Jax Councilmembers say mayor put ‘political pressure’ on legal memo for Confederate monument removal

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Jacksonville City Councilmembers believe the city’s general counsel received “political pressure” from Mayor Donna Deegan on his legal memorandum opinion regarding the removal of a Confederate monument at Springfield Park.

Deegan faced backlash after using private contributions and not seeking city council’s approval to remove a Confederate monument on Dec. 27.

At the request of Council President Ron Salem, the city council held a workshop Thursday regarding the office of general counsel’s legal memorandum opinion about the removal of the monument and the mayor’s authority over city parks.

Thursday’s meeting marked the third time members of the council formally questioned General Counsel Michael Fackler and the mayor’s office regarding the matter.

Fackler presented his original opinion memorandum to councilmembers Jan. 2. He then presented an updated legal memorandum opinion Jan. 16.

Senior Assistant General Counsel Jason Teal, who assisted Fackler with his updated opinion, said Fackler called him to his office and said he “got out of a difficult conversation with the mayor” and they “need to take another look” at what Fackler needed to present to city council in the final opinion memo.

Councilman Nick Howland said that “if there was ever any doubt that this opinion was written to justify a decision that was already made,” he thinks the conversation with Fackler that Teal brought up “puts those doubts to rest.”

Councilman Kevin Carrico said that he thinks the mayor’s administration “knew what was gonna happen if they lined it all up and asked permission” from the city council.

“It sounds like the Office of General Counsel folded due to political pressure from the mayor to come up with a decision that they wanted, and it’s going to be hard to earn that trust back,” Carrico said.

“We need leaders that look before they leap and don’t just go out and do what they want and then come back and try to justify it,” he continued.

Howland said this is not a “monument crisis, we have an abusive power crisis here.”

“We’re the policymaking body and it’s our duty to look into this,” Howland said. “Abuses of power unchecked, can lead to abuses of power, again, not only within this administration, but perhaps within the next.”

Fackler said he discussed the updated document on Jan. 12 and Salem said he, as council president, “had privilege” over the document, which he did not see until Jan. 16.

“I feel like you violated my privilege and I think that’s pretty clear,” Salem said.

Howland said there have been opinions from former Jacksonville general counsels and “decades of precedent,” all stating the Confederate monument was protected and that a Certificate of Appropriateness was needed because it was a “contributing structure to the Springfield Historic District.”

Howland said in Fackler’s original opinion that was presented to city council Jan. 2, it said the monument is “not protected” and that a Certificate of Appropriateness was “not needed because it’s not a contributing structure.”

In Fackler’s updated opinion, Howland said it stated that the monument is a “contributing structure, but now [the mayor’s administration is] focused on actions that mean a COA is not required.”

Fackler admitted to making an “error.”

“I did not consult the people who work in this area, and it was my error in relying on that bill summary instead of digging into the code and so forth,” Fackler said.

In a press release from Tuesday, Deegan called some council members’ concerns regarding the monument removal “political retribution and gamesmanship.”

“It has been nearly one month since the last Confederate monument was removed from Springfield Park,” the press release said. “Yet some members of the City Council continue to take political cheap shots and try to create distractions to undermine the mayor.”

Howland told Florida’s Voice he and his colleagues’ were “shocked and surprised” by the mayor’s memo.

“What we’re litigating is executive overreach and how a decision, which clearly had been treated differently for decades, suddenly allowed the mayor to take what we believe was the proper action of city council,” Howland said.

During Thursday’s meeting, Salem said Dec. 27, when the monument was removed, there was one police officer on site. He said documents indicated the officer was there for a park project, “there was no indication of what was going to be occurring at that park.”

Salem asked Sheriff T.K. Waters if he was aware that the monument removal was occurring.

“I was not aware,” Waters said. “I found out, I believe the next day, or maybe a day after that had taken place.”

Waters said that if he had known what was going to take place, he would have “made sure that everything was in order” and made sure there were enough officers onsite, “considering the volatile nature of what was happening.”

“Because you’re really putting a young police officer out there by himself, you put him in some, you know, in a risky position and we never do that,” Waters said.

The sheriff said it takes “just a small incident to create a major riot type situation” in a scenario such as the removal of the monument.

“At the least, we would have had a bike unit, some officers out there to control traffic, and officers out there to make sure that if something does spark, it takes one in most cases, we could intervene immediately.”

Salem said he finds it “deeply disturbing” that the sheriff did not know what was going on.

Chief Administrative Officer Karen Bowling explained the administration’s thought process behind not notifying the sheriff’s office about the situation was that “the police was the police are very, very busy.”

“In hindsight, I have all the respect in the world for the sheriff, so I would have called them,” Bowling said.

Councilman Kevin Carrico said that in not contacting the sheriff and having more officers on site, the “safety of the citizens were definitely jeopardized.”

A previous statement from the mayor’s office said the removal cost $187,000, which was made available through a grant that the Jessie Ball duPont Fund and anonymous donors made to 904WARD. 

Howland told Florida’s Voice that ACON Construction was the construction firm that the city contracted with to remove the monument and 904WARD funded the removal.

Howland said in this type of scenario, the Public Works Department needs to issue an administrative award to procurement before the department can contract with ACON Construction under the city’s ordinance code, which Howland said didn’t happen.

He said that the procurement office submitted a notice to the mayor and Public Works Department that an improper procurement had occurred, or “illegal procurement.”

Howland said that there is a process for the procurement to be cured that requires the mayor’s signature, which Deegan signed Jan. 16.

“The action took place on December 27, so we’re talking about three weeks later,” Howland said. “The action was a hasty action, acting on incomplete information and totally under the cover of night.”

Carrico asked Council Auditor Kim Taylor how often her office receives an improper procurement memo.

“I understand that there have been them, but they are infrequent,” Taylor responded. 

It was established Thursday that the City of Jacksonville rightfully owned the Confederate monument at Springfield Park.

Councilman Mike Gay said that since 904WARD are not the owners of the monument, under state law, they did not have the authority to contract construction work with a contractor for the removal.

“And ACON, as a licensed general contractor, should know, is supposed to know, you don’t accept contracts from an unlicensed contractor or a entity that’s not the owner,” Gay said. “So there’s big, big problems there.”

Taylor explained that there was an “uptick” for security purposes with the contract, which mayor Deegan’s office previously called a “zero-dollar contract,” that will cost the city and taxpayers $903.

Regarding the money that the monument removal will cost the city and taxpayers, Fackler said he “was not aware” of that until Thursday’s meeting.

Councilman Joe Carlucci asked if a new opinion memo is needed since it was not included that the services would cost the city any money.

“I think we would need to make sure to look at the analysis and how that plays […] And I’ve learned from my mistake that I need to consult with my deputies and so forth to make sure that we, and the experts in gov ops, make sure that we are right on that front,” Fackler responded.

Fackler said he is “committed” to gaining “trust” back from the city councilmembers.

Salem said he thinks that “no one should have put [Fackler]” in the position of handling this situation just shortly after he was appointed as the general counsel by Deegan in September.

“And I think it caused you to make some, I think mistakes frankly, but it’s good that I think you’re realizing them and I think I will work with you on my bill,” Salem said.

In response to the removal of the Confederate monument, Salem recently proposed legislation that would change the city’s ordinance code to give city council authority regarding the acceptance of gifts, bequests, and other donations on behalf of the city, rather than just the mayor.