Thread by @NateMonroeTU

"No other questions or answers are necessary at this time." - JEA's CFO.

Ahead of the City Council hearing next week on the JEA bonus scandal, it's instructive to review a detailed timeline of how we got here (with documents). There's some new stuff in here.

June 17 - The city's Office of General Counsel sends JEA a memo outlining the basic requirements any bonus scheme must meet under state and local law, and it confirms that JEA - as a general matter - could enact "a long-term employee incentive program." 2/

Before we move on: Take note of the fact that city lawyers were specifically *not* offering an opinion on the legality of the actual plan JEA was considering, and the head lawyer has since said his office was unaware of the details of the bonus scheme JEA had crafted. 3/

June 18 - The JEA board's compensation committee approves the bonus scheme. The minutes from that meeting are hilariously vague, so we have no idea what actually happened. 4/

July 23 - JEA board approves the bonus scheme. Although *now* JEA and city lawyers refer to this approval as having been "preliminary," the actual documents refer to it as "final approval." There was no indication this was ever coming back to the board (hint: It wasn't). 5/

Note: At this meeting, board member Alan Howard asks if the city's Office of General Counsel has signed off on this plan and is told it has. Given what we know now about the plan, very little is presented or asked about it.

Fun starts around 2:54:00
6/

August 9 - Council Auditor sends a list of 22 legal and financial questions about the plan to JEA. Included is an inquiry over whether this is a legal scheme under state law. 7/

August 14 - JEA's chief financial officer responds to the auditor and sends over the paperwork but doesn't answer any of the questions, citing "a number of other pressing items." He asks if they can circle back in a few weeks on the questions. 8/

Oct. 1 - JEA's lawyer sends a letter to the Florida Attorney General. First, JEA contends in the letter its bonus scheme is legal. Second, it asks the AG to "confirm" that state law doesn't apply to the plan. 9/

October 30 - Council auditor requests a meeting with JEA leadership over the bonus scheme and again sends over the 22 questions, which still haven't been answered. 10/

October 31 - Auditors and JEA officials meet, and auditors follow up with an attached list of more questions and concerns about the bonus scheme. 11/

November 5 - City's top lawyer holds a meeting with JEA officials to discuss legal issues surrounding the bonus plan (which JEA has told the Attorney General it believes is legal). The top lawyer tells JEA the plan "should be officially dissolved." 12/

November 6 - The Council Auditor's office sends an email to JEA asking for a status update on answers to its questions and concerns, which JEA has not responded to. 13/

November 7 - The Council Auditor's office sends JEA's chief financial officer a sample calculation/methodology of potential payouts possible under the bonus plan, asking for confirmation whether these are correct. 14/

November 12 - Three important things happen on this day.

1. JEA CEO Aaron Zahn sends a letter to the city general counsel telling him JEA will cancel the plan - though for reasons unrelated to legal issues.
2. The general counsel acknowledges this with a letter. BUT ... 15/

The general counsel writes a second letter to file - as in, it's not sent to JEA but instead placed in an internal file. This letter is far more detailed - and damning - about the legal issues surrounding the plan. It appears to confirm OGC never signed off on the plan. 16/

(In a few weeks, when this controversy blows up, JEA would release the first two letters - but that detailed third one would stay hidden until the Times-Union got it through a public-records request. 17/)

November 13 - The City Council Auditor's office - remember them? - sends a follow-up email to JEA again asking if its sample calculations are correct. 18/

November 14 - JEA's CFO confirms to the auditor its methodology is accurate. 19/

November 14 (again) - auditors respond with more follow-ups on the calculations. This is about whether the JEA sale price would be factored into the payouts, which is a major question swirling around this controversy. 20/

November 14 (again again) - JEA CFO responds to auditor, reitierating that the plan is on hold and stating "no other questions or answers are necessary at this time." 21/

November 18 - Council Auditor releases report that alerts city officials and the public about legal problems and deficiencies in JEA's bonus plan. This begin the searing public controversy. 22/

Some takeaways: First, JEA has repeatedly made it sound as if the CEO's decision to cancel the plan came apropos of nothing - like it was something he thought of on his own. This is patently untrue. It was getting serious scrutiny from lawyers and auditors behind the scenes. 23/

Second, JEA has held up its decision in October to as the Attorney General for guidance as evidence it was being proactive.

We now know - at minimum - the auditor had been raising questions about this since August. 24/

Third, based on the public record at least, it seems like a bit of a stretch to say JEA was cooperating with the auditor. JEA never did answer the list of follow-up questions and concerns the auditor detailed and provided. 25/

Fourth, it's now clearer than ever the JEA board's July 23 meeting was a mistake in many, many respects. Chief among them was the fact that too much got dumped on everyone. This was also the meeting the board approved privatization and all its associated paperwork. 26/

Fifth, a *huge* question here is why the JEA board was told the general counsel had signed off on this bonus scheme when it clearly hadn't done so. How did that happen? 27/

Sixth, how did the general counsel let this happen? JEA's lawyer is actually an employee of the Office of General Counsel. Was everyone over there really out of the loop on the specifics of this plan? 28/

Seventh, is it normal practice for the JEA board to offer its final approval on plans, and then for JEA management to go back and check whether those things are legal? Taking what JEA says at face value, and being very charitable, that is what at minimum happened here. 29/

There is a lot more to this, obviously. But it's Monday, so I'll stop this monstrous thread here for now. Anyway, I hope the timeline is interesting/helpful to people trying to follow this serpentine controversy. END.