At a glance

This was a workshop — no votes were taken and no ordinances were passed. The sole substantive item was a briefing from Legislative Counsel Jason Teal on the Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) investigating JEA. The headline: three subpoenas are coming for former JEA chief legal counsel Regina Ross and current JEA employees Vickie Cavey and Jody Brooks, to compel testimony and document production. The City's own General Counsel pushed back, warning subpoenaing an OGC attorney is bad policy. CM Diamond flatly accused JEA of stonewalling.

Newsworthy items

Item 3: SIC Update — Subpoenas, Privilege Fight, and Stalled JEA Cooperation

• Recommended: no committee or staff recommendation recorded — workshop briefing only, introduced by Legislative Counsel Jason Teal.
• Decided: No action taken; workshop discussion only. Teal signaled he will return to Finance Committee to seek formal approval of subpoena issuances.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Confidence: medium — minutes document discussion substantively but record no formal action or outcome.

Legislative Counsel Jason Teal briefed the Finance Committee on the Special Investigatory Committee's activities, covering both the SIC's original charge and its expanded scope, including uncollected JEA capacity fees, allegations of workplace toxicity and racism, and the combined cycle plant project and its financial risks.¹ The most significant development: Teal said three subpoenas are needed — for Ross, Brooks, and Cavey — on dates certain based on availability they provided, along with a document request to Brooks and Cavey covering the proposed Mayo capacity fee settlement, fee calculations, employee demotion records, and employee-filed complaints.² Ross previously asserted privilege connected to her representation of JEA as chief legal counsel, and the JEA Board denied a request to waive that privilege.³ General Counsel Michael Fackler pushed back hard, saying subpoenas for OGC attorneys are not good policy, set bad precedent, put Ross at risk of violating privilege, and damage client trust.⁴ CM Diamond countered that JEA is stonewalling the investigation and subpoenas are needed to compel cooperation⁵ — and argued the JEA Board should have waived privilege because JEA is a public entity and the information is therefore public.⁶

Item 4: Council Member Q&A — Survey Integrity and Retaliation Allegations

• Recommended: no committee or staff recommendation recorded.
• Decided: No action taken; discussion only.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Confidence: low — minutes summarize member comments without recording responses from staff or Teal on several direct questions.

Teal discussed the JEA management survey commissioned by the SIC — the Selectionlink vendor contract was approved by council on May 12th — but flagged ongoing issues with employee trust in the anonymity of a separate internal JEA survey, and how Selectionlink results will be presented to the JEA board.⁷ CM Boylan raised pointed questions: whether JEA employee complaints are properly documented, whether employees genuinely can't trust an internal survey, and whether workers on the capacity fee assessment were demoted in retaliation.⁸ CM Arias pressed for a timeline on when the Auditor's capacity fee analysis will be complete and asked which specific entities did not pay full fees.⁹ The SIC's charge runs through June 30, 2026 unless extended by the next council president; the target is to receive all testimonies by June 22, with the Selectionlink survey complete by end of June or early July.¹⁰

Consent agenda

No consent block — this was a single-topic workshop meeting.

Skipped

Call to order (Item 1) and introductions (Item 2) were procedural. Public comment (Item 5) was noted with no speakers. The agenda/minutes cover only five numbered items; the sixth item recorded in our system has no corresponding content in the minutes or agenda and is not addressed here.

References