A.G. Gancarski
On Tuesday, the Jacksonville City Council Transportation, Energy, and Utilities (TEU) committee mulled a resolution regarding moving the Inspector General‘s office into the City Hall building and consolidating some employees and space with the Ethics Department.
Ultimately, the bill was deferred for two cycles. Yet the discussion revealed unresolved conflicts between Council VP John Crescimbeni and the office of inspector general.
Crescimbeni’s resolution was predicated on the notion that, given the empty space on the 2nd floor of the St. James Building, it would be a natural fit to have the IG office on the same floor as the Ethics office.
However, employees of the IG office, including acting IG Steve Rohan, have claimed that impedes independence of the office, and that it would “function less effectively at city hall.”
Councilman John Crescimbeni noted that in previous iterations of the IG office, the office was in the mayor’s office.
Crescimbeni, who sponsored the bill being considered, advocates for a combination of the ethics and inspector general offices, with shared space and employees.
Crescimbeni peppered Rohan with questions regarding the foot traffic into his office on a monthly basis, and Rohan deferred to director of investigations Lisa Green, who said employees were “very comfortable” with their current location and, theoretically, less comfortable with the proposed relocation to city hall.
Crescimbeni noted that traffic can be as low as two a month; Green countered that it can be as high as under ten a month.
The IG’s office wanted a buildout of space in the Yates Building, at a price tag of $100,000, yet Rohan was willing to walk back that desire on Tuesday.
One previous consumer of the inspector general’s office’s services countered Crescimbeni’s viewpoint.
Councilman Reggie Brown advised “careful consideration” of objections from IG Rohan and Ethics head Carla Miller, before describing his own doubt of the “safety” of city buildings for whistleblower meetings such as the IG and Ethics would conduct.
“I wanted to support having everybody here together. But looking at my own situation, I would never walk into the inspector general’s office in this building,” Brown said.
Brown advised “taking a year to look at it” before consolidating operations.
“There’s no really true savings,” said Brown, who for whatever reason told the committee, at length, about his concealed weapons permit, saying “I’m not going down” (for reasons not immediately clear in committee discussion).
Councilwoman Anna Brosche observed there was no “compelling reason” to relocate the IG office or to “co-locate” it with the ethics department.
Committee chair Al Ferraro deferred to Rohan’s understanding of his office over the “efficiency” argument put forth by Crescimbeni.
Despite pressure from the panel, Crescimbeni did not opt to withdraw the bill, instead offering to defer the bill for two cycles, with the idea toward getting hard information about the impact of consolidated, in-house IG operations in other jurisdictions.
Crescimbeni had pushed for the inspector general’s office, including sponsoring the referendum that expanded the authority of the office, but has been a frequent critic of operations.
In 2015, Crescimbeni and the then-current inspector general had a bristling exchange during the city council budget discussions, an exchange from which that IG never fully recovered.
Some, quietly, see Crescimbeni’s latest play as a continuation of that old narrative.
