“We’re under such careful watch right now”: Gainesville City Commission removes HB 1645 item from agenda

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the July 12 Gainesville City Commission Agenda Review meeting, commissioners decided against placing an item about HB 1645 lawsuits on the July 20 City Commission agenda. 

The draft agenda for the July 20 City Commission meeting included an item titled, “Litigation regarding House Bill 1645,” with a note that the funds were previously approved by the Commission. The recommendation was for the Commission to authorize the City Attorney’s Office and outside counsel to represent the City of Gainesville in as-yet-unfiled litigation “seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to House Bill 1645,” in the lawsuit that was recently filed by Gainesville Residents United, Inc., and “in any appellate or collateral matters resulting from the aforesaid litigation.”

Commissioner Bryan Eastman asked for clarification on the item: “This is now the third time that we would be voting on this. What does this authorize, or I guess I’d like to hear from the City Attorney why he thinks we need to authorize this after having voted to move forward, plus an allocation of funds.”

“Make no mistake, it will be our strong recommendation that we have to address what we see as inconsistencies and ambiguities with these amendments to our Charter in order to function properly, both in the short term and in the long term.” – City Attorney Daniel Nee

City Attorney Daniel Nee said it “might be a misnomer” to say his office is seeking authorization; he said it was “more in line with a notification. But also of such interest that I thought… there might be some commissioners who still thought that it required some additional authorization… Make no mistake, it will be our strong recommendation that we have to address what we see as inconsistencies and ambiguities with these amendments to our Charter in order to function properly, both in the short term and in the long term.”

Nee also pointed out that the City is listed as a nominal defendant in the Gainesville Residents United lawsuit. He said his office doesn’t normally seek authorization to represent the City when it’s a defendant in a lawsuit, “but it seemed the cleanest way to put it before you, let you know this is what’s happening in a matter that I think is considered momentous.”

“I would prefer that we not vote on this, or if we do, we at least put it on the consent agenda.” – Commissioner Bryan Eastman

Eastman said he leaned “almost in the opposite direction… We’re under such careful watch right now that if it’s not necessary for our commission to authorize it–when we’re talking about something that is as high-profile as suing the governor, I just want to be, you know–what exactly do we want to get out of that discussion? Is it really necessary to have that discussion? So I would prefer that we not vote on this, or if we do, we at least put it on the consent agenda.”

Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut suggested that if the City Attorney is just providing an update, he could do that individually with commissioners “and not put it on the agenda, because we have already authorized the expenditure.” 

Mayor Harvey Ward said he was comfortable with that, “if it’s the sense of the commission.”

Nee said he had put the item on the agenda as “sort of a belt-and-suspenders to make sure that the commission was absolutely positive that they’ve given us this authority.” He said, however, that he thought he had the authority under the previous vote of the commission to authorize the hiring of outside counsel to challenge HB 1645 and that he also had the authority under the City Charter. He added, “So maybe it was inartful to have an item seeking authorization; it should have been just an update or notification… I just didn’t want there to be a concern that actions were moving forward without the full knowledge of the commission.”

Ward said he would pull the item from the agenda “with the understanding that we’ve already given authorization.” Nee said he would pull it from the agenda “but [would] be prepared to put it back on, in the event anyone asks me to.”