A.G. Gancarski
Anytime I get an email from Chris Hand, chief of staff for Mayor Alvin Brown, that incorporates the John Adams quote “Facts are stubborn things,” I know I’m in for at least 500 words of top-flight refutation of an opponent’s memes.
Friday’s email takes issue with the comments of Councilman Richard Clark on Friday’s episode of First Coast Connect on WJCT FM. The show, hosted by Melissa Ross, had me on a panel discussion when “Richard from the Westside” called in to offer some revisionist history regarding the pension plan.
The crux of his claim that interested Hand was Clark’s contention that he and Brown pressured city council to scuttle the John Peyton pension plan.
“Because the Peyton pension deal was negotiated outside the Sunshine, it was not legal. In fact, that pension deal is the very reason that Curtis Lee brought his lawsuit against the city, which resulted in the Thirty Year Agreement being struck down. So the Peyton plan was a dead letter [as indicated by the Curtis] Lee lawsuit and Judge Beverly’s summary judgment ruling,” Hand wrote.
He added that Councilman Bill Bishop, in March, also said that the Peyton Plan “didn’t go far enough and was never going to pass city council.”
Hand then takes issue with Clark’s glowing after-the-fact endorsement of the Peyton Plan, which he claims does not jibe with how things went down in 2011.
“I was surprised to hear Councilman Clark describe the Peyton plan as ‘fabulous.’ The previous council of which he was a member did not take up the Peyton pension deal (2011-400) after it was introduced in June 2011. The current city council voted to withdraw it 15-2. The no votes were Stephen Joost and Warren Jones, two of our strongest city council allies.”
“Councilman Clark and 14 of his colleagues voted in favor of the withdrawal. Others favoring withdrawal included CMs Boyer, Crescimbeni, Gulliford, Lee, Lumb, Schellenberg, and Yarborough. If you would like to review the videotape of that meeting, you will see that council voted to withdraw the Peyton plan without any discussion. If Councilman Clark thought the Peyton deal was so ‘fabulous,’ why didn’t he oppose withdrawal or say anything at the meeting?”
Hand then restated the administration position on why they believe their plan, which ultimately was defeated by a 9-9 tie vote in council, was a better deal than the Peyton proposal.
“We were in favor of that withdrawal because we thought we could do better, and we did. The Peyton plan was not a comprehensive solution. It only impacted new employees and did nothing to address either Police and Fire Pension Fund governance or the nearly $1.7 billion unfunded liability. It would have saved $700 million over 35 years. Our plan, which was based on the recommendations of the Jacksonville Retirement Reform Task Force and was negotiated in the Sunshine with the Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF), would have saved $1.3 billion over 30 years. That’s $600 million more in savings over less time. Unlike the Peyton plan, our agreement included far reaching governance reforms to enhance accountability and transparency at the PFPF and addressed the unfunded liability.”
Finally, Hand threw some shade toward Clark’s discussion of a certain shade meeting.
“While his representations about ‘begging’ and ‘pleading’ are absurd, I was also surprised to hear Councilman Clark purport to reveal shade meeting discussions. Council Rule 4.1022 expressly prohibits a Council member from disclosing shade meeting conversations. As you can see from the Council Rules (http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/councilrules/rules-of-council.aspx), the last section of 4.1022 states that ‘all consultations by the committee with the Mayor or his/her designated representative are confidential as between the Council and the Mayor or his/her designated representative and are exempt from Section 286.011, Florida Statutes and, if the committee holds an executive session, no minutes shall be taken during the time that the committee is in executive session, notwithstanding the requirement of Rule 2.212(a). It is a violation of section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, for any Council Member to disclose a confidential discussion in order to benefit the Member, or any other person or entity.’”
