By Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid took another step to replace funding cuts by Gov. Rick Scott, while ethics legislation moved toward full City Council June 14.
The Council Rules Committee met Monday to discuss a full agenda that included proposed ordinances to establish a court fee to fund foreclosure assistance through JALA and to provide structure for the City’s ethics code.
City Council member Kevin Hyde introduced bill 2010-766 to establish a $40 court fee on felonies, misdemeanors and criminal traffic infractions to provide assistance for foreclosure programs for the disadvantaged through JALA.
An amendment to the original ordinance requested the fee be increased to $50 because of recent budget cuts for JALA at the state level.
“We had a tough legislative session,” said Michael Figgins, executive director of JALA, when asked if the organization was pursuing other sources of funding.
The governor’s stance on legal aid is that it should be funded locally, not with state dollars. He recently vetoed $1 million in the state budget for the “Florida Access to Civil Legal Assistance Act.” JALA had applied for about $150,000 in funding from the act.
“The governor does not believe that this is an efficient use of recurring taxpayer dollars. He believes these services can be provided without assistance from the state,” said Amy Graham, a press secretary for the governor.
The local funding must emerge from both the Council Finance and Public Health and Safety Committees, which meet today, before it can be considered by the full Council.
Meanwhile, ethics legislation continued to spur lively debate as the Rules Committee moved proposed ordinances 2011-167, 197 and 232.
The main issue with proposed ordinance 2011-167 was who should select the membership of the Ethics Commission.
The original bill called for citizens’ groups to choose six members and then those six members would choose the remaining three members.
The latest language of the proposed ordinance includes one vote each for the mayor, council president, chief circuit judge, state attorney, public defender and sheriff. The Ethics Commission members chosen by the previously mentioned group would still select the remaining three seats.
The latest process was presented as an amendment by Council member Richard Clark.
“There should be a direct connection between the voters and who they selected to represent them, and who selects the members of this commission,” said Clark. “The people chose us to make these decisions.”
The Clark amendment removed the University of North Florida Center for Ethics, Public Policy and the Professions, the League of Women Voters and The Jacksonville Bar Association from the selection process and added the public defender, sheriff and council president. All appointees are subject to Council confirmation.
The amendment was approved 4-3, with Chair Denise Lee and committee members Clay Yarborough and John Crescimbeni dissenting. It will be heard by the full Council June 14.
Proposed ordinance 2011-197 also drew debate as its main issue was how the director of the Office of Ethics, Compliance and Oversight was selected.
The original proposed ordinance, introduced by Council member Art Shad, allowed the Ethics Commission to select the director, but members of the Rules Committee, including Clark and Stephen Joost, considered that process to be too independent.
Clark proposed an amendment allowing the Ethics Commission to submit the names of three candidates to the mayor and the mayor’s choice would be subject to Council approval.
“If this were to pass it would reverse two years of work of the City’s Ethics Commission and citizens’ groups who want an independent commission,” said Carla Miller, the City’s Ethics Officer.
The Rules Committee was instructed by Deputy General Counsel Steve Rohan that the City Charter should be amended to clear up who would have the authority to select the director.
The amended ordinance was approved by the Rules Committee by a 6-1 vote, but has to be voted out of the Finance Committee which meets today, before it can be heard by the Council.
Lee voted against the proposed ordinance because she didn’t think it was fair for other boards and commissions to have the authority to select their director but deny the Ethics Commission that ability.
“It’s time to stop being so paranoid about what’s going to happen to us if this legislation gets passed and get this done,” said Lee.
356-2466