Yvonne Mitchell, chief of administrative services for the Jacksonville City Council, told the personnel committee that she collected and opened holiday packages after seeing boxes placed in council offices and after being told by her supervisor to notify the supervisor before gifts were distributed.

"I panicked because now I realize there are boxes that have been distributed," Mitchell said, describing how she gathered about 19 boxes, moved them to her office and emailed the ethics office for direction.

The committee probed whether anyone directed staff to intercept or open mail addressed to individual council members and whether that conduct could violate federal law. Mary Stifopoulos, the city's Office of General Counsel, told the committee that federal statutes on mail tampering generally protect the privacy of delivered mail and that the council would need to review which carriers and delivery methods are covered under those statutes.

Kirby Oberdorfer, identified at the meeting as the city's ethics director, said the ethics office did not instruct staff to open closed mail and that an inexact phrasing in an ethics office email created confusion. "We never gave anyone, nor did we have the authority to intercept any gifts," Oberdorfer said, adding that when the ethics office first received photos and a chronology on Dec. 11 it found that some items had already been opened.

Multiple council members said the handling of gifts had changed this year, and they expressed frustration about inconsistent communication. Councilmember Nick Howland, who requested the meeting, said ethics guidance should be presented publicly before the holiday season to avoid repeated confusion.

Committee members and staff described several specific items discussed at the meeting: a box labeled from the port authority, postcards from the Milney and Buckingham law firm, and boxes of pecans and chocolate covered pecans that staff said were delivered through a copy/mail service. Mitchell said she opened some items to identify senders after receiving requests for identifying information from the ethics office.

Throughout the hearing, staff and council members distinguished between mail delivered by the U.S. Postal Service or commercial carriers and items hand-delivered to the front desk; the legal protections and expectations of privacy can differ by delivery method, the Office of General Counsel said.

The exchange also raised workplace concerns beyond the mail issue. Several council members and staff described internal confusion about how the gift guidance was being enforced and whether staff had been given a clear, written directive. Peggy Sidman, council director, said her intent was to have staff forward gift questions to the ethics office and that she did not intend to direct interception of mail.

The committee did not make a formal finding about criminality or order an external investigation at the meeting. Instead, members pressed ethics staff and council management for clearer, earlier guidance before future gift seasons and for an explanation of the communications that led to staff opening packages.

The personnel committee said it will pursue process improvements, including asking the ethics office to brief council members on gift-handling procedures before the holiday season.