, but I'll be interested to see what y'all come up with. I don't envy your task, because Lord only knows what you'll be able to find pre-JEA. But anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Update on police survey. Mr. Thiel? The chair to the committee. So we submitted the questions to the survey company early last week in response to the edits that the committee made at the last meeting. And so I've had a couple of conversations with Dustin Dodds, who's the representative of Selection Link, as well as a couple of email exchanges with him. I've gotten from JEA some of the demographic information that we had requested. And they were very responsive on that. And so all of that has been forwarded to Mr. Dodds. The anticipated go live date is the first Monday. I guess it's, what is it? The, where are we at? The eighth today? The 15th? The 22nd is when they anticipated going live. We're going to go with the introductory email to all of the JEA members, or the employees that are the target of the survey. That is going to probably go out the week before, so that it is proximate, approximate to when the survey comes. And then the last thing is, there was some back and forth with OGC as far as the contract, but that's all signed, sealed, and delivered. So, so the contract's fully executed. So there shouldn't be anything holding us back. So the, the letter to the employees about the survey could go out as early as next Monday or Tuesday? Correct. And then they should expect the survey soon thereafter? That's correct. And they'll, and I, I assume there'll be some reminder type emails encouraging them to respond. Right. So the introductory letter is going to say, hey, expect this survey from us. Um, and, uh, I'm working with, uh, with him and Mr. Chair, I'll, I'll just sit with you as far as the verbiage of that email. But the intent is a couple of things. One is to let them know that this is coming and it's not spam or they shouldn't ignore it. Uh, second thing is that, um, it's going to be the city council is controlling, uh, this to educate them as far as, uh, who has control of the information or the data. Uh, third thing is, is that it's going to also, and I did confirm this with Mr. Dodds, is that it's going to allow, uh, the employee to contact selection link if they wanted to go to a different email address as opposed to their JEA email, email address. So they do have the ability to do that. So, um, so that's the, the intent is, is to just kind of put it on their radar. Um, while the survey's live, there will be a couple of attempts. I think two attempts, uh, to remind people, hey, the survey's live, we haven't heard from you yet. Uh, and so that's part of their routine practice is, is to, um, to reach back out to, um, to, to, to ping, uh, the people who haven't responded yet to, uh, to invite them to, uh, to complete it. Okay. Anything else? Yes, sir. Okay. Sure. Mr. Carlucci, please. I'm sorry. I didn't see you, Ms. Pittman. That's okay. Just keep your eye on the queue. There's board one here. Um, through the chair, uh, I was curious through, uh, I guess to somebody maybe with the JEA, uh, if, uh, how their employee survey is going at, if they've had, if those have gone out and if they've had a chance to review some of theirs. Mr. Carlucci, I'm going to get into that in, in my questioning. Oh, okay. Their survey. Okay. In fact, that's number one on my list. Oh, okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. I wanted to ask some of the same questions, but I just want to also clarify that the survey that is going out is only for, is it, uh, management? Is that correct? Through the chair to council member Pittman. Uh, so it's, it's, uh, management level employees, but there's some additional employees that have been identified as, as, uh, working in Ms. Cavey's world, if you will. Uh, and so we've expanded it beyond just, uh, just the, the people that have the titles. Uh, and there's also some other folks that, um, that are on that list as well. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure because I know the last time we had the meeting, JEA said that they had actually sent out a survey, but that was too, it, it was a blanket one. So the ones that we're doing is specifically for, um, the management and leadership and other people, right? Just to answer your question, it's, uh, it was around 140 to 145 people that had a title of manager or above that worked in the headquarters. Absolutely. And then there was, uh, uh, a half dozen or so that were added, um, that work in that area that did not have that title. Okay. That expressed an interest in participating. So my guess, it's around 150 to 155 people roughly that will get the survey. Okay. Thank you. So at this point, we're going to keep the discussion within the committee. And then at the end, uh, we, we are, uh, scheduled till five o'clock. So there'll be ample time for any other council members that come down that want to come in at the, at the end of this. So I'm going to begin, um, with Ms. Brooks. Welcome. Um, does your, for the purpose of the, uh, public, would you like to introduce yourself, Sean? Sean Granite, officer general counsel. Thank you. Okay. Um, I'm going to start off with your survey, Ms. Uh, uh, Ms. Brooks. My understanding is that your survey to the 2,000 or so people has been completed. That is correct. Okay. We'll, we'll, and I know I, I have a copy of it and I know there was some questions at the end that were fairly open-ended where people could comment on particular individuals or whatever they thought was appropriate. Will all those results be shared with the board at the board level so the public understands exactly what's going on? I don't believe they will be fully, um, provided to the board unless the board requests it. Um, and so we've just recently, each of the chiefs have received the, um, comments for our, our employees. I've got about 171 FTEs that report through my, my group. And so we're in the process of reviewing the, the results individually chief, chief level. Um, but I believe that the, the results will be shared with the, with the board, but I don't know in that level of detail. That's really more of a, a Diane question. I'm, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I haven't been running with the survey. Okay. It would be very important to me that, um, that the board see the individual comments made by people in your survey. There was about just a couple of questions at the end where they could freelance. Uh, and that, I think it's very important because the, the board is questioning, um, has questioned me and the whole committee for, um, the cultural issue. And that is the only place in your survey that they could comment on particular individuals. The rest of them, their questions were more of a temperature check. So, um, if we need to bring Ms. Moser back or whatever we need to do, Mr. Thiel, um, I want to make sure that the board sees the, those responses at the board level at a board meeting. Okay. Um, your, your other, um, the, the, the survey being conducted by the law firm, can you give me the status of that one? Yes. Um, Mr. Chair that you use the word survey, but the other thing that's being conducted right now is an investigation. Um, it's not a truly a survey and the, the attorney that's doing the investigations out of Tampa, she's meeting one-on-one with folks that have been identified that may have knowledge about the, um, the complaints that have been, that have been lodged. And so she's going through that process. I don't know the timing of when she's to complete it, but I think it's fairly soon, um, to, to, to have her work wrapped up. But she's doing one-on-one interviews with, with folks. It's not necessarily a survey. Okay. Will those, will those interviews be shared with the board at a board meeting? I don't know the answer to that. That's another Diane and maybe, um, Christy from OGC, Christy Gavin's been assisting with that effort. Um, I'm not sure exactly the presentation, when and where that's going to be shared, but I, I can get back to you on that. Yeah, I, again, um, that's, that's, in both those instances, that's where employees have the opportunity. And I'm, I'm very pleased that employees appear to be coming forward with their concerns. I had a concern that, uh, because, um, anything they say could go directly to up the chain to the CEO and they could see their comments. But it sounds like employees are, are, are still participating and, and meeting with that attorney and, and providing a lot of information. I just want to make sure, um, after the February board meeting where the board completely, um, in my mind, didn't take these, these concerns seriously, I want to make sure those, those issues come to the board so they can see them and, uh, um, and understand the, the culture that's, that's, uh, that's within JEA. So, uh, Mr. Thiel, if you'll follow up with Diane or whoever we need to, to make sure that occurs. Okay. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Thiel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, in communications with Ms. Brooks, I think you had a statement that you wanted to. Uh, and, and I'm sorry, I, I was asked to remind you that you're under oath. Okay. Continue. I understood. Mr. Chair, I believe Ms. Brooks indicated that she had, had a statement. A brief statement? I do. It's probably less than five minutes if you want to give me the courtesy. That's, that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair and SIC committee members and visiting council members. My name is Jody Brooks. I'm the Chief Administrative Officer at JEA. As the CEAO, I have the direct responsibility for overseeing the compliance and regulatory departments at JEA. As noted in the earlier presentation that I provided, I'm the Chief Champion along with Ted Phillips, our Chief Financial Officer on the new Combined Cycle Power Plant Project. I just celebrated my second anniversary in this role under Vicki Cabe. From March 2021 to July of 2023, I held the same role under Jay Stowe, but did not have the leadership responsibilities for the environmental, real estate, economic development, and physical security teams that I have in my group now. Prior to being promoted to the CAO in March of 2021, I was the Chief Legal Officer for JEA, beginning in August of 2016 through the Office of General Counsel. I began working for the Office of General Counsel in 2013, in April of 2013, as the environmental attorney for the entire city in consolidated government. But after a very short period of time, I started working on JEA matters. Over the past 13 years, with two about one-year gaps in that time, I have worked with multiple CEOs, starting with Paul McElroy twice, Aaron Zahn, Melissa Dykes, Jay Stowe, and Vicki Cabe, all with different leadership styles. I have witnessed and seen firsthand poor morale and work culture in the past, but I'm not seeing it now. It is well publicized how I and others were treated and mistreated during Mr. Zahn's tenure, and I resigned when he became the permanent CEO at JEA. I wanted to get my history on the record so that I can tell you about my observations about the current work culture that I'm seeing at JEA today. I have not witnessed any toxic or racist behavior over the past two years, and I will not work in that type of environment again. My moral compass will not allow me to be part of it or tolerate it. I am about the JEA employees and the public power model. During this committee's questioning of General DeSalvo, a question was posed to him about his knowledge of me working for a bidder in the prior attempt to sell of JEA. I did have a very limited consulting engagement that's been published, it's not a secret, with a group that proposed an alternate to a sale, a concession agreement, in which almost all of the JEA, excuse me, frontline employees would keep their jobs and their pensions. It appeared to be a foregone conclusion that JEA was going to be sold, and I felt guilty for leaving the JEA employees behind under Zahn. If I could assist in any way to preserve their livelihood, and their retirements, I wanted to try. That was the only reason I got involved with that group. I recognize that some of our employees have reached out to the City Council members. We will take every effort to review the specific concerns and make sure JEA's employees feel safe and respected in what they do. We also have a commitment to our customers to employ a qualified workforce that is dedicated to providing a quality level of service to them and to our community. The additional capacity fee charges issue. We are thankful for the Council Audit Team's review in this matter. It's challenging, it's a legacy issue, and that we're all working diligently to resolve. We have had the provision in our published rate schedule since we took over the water and wastewater system from the City on June 1st of 1997, over 29 years ago. This matter is limited specifically to the application of additional capacity charges. All customers are appropriately billed for monthly water and sewer service, and all customers pay a one-time capacity charge upon initial connection to JEA's water and or sewer system. The assessment of additional capacity fees is governed by a tariff provision and applies only under limited circumstances, generally when a customer's usage exceeds 120 percent of their original established capacity and the increase is associated with an expansion or a change in business operations or an erroneous flow estimate. This tariff language predates JEA and was carried forward from the former City of Jacksonville rate structure. You'll probably notice that during the research of the City Council Auditor that this provision has been on the book since 1971. It was discovered during the dispute with Mayo Clinic over additional capacity charges that over the past 29 years JEA has not consistently or routinely applied additional capacity charges. We have only found three instances where we that we recovered additional charges. A technical memo that was released on May 26 indicates JEA has not applied additional capacity charges on an estimated 25.2 million dollars over the last 29 years. Over that same period JEA's total operating revenue was approximately 9.4 billion dollars. Accordingly, the estimated additional capacity fees associated with this unintentional administrative oversight represents about 0.297 of JEA's total operating revenue during that time frame. So what is JEA doing about it now? JEA is conducting a structured case-by-case review to determine whether additional capacity fees are applicable to any individual customer. This process includes validation of historic usage, evaluation of business conditions, and application of the tariffs interpretation by legal counsel. We have both bond counsel and utility counsel engaged as we navigate a fair equitable policy in capturing additional capacity charges moving forward in collection opportunities from the past. All negotiations and proposals with Mayo specifically have been put on hold until we conduct this case-by-case review and a policy is established for all of JEA customers, a fair equitable non-preferential treatment policy. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to give this comment. Thank you. I'm going to turn it now. I'm going to turn the microphone over to Mr. Thiel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Brooks, you said that you were, uh, I guess you started, what'd you say, two years ago, um, with, with this, I guess this, this round, uh, JEA? Yes. Third time's the charm. Okay. And, um, prior to that, you said you were there from March of 2021 until, uh, when in 2023? July of 2023. Okay. And what was your, um, what was your, your duties, uh, when you were there under Jay Stowe? Can I interrupt you just for a second? Uh, uh, council elect, uh, president elect Howland and council member Johnson have joined us. I just want to put that on the record. Please go ahead. Uh, what were your duties, uh, in your time under Jay Stowe? So when I, when Jay Stowe was first hired, I was, um, the chief legal officer and then he promoted me and I became a JEA employee, um, in March of 2021 as the CAO. And what were your, uh, so you were the CAO in, in, uh, March, starting in March of 2021. Um, under you as a CAO, did you have, uh, chiefs or VPs or how was that structured? So I was the chief, the chief administrative officer. And then, um, I had a variety of directors, vice presidents, and then individual contributors and managers in my group. And as, uh, what were you, what did you have direct, which programs within JEA did you have direct oversight over? So I had electric compliance, critical infrastructure protection compliance, internal audit, um, information governance or public records, legal and ethics. Okay. And, um, where within JEA would the capacity fee issue have, have resided at that point in time? So it resides both on the water side from a development, um, when someone comes in to get a permit and get hooked up. The initial capacity fees, um, through the development, um, group was, would be now supervised by Rob Zamatero. Um, and then the, on the customer care billing side, it would be under, um, the chief currently is, is, is Dr. Moreland. And did, um, at that point. Could you pull that microphone a little closer to you? Is that better? Yes. Uh, at that time, did Rob Zamatero report to you? He did not. How long did you prepare for today's meeting? Uh, weeks. Okay. And, um, who assisted you with your preparation? Probably more than a dozen or so people. Let me give specifics. Jerry Boyce assists you? Jerry Boyce McKenzie, Christy Gavin, John Jenkins as our outside counsel, Nixon Peabody, uh, Jordan Pope, Michael Fackler, Sean Granite, um, Matt Gelner, um, John Bachman, um, the whole project team that you saw here with the combined, combined cycle project. So there's quite a few folks that I've worked with in the last few weeks to get me prepared for today. And under your current duties, we covered this this morning, but board services falls under you, right? That's correct. It does now. And does staff, still write talking points for the board chair? The board chair, I don't know that talking points, um, but we'll provide some guidance as the working through the agenda. Part of the talking point, well, what does staff, where does staff get the information that goes into, um, the information that's presented to the board chair? A combination of folks. Well, I talked about earlier today about the memorandums that each of the chiefs or the, the folks that have agenda items will put a memo together, um, that was presented to the board services group. And so a lot of the dialogue and information will come from that. Okay. So there's not, not a document that's called the talking points that's presented to the chair, that's present, you know, presented by staff to the chair before every meeting? And some, some instances there may be talking points related to committee work or some of the other types of things that have occurred prior to the meeting. Any information that staff provides to the board chair, do you think it's appropriate for staff to, uh, put in those talking points or, or indicate how a board member will vote on a particular item? No. Because that would be a violation of sunshine law, right? To guide someone to, as to what the outcome is going to be of a meeting. Yes. Do you review all ethics cases and hotline cases that are, uh, that are submitted to JEA? I do not. Um, while Lev is our ethics director, um, and we meet on a routine basis about every two weeks and she'll give me a, a, a, um, explanation of the various cases that have come in, but I don't read verbatim or, or look at each of the cases that come through the hotline. But you're briefed on all of the cases? I'm briefed on them. Correct. And do you share details of those ethics complaints with the CEO? No. Even if it's about the CEO? No. So then, uh, what is the process then for a complaint that comes in that, um, that may be, um, about the CEO? So if it's a complaint about the CEO, there's a process involved of getting outside resources to an investigator to, to, to review that particular complaint. Um, if it's a non-CEO issue, then it's handled through our, our labor, um, group within JEA. So then would it surprise you that we have a text from, uh, your CEO, Vicki Cavey to, uh, Kurt Wilson that reads, I'd like more details on inquiries and hotline cases, not just on training surveys. Does that surprise you that, that she would have, would have asked Kurt Wilson to provide her with an update on ethics, uh, in hotline cases? It's not surprising. I can see where she may, may be interested in it, but it's not something that was part of the protocol. Do you think that that's appropriate? It depends on what kind of cases are coming through. If it's ethics cases dealing with gift registry, if it's, um, nepotism issues, um, some of those types of things that the, the CEO maybe have an interest in, not necessarily employment, um, complaints or complaints about her specifically. But you would agree that there are certain ethics complaints or hotlines issues that the CEO should not, uh, review, correct? Correct. When were you first made aware that, um, that Ms. Mosier was, uh, interested in conducting an investigation, uh, that ultimately resulted in the outside law firm that was hired to, uh, to do the investigation? When did you first find out about that? The very next day after the board meeting that, um, Kurt Wilson spoke at. I don't have the specific date memorized. Whose decision was it to actually hire the, uh, or engage the outside firm to conduct the investigation? It was, it was a joint effort between Diane, myself, Christy Gavin, Christy Gavin with OGC, and, and the, and the discussion with our outside attorneys, um, at Jackson Lewis, Lori Manns. If Ms. Cavey indicated that she would like more details on inquiries and, and hotline cases, how comfortable do you think it would be for a regular JEA employee, uh, to make a complaint to the hotline about Ms. Cavey? Do you think that they would feel confident in doing that if they knew that Ms. Cavey had requested to review, um, inquiries and hotline cases? Potentially, but the, you know, there is the ability to participate anonymously. Does OGC fall under your purview? Not necessarily my purview, but I have oversight into the legal matters of JEA, but I don't supervise the OGC attorneys. Did you, uh, when you were let go under J. Stowe, what was the, what was this, the, um, did you receive a consulting contract, uh, to, as a, as a settlement or as a severance package? Consulting the agreement, no, but I was asked to stay on and to, to do some transition work, um, so they did a reorg structure, reorg the chief administrative officer position out, and, um, so there was several weeks of a, uh, transition, not a consulting agreement, it was just several weeks of pass-off time. And were you compensated during that period of time? I was. Are you familiar with any other employees that was provided with a consulting contract as a, as a provision of their severance? That's more of an HR function, um, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I know that they got some severance packages, but I don't know the, the details. And did that practice start under Ms. Cavey's tenure? No. That's been going on for a while? Yes, because I, I got a severance package, um, so that wasn't under Ms. Cavey. But your severance package was not in the form of a consulting contract, was it? No. Can I ask a question real quick on that? Mr. Thiel, are you suggesting that the consulting contract was in addition to the severance package, which gave them a much longer period of time to receive payment? Mr. Thiel, correct. Uh, there's a state statute that, that prohibits, uh, or, or limits the amount that an employee can be paid upon their severance, uh, and unless they have a contract that specifies a different payment amount, uh, then, uh, then you're, you're prohibited, you're, you're limited to the amount of time that you can pay somebody out. Um, the, the allegation, I think that we heard from previous meetings, uh, was that there were, um, some employees that got severance packages in the form of, of, of a, of a, um, uh, consulting contract where they were in essence terminated as a JEA employee, but they were paid to sit at home. Uh, I think that was Council Member Diamond's question. Um, but that's, that's where I was going with that. Yeah. As I recall, Council Member Diamond made a big point of that. There were a couple of them, I think, that, um, circumvented the state law by, to some extent, by extending it well beyond what was a severance package would be, correct? Correct. Okay. And that's, that's, that was what I was asking Ms. Brooks about whether she was familiar with any employees that had received that type of an arrangement. So, knowing all of that, um, uh, are you familiar with any employees that had that kind of an arrangement, uh, where they were, uh, they were awarded a, um, consulting contract in lieu of, uh, a true severance. Through the chair, could I please ask how or what charge number this line of questioning is related to? What charge? The, the sick charge. I mean, I think we have broad-based authority to ask any questions we want in, in this particular, uh, in these particular interviews. And Mr. Chair, if I could, I think that it goes to Ms. Gavey's, um, interaction with her employees and whether or not certain employees were given one of these arrangements and other employees were not, which may lead to the toxic work environment or, uh, retaliation for people that complain or, you know, that's where I think it fits into the, uh, the sick charge. Ms. Brooks has gone through great lengths to prepare herself and we, under the guidelines of the topics in the sick charge. And so that's what she's prepared to answer. And so I just want to make sure we don't get too far off. So to the extent that it's relating to, uh, what Mr. Thiel has suggested, um, we can keep our answers within that parameter. Yeah. Through the chair to Mr. Thiel, I don't know the specifics on those agreements. But are you aware that any of them exist? Ms. I'm aware that they're, that they do exist for several employees, but I don't, I couldn't tell you who and how much time. Okay. Do you approximate how many employees, uh, that that, those types of agreements relate to? It goes all the way back to Laura Dutton, Laura Shepis. I mean, how far back are we talking? As far back as you have personal knowledge of? Ms. Two, four, six, maybe eight or 10. I don't, I don't know. I mean, I'm, I'm under oath, so it's very difficult for me to be answering these questions. This is really more for HR, um, to be answering. Yeah, that's, that's fine. You know, I'm basically, that's what we're here for, right? Is, is what you know. Uh, and so, um, so that's, that's what I want to make sure is, is that, you know, that, that you're answering from the standpoint of, of your personal knowledge about things. I don't want you to, to, to speculate on things that you don't know or anything I'm asking is unclear. You've done a great job of asking for clarification, but if anything I'm asking is unclear, please let me know. Uh, and I'll be happy to clarify if I can. In your role as CAO, are you allowed to give legal counsel to employees of JEA? Legal services have to be conducted by the Office of General Counsel. So, were you ever warned by Regina Ross that you were, in fact, giving legal counsel when you were not supposed to? So, I'm, I guess, going to object. There's certain limited questions that are protected by the work product or the attorney-client privilege that are the JEA boards to waive or not. And those include, uh, communications between Ms. Brooks and OGC members that are made for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice. So, I'm, I'm not asking for what her advice was. I'm asking if she did it. Um, or if she, um, had a conversation with Regina Ross about doing it. Well, I, I think you're asking the question in a way that would force the answer. And I don't believe she should answer that question. It's a, it's a yes or no question. So, yes or no, limited to yes or no. Were you ever warned by Regina Ross that you were, um, unauthorizedly providing legal advice? I, I'm again gonna instruct her not to answer that question as it violates the attorney-client privilege. Can you explain what about that question is privileged? If she answers the question and the question is yes, then she's necessarily disclosing legal advice given. What, what legal advice would she be disclosing? If, if she just says yes, I was warned by Regina Ross. I, I'm just gonna stand by the objection. The answer to that question discloses its contents. So, Mr. Chair, if we could, I'd like you to repeat the question to Ms. Ross since, um, since, um, let me ask, I guess Ms. Ross, or Ms. Ross, sorry, Ms. Brooks. Um, you heard comments from Mr. Granite. Are you refusing to answer the question based upon his comments? Yes, on advice of counsel. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, if you could, I'd like you to repeat the question to Ms. Brooks. Um, the question is whether or not she had ever been warned by Regina Ross that she was providing legal advice. Mr. Chair, you'll have to explain something to me. What is the difference of me repeating the question versus you? So, the reason is, is because under the council rules, when a witness refuses to answer a question, it has to be repeated by the chair of the committee. Okay. Ms. Brooks, did you ever, uh, receive a comment from Ms. Ross that you were providing legal advice? I, I'm gonna object and advise Ms. Brooks not to answer that question. It's, it's the JEA board's decision of whether to waive the attorney-client privilege regarding that question. Mr. Brooks, are you gonna refuse to answer based on that? Yes, I'm gonna take advice of counsel and not answer. So, I have a text message between Vicki Cavey and Kurt Wilson where, where Ms. Cavey writes, quote, Jody says I do not have to give up my call records. She also completely disagrees with Helen and Paul's advice from Regina in counsel. So, do you recall the issue coming up regarding Vicki Cavey having to turn over her phone records based on a public records request, uh, for her phone records? So, I believe on the context perspective, um, I was not at JEA at the time. I gave that advice, and neither was Vicki Cavey. This was prior to her coming in, um, to become the interim CEO. Um, and so, I believe she asked whether or not she had to give up her phone records as a private citizen, and I said no. As the other portion of that, I don't know what, I don't know what the context of the, the, the Helen and Paul issue. So, you were saying that was before you were a JEA employee? So, I believe the advice was related to when I was no long, was not part of the JEA, um. When did you start back with JEA? So, when, under Vicki Cavey, she brought me back in two years ago. When, when two years ago? So, June of 2022. I'm sorry? June of 2022. So, you started back on, in June of 2022? Correct. So, the text message is from May 14th, 2024. So, based on your number, you were a JEA employee at that time. Yeah, but do we understand the context of what was being asked and when it was being asked? I believe that, I believe that response was related to some timing issues from when the phone records were being asked for, or like from a 2021-2022 timeframe with the, with the departure of JSTO. Okay. So, it's your testimony today that when she sent you, or she sent Kurt Wilson a text on May 14th, 2024, that Jody says, I do not have to give up my call records, that that was call records that were predated her employment with JEA. That's correct. And when she said she also, meaning you, also completely disagrees with Helen and Paul advice from Regina and counsel, that also predated her time at JEA. I'm not sure what context that is, but because I disagree with advice of counsel doesn't mean that I'm giving legal advice. Okay, but you would agree that if you advised her not to give up a public record that was her call records, that would be giving legal advice, right? It would, but public records is in my domain as well, and we give advice all the time as to the, the, the requirements of the, of the requirements of the public records laws, but we have a team of folks too that don't have law degrees that, that interpret the provisions of 119. Do you know whether or not Vicki Cavey asked for any advice from any other OGC lawyer on that issue? I do not know. Have you ever in a board member prep meeting made the comments, I'm not allowed to give legal advice or something similar to this. I'm not allowed to give legal advice in this role, but if I was, I would say fill in the blank. I don't, I don't recall saying that. Um, I potentially could have said it. Um, you know, again, as being the, the chief legal officer, I've got a lot of institutional knowledge. It's not necessarily providing legal services. Our charter prohibits me from providing legal services, but I can give my nickel advice, um, on various issues, um, as to how I would have handled it in the past. I said that I've got quite a bit of historic and, um, knowledge about things that have occurred at JEA over time. And that institutional knowledge is very important. And so I could have made a comment like that, but I don't remember making it. Okay. So did you give that sort of a statement? Uh, do you recall giving that sort of a statement when it came to advising Ms. Cavey on the capacity fee issue? I don't recall. Jason, can I jump in for a second? Sure. Give you a chance to get your notes together. I want to go back to the capacity issue. Uh, Ms. Brooks, when did you first learn that there was an issue with capacity fees? Around the September, October, um, of 2024? That was the first you learned? That there was an issue on the capacity fees. Yes, sir. Not before then. There was no correspondence with any of your customers about resolving capacity fee issues before that date? Not that I'm aware of them. I got, I got a text message from Steve Diebenow. I believe that those text messages are in your packet of information asking about if I could help, um, nudge along the, the review of Mayo capacity fees. Whatever date that text message is, is kind of when I first, um, started learning about that there's an issue of capacity fees. You, you, you weren't aware before then that these capacity fees had not been charged to your customers beyond the initial charge before October of 24? That's correct. Okay. I, I have been advised that Jay Stowe was aware of this issue and basically, I hate to use the word ignored, but did nothing to try to resolve it. Were you there during part of Jay's tenure? I was there part of Jay's, Jay's tenure, but I was not brought into the discussion. You'll see a bunch of emails and correspondence and communications of various meetings, um, that the teams held with Jay Stowe, Sheila Presley, um, some of the other folks that were on the chief level, but you won't see my, my name or me in, in that conversation. Okay. Well, let me back up a second. When did JEA, maybe not you in particular, become aware of this issue of capacity fee issues? Um, probably during, I think it was brought up during Jay Stowe's tenure, um, prior to Vicki Cavey. Back in 2021? Is that a fair date? That sounds accurate, but again, we have collected additional capacity charges in three instances, one of which Mr. Teal worked on, um, years ago. And so, the, again, there's three times, once in 2010 with Southeast Atlantic Beverage Corporation, once in 2011-2012 with Wesley Manor, and one in 27-2018 with UF Health. Um, of those three, in 2010, uh, Mr. Teal of OGC represented JEA in the collection of additional capacity fees back then. So, it goes back, but it just, whether or not that we would have been collecting additional capacity fees for all customers, that's, that was the real spark, Chairman. We have not consistently applied, um, other than these three instances, that provision in our tariff. When was that discovered? The, the unintentional administrative oversight, um, I, you know, discovered by me and Vicki during the Mayo discussions, um, that we made the, the ask of the, of the, the various folks that work on this issue. When have we collected additional capacity charges? What's the policy? What's the procedure? Um, and so... Let's just take the date of 2024, whatever month you mentioned. It, it, it particularly bothers me and I, I'm going to compare it to my, my own, uh, work time. I ran a pharmacy, had a bunch of controlled drugs. I was, I ran a pretty good pharmacy and I was often asked to, when other fire, when other pharmacies were sort of on fire operationally, I got thrown into those pharmacies, go fix it. And the first thing I did is identify any issues that I thought my supervisors and the board needed to know about, about that, because I didn't want to be blamed for them. So the first thing I did was do an inventory of the controlled substances, make sure all those things were, because that's the biggest problem you're going to have, make sure those numbers were correct. Sometime in 2024, it was discovered you had a capacity fee issue and it wasn't until last month that you brought that to the board's attention. Now explain to me something like this that potentially is 18 or 20 million to Mayo and I've seen figures of a hundred million dollars was not brought to the board's attention until two years after it was discovered. Mr. Chair, I don't know that I've got a good explanation other than we are still in the data analysis part. You talk about getting an inventory, we are still inventorying and we just recently last week published a technical memo that says over the last 29 years, this is a 25.2 million dollar issues max. And again, unintentional administrative oversight, but our board has been advised. We keep the board involved in various things happening at JEA in one-on-one dialogue with board members. Just because a presentation had not been given until 2025 when I gave a presentation on capacity fees and I sent a memo to the board advising them that we've got this issue, there was not a necessity at that time to raise it to a board level review, because we're still studying. I mean, this is a complicated issue that we're, again, pleased that council auditors helping us try to understand what is the implications. Let me make myself perfectly clear here. I'm not suggesting in 2024 you had all the answers, but I think you had an obligation and the CEO had an obligation to bring it to the board. So the public, you are a public utility and having one-on-one, here's the problem to me. There are a lot of one-on-one meetings that might be occurring that the public is not aware of because your committee meetings are not streamed and they're not privy to private meetings that you have with the board. I believe you had an obligation, once you discovered the problem, just to bring it to the board. We've got a problem with these capacity fees. This is what we're doing to try to fix it, A, B, C, and D. We will update the board going forward as we get more information. It would appear to me that the only reason you came to the board last month was because of the issue that we're raising here, and you brought it to a committee meeting or a workshop that was not streamed, which I've already raised that issue. That's what concerns me. If I'm the, if I'm in charge of something and I discover a problem, I'm going to bring it to my boss's attention so that they understand it. I've done that for 40-something years and I think that's what should have occurred as soon as Ms. KB discovered this problem, whenever it was, it should have been directly brought to the board and to the public's attention. Mr. Thiel, you can continue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you said that you first got involved with the mail issue in September of 2024, right? About that time, yes. Okay. And you said that it was because of a text that you got from Steve Diebenow? Yes. And when, well, let's back up. When did Vicki Kavey become CEO? A little over three years ago, I think. Would April of 2024 sound right? About right. Okay. Okay. And when did, when did Vicki first get involved in the Mayo Clinic capacity fee issue? I don't know. Okay. So when, when do you remember your first conversation with her? They said, I really don't know. Was it, was it around the time that you found out about it? Probably, yes. So around September of 2024? Sounds about right. Now, JEA does an annual review of Mayo Clinic, right? The customer team does an annual, you know, key accounts has a, they go out and meet with each of the key, key account folks. But again, that's not in my CAO responsibilities. So part of the materials that you all provided to me in response to the subpoenas is several years of annual review for Mayo. And they're all by James McCallum. So that's key accounts. He's the account executive for Mayo, right? He was, yes. Okay. And the, who do those presentations go before? Who are they, who are they made to? They're made for the, the folks that are represented, the key account folks on the other side of the customer side of the ledger, the developers or the overseers of the utility services for the, for the, for the customer. Okay. So they're not, they're not made to the board? No. So in all of those yearly updates or annual reviews, they talk about electrical utility services as well as water and sewer, right? And why is there no mention at all in any of those annual reviews about the capacity fee issue with Mayo? I don't know. You mentioned that there were several meetings that JEA had with, with regard to the Mayo Clinic issue. And in Mr. McCallum put together a, a timeline from 2022 through 2025. And so the first meeting on his timeline, first of all, have you seen that timeline? I don't know which one. There's probably more than 20 of those types of memos. So I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Okay. Have you seen any of them? I've seen some of them. Yes. Okay. So, so the first meeting apparently was held on October 3rd, 2022. Okay. So that seems to be when JEA first, at least the meeting was with, with James McCallum, Ryan Stillwell of Prosser, and then David Martin and Mark Miles of Mayo. So JEA met with Mayo for the first time on October 3rd of 2022. Does that sound about right? I don't know. Do you have any reason to doubt Mr. McCallum's recitation of when these meetings occurred? No. Okay. And so there were meetings held October 3rd, 22, October 22nd, 22, November 1st, 22, November 15th, 22, November 17th, 22, May 31st of 23, June of 23, July of 23, again July of 23, August of 23, again in August of 23. Now that one in August of 23, Jay Stowe attended the meeting. And so in the leadership meeting was with the CEO and the senior leadership team. It was Jay Stowe, Tracy Day, Rob Zemimato, Susan West, Tanya Boardman, Randy Swift, Chris Jackson, Pedro Melendez, Sheila Presley, Ted Phillips, Madrika Jones, Regina Ross, Tanya Lewis, and James McCallum. So you're saying that you never heard of the, this issue during your tenure under Jay Stowe. Correct. Of all of those people that I read off, and I could read them again if you want, but how many of them are still working on this project? Can you read them off again? Well, I know Jay Stowe is not, hopefully. Can I say yes or no as you read the names off? All right, Tracy Day. Yes. Rob Zemimato. Zamatero. Zamatero, sorry. Yes. I knew I was going to mess that up. Susan West. Yes. Tanya Boardman. Yes. Randy Swift. No, he retired. Okay. Chris Jackson. Yes. Pedro Melendez. No. Why is he not working on it? He's no longer at JEA. Okay. Sheila Presley. No, retired. Ted Phillips. Not really working on the issue, but he's aware of it. Adrika Jones. No, no longer with JEA. Regina Ross. I know about that one. Tanya Lewis. Yes. Well, I don't know about Tanya. Okay. And James McCallum. And James has been reassigned in my understanding. Again, he's not in my group to a different key account. So I don't know that he's really working, although still providing information for the two. Okay. So why was he reassigned? I don't know the specifics. That'd be a question for Charles Moreland. Charles Moreland is your chief of customer relations, right? And so why is Charles Moreland involved in this issue? So all of the key account reps and the customer care folks all report to Charles. So then the meetings go on September of 23, November of 23, November again of 23, December of 23, February of 23, April of 24, May of June of 24, and then October of 24, November of 24, December of 24, January of 25, March of 25, and then July of 25 seems to be the last meeting. Do you know why JEA stopped meeting about this issue in July of 2025? I do not know, but we either just maybe not finished the timeline, but there's either another subgroup that's studying this issue that's continued to work on it. And I believe you mentioned in your initial statement that there were several efforts to try and resolve the Mayo Clinic issue. How familiar are you with the different offers that were made to Mayo? I know about a couple of them. And I've got the, you know, the resources from Tracy Day's group and McCallum, probably some of the same documents you have. Okay. And so there was an initial offer, I believe in April of 2020. So there was an initial offer to, to resolve this by asking Mayo to pay in the the neighborhood of $860,000 to resolve the capacity fees from 1995 through, I believe, 2020 or 2004. Is that correct? I've got a note here about the offers being made and it says on April 1st of 2022, agree to apply pre-2005 rates to increase usage for 95 to 2022, totaling $834,331.50 for future increased usage charges at current rates. And my number is a little different than yours, but I think it's about the same timeframe and about the same amount. Okay. And so, but the part of that was, is that they would agree to pay capacity fees going forward, correct? I don't believe there was ever any conclusion to that offer. Okay. If it went through 2022, that contemplated that there, I think that there were five additional projects that JEA or sorry, that Mayo had commenced on or around 2022. And wasn't there a discussion about resolving it using the 2022 rates versus the 2023 rates? I believe I read that in the memos, but I wasn't part of that discussion. Okay. Do you know whether Vicki Cavey was part of any discussions with regard to, to resolving the capacity fee issue with Mayo? So Vicki Cavey and I met with the CEO and the CAO of Mayo and who was looking to try to resolve the issue by setting a new baseline. So we've had conversations and a letter that was sent to Mayo about reestablishing a new baseline and moving forward with Mayo on the capacity fee. So she's aware of that offer, even though it wasn't, it was kind of a proposal to, to resolve the issue. And were you aware that Mr. Teal, can I jump in for a second or very quickly? If I understand this correctly, you are negotiating a resolution to this capacity issue with Mayo Clinic. That is correct. And in 2425. Correct. Issues never been brought to the board. So you are picking one particular customer to resolve this issue and the board is not even aware that we have a capacity issue. Do I have my facts correct there? Not exactly. So Mr. Chair, I was unaware we had an issue. I had always thought we applied additional capacity charges for everybody and that Mayo Clinic was the lone wolf and was not coming to the table to pay their additional capacity share. So when I found out that we have not historically collected from any customers, that's when we stopped and halted the negotiations with Mayo Clinic. I didn't, we didn't realize specifically, I did not realize we had an issue until about the time I got involved and started studying the capacity fee issue. So there wasn't anything to take to the board from a, you know, again, we got a, I got a list of folks from the 10 inch meters, thought it was a handful of people never dreaming that we had never put in place a policy to capture additional capacity fees. That's when we did a timeout with Mayo and everybody saying we've got to have a standard rate moving forward and figure out how to, how to cure the past. So again, and when we were having the initial discussions with Mayo, I was unaware that we did not collect on a consistent routine basis capacity fees. Even when you discovered, I'll, I'll take you by your word. When you discovered that this was a broad base problem, you still didn't bring it to the board. We talked to the board on a one-on-one. I know that that's not going to appease you, but we did not do a board presentation about it because we're in the process of trying to figure it out. But do you understand you're a public utility and the public needs to understand if there are dollars that are, that are potentially out there that aren't being collected? In addition, I believe there are agencies that would want to know if there are dollars out there that you're not collecting. I understand the frustration, sir. Okay. Mr. Teal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said that you, you reprised the board of it. You said you talked to them one-on-one. When did that happen? Jason, I don't have specific dates. I just know during the process and talking with Mayo and trying to understand the magnitude of the issue, the board was discussed with. I don't know the exact time frame. Who was in those meetings with the one-on-ones with the board members? So Vicki Cavey and myself. It was just the two of you? I can't. It may have been Kurt. I don't remember who all was there. Was it this year? It would have been in the 2024 time frame. So I guess I'm a little confused then because you said that you met with the board one-on-one in the 2024 time frame. But earlier in your presentation today, you said that the reason you didn't bring it to the board was because you were still in the data analysis phase. So again, when the newspaper busted, said that we had a hundred million dollar issue, we were still trying to unravel the legacy accounts for all of these commercial customers. And we didn't have all the data crunched at the time. And so we felt like we needed to say something to the board. That's why we brought the presentation to the committee. I did a memo to the board. Again, it wasn't a public setting or a public meeting. But from a timing perspective, and again, I apologize for not having the sequence of the times. I should have put a timeline together for myself. So Regina Ross, when she did her memo, she calculated that the capacity fees that Mayo OJEA were approximately $18.9 million, right? That's what her memo has in it. And I disagree with that number, but I don't know how far I can go on answering questions related to that memo. So what do you think the right number is? So at the time, if we had been applying the additional capacity fees at the time, if we had a policy put in place and we didn't have this administrative oversight, I believe that the accurate number is probably about $6 million of uncollected capacity fees from Mayo Clinic, if we were able to go back all the way to the history of that customer account. So you're saying that despite the fact that your staff or JEA staff that was tasked and had reviewed this issue since 2022 until now, that we're coming up with numbers of $11 million, $18 million, that that's just all wrong? Yeah, and they will say it's wrong. There should be some email traffic as to the the Office of General Counsel was giving the wrong information, and over a $7 million number got doubled in that figure. The $11 million is when do you apply the additional capacity rates? The rates have accelerated quite a bit in the last few years on additional capacity fees. If you charge them when you should have charged them from an application perspective, from a fairness perspective, that number is nowhere near the $18.9 million in that memo. So I think the email traffic you're talking about is right after Regina Ross's memo came out. There was an email from Brad Balthus from the Office of General Counsel that said that those estimates were incorrect, but his number was $16.8 million. Yeah, still not accurate. That's been one of the challenges here, too, is the numbers that were being provided. When you try to fact check them, they didn't fact check out. When did it become clearer that the real number, in your opinion, was $6 million and change? When did that become clear? Yeah, so we were meeting on this issue pretty routinely, and so at one of the meetings, we were going to do a demand letter to Mayo. Again, it was the idea that the Mayo Clinic wasn't paying their fair share, but everybody else was. Again, in my mind, we talked through what that demand would look like and then calculated based on today's rates on capacity fees versus what should have been collected at the lower rates at the time that they would have exceeded the 20 percent. Again, Jason, I don't have specific times of all these meetings. On the demand letter, you're correct. There were numerous drafts of that demand letter that were in the materials that you provided. The last one that I was able to find was dated September 3rd of 2025, and it was from Regina Ross to Dr. Thielen, and in that demand letter, she demanded that Mayo pay JEA a total of $12,327,390. Are you familiar with that? I am, and those are all drafts. Mayo Clinic never received a demand letter. This was just an opportunity, and again, we may be getting into the the legal haziness here about the settling the Mayo Clinic on a legal perspective. So that was dated September 3rd of 2025, but there is also another letter dated September 16th of 2025 again to Dr. Thielen. This one, though, is signed by Vicki Cavey and not Regina Ross, and in that letter, the offer to Mayo, and it says, it says, if the above captures your understanding of what we discussed, we can have one of our legal team memorialize our agreements. You said that you and Vicki had met with folks in Mayo Clinic. Do you remember if it was around September of 2025? It was. It was probably in August, but yes. Okay, and in that letter, the settlement with Mayo would be, we're just going to wipe out everything that you owe us, and we're going to start from scratch as of an August 2025 average daily flow, right? Yeah, but Mr. Chair and Mr. Thiel, we are still looking at this account and as to what we can and cannot collect from the past. The more we talk about the specifics and about the ability to reset their baseline and specifics about what they paid in initially and what we have and have not been able to uncover from an account perspective, their hospital was originally built in the 1980s, the first phase, and this is a phase project that's been going on for many, many years, an old DRI, an old cost recovery agreement. There's lots of work to be done still on the Mayo Clinic, and then any information I provide here in this open forum could hurt our chances in court later on. So I just want to caution that I'll answer your questions the best I can, but it could potentially impact our ability to collect from Mayo in the future. Well, that settlement agreement would have avoided going to court by wiping out everything that Mayo had owed from JEA's perspective prior to August of 2025, right? So Mayo has a belief that they have an old cost recovery agreement, that they are exempt from paying capacity to over a million gallons. I understand that Mayo has some legal defenses. My question is that settlement agreement would have wiped out everything that JEA felt that Mayo Clinic owed, correct? No, it was restating a baseline based upon the flows, and I think if you look in there's a calculation of what they would owe. They've got a lot going on in their campus plan. They would owe that after August of 2025, right? I'm sorry? They would owe that for development after August 2025. That's correct. Okay, so it would wipe out everything that happened between 1995 and August of 2025, correct? If you agree to the numbers that... Even by your number, it's six million dollars, right? It's very difficult to ascertain what the initial paid. The 142,000 gallons that they're on record of paying, that number is suspect. We don't even know that that's the right number. It was based on on fixture units that we don't calculate that way anymore. But you just testified that it's your opinion that they owed six million dollars plus, right? That was one of the tables that we received from the customer group as to the usage that they're currently under would be about six million dollars max. But again, all of those numbers are suspect, and a lot of history and data crunching still needs to be done on any of the numbers we're talking about today. Understand. But as of September of 2025, when that settlement agreement was drafted, JEA's understanding was that Mayo could owe upwards of 18.9 million dollars, correct? And there was no settlement agreement structured. Okay. That letter from Vicki Cavey to the CEO of Mayo was giving an indication of what was discussed at that meeting. If they agreed to that, then we would turn that into a potential contract or a settlement agreement. That was just a letter of this is your understanding of what we discussed. It was not the end-all be-all agreement. Sounds like it though it's a memorialization of an agreement already discussed. So it says as we previously discussed, these are the terms and we'll have our legal team draft up the necessary documents. Yeah, an agreement in principle as to moving forward how to handle this account. But yet JEA staff was on record clearly before that that our view of the need for Mayo to utilize the 16-inch force or 16-inch force main to mitigate problems for residential customers downstream. They noted that UF Health was recently charged their increase beyond what was initially paid for, that the contractors that have been involved in the many projects on Mayo's campus over the past 20 to 25 years were aware of the additional capacity associated with their respective project. Like other customers who have grown behind the meter, Mayo has flown under the radar from an additional flow perspective. We all agree that Mayo should be charged for the additional flow, but at what cost? Additionally, we seem to be all on the same page on charging Mayo the 2022 rate for their current projects. So the staff that had been working on this for years was convinced that for equity reasons, if nothing else, for all of the other similarly situated property owners that are out there that there should be a fee that was assessed, but yet that wasn't what Vicki Cavey and you came up with for an agreement to settle it with Mayo. I don't know that I understand the characterization or the question here. I think the documents speak for itself, so we'll move on. You mentioned earlier that there was a text that you received from Steve Debenow, and I believe it's dated November the 8th, 2024, so not September of 2024, but November, where you start off saying, Steve, I'm sorry I missed your call. OGC is doing some research and working on a response to your memo. Can I check in with them on Tuesday and call you back then? He responds, sure, but the Mayo folks are starting to get antsy. We have been at this for months and JEA has yet to provide any substantive additional information, response, or argument in support of their position. We are trying to get this resolved without board or CEO involvement. I hope you understand. You respond, understood. So Mr. Debenow was attempting to get you to resolve this matter without board involvement, correct? I believe he's referring to the Mayo Clinic board, not JEA's board. So when he's saying trying to get it resolved without board or CEO involvement, that's the Mayo board and not the JEA board? I took it as being referenced to the Mayo board and his CEO, or the Mayo CEO. But he doesn't say that, right? No. And you say that you told Vicki, you brought her into the loop on this immediately after you get this text. I don't think I said that. I said, I don't know sure when Vicki became aware of it. You know, I notified her when I was having a discussion with Debenow that he wanted to meet and talk about it with his client. I alerted her to that fact, but when she knew about it, I have no idea. I'm confused because I thought you responded in response to Council Member Salem's question that she got involved after you received the text from Mr. Debenow and you thought it was in September of 2024. I apologize. I have to read the record back. I don't remember saying that, but that's probably about the time that she became aware because when I became aware, but she may have known it before then. I don't know. So what did you do in response to Mr. Debenow's text to educate yourself on the Mayo Clinic issue? I asked in a leadership team meeting specifically to Sheila Presley and to Renetta Marshall and Regina Ross about what the status was with Mayo and started getting updated as to what was happening with the Mayo Clinic issue. And why would that have fallen under your role within JEA? It didn't. So then why did you insert yourself? Because it was Steve Debenow from a lawyer perspective and getting the legal analysis done. So I guess that part of it did fall under my watch as far as the legal perspective. And did you have any conversations with Regina Ross to have her explain to you what the issues were? Just yes or no? What's the question again? Did you have any conversations with Regina Ross about what the issues were as part of your due diligence and getting up to speed on the Mayo issue? Yes. And when were you provided a copy of all of the legal memos that were issued in this matter? I don't recall. There's probably some email communications where I asked for a copy of the Debenow memo and then the response memo from OGC, but I don't recall the specific dates. The memo that you referenced that you issued to the JEA board, well, I don't know which memo you did. How many memos did you issue the JEA board on this issue? From a memo perspective, just the one. That was from March 12th of 2026. But I also did a presentation at the workshop as well. And that was in April of 2026. April 14th, I think. So many documents. What's the date of the the memo to the board? March 12th, 2026. That's correct. That's the only one. So with that, you said it's been a great deal of media and city council attention around our collection of additional capacity fees from customers and more specifically Mayo Clinic. Why was there media attention around that? I believe one of the council members put out some kind of a social media thing that we had been under collecting capacity fees. So prior to the media attention, you never thought to bring the issue before the full board? No. I've mentioned that and it's been one-on-one dialogue with the board that council chair makes exception to, but the board was aware. But yet you can't recall when that was? No. And nothing was ever done in a public meeting prior to April 14th of 2026. Mr. Chair. Mr. Teal, can I interrupt you just for a second for Ms. Pittman? Yes, sir. Ms. Pittman. Ms. Brooks, I'd just like to know, how did all this happen? Was there an executive account manager? How did we get to this point? And are there other businesses that have the same issue? Yes, Councilwoman through the chair to Councilwoman Pittman. This is an unintentional administrative oversight that's occurred for the 29-year history we've run the utility. I haven't been able to go back and look from 1971 to 1997 as to whether or not the city was collecting additional capacity charges. Part of the problem is not having the technology and sophistication in our billing system to capture it. The technical memo that I spoke of is the best results we have today. And it looks like there's about 257 commercial clients that we've got to study case by case as to whether or not they owe and then what that number would look like. Again, we're working with utility council and bond council as to any of the repercussions of the plan we're going to put into place. But yes, it's a bigger issue than just the Mayo issue. Again, there's probably about 257 commercial accounts that we're going to have to analyze. And so now that you know that, how do you all resolve that? So part of it is getting the help of the council auditor's office and making sure that our numbers are fact-checked and that we've got a good data set to move from. But part of it's legacy numbers. Part of these are legacy accounts from the 1970s, 1980s. And so trying to even get detailed documentation on each of these accounts as what they paid into initial capacity is very, very complex and difficult. As you would probably imagine in the 80s, I mean, the iPhones didn't come out until 2007. So the technical sophistication and the documents that we need to look at is what's causing us to have so much time and effort and problems with resolving this issue looking backwards. We have the technology and the sophistication to move forward. So we can put a policy in place today that when the developer comes in, they pay an initial capacity fee. Our computer programs talk to one another now. The computer will say to the billing system, this is how much they've paid in initial capacity. If it exceeds 20%, put a red flag on my account and then let's study it and then go after the additional capacity fee that's part of our tariff document. We didn't have that same kind of technology in 1997 when we took over the system. So I don't have a good explanation as to why it went unnoticed. And I don't know if people just punted on not wanting to fix it, but we're here to fix it. Me and our team, we've got a group of very intelligent people that we're going to fix it. But again, the fixing moving forward is simple. It's the being able to collect in the past that's very problematic. So did you all or did the executive capture it and win? I mean, you're saying that this kind of was a legacy issue and it's now coming to fruition. But over all those years, you never caught it? No, ma'am. No, we did three one-offs that we're aware of that we have the information on. But we just know, I don't know if that folks just didn't want to deal with it because it is a complex, challenging issue to resolve. But we're committed to doing it. And we've got, again, we've got the sophistication and the technology to do it today. But one of the other challenges is, is how do you go back and bill folks for something that happened 10, 12, 15, 29 years ago? And then what does that number look like? So that's kind of the next steps as to, you know, how do we create a policy that's fair and equitable for everybody? And then the capacity issues, again, the numbers that we charge today is so much different than what we had in the past. But we have new facilities that have to be built to be able to accommodate the capacity for growth. So there's a reason for the numbers accelerating because of new plants that are necessary for our community. And so we do the best we can. Those numbers are estimated. They're not exact. But how we go about, again, moving forward, we can put a policy together and then work on the past. And that's what we're in the process of doing today. So I just, I just want to just mention this comment. We, we charge our customers every day. If there's an increase or we are trying to develop a new initiative, the taxpayers pay for that, right? So who pays for this? I mean, the accuracy, you know, going back and making sure that this is accounted for. Right. And so the, the theory is the developer pays, right? I mean, from a capacity charge perspective to make sure that they've got capacity in the system to be able to, to accommodate their project. Um, so the, the, the collection of those capacity dollars to be able to pay for their future, um, needs for in the system. But when, if you don't collect that from a revenue perspective, um, that it's, it's the, the everyday customers. Okay. I can just add a comment to that. I'm very comfortable once all this information is available, whenever that is, and you have a workshop that's streamed, I have every confidence that that seven member board with the public watching them will come to a, a, a plan to handle all this. Yes. I just want all the facts there so that the public can see it and watch this seven member board debate what the best way is with recommendations from staff. Yes, sir. That's the way it should occur. Yes, sir. Not one-on-ones and all that type of stuff. Mr. Teal has a couple of more things and then we're going to, um, wrap up with Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Ms. Brooks, you just, in response to Council Member Pittman's question, you said that the technology and sophistication, um, is in place. When did that go into, into effect? So we were talking about some of the, the, the tiering of the 2022, 2023 timeframe. So the CCMB is the customer billing program, and then the SAGES is the development program. Um, and so that there's 2022, 23 timeframe is when SAGES came fully operational, but again, those two systems can talk to one another. Are you familiar with JEA's water and sewer system revenue bond resolution from 2001? I am. So then you're familiar with, um, that bonds, uh, well, first of all, how many, how many of those bonds are currently outstanding? I don't know. I got Joe Orfano in the audience, about, about $2 billion worth. Okay. And those, uh, water and sewer. Okay. And the expiration on that is 2041-ish? Ish. Okay. 2050. We just issued 30 a year. Okay. Um, so part of the assurances to the underwriters, uh, for those bonds include the pledge of, of capacity charges as revenue to fund JEA's bond obligations, right? And specifically it says that JEA, there's a quote, JEA shall at all times charge and collect fees and charges for use or sale of capacity or service, uh, within the system. So doesn't that create an obligation for JEA to appropriately charge and collect fees and charges for the capacity fee or other impact fees? We do. So initial capacity, anybody that signs under our system pays an initial capacity fee and everybody pays their bill. Ms. Pittman's point, we, um, we, we, we, you know, the, the monthly billing is not what's at issue here. It's the additional capacity when they go over the 20% based upon, um, expanded operations or new projects. So you're saying that the underwriter's understanding is as to what that means is just the initial capacity fee. I don't know that you read in initial capacity fees, but we're supposed to collect everything in our published tariff. Okay. So which includes the, the 20% additional amount, right? Correct. So by failing to collect, uh, the capacity fees, which you just, in response to Councilmember Pittman's question, admitted JEA hasn't done, uh, does that not endanger JEA in terms of the underwriters? No. And again, we've got bond counsel. Bond counsel gave an opinion. It was an informal opinion, um, that was provided. And I, again, I feel like I'm going on that edge talking about legal opinions being provided for this matter. Um, but they said that the collection of, or under collection based on unintentional administrative, um, oversight does not trigger, um, the, the, you know, free service provision within the bond covenants. Right. Because their conclusion was an administrative error doesn't rise to the level of, of, um, being a violation of that, right? That's correct. And they're in the process of drafting a formal memo, um, to, to make sure that there's no bond issues. We, we won't want to be in any regard having any issues with our bond covenants and the, the bond resolution. So we've got bond counsel formalizing their opinion, um, that we'll present to this committee when it's completed. Okay. And when, um, when was that informal opinion issued? You know, I've got a notebook of materials here. It's buried in here somewhere. Well, I might be able to find it faster than you. Um, would it be surprising that that was issued on October 8th, 2025? That probably sounds about right. Okay. So, but isn't it, isn't it the underwriters that decide whether or not JEA is, is complying with that provision or whether or not it matters, whether or not JEA is complying with that provision, even if, um, administrative mistakes happen and the underwriters have, have, um, the ability to, uh, to question that? Yeah, they always have the ability to question that, but we've got really good solid bond counsel with Nixon Peabody that they would, um, they would heed their advice. So, but even if it's not a certainty, right? Yeah. I answered council on Pittman earlier and nothing's a certainty, right? That's a hundred percent. So my point though is, is that you understood the situation well enough or JEA understood, stood the situation well enough to have gone out and gotten, um, these opinions from bond counsel, but yet you still didn't feel like it was important enough to present it to the board, right? I was unaware that bond counsel opinion was being looked at. And the, um, the, the bond counsel was tasked with looking specifically to Mayo, again, with the assumption that we have always collected on additional capacity fees. We have, uh, again, at that moment in time, I did, I thought that Mayo was an outlier and I believe that the, the, the, the task for Mayo or for the, the bond counsel was if we didn't collect additional capacity for Mayo, would there be any impacts to our bonds and the bond covenant resolution? Well, how can you, how can you say that, that, that you, that, that JEA was appropriately collecting for everybody else when you just said that, that you didn't have the technology or the sophistication in place to be able to detect it until 2022 or 2023? Because that's been part of this ongoing process of unraveling these things to understand what happened to, to counsel on Pittman's perspective, how did this happen? Well, but there's three, at least three other instances where JEA has had to go back and collect capacity fees, not because it was determined at the time, it was determined later, right? There were settlement agreements with those three entities, right? So, and then that was when the key accounts folks, um, I don't know if it was in their yearly, you know, review of the, of the, the key accounts identified or during the construction process that it was identified that these other three accounts were building behind the meter and they started questioning it and bringing it forth. But there was nothing that, that sparked the idea that we weren't collecting holistically from anybody, um, else. So, the preferential treatment, and so that the one thing that, that got me in the, you know, is that we can't give preferential rates to classes of customers. And so, unless you get a policy and procedure for everybody, it's inappropriate to do one-off collections of additional capacity fees. Um, so we're in the, again, we're in the process of putting a policy in place that will capture this in the future. Well, wasn't the Mayo issue discovered because, I mean, Mayo has been, has been, um, building improvements at their property for since basically 1995, right? So, and, and wasn't the Mayo issue discovered, uh, because, uh, in 2022, they came in for something unrelated and the, and your accounts person just caught it at that time and actually sent it over to the, the water folks. I don't exactly know how it was uncovered, but it has to do with the, the key counts and the reps and the folks. And it was obvious that they were, they were constructing more. So why couldn't that happen for other property owners or businesses? Because we don't, that's not always visible. Um, and that's, that's my point. So then how can you say that JEA was appropriately collecting these, these fees? I said we were not. Okay. We, historically, we have not been collecting additional capacity charges, um, because we didn't have the computer sophistication, the technology that we have today to be able to capture and understand and go out and do the analysis for each of those that may be exceeding, be exceeding the 20%. Up to what dollar amount does Vicki Cavey have as CEO, independent authority to resolve, um, disputed claims? Would it be her contract amount of $50 million? When you say disputed claims, there's a litig, in the delegation of authority, there's a litigation, um, that she's delegated to resolve litigation matters up to a million dollars. Okay. So what other types of claims is she allowed to resolve and delegated the right to resolve? She can sign a variety of all different agreements as long as they don't exceed $50 million. And the million dollar limit, are those just claims, litigation claims against JEA by third parties? Or does it also include claims where JEA, uh, is the one that's owed the money? It's just as a litig, litigation. It could be either way. So then is it your, your position that if it's a matter that is resolved short of litigation or before litigation commences, that she can go up to $50 million? Yes. And is that an interpretation of the delegation, uh, agreement that the board has authorized her? So there's a delegation of authority, um, policy that we go through. And then there's a provision L that talks about the reputation of JEA. And if it's going to be harmful to the reputation of JEA, there would be a board action. So what, what she's, I believe, testified is, is that unless it's in litigation, she can settle claims of up to, or she can sign contracts that, uh, go up to $50 million. Let me make sure I got everything. I think your microphone's on. Pardon me. Let me, let me start again. Ms. Brooks, you said in your opening five minute comments that you had not witnessed in Ms. Ms. Cavey's tenure, any toxic culture issues. And I'll throw a few things out, such as hollering, screaming, pounding the fist, yelling at an employee, crying, anything like that. You never witnessed. I never witnessed those things other than crying. I have seen my CEO cry when someone was hurt. Um, so when, so, but no, I, all those other things perspective, you, I'm just asking you never witnessed it. I haven't witnessed it. Okay. I just want to put that on the record. One question. And then I'm going to go to Mr. Carlucci. You say you never witnessed it or you never heard any of the employees discuss it or talk about it, even if it was with, uh, Mrs. Mosher. You never, and I'm just trying to get an understanding because the information that has been shared with me that says, I was told that the leadership team knew some of these issues were going on and no one did anything about it. So you're saying, as you're aware, none of that went on. You've never heard of it. That's not what she said. Okay. She said she never witnessed it. Okay. Well, I'm asking. Yeah, no, please. I'm asking the other question. She never witnessed it, but have you heard of that? I'm, and that's a yes or no question. So not until this committee was formed and then you got the letters. I was unaware that any of those things that have been alleged, um, were occurring at JEA. I did not have any personal, um, interaction or no of those things happening. And there was no discussion with you or Ms. Mosher or Ms. Cavey regarding that. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go to Mr. Carlucci for a question, and then we're going to excuse you, Ms. Brooks, and, uh, bring Regina Ross up. Mr. Carlucci. Uh, I have some observations, uh, Mr. Chair. Uh, it's not just a question. So is that okay? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Um, so I, I have sat here for almost two hours to speak and I've waited patiently. And, um, and so I have watched this process. Now I'm going to tell you, I have a list of eight things right here of practices of this city council that I thought about listing that I've watched and observed as the senior council member of this, of this city council. But I did, I decided not to do it because I don't want to embarrass anybody. And I'm not perfect myself. I apologize, Mr. Carlucci, but we have lost our quorum. So if you could hold your comments until we reestablish the quorum, I would appreciate it. Mr. Carlucci. What I was saying is I had been waiting here two hours to speak almost. And as I sat here and listened to all of these charges in these gotcha questions, as if we're a perfect body up here, I listed about eight practices. And it didn't take me very long that this council has that we've done and that I've endured eight practices, things that I think we have done that are toxic, but I'm not perfect. And I'm not going to list them. And I don't want to embarrass anybody, but we're not practicing very well ourselves up here. I find it disturbing that in toxic, um, some of the practices that we have. But anyway, uh, I think what the JEA is dealing with though, is they're dealing with some outside political toxic environment between the social media posts that go up and they're trying to work around that. So, you know, some of the way they may be handling this stuff, maybe trying to keep from stepping on the landmines that are out there. Uh, text smears. I get them or I get them sent to me. People that are getting smeared with text and they're being sent out by hundreds or thousands. They're not fair. So they're trying to navigate through a very difficult issue. And then they come up here and they're getting, uh, they're, we're, we're treating like, we're, we're treating them like a prosecutor, like prosecutors up here. I'm glad we're not getting prosecuted. I gotta tell you, I have found this meeting so far pretty much directionless. I think it's just my opinion. We need to let the auditors complete their work with the JEA on this issue and then let them issue their report. I'll continue when I have a quorum listening to me. I believe that we should let the auditors and the JEA work together to complete the report and figure this issue out. It goes way back prior to the JEA. I don't know if anybody will ever be able to figure out the whole thing. And I don't believe there's any corruption here. And the questioning that I hear going on is as if they're digging for corruption. We're digging for corruption. I think when it's all over with, there might be some embarrassment that fees were not collected. But I also have to say, there may be some embarrassment by some of the organizations that haven't paid these fees, that they didn't step up and say, perhaps we should have been paying some fees. If I don't pay my JEA bill, because I didn't get the bill, doesn't excuse me from paying it. I have to go, I have to go say, hey, I didn't get my bill. I got to pay it. So there's more than one side to this story. But we're like, we're like targeting JEA as if they are all at fault. Now, there may be some fault here, but, but, I think it needs to be given time for it to come out as to what the problem was. I think this committee is holding up what they're trying to do. And I think it's making their environment very difficult to work and get it done. And I think this committee, at some point sooner than later, should be discontinued. And just let the JEA and the auditors do their work and conclude their work and bring us a report and let the JEA board do their work. Do we think that that board is not capable? That board has got some of the finest citizen volunteers that we could ever ask for serving. We think that they're not capable of, of handling this, this job. They're very capable of doing it. But we're getting in their way. And these meetings are getting in their way. And I don't think the way we're practicing things up here are good. And I want, and again, I will not go into that list because I, I don't want to take up any more time. But, but in addition, this may not be the place to do it. But I'm telling you, we're not doing things the right way up here in council. We're hiring attorneys and I don't even know where we're getting them from or where the money's coming from. But I haven't placed so far out on the margin. So I don't, I don't get to know. I don't know. So, but I know one thing I've been around this stuff longer. I'm the senior council person here and I know what I'm talking about. And this, this committee is on the wrong track and people like me that, that come and want to have a chance to speak, have to wait and wait and wait. And I've waited at meetings before where I ran, they ran out of time and I didn't have a chance to speak. Or I got shouted down and I just, I just go on my way. Folks, we are on the wrong track. Please let the process take, let the process work its way through this thing. And, and let's get back to the work of what this council is supposed to be doing. And this is not it, except for the auditors doing what they're supposed to be doing with the JEA. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Carlton. Chief. Thank you so much for coming. And we appreciate it. If we need some follow up, we'll let you know. Mr. Ross, can you come forward? Sure. I'm sorry, Nick. I didn't see your, Mr. Howland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say to Ms. Brooks, thank you for the combined cycle presentation. That satisfied me entirely. I appreciate the detail on it. I appreciate the, kind of all the dates in particular, and your confidence in approval by the PSC. I had also heard from Mr. Holbrook, a similar presentation, but this took it to the new level. So, as far as the combined cycle presentation, I'm satisfied that JEA management and the board made a good combined decision. Let's hope it works out the way we intend. Thanks. Thank you. Ms. Ross, thank you for joining us. I'm going to let Mr. Thiel begin the process, and Ms. Pittman and I will jump in at some point. Oh, you have a statement. I'm sorry. Ms. Ross, pardon me. Please. Good afternoon to the committee chair and fellow committee members and members of council. A fundamental principle that contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the attorney client relationship is the principle of confidentiality. As attorneys, particularly attorneys serving this consolidated government, my colleagues in the Office of General Counsel and I work diligently to foster relationships that will encourage our clients to seek legal assistance and to communicate fully and frankly, even when those conversations involve embarrassing or illegally damaging subject matter. This type of attorney-client relationship is mandatory because as attorneys, we need to evaluate the good, the bad, and the ugly of every issue in order to provide our clients with the best advice and zealous representation. The ability to establish enough trust with a client so that they feel free enough to have a candid conversation with their attorney is sometimes a Herculean effort and takes very little to damage or completely destroy that trust. The principle of confidentiality is given effect in two bodies of law. The attorney-client privilege is established in the law of evidence and the rule of confidentiality is established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege applies in judicial, excuse me, judicial and other proceedings in which an attorney may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client, and the rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. Today I'm here, subject to the committee subpoena, and I intend to cooperate in your investigation to the fullest extent permissible by law. Because of the uniqueness of my situation and appearing here and the complexity surrounding the confidentiality owed to JEA as my former client, I have consulted with the Florida Bar on multiple occasions in efforts to ensure that the information that I provide in response to your inquiries complies with all applicable laws. Additionally, I request the committee's indulgence to allow me to consult with my colleague here and counsel for this matter, Ms. Pinkstaff. In the event that I have any doubt about any legal guardrails in responding to any of your questions, please note that consistent with guidance from the Florida Bar, when in doubt about any question or any information requested, I will err on the side of caution to preserve confidentiality and by asserting privilege. Thank you. Ms. Pinkstaff, will you introduce yourself? Thank you, Chair. Tiffany Pinkstaff, Office of General Counsel. I'm here on behalf of Regina. Okay. Mr. Teal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Ross, when did you leave JEA as Chief Legal Officer? Approximately October of 2025, late October, early November, I believe. And were you physically housed over at JEA headquarters during the time that you were JEA-C-E or CLO? Yes. Yes, I was. Okay. And during your time over there, were you housed on the same floor as the executive suites? I was. That's the seventh floor? Seventh floor. Can you tell the committee what you observed with regard to, let me back up. Did you have an opportunity to observe Jody Brooks's presentation earlier today? I did not watch it completely. I may have seen maybe five minutes of it, but no. Okay. The testimony that she just gave? The testimony that she just gave, yes. Earlier this morning, I watched a portion of the presentation. Okay. But did you observe the testimony that she just gave right before your testimony? I did. Okay. She indicated to the committee that she had seen no issues with regard to Ms. Cavey or her demeanor or the way that she treated folks that rose to the level of being problematic, maybe. It might be paraphrasing or I don't want to put words in her mouth. But based on your observations while you were at JEA, do you have any concerns with regard to Ms. Cavey and her demeanor with regard to any of her employees? Um, and because I didn't report to Ms. Cavey directly, I did work on the floor. I did work with her. I did consult with her. Um, I, an employee may be in the best position to answer the day-to-day interactions with her. I do know that there was, and at least very early on in her coming in, an occasion where, um, Ms. Brooks notified me that her, Kurt Wilson, and another member of staff were going to meet with Ms. Cavey concerning how she communicated with staff kind of conduct issues, but that they were all going to meet with her to discuss that. And did they indicate what happened in order for them to come to that conclusion? It was based on, I think, some interactions between her and Mr. Wilson, but I didn't follow up on it. It was not something that fell within the legal realm, something I wasn't interested in. Um, so I knew that they were going to have a meeting with her regarding conduct, but I didn't follow up on it, didn't ask about it, and I didn't attend the meeting. And, um, did you have conversations with any other JEA employees? Did they come to you, uh, and, um, talk to you individually with regard to, um, issues that they were having with Ms. Cavey? Um, we tried to create a safe space in the legal, in the legal department. We were all seated in the same area on the opposite side. So periodically employees would come in, they felt safe. They came in, they would come in and vent. And so without naming any names, um, or talking about specific circumstances or issues, uh, what were the types of things that employees would, um, would talk to you about? Um, and, and by no means would I betray any of those employees' confidence is under these circumstances. Uh, a lot of times there was a lot of frustration with, with, with getting clear direction, um, dealing with temperaments. Things kind of ran high on the seventh floor. Um, that, that was not unique. Um, a lot of work going on, a very pressured environment. So, uh, when employees didn't feel like they were getting good guidance or they were just kind of frustrated with trying to handle a problem, a lot of times they'd come over and vent, um, dealing with temper, temperaments running high, they'd come over and vent. So that wasn't uncommon. Did they feel like they were getting yelled at? Some. Did they feel like the yelling rose to the level of being abusive? That I can't answer. Um, but certainly unprofessional. Did any employees quit as a result of those interactions with Ms. Cavey? Not that I'm aware of an employee, that being the reason for an employee quitting. Did an employee retire early or leave the organization under any circumstances as a result of interactions that they had with Ms. Cavey? There was an employee that, that left, um, once Ms. Cavey was named, I think as a permanent CEO, um, and, and stated that was a reason for doing so. But again, I didn't know Ms. Cavey, um, um, the employee just disclosed that to me as part of leaving. In fact, that employee said, I will, I will never work a day with her, right? Correct. A former employee. Correct. Former employee. In your role as chief legal officer, did you participate in one-on-one discussions with board members? Uh, sometimes. And how, um, how often would those one-on-one meetings with board members not include you, would you say? Most of the times I was not included. When they did the one-on-ones, I was not included. I made it clear to board members that if they had any legal questions, they were free to contact me, but I was not part of the one-on-one. And how often did board members contact you with legal questions? Not frequently. Um, some would call, some consistently would call if they had questions, but overall, not frequently. How often would board members reach out to other members of the Office of General Counsel that were at JEA? That I can't answer. Um, typically if, um, and I, and I had a policy with the attorneys. In-house, there were, uh, four other OGC attorneys that I supervised. I had a, a policy. Board member could call any, any of the attorneys. They didn't have to filter, um, their communications through me. They could contact anyone. Um, and just to make me aware, if a board member had contacted you, let me know what your, you know, just give me a heads up on it, but go ahead and advise. I trusted the attorneys. They were all very qualified, so I trusted them to give advice. If they had questions, they would raise, they would bring those questions to me. Um, but just to make me aware. You mentioned that there were five attorneys over there, counting yourself. How many are over there now? Two, I believe. Two that are physically housed over there? Two that are physically housed there. And did any of the attorneys that were physically housed over there that are no longer housed over there, uh, leave because of interactions with Ms. Kavey? Not interactions with Ms. Kavey, per se. Um, there was one that left because she just, um, and granted, the attorneys that were hired over there were all very high functioning attorneys. They were senior level attorneys that have very deep resumes, so they're accustomed to working, um, at an executive level, accustomed to doing very complex work. One, um, left just before I left. Um, she cited some reasons, um, she felt like she was being underutilized and, and the professionalism of the, of the agency. How did Ms. Kavey feel about the Office of General Counsel in general? Um, when we first met, um, when she, she, she first came in, um, she was trying to wrap her mind around, because, um, this was the first time that JEA had had this many attorneys assigned in house. So she was trying to wrap her mind around what work we did, um, and how we handled it. So we spent a lot of time, um, or spent a couple of meetings with her explaining what we were doing. Um, we provided her with a task of what all the attorneys were doing to help her, uh, notify board members. We were also, um, had an assignment list, so she would know generally what everyone had, was working on at any time. And if you needed to go to an attorney again, I never made them filter any of the conversations through me as supervisor. You could just go to the attorney and deal with them directly. So, um, there was always a list of who was working on what. Um, the interactions, I, I hadn't heard from any of the attorneys that they had a lot of interactions with, or typically I dealt with the leadership team. When, well, when did you first get involved in the Mayo Clinic issue? I believe I got involved maybe in 2022. Um, I did, I don't have access to the records that I maintained while I was over at JEA. They're the custodian of those records, so I didn't have access to those, but I believe it was around 2022. And how were you alerted to the issue when it, when it was first presented to you? I received an email from Mr. McCollum, James McCollum, who, um, had been working with Mayo. He reached out to me. There was an agreement, um, that they had all been looking at. He asked me if I could take a look at the agreement and interpret the agreement for them. And based upon your review or your, um, discussions with Mr. McCollum, did you have concerns regarding JEA's lack of collecting the capacity fees? So in my conversations with Mr. McCollum, we initially were not talking about the program in total. We were talking specifically about Mayo. Um, and Mayo had taken a position that they did not owe any capacity fees. I believe, uh, staff had, had identified. And again, this problem had been going on, I think, for approximately four years, um, with Mayo specifically. Mayo had taken the position that they didn't owe, um, and customer service had been trying to reach some resolve with them. And then they brought in their council. And that's when I, um, started working with them on the agreement. So me and their council had met a couple of times to discuss their position and our position. Based upon a timeline that Mr. McCollum put together, it looks like your first meeting, at least that's recorded here, an internal meeting on capacity fees was on November 15th of 2022. Does that sound about right? Possibly. And it was a meeting with you and Rebecca Levy and Ed Randolph, Brandon Trubb, Susan West, Deanna Davis, and James McCollum. That's possible. Um, over, over time, we would meet with different staff members. There, there was no one that seemed to be in charge of the, of the, of the issue. It took a while to get somebody who was in the decision-making role in charge of the issue. We were dealing with staff when we first became involved. So there were a number of meetings, um, with staff members. There were meetings with the leadership team. Um, I don't think consistently the same players are always at the table. And at some point, Mr. Teal, can I interrupt you just for a second? Is, is that Ed Randolph, OED's Ed Randolph? Yes, it is. He participated in resolving the- He was a JEA employee. He was a JEA employee at the time. He was a JEA employee at the time. Yes, correct. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah, we tend to bounce around, don't we? I'm getting a little concerned. Um, and at what point in time was it determined that senior leadership needed to be brought into the loop? Fairly early, from my involvement, fairly early. Um, once we, uh, or at least probably prior before I, before I met with, uh, Mayo's attorney. I'm pretty sure I notified someone on the leadership team. And when you notify on an issue like that, someone on the leadership team, do you go straight to the top? Or do you start off with the, the chain of command? Or, or how do you, um, how do you elevate it to the appropriate levels on, on a policy decision like that of the agency? Depending on whose wheelhouse it fell under, if it was operations, I would go to the chief of operations, um, and, and, and start working there, because those person, people were authorized to make some decisions and give some guidance, and they would typically brief the CEO. And so is it your assumption then the, the chief of operations in that instance would elevate it to the CEO? Or would you be, you know, would they just kind of keep it there for a while and then just decide for themselves it needs to go up? They typically would elevate it to the CEO. Um, and I typically have updates with some of the chief staff, so it would have been something that, if it was something that was of importance, we would have probably, and particularly if they had their counsel involved, we would have notified, hey, we're working on this, and, and given periodic static status updates. So it looks like from the timeline that the first time that Jay Stowe attended a meeting about the Mayo issue was on August 21st of 2023, um, which would have been about a year, uh, almost a year after the very first meeting at JEA. Um, when Mr. Stowe attended that meeting, did he already know about the issue? I believe so. And his staff had been working on it prior to, so, uh, there were a couple of members of his leadership team that had been working on the problem prior to, so I believe he was aware when he came into the meeting. And the notes say that, um, the team presented the current state of the capacity fee matter to Jay. Jay agreed that Mayo should be responsible for the excess and capacity fees. Jay also weighed in suggesting that we come up with a resolution short of the total amount owed. Um, well, why was the decision made, I guess, at that point, um, you might have asked you this, sorry, to, um, to bring Jay in? Was there a, an issue going on with, with Mayo that, that needed, um, the weigh-in of the CEO? Or, uh, was this just, hey, and FYI, give us some direction, what, what direction do you want to go? Or did Mr. Stowe himself request to be, uh, involved in that meeting at that point? I'm not sure how the meeting transpired, but it wouldn't have been uncommon, um, for, I think, if, if, if we're the chief of operations to call in the CEO and say, hey, this is what we've, you, you do, they've done the recon work as much as they can to tee up the question and to get guidance on how to proceed. And so, at some point, um, I could probably tell you when, but, um, Charles Moreland got involved. Um, do you remember why he got involved in, in this issue? Because there's a customer service component to the, to the issue. Um, and Sheila Presley, who was his predecessor, had retired, so I believe he came into the meeting, um, as, in his role as chief customer care officer. I believe that's the term. Do you recall having a conversation with Jody Brooks about her providing legal advice to the agency? From the time I got to JEA, I would always say that OGC was responsible for providing legal advice. Um, so, me saying it constantly, um, and, and, and put, to place it in the context, um, when I came into JEA, this was prior to the Zahn trial, but after the, um, indictment. So, part of my role was to come in and help prepare to go into the trial, as well as handled the in-house legal issues and then establish a legal team. So, a big part of that was me reviewing how did we get to where we were or how did JEA get to where it was. A lot of that, you could review some breakdowns and legal advice, um, breakdowns and coordinating efforts. So, I periodically said it to everyone, OGC is the only one allowed to give legal advice. Um, if I heard something that was going down the road of someone giving legal advice, I, if I were involved, I'd cut in and say, hey, OGC gives legal advice. How often did you have to cut in? I did it all the time. How often did you have to cut in with Ms. Brooks? I can't specifically say for Ms. Brooks. Um, and as she mentioned, she had a lot of historical knowledge, a lot of institutional knowledge. So, a lot of times she would, um, bring that knowledge to a meeting, but I would make sure that everyone understood legal advice comes from OGC. So, again, in giving advice or giving a recitation of information she had that was institutional or historic, I would always, if I, if I felt like it was any confusion or if there, there could be any, you know, she had been in that role for a long time and people probably still saw her as the attorney. Um, I made it, tried to make it clear that legal advice had to come from OGC. Did it ever happen in, in your opinion that, that she crossed the line into giving legal advice? I can't give a specific, um, incident, but I can tell you how, what my typical practice was. If it sounded like it was venturing into legal advice, I would cut it off and say OGC. And that, and that's when I'm present, when I was present, I would say OGC is the only entity allowed to give legal advice. Did you hear from anybody else, uh, even when it was not in your presence that, um, that she was giving legal advice? I had heard, heard that. I had heard that from, from employees, but again, I would clarify OGC is authorized to provide legal advice. So, you were here, or you listened rather to, um, to the conversation with Ms. Brooks this morning or this afternoon, uh, with regard to a particular text, um, where Vicki Cavey told Kurt Wilson that Jody says, I do not have to give up my call records. She's, um, she also completely disagrees with Helen and Paul's advice from Regina and, and counsel. And what Ms. Brooks testified to was that the call records were from before, uh, Vicki was CEO. Um, first of all, do you, do you know, um, were you aware of that issue or that, that, um, that text between Ms. Cavey and Mr. Wilson? I was not aware of the text between the two of them. Okay. Were you aware that, um, that Jody had advised that she did not need to give up her call records? I was not aware that she had given her that advice. If it was some advice about a public records request that was made, our office would have, if somebody came seeking, um, uh, legal advice about a public records request and whether or not that needed to be turned over, we would advise the employee, excuse me, would also advise the records department. So, we would usually, if we asked questions, we usually typically gave that advice, whether or not somebody was going behind my back or somebody was looking to get a competing opinion. I'm not sure. She also goes on to say that she also, she being Jody, also completely disagrees with the Helen and Paul advice from Regina and counsel. Do you know what that's about? I don't know which incident that is. I can't put that into context. Just for reference, it was from, the text was from May 14th of 2024. Do you know who Helen and Paul are? I do know who Helen is. Um, Helen, I believe is a former employee who worked with the HR team and I'm with Paul is also, I think was within the HR team, Paul McFadden, I believe. And did you advise the HR team on legal issues? I did, but we also head outside counsel and then, um, uh, eventually hired Christy Gavin, who was responsible for advising HR. You were tasked with drafting a demand letter for Mayo Clinic, right? I believe so. Yes. What direction? Well, you're not gonna answer that. Um, I've reviewed numerous drafts of that letter and the last draft I think was from date, right? September the 3rd of 2025. Do you remember that draft? I don't recall all iterations of the draft. I believe I may have prepared the initial draft. Okay. And did you also make edits to the initial draft? I don't believe I made edits to the initial draft. I believe I submitted, I did the initial draft and submitted it. You submitted it to who? I believe it went to Jody, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. Um, do you recall the draft? Well, the draft has your signature on it. Um, it's a letter from, from you, uh, to Kent, Dr. Thielen, uh, at, uh, at Mayo and you are the signatory on the, on the letter. Um, but you're saying that several other versions of it were drafted even though you hadn't reviewed them? So if, if, if this is the draft, if this is the letter that, um, that we're referencing, this was a letter that was drafted prior to Jody and Vicki meeting with the CEO and CAO for Mayo. And we did a couple of iterations of trying to get a draft prepared, um, at their request. And I believe, I'm not, and, and, and their calculations, if this is the same document, I don't have the document in front of me. If it's the same document, it had calculations in it, or it had a number in it, but staff kept giving us different numbers. And I'm not sure that they ultimately ended up using the demand letter because of the changes in the, the calculations. We kept getting different numbers on the figures. So the initial draft may have been a draft from me to someone, and it may have changed over editing. Were you advised that Ms. Brooks and Ms. Cavey met with leadership at the Mayo Clinic to try and resolve this? We had a meeting to prepare, um, and I was made aware that we had a meeting to discuss the issue, and I was made aware that Vicki and Jody were going to go over and meet with Mayo, Mayo's, um, execs to see if they can reach a resolve. But this was after a few meetings with Mayo. And was it, was it intended that JEA was going to forgive all of the capacity fees that Mayo owed to JEA prior to August of 2025? Was that part of the preparation? Could you give me one second? Sure. So, Mr. Teal, what I don't want to do is get into the, the gray area of, as part of those meetings, the advice that we were given. So, if you could rephrase the question. Did you ever see the, the letter that was drafted to Dr. Thielen, signed by Vicki Cavey, that expressed that Mayo will not be charged for any capacity fees until such time as Mayo exceeds 20% over a newly established volume calculation. And that newly established volume calculation is as of August of 2025. Did you ever see that letter? I did not. Were you aware that that type of settlement discussion was, uh, had occurred? I became aware. At what point did you become aware? After the meeting. Um, we helped, um, prior to Jody and Vicki going to the meeting, I was checking in with, uh, with Jody to make sure they had all the information because we were gathering information for them. We were putting things together. Um, there may have been some, uh, factual information we were providing as well. So, we were getting prepared, helping them prepare for the meeting. So, I had checked in with Jody a couple of times to make sure she had all the information that she needed. Um, following the meeting, uh, Jody and I met weekly to do updates. I believe I checked in with her after to ask how the meeting went and that's when she described the course of action that they had decided to take. Did you see any legal issues with that course of action? I had questions. I had questions because it was different from the preparation that we had all discussed prior to the meeting. So, I had a lot of follow-up questions. And did those follow-up questions get answered? Some. Some. So, there was some concern, um, with making sure we had enough information, um, so that we could advise on how to proceed. And did you ever provide JEA with any advice as to whether or not the settlement? Well, first of all, would you characterize that discussion? And even though you didn't see the letter that ultimately resulted in that letter, would you describe that as a settlement of the outstanding issues, uh, with regard to Mayo Clinic? Without seeing the letter, um, and what it all entails, I can't answer that question. Rebecca? Give that to JEA. So, ignore the date at the top because it had the auto-populate, um, so you can see that I printed it on June the 7th. Um, but I will represent to you that the date on the actual letter was from September the 15th of 2025? September 16th, 2025. My apologies. Based on the letter, it looks like, uh, they were trying to reach a resolution. So, it, it states in the second page, if the above captures your understanding of what we discussed, we can have one of our legal team memorialize our agreement. So, it's characterized as an agreement, right? Uh, uh, their previous conversation looks like it, they reached an agreement. Um, the details of it, I was not aware of. The point, I guess my question to you is, would you characterize this agreement as a settlement of the disputed amount that Mayo Clinic owed JEA with regard to the capacity fees? According to this document, it says a resolution of the issue, a resolution of the matter. Were you surprised that the, when, when, when you were later told about the results of the meeting, were you surprised that, uh, that's the direction that it went based upon your preparation with them ahead of time? Yes, I was surprised by that. Yeah, you heard, um, some of my questions with Ms. Brooks earlier about that, and I, I, I read a passage from one of the, the many, um, memoranda that, uh, that staff put together with regard to the evaluation of this issue, and that, um, staff was adamant, uh, that Mayo pay something. Um, is that your recollection? Yes. Um, there have been emails and, and again, this issue under, under J staff was saying the same thing, that we need to figure this out and Mayo should be responsible for paying. And what were some of the reasons why, uh, that was important to staff, uh, that, um, that Mayo, uh, pay some amount, uh, in, in response to, uh, their capacity fees? Because other customers were paying, um, and, and, and it was what they believed was owed. It was something they were obligated to collect. In fact, there were three other instances where, um, where industries had been required to go back and pay, uh, capacity fees after they exceeded their 20%, or at least three, right? I believe so. You requested that Neighbors Giblin, uh, do a memorandum on, I guess, let me read you the specific question. Uh, the specific question is, is what legal parameters should guide JEA in crafting a potential plan regarding collection of additional water and sewer capacity charges prescribed by Section 105G of the adopted JEA water and sewer tariff do, do from the Mayo Clinic? Do you recall that question being posed to Neighbors Giblin? I do. And was that question drafted by you? Probably me along with Brad Bultice who assisted. Okay. And in that opinion, well, first of all, did you advise JEA on the settlement agreement as it applied to this, this memo? That would be privileged. The fact of whether you apply, advise them or not, is privileged? Okay. How long after the, uh, you said that you left in approximately what, October of 2025? About, yes. Okay. Do you remember when in October of 2025? Not exactly. It was early October. Okay. So the, the letter that you have with you right there is dated, not June 7th, but it's dated, um, actually September 16th of 2025. So you're only at JEA a couple of weeks, uh, after that letter, right? Right. I, this is the first time I've seen this draft. Okay. But you, have you seen earlier drafts? I, I recall earlier drafts. I, I, I think I made the initial draft, but it, that's not the, that's not it. Okay. Let me ask you to look at another document then, Rebecca. Tell me if you recognize this draft. This looks like my initial draft. Um, and, and let me clarify. This looks like the initial draft that we prepare for Jody and Vicki to go meet with, prior to Jody and Vicki going to meet with, uh, Mayo. Do you, you. Because that's why it's a demand letter. At some point we figured we needed to issue a demand. So this was the draft that was prepared. Um, if this second, if the first document that you gave me is an iteration of this, you'll see that they're two very different documents. This, the, the, the initial draft was a demand and that was prepared for them to go meet with Mayo. Now that initial, or the one, um, dated, um, September 3rd, 2025, that's just the latest version of it. Um, there were numerous versions of it. Uh, that's, uh, and I think the earliest, uh, was around March of 2025. Does that sound about right? Seems early, but possible. Okay. And, and we may, it, it looks like we had, uh, cause we had communicated with Mayo, uh, via, uh, the memo that I, that the response memo to Mr. Debenow's, um, some of the information from that memo may be included here in this one as well. The demand. Then the, um, the September 16th one, I know you hadn't seen that, uh, before now, but the idea of, well, let me, let me ask you this. That letter purports to resolve the issue with Mayo Clinic by wiping the slate clean, for lack of a better phrase, prior to August of 2025, right? That's what it looks like. And then it establishes a baseline for any development after August of 2025 to be applied to Mayo going forward, correct? That's what it looks like. Yes. And did you, since you had never seen the terms of that, um, that particular agreements prior, I mean, is it, is, is now the first time you've seen the terms of it? I think so. I don't recall seeing this at all. I didn't prepare. I don't recall repairing, preparing this. Okay. So the Neighbors Giblin memo talks about, uh, that JEA should consider the following when crafting any resolution regarding the additional capacity charges due from Mayo. Do you recall that? Yes. And, um, do you have that document in front of you? The document from Neighbors Giblin? Yeah. I do not have that in front of me. Okay. That one I did not make a copy of. But one of the issues was that any settlement agreement or resolution with regard to the Mayo capacity should avoid impermissible cost shifting that could result in an attack to the validity of the additional capacity charges. What's your understanding of what that means? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? Uh, avoid impermissible cost shifting that could result in an attack to the validity of the additional capacity charges. And then it goes on to say arbitrary rate reductions or problematic exemptions from the additional capacity charges imposed in the tariff could result in higher rates or fees being shifted to others and support an argument that such fees are invalid in violation of the requirement to maintain just and equitable user fee rates and the dual rational nexus test for a valid impact fee. So to avoid going into anything privileged, um, or any advice that I gave to JEA after consulting with Neighbors Giblin, what I can describe is generally under the statute, the Impact Fee Act, um, you're required to collect capacity fees in accordance with your terms, rules, and obligations. So we were trying to keep in line with, we were making, we were making sure that we were keeping in line when, when, when I was talking to Neighbors Giblin, hey, can you give me the guardrails for what the statute requires and how we can proceed? So based on my understanding of the legalities of impact fees, it's a fee that is assessed to an individual or an entity to offset the impacts of their development, to, to offset the impacts of their development because that should be borne by the person causing the impact as opposed to the public at large. So generally under the statute, yes, the developer is responsible for the impact that they create. So if, if a developer, and so I, let me back up, so that, is that the reason why there's the 20% rule in the tariff that says that if you increase your capacity over 20%, then you should have to pay the additional impact fees that are caused by your increased development? I honestly can't answer why that 20% is in the tariff. That had been there the entire time I had been there and I hadn't gone back to look at historically how it ended up in there, so I can't answer that question. I guess the theory is that you're going to pay based upon your development at the time that you permit it, right? The theory under the statute is you are responsible for your impact on growth. Okay, so then if you grow above a certain amount beyond what you thought you were going to do, you should have to offset whatever additional impacts you have on the system, correct? Generally speaking, that's the way the JEA tariff is written. Okay, so and one of the reasons for that is, as Neighbors Giblin gets into, is because you shouldn't shift to others the cost of your additional development or your additional use of the system, right? Yeah, Neighbors Giblin is, their memo was based on the statute and looking at the way the tariff was drafted. So it was in keeping in line with the statute as well as this, you need to make sure that the entity that's responsible for the growth is the entity that pays. So if part of Mayo's increase based upon their development is resulting in downstream negative impacts on residential users or creating nuisance conditions, then would it be impermissible or improper to shift the cost for correcting those problems on the rate payers? That would cause me, the way you phrased the question, I'd have to speculate a bit, and I'd rather not do that. So is there a different way you could ask the question, phrase the question? Sure. So hypothetically, if a user grew, and the result of the growth of their use on the system or their reliance on the system is creating a negative effect on the rest of the system, it would be improper to shift the cost of correcting that negative effect onto the rate payers as opposed to the entity that created it in the first place? Correct. And that's in line with the statute. Okay. And so that's in essence what neighbors Giblin was getting at with this first one was is that it would potentially jeopardize your entire tariff structure. Yeah. All right. Yeah. I mean, you'll, you'll have to take a look at the opinion and take it for. For what it says. For what it says. Okay. So I read it to say that it may jeopardize your entire tariff system if you were to impermissibly shift the burden caused by over development onto the rate payers, just for the record. Another concern that they have is that there's a potential due process or equal protection challenge that would result from forgiving one entity and require other entities to, to have to comply. Do you think that there could potentially be a, uh, uh, due process or, um, equal protection issue if certain companies had paid the capacity fee, uh, when they exceeded the 20% and then other entities be just forgiven for, for that? For that, you'll have to take the memo as drafted. I can't weigh in on that. Do you agree that there could potentially be a problem with a governmental entity treating one regulated customer differently than another regulated customer on due process or equal protection grounds generally? Generally that could be an issue. The other issue that they bring up is, is that that authorized, uh, any authorized or de facto exemptions shall serve a legitimate public purpose. An exemption from payment of the additional capacity charges must serve a legitimate public purpose to avoid a challenge of appropriating public funds indiscriminately for the benefit of private parties. What do you, what do you think that means? You'll have to take the memo as, as drafted, but again, the memo is, is in light of the impact fee act. So some of those provisions come from the impact fee act. That's statutory. That's statutory. Okay. So the statute doesn't allow the government to forgive, uh, a tariff or a, a, a impact fee for one private entity and discriminate against other private entities that have paid similarly, uh, have paid similar fees. Right. The, the, the statute speaks for itself. Um, but you'll have to, uh, again, you have to insert the facts into the analysis based on the statutory language. Okay. Mr. Teal, can I just, for a layman. So I think your opinion was you can't negotiate a deal with one entity without understanding the entire issue and treating everybody the same way. So the, the question that Mr. Teal read from the memo, we were looking at comprehensively, um, um, the, the program and also the Mayo issue. So you got to treat them all the same way. Correct. And to try to negotiate. You have to treat them all the same. You got to treat them all the same and, and, and, and to, and to do something with one before you understand the entire picture is not correct. Let me speak generally. Please. Under the statute, you have to, when you collect the capacity fees, you have to collect them in accordance with the statute. So some of the language in the statute provides for how, um, another layer of the capacity fees in this case dealt with the bonding, um, documents and their resolutions in the bonding, um, the bonding documents that deal with the capacity fees because it's pledged as a revenue stream. So the covenants combined with the statute. Okay. I'm done, Mr. Teal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Ms. Ross, there are both statutory, potential statutory issues and also common law legal issues that come into play when it comes to appropriate collection or establishment or use of a, of a, uh, or enforcement of a, uh, of a tariffing scheme, correct? Correct. Ms. Ross, are you familiar with JEA's water and sewer system revenue bond resolution from 2001? I've seen it. I can't recite from it, but I've seen it. And are you aware that it has a provision in it that says that JEA shall at all times charge and collect fees and charges for use or sale of capacity or service of the system? Are you familiar with that provision? If it's in the, if it's in there, it'll, it speaks for itself. Do you think that that requires JEA to appropriately collect capacity fees or, or, or comply with its tariff requirements in order to satisfy its obligations or potentially, if it didn't do that, that it would potentially subject JEA to concerns brought by the underwriters to the bonds? Well, that cause for a lot of speculation. Um, the provision is pretty clear. It don't have to speak for itself and without, uh, having some additional factors. I couldn't make a, I couldn't speculate on the outcome of that. Based on your understanding of the Mayo Clinic issue, um, was, was litigation ever contemplated as a, as a way to, uh, collect the, uh, the fees? I can't answer that. Did Mayo Clinic ever say that it would, would litigate in order to avoid having to pay those fees? In my conversations with their opposing counsel, uh, Mr. Devedow, we did not discuss litigation. We were, we were both trying to understand each other's sides. We were both collecting documents and trying to reach a amicable resolve. A lot of it, again, uh, because we had had changes in administration on both sides, uh, probably not the best record keeping on both sides. A lot of it was gathering information and making sure we understood each other's position. Um, and once we, we were all clear on each other's position, how to proceed. You heard Ms. Brooks' testimony with regard to the settlement authority that the CEO has or was delegated, um, to resolve claims. She indicated that if it was in litigation, it was up to a million dollars, uh, but otherwise it was up to 50 million dollars. Did you hear that testimony? I did hear that testimony. Oh, and did you ever provide any legal advice to JEA with regard to Ms. Cavey's ability to settle the Mayo Clinic issue, uh, herself as opposed to requiring board action? That's privileged. Okay. In your opinion, um, would this fall under the category of, uh, a litigation settlement or a contract settlement? When you say this, you mean the Mayo Clinic issue? Does it fall? Would it fall under, well... I'm sorry. Two, two buckets, right? Yeah, clarify the question. There's a, there's a, there's a up to a million dollar bucket and there's an up to 50 million dollar bucket. In your opinion, would the, the Mayo Clinic capacity fee issue fall under the one million dollar bucket or the 50 million dollar bucket? I can't answer that question. Without getting into any specific claim, the up to one million dollar bucket, does litigation have to actually be filed in order for her to settle a claim up to a million dollars? And I'm, I don't have the, the, the delegation in front of me. Um, if I recall correctly, it does reference litigation. Um, it references, as far as the settlement authority, it does reference litigation. Um, there's nothing in there that says, if you're looking for pre-trial or, it doesn't specifically, it's just a general term, litigation. So then does that, so does litigation have to be contemplated in order to be limited to the one million dollars? Without the tariff, I mean, without the delegation in front of me, or I don't want to speculate too far out. Um, if you have a copy of it, I take a look at it, but I don't have it in front of me, the delegation in front of me. I do not have a copy. Um, regardless of what it says, does the ability to settle up to a million dollars, uh, might depend on what it says, uh, are only, are those only claims that are against JEA by third parties, or does it also apply to claims that JEA has that it, it may be owed money in trying to collect? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Sure. Does it require JEA be the plaintiff or the defendant, or either, in order for her to settle up to a million dollars, and litigation is contemplated, or litigation is, is whatever litigation? Plaintiff or defendant, it's a litigation. Okay, so either one? Yes. It doesn't, the, the, the tariff doesn't specify who initiated it. It doesn't, yeah, it's not that specific. Okay. But there's also an exclusion for claims that may negatively affect JEA beyond the one claim that is being determined, right? That's correct. Okay, can you explain to me what that exclusion is, just generally, under the delegation agreement, without having it in front of you? Without having it in front of me, uh, I, I'd call it a catch-all provision. If there's something, even though it's not up to a million dollars, but could impact the reputation of JEA, that would be something that would fall in the board's purview. And who makes a determination as to whether something falls into that category? The initial determination would be the CEO, because the authority's delegated to the CEO. Okay, so Vicki would decide if something is going to negatively affect the reputation of JEA? Initially, yes. What if she's wrong? I can't answer that. That's, that's, that's for the board to determine, because it's the board's delegating its authority. Are you aware of any severance package with a former employee that contains a contractor, uh, in, you know, in, structured as an independent contractor to keep somebody on the payroll? I don't recall being involved in a settlement agreement that involved a contractor, a contractor provision. Right. So keeping somebody on as a, as a consultant or a contractor or something along those lines, where they sit at home and collect a paycheck while doing nothing. Well, um, I, I can speak generally for the chief executives there, uh, when they exit the organization, there's a period of transition where to assist in smooth transitioning, um, for the agency, because those people are working on high level projects. There's sometimes a provision that allows for a smooth transition for them to brief the successor or brief someone on staff about issues that they're turning over and be available to answer questions. That type of provision has been in several of the contracts, separation agreements. Are you familiar with Raynetta Marshall's severance package? I did not work on Raynetta Marshall's, uh, our outside counsel, so I'm not familiar with it. Have you been asked to review any severance agreement with a former employee? Mr. Chair, this seems to be outside the scope of the charge. Mr. Teal. Ms. Brooks answered questions about it with no objection from counsel, so the door's already been opened on it. I know that that opens the door just because he answers those questions. It's got to be part of the charge. So the charge asked the sick committee to investigate. Well, actually, I take it back. It was brought up during Ms. Brooks's testimony. I think my answer was that the potential was that it creates a toxic work environment due to the fact that certain employees get certain packages and other employees don't. There was some indication by one of the employees that had a requested date for retirement and was not given the same package that other employees were, so I think it does adhere to the charge of the sick committee. Mr. Pinkstaff, I tend to agree. If this creates a toxic culture by treating employees differently, I think it's worth asking the question. Mr. Fackler, you'd like to say something? I would. Just so we're clear, you're limited to your charge, and what is connected to the charge is how I read both the charge and the charter as to what you can do. Where those lines are are not crystal clear. I don't think the previous discussion related to that opens the door necessarily. It's not a privilege issue where a cat is out of the bag. Whether previous employees got benefits, I don't see if there's no connection been made to how that's toxic. I would think these were out of bounds. And I also, again, wonder if that Ms. Ross is the right person to answer these questions without waiving that privilege. I would request that we move on. Mr. Teal, let's move on from this. Thank you. If we want to bring up back Ms. Moser for that, that's always an option. Mr. Ross, that's all the questions I have. But if there's anything that you would like to say that I didn't think to ask you, I would ask you, is there anything that you would like to say of your own accord? Well, I don't think anyone envies the position that I'm in, so certainly being reserved in responses is probably the smarter course for it. I do want to reach out to the committee here and thank you. I know you recognize the difficult position that I'm in as well as all the employees, my colleagues. It's a very difficult position to be in to give testimony about a former client, particularly within consolidated government. As I mentioned before, we work very hard to foster trusting relationships and we don't want to be in a position where that delicate balance is disrupted. So we recognize the uniqueness of this committee's work. And again, I will participate as required and participate fully to facilitate the board's work. So I appreciate your indulgence and all the care that's been taken around the gravity of the situation. I would just say, as the chair, I was completely out of the loop on the significance of all this until I've had multiple discussions with you and Mr. Thiel to understand privilege and and your testimony here and what we've done to try to get the information that we need. So I greatly appreciate you appearing and being as candid as you can, understanding there are there are issues that you should not comment on. So, Ms. Pittman, did you have anything? Okay, please go ahead. First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Ross, for being here and meeting with me as well. I have several concerns regarding staff and I just want to know, I know you briefly talked about it that you were aware of some shouting in, but did any of the staff, you know, say exactly what repercussions may have happened? I know you mentioned one young lady retired right after a situation. Can you talk a little bit more about the staff and what they experienced? Well, what I will describe as far as the environment, it is a challenging environment in which the employees work and they do an amazing job under the circumstances. Most of them do an amazing job under the circumstances. It can be chaotic. The work environment can be chaotic. Some employees would stop by again. We tried to make legal a safe space and make people feel comfortable. One, that's part of fostering the trust relationship. If there's something out there, you see it, you feel comfortable giving us a heads up to see if it's something we can do to avoid running afoul of a law or a practice or a policy. So people would come in and stop by and with the abrupt change in leadership, well, I'll go back. When I came in, JEA seemed to be, the staff seemed to be calming down. But when we were going back into the trial, it was almost like a PTSD response where a lot of employees were just, it brought back all of the issues of the fail sale. And once we got beyond the trial, things were kind of tampering down. But then we had the abrupt change in leadership with the CEO, which again brought back the anxiety that you could feel throughout the organization, the uncertainty. When they brought in the new CEO on an interim basis, people were trying to wrap their minds around that. And it just seemed like a lot of change was going on. It was constant change. It just felt like a period of constant change. And for an organization that had been through constant change for the past 10 years, it was just a level of anxiety. So people were anxious. I think following the trial, I had read an article that Nate Monroe had written, and he mentioned that JEA had adopted a cultural silence during the Zion era where if they saw something, it was best to keep your head down and not say anything. And it looked like it was headed back in that direction where people came by the event. I would ask, is there something you'd like me to do? No, just came by the event. They were concerned about speaking up and being retaliated against. So let me ask you this. You were there before Ms. Cavey or Ms. Mosier came? Yes. To that department. Can you explain to me what the culture was before and after the arrival of both of them? So again, just prior to, Mr. Stowe had run into some issues with the board, had run sideways with the board. And again, the uncertainty and anxiety was starting to tamper up. And then when the new leadership team came in, and the new leadership team seemed to be struggling with gelling, getting information out, seating people, getting it acclimated. So there were issues when there were misinformations or information coming from different directions or not getting enough information. Or it was clear that the leadership team was struggling to gel and provide staff with what they needed. So staff was beginning to get frustrated with trying to execute and carry out orders and get things done. But still, again, when aware of things that were probably not running well or not running smooth or probably something that should be brought to someone's attention, staff's, a lot of staff members position was, I'm going to keep my head down and keep my mouth closed. I'm going to keep my head down and do my work. People were concerned about their livelihoods as they should have been. Right. And so, and you may not know this or not, I don't know if you do, but the one of the young ladies who was, may have been or may make next in line in terms of the position of leadership, do you know if she made that known to anybody at the board or anyone within JEA that she was interested in that position? Yes, she did. She did. Did she ever get an interview that you know of? No. For the CEO position, no, there were no interviews. The board made the selection. So, and maybe you can help me with this. Let me rephrase that. There were no public interviews. There were no interviews that I was aware of. There were no public. Okay. And so, did the board have any other interviews that you're aware of or did Ms. Cavey automatically get the job? Do you know how that process worked? The board would have had to conduct its interviews in a public setting if it were board interviews. Individual members may have spoken with Ms. Cavey as a candidate for the position. Ms. Cavey had come in as a special liaison to the board. And once Jay Stowe resigned and JEA and Jay separated, they brought, Ms. Cavey was there as the special liaison. They appointed her as the interim and then eventually appointed her as the CEO. And that's their charge under the charter. Okay, so. But there were no public interviews. That's what I want to just make sure I understood what you just said. Was that the same for Ms. Mosher as well? Do you know the process of how? I don't know how Ms. Mosher was vetted. I know that she was named as the Chief Human Resources Officer, but I'm not sure how she was recruited or vetted. But you're not aware of, or are you aware of anybody internally that might have been interested in her position? That I'm not aware of. Have you heard or seen where staff have inquired about additional resources for their departments and weren't able to receive, and or were they doing two jobs at one time and not getting paid for it? I believe there was a period of time where employees were just frustrated. And that, I mean, again, we would just listen to people vent. If there was nothing that they wanted me to do, people would just come in and talk. I had heard employees saying that their areas were understaffed. I had heard employees mention that they were, they felt like they were doing more work than they were being compensated for. So I had heard those complaints. And so how did you, how do you think that impacted the productivity in certain departments that were very valuable? Well, it was certainly a challenge. That's probably why they were venting about it. It created some challenges for them. And, and chair, that's, I mean, I have, I just wanted to see what you said, aligned up with staff that I have spoken with and staff that have left JEA as well. And so I am, I'm very concerned about the culture now. And where do we go from here? You know, I'm looking forward to hearing and seeing the surveys. And I hope that we can resolve some of the issues. And of course, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that there are some issues that need to be addressed. And, and, and we all have, I'm not saying that JEA is the only one to have, because they're not, we need to look in some of the areas that we have. But at the end of the day, unfortunately, it has caused chaos in the leadership and how procedures were done. When you have institutional knowledge, I heard Ms. Brooks says that she has long-term institutional knowledge. And when you have staff that has been there a long time and they look maybe for the next, you know, transition, and it appears that they may have just been overlooked. And I just think, you know, if we're going to be transparent and do the work that we're supposed to do and are the staff are expected to do, it's kind of hard to do your work when you haven't given an opportunity. So I didn't know how the process of Ms. Cavey, I know she was there at one time. And then, you know, I've heard that there were other individuals that were interested in some of the leadership positions and did not get an opportunity, did not get an opportunity to fill out application, did not get an opportunity to talk to anyone. So I think that is totally unfair. And it wasn't transparent. So I wanted to ask you how that process was done and had you heard about any complaints from the employees. So I'm anxious to sell them to find out how that works out and compared to the surveys that JEA is doing. So I think we've kind of beat this enough today. We haven't talked about little fish and big fish. But, you know, at the end of the day, as you know, we're about being fairness, being fair, and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a mistake that was done internally. And, you know, I'm concerned about, I'd asked earlier about the, the executive account, account executives. What's their responsibility? You know, how did this happen? Why are we here? So I don't know if you can answer any of those questions. But, you know, I wanted to hear from both sides. I asked Ms. Brooks the same thing. And I'm asking you as well, how did we get here? And to be fair, to address your question through the chair, it may be best, because again, you're getting my perception of how the process and how the vetting take, it'd be that the board would be the best to answer how they vetted the CEO and and outside of what happened in the public. Any conversations, but board members would be the best in the best position to address your questions. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to reinforce something I said before. There is some data out there right now. The, the big survey that they conducted of their 2,300 employees had some areas at the end of it where employees could freelance. I've had calls from those who did freelance. I think it's very important that that information goes to the board in a public setting and not one-on-one meetings where no one understands what's happened. And the, the law firm is, is apparently still conducting interviews. That's great. But if that information is only shared with the board and the public doesn't understand what's going on, that's not good. This is a public utility. It's different from the other authorities as far as I'm concerned. And we should, we should understand all these things, particularly when we raise these issues and they say there's nothing there. Can I make one other point? I know Ms. Ross offered to meet with all the board members about some of the things that you've seen over there in your tenure there. How many of the the seven have agreed to meet with you? I'm not asking for names. I just asked for a number. Oh my God. We, we have taken a hard look at this confidentiality rule and we are being incredibly cautious about it as a result. We have met with several and I'll leave it at that. Not all seven. We have met with several and I'll leave it at that. Okay. For me. Had you received any complaints either verbal or written from leadership staff regarding work environment as it pertains to culture? From leadership, I can't think of a specific incident right now. I can't recall specific. I couldn't hear what you said. I'm sorry. From leadership, I can't think of a specific incident where I received a complaint. Do you know of any incidents that there were complaints and nothing got resolved? They just closed the complaint without even getting back to a staff person? Do you mean a formal complaint? Yes. I'm not aware of any. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you again Ms. Ross for coming and I see no one else in the queue. We're adjourned.