Scott Shine

I have received no response to my email.  What should I do now?
Listening to Aaron Bowman discuss the school board’s referendum at city council meetings on July 16, I am more worried than ever about his appointments to the Charter Revision Commission.

The city council designee needs to call out how the council members are voting when the vote is taken via a hand raise. They didn’t do that with the motion to defer the vote on Scott Shine. IF a vote was in violation of the sunshine law then it is deemed void.  That means the motion to defer the vote on Scott Shine is still open.  With that motion still open, then I assume the actual vote on Scott Shines’ appointment is also void.  Yes?

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Susan 
Subject: Sunshine Law Violation
To: <JGabriel@coj.net>

Office of the General Counsel Jason Gabriel,

The vote to defer the vote on 2019-353 was in violation of the sunshine law or so it appears to me.  The cure is to retake the vote.
According to an article I read about the Sunshine Law:
The manual says that because the Sunshine Law requires meetings to be open to the public at all times, the person who tallies the votes should announce the names of the board members who voted and their votes. … if a public meeting becomes “covert, secret or not wholly exposed to the view and hearing of the public,” then that part of the meeting is not “open to the public at all times” as required by the Sunshine Law.
Via a public records request, I asked for the names of the 8 of the 15 council members present who voted NOT to defer the vote on 2019-353. Cheryl Brown and Scott Wilson told me they didn’t know.  I was offered a video link but you can’t see who did or didn’t raise their hands in the video.  In other words, the raised or not raised hands were not visible in the video.

I watched the video at this link: http://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/clip/724?view_id=1 . You can see the votes being counted by hand at around the 54 minute mark. You can hear CM Wilson say one of the council members changed their mind. But you can’t tell who raised their hands and who didn’t. The person who tallied the votes should have announced the names of the board members who voted and their votes. The cure is to take the vote again. 

On Jul 1, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Susan wrote:

Carla Miller,
I contacted Scott Wilson who was conducting the meeting that night.  He told me he didn’t know who voted to defer the vote on Scott Shine.  No one has told me who voted to defer.  You can’t tell from the video who voted to defer.  Someone on the staff counted the hands up BUT did not call out the names of the people that had their hands raised.  That seems in violation to the Sunshine Law.  In other words, you can’t tell from the video and no one called out the names of the people that were voting to defer. I think you need to correct the error by taking the vote again.  And if 8 out of the 15 people that were present want to defer the vote on Scott Shine, then you need to invalidate the confirmation of his appointment.  Yes (in case you’re wondering), I do find it troubling that people that wanted to defer the vote, then voted yes on his confirmation.  BUT how many people would have voted NO to the confirmation IF there was more time to investigate Scott Shine’s collection of his school board pay check while he missed so many school board meetings?

According to an article I read about the Sunshine Law:  Petersen said if a court ruled the Sunshine Law was violated by using anonymous ballots, the action taken as a result of that vote would be voided “as if it never happened.”  The cure is to have another vote.  The manual says that because the Sunshine Law requires meetings to be open to the public at all times, the person who tallies the votes should announce the names of the board members who voted and their votes. The Sunshine Law manual’s section on written ballots cites an attorney general’s opinion that if a public meeting becomes “covert, secret or not wholly exposed to the view and hearing of the public,” then that part of the meeting is not “open to the public at all times” as required by the Sunshine Law.

Scott Shine said in a city council committee meeting discussing his appointment to the CRC that he only missed two voting school board meetings while he was being paid to be a school board member.  If that isn’t true, would it change anyone’s mind about approving his appointment?   He missed over two.

Since he already missed over two going backwards from November 2018, I quit looking as it is time consuming but you could maybe have a staff member make up a list of how many meetings were missed:
It is true that I am worried about Scott Shine’s agenda to privatize our education system.   I don’t think the city council members took enough time vetting him.  Quote from this article:

Donalds said. “Our goal is to give parents multiple high-quality options for their students.” [translation: she wants public monies to go to charters and vouchers]
Joining Donalds in the effort are …  former Duval County School Board member Scott Shine.

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:53 AM Brown, Cheryl <CLBROWN@coj.net> wrote:
As all documents pertaining to this request, from this office and staff has been provided., the public record inquiry falls within compliance for responsiveness.
Again, I will refer you to the Office of the General Counsel Jason Gabriel, as you are questioning the validity and accuracy of the voice and hand vote as determined by the Chair.  This office has no authority in this area.