The Office of General Counsel will continue legal action against Clerk of Court Jim Fuller through the appeals process if it needs to, although Fuller asked that both sides agree to a Circuit Court decision.
Senior Circuit Judge William Wilkes set Aug. 7 for a hearing in the City’s lawsuit to keep Clerk of Court Jim Fuller from seeking a fourth term.
The City contends that a recent Florida Supreme Court decision enforces a limit of two terms.
On Friday, Fuller asked City General Counsel Cindy Laquidara and Deputy General Counsel Michael Wedner to agree that “whatever decision of the Fourth Judicial Circuit will be binding and final on both parties and neither party shall take an appeal of such decision.”
Wedner replied Friday that the City declines the proposal.
“Our City Council authorized this office to ‘commence litigation, through the appellate process’ to determine the eligibility of Mr. Fuller to run or be elected for another term as Clerk in November 2012. We therefore cannot accept the proposal on behalf of our client,” Wedner’s response said.
The primary election is Aug. 14 and early voting for the election begins Saturday and ends Aug. 11.
The general election is Nov. 6.
The City filed suit Thursday against Fuller asking the court to declare him ineligible to serve again after serving three full terms.
A recent Florida Supreme Court ruling upheld local term limits in a Broward County case.
After the suit was filed, Richard Rumrell, representing Fuller, sent the letter to the City with a stipulation that Fuller and the City would agree to whatever decision was made in the case by the Fourth Judicial Circuit as binding with no appeals.
“This will avoid needless appeals and additional cost to the City of Jacksonville, as well as finality for the election and for the determination of the Duval County Clerk of Court,” Rumrell’s letter states.
Wedner’s reply of decline also states that Fuller is being sued as an individual and not as “Clerk of Court,” as Fuller’s legal counsel has referred to him, which raises the question of who is paying for Fuller’s legal expenses.
“The General Counsel has not authorized the ‘Clerk of the Court’ to retain either you as individuals or the firm as outside counsel,” Wedner’s letter states.
Lindsey Brock, who was representing Fuller, Wedner and members of the General Counsel’s office attended the hearing Monday morning with Wilkes to establish a schedule for the hearing and preliminary discussions.
“I don’t see a conflict with the facts, (it’s) simply a legal question,” said Wilkes, who asked each side how the situation can be expedited.
Brock said that Rumrell is lead counsel representing Fuller, was on vacation and would not be available until Aug. 7.
Both sides agreed on the Aug. 7 date, but no time was established.
It was also decided that a memorandum be issued to the judge and each side by Friday, and that a discovery period is allowed.
Brock said that as of Friday, officials at the Supervisor of Elections Office said more than 45,000 absentee ballots were mailed and more than 7,000 had already been processed with “thousands more waiting to be vetted.”
He said taking Fuller off the ballot after qualifying would be unfair to Fuller and voters who have already voted for him.
“You can’t un-ring the bell,” Brock said at the hearing.
The cost to replace Fuller, should he win and then be determined to be ineligible, would be about $900,000, with another $900,000 if a second round of voting is required, Supervisor of Elections Jerry Holland recently told the Council’s Rules Committee.
356-2466