Responding to a newly submitted written opinion by the city’s top lawyer on the removal of Confederate statues from Springfield Park in late 2023, City Council members raised questions Jan. 16 about whether Mayor Donna Deegan overstepped her authority in ordering the statues to be taken down.
At Council President Ron Salem’s request, General Counsel Michael Fackler issued the written opinion after initially advising the Deegan administration vocally and through a draft opinion – versus in a formal written advisory – that she could remove the statues without the Council’s approval.
Workers hauled away the statues Dec. 27, with Deegan’s office citing Fackler’s opinion that the mayor could order the removal unilaterally because it had been paid for by private donations as opposed to public funding.
The Jessie Ball duPont Fund and donors to 904WARD provided the $187,000 to cover the work.
At the Jan. 16 Rules Committee meeting, Salem and others questioned Fackler over whether the statues had historic preservation protections that should have prevented Deegan from ordering their removal.
The monument – a stone structure that previously had one of the statutes atop its cupola and the other within its supporting columns, sits in Springfield Park.
The park is part of the Springfield Historic District neighborhood, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Salem referenced emails from Jason Teal, senior assistant general counsel for the city, saying he disagreed with the opinion that the statues were not protected.
Salem said previous opinions from the city indicated that protections applied to the monument, meaning any requests to alter it should have been subject to review by the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission and the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to alter the monument.
Salem said previous legal opinions from the city’s general counsel’s office stated that the statues were protected.
“I just feel like the opinion of the office has been very consistent until your arrival,” Salem said, addressing Fackler.
“And I’m concerned we were trying to find an opinion in order to accomplish the process.”
Fackler said the emails from Teal, sent Jan. 8, prompted a team of attorneys who were working on the issue to further examine city codes for historic protection.
Fackler said he spoke with Teal, which led to a “consensus opinion that it was appropriate to remove” the statues.
In response to a line of questioning by Council member Nick Howland, Fackler said a certificate of appropriateness would have been needed only if the monument had been demolished as opposed to altered or modified.
Deegan’s order left the monument’s stone structure intact, and the statues were moved to storage until city leaders and residents decide when or whether to move them elsewhere.
Other questions focused on Fackler’s process, which initially involved him working with two other city staff members to form his opinion.
Asked why he didn’t include more input, he cited his “newness and overconfidence that I’d be able to handle it myself” and acknowledged that he should have sought more consultation. Fackler was confirmed as general counsel days before the monuments were removed.
Fackler submitted the new opinion shortly before the Rules Committee meeting convened at 2 p.m. He said it contained nuanced differences from his draft opinion.
Howland said he was concerned that Fackler and his staff were performing “legal gymnastics” to justify the opinion to Deegan.
“Seems like a new week, a new ruling, and things keep changing,” Howland said.
“I’m concerned that there was a hasty and unfinished opinion that led to an action. There’s been changes, arguments back and forth and new reasoning to justify that action that occurred. And I just want to make sure that we’re not starting with a decision and then working backward through the code and charter to justify it.”
Fackler said he stood by the opinion that the monuments were removed legally and within Deegan’s authority.
Salem said he would schedule another Council meeting next week to further discuss the written opinion more fully.