Rules committee seeks written counsel opinion amid debate over appointment powers

Council members spent an extended portion of the Rules Committee meeting debating which branch — the council or the mayor — holds the authority to appoint members to certain boards and whether the committee should await a written legal opinion before taking a final vote.

Jason Teal, legislative council, summarized earlier legal work: "I suggested the provision in section 4.02 of the charter" as one path to resolve disputes and noted a 1968 advisory opinion by William Durden concluded that assigning duties to judges could raise separation‑of‑powers concerns. He also cited City of Jacksonville v. Bowden (1914), a Florida Supreme Court case that earlier upheld a referendum enabling council appointment authority.

Several council members asked for a written legal opinion to put the council's lawyer "on the record." The Office of General Counsel, represented in discussion by Mister Fackler, differentiated types of products: "A memorandum outlining our position is different than a binding opinion," he said, but he offered to consult his team and provide a timeline; he indicated a written advisory memorandum was feasible and suggested he could have a decision on feasibility by the end of the week and a potential two‑week delivery if the committee wanted a product.

Some members urged postponing the council vote until a binding opinion is prepared; others said asking for a binding opinion on hypothetical facts is inappropriate and that advisory opinions are the usual practice until a concrete case or controversy emerges. The committee asked the general counsel to return with an advisory opinion or memorandum clarifying its legal position before the full council vote next week.