UPDATE
The former Chairman of Tallahassee’s Independent Ethics Board, Richard Herring, told TR that the it was the Board that decided not to live broadcast the meeting which featured the interviews of the Ethics Officer candidates late last year.
Herring told TR he could not remember why the Board made the decision.
The Ethics Officer at the time, Julie Meadows-Keefe, told TR that the Board made the decision because they were concerned that a live broadcast of the interviews would make the candidates uncomfortable.
The decision was made without a vote.
These comments explain why Meadows-Keefe sent an email to city staff requesting no live broadcast of the meeting.
Original Story
TR has learned today that Meadows-Keefe requested that the Ethics Board meeting on November 19th not be video broadcasted by the City of Tallahassee. The meeting featured interviews of candidates who were seeking to replace Meadows- Keefe.
TR recovered an email that showed City of Tallahassee officials verifying with Meadows-Keefe that she wanted no video broadcast of the meeting which was being held in commission chambers.
Tom Bronakoski with the City Tallahassee, wrote in an email on November 15, 2019, “Just to confirm, you do not want coverage of the November 19th meeting?”
Meadows-Keefe replied, “We do not want coverage. Thank you for confirming.”
The email is listed below:
TR has requested a comment from the Ethics Board Chairman at the time, Richard Herring.
TR has previously reported on Meadows-Keefe’s involvement with the candidacy of Keith Powell who was selected as the new Ethics Officer. Powell withdrew his name from consideration shortly after an anonymous email was forwarded to Ethics Board officials and the local media. The anonymous email was tied to Meadows-Keefe.
It's amazing how things get conflated here. The Board decided since many of the candidates were employed elsewhere, they would be more comfortable with cameras off. And the meeting was held workshop style, so it was more conversational around a table and less formal, so that the Board could get to know the candidates. The meeting was still public. Again, this was a BOARD decision which I thought was a good one. The Commission does not televise meetings when it interviews appointed official candidates. If the Board had wanted the meeting televised, it would have been. Period.
What if the tax-paying citizens of Tallahassee wanted the meeting broadcast? We paid for the infrastructure of buildings and cameras, etc. Suppose citizens want to review the meeting in detail. Sets a bad precedent.
Also, does truthtellertimeisup mean ‘the truth-teller is here, time is up for evil’, or does it mean ‘ the time is over for telling the truth’, or is there another meaning entirely?
I believe what the Commissions did was discuss each of the ones Candidates applying for the Appointments in a Televises Meeting and even took Questions and Statements about the Candidates from those attending the Meetings.
“Uncomfortable”? WOW...…….Then don't apply to be on the Board.
I just spoke with Mr. Stewart. I did not decide to shut off cameras. It was a Board/chair decision that televising the interview meeting would add undue pressure to applicants, some of whom had other jobs. I sent an email confirming that broadcast would not occur, however it was not my decision. He indicated to me he would be updating his story.
Thr question remains: who does #2 work for?
Also, does truthtellertimeisup mean 'the truth-teller is here, time is up for evil', or does it mean ' the time is over for telling the truth', or is there another meaning entirely?
This is similar in nature to a LEon COunty PELUC board meeting this past Dec 2. A decision was posted online revealing the " decision of the board" 3 days before the public meeting. This was reported and documented PRIOR to the PELUC board meeting with the public in attendance. The board took no action and the PELUC was granted even though the alleged violations continue. To this very day a non permitted use exists within the county. The sunshine laws were violated in this instance because the decision was posted
BEFORE any meeting of any kind occurred. Is this corruption or a violation of board policies or is it a violation of the Sunshine law?
No, the meeting is still open, just not being broadcast.
Is this a violation of the Sunshine Law?
I think that this would be a legal determination- but I would say yes it is a Sunshine violation. The email date is Friday Nov. 15th at 2:23 in the afternoon; and the meeting was Tuesday the 19th. This left 1 day only to advise; Alison Farris was involved - via cc line? It was standard practice to televise and all had an expectation of this meeting to be televised. Anyone planning to view it would not have gotten notice - or timely notice to assure that they had the info; and additionally the recorded archived record was then put in jeopardy of being available. So YES - this would be both an ethics violation and a Sunshine law violation. Take notes on common sense issues, Commissioners.
The Ethics Board under the leadership of Chairman Richard Herring had a policy of televising all meetings with the exception of legally required blackout of shade meetings. The Ethics Officer serves as the communicator between the board and the city. It appears that the Ethics Officer was making decisions without the knowledge or consent of the board.
This action by the Ethics Officer verifies her replacement was overdue. The board seemed unwilling or unable to supervise her properly. They spent (spend?) all their time determining what they could NOT do. They are always getting ready to do something, they just never do it. Maybe a new Chairman, with a new Ethics Officer, will make a difference. Maybe, just maybe, they can finally quit checking the tires and start the damn trip. I
Was her request honored?
Was the board in agreement?
If not, who at the city authorized concurrence with her request?
"Meadows-Keefe replied, “We do not want coverage. Thank you for confirming.” ................. Who are the "WE" She is talking about?