Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Nominations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East-side residents tell Rules Committee nominations lack community representation, allege conflict concerns
Summary
Multiple east-side residents told the Rules Committee the nomination process for a community oversight board favored business- and developer-linked nominees over neighborhood representatives, alleging a "breach of trust" and calling for community vetting of appointees. The committee did not take final action on the contested slate.
Residents and advocates urged the Duval County Rules Committee on April 6 to slow or reconsider nominations to a newly formed east-side community board, saying the picks do not reflect the neighborhood and raise conflict-of-interest concerns.
Several speakers — including Latavia Harris, Dennis Sanchez and James Matchet — told the committee that many nominees appear to represent business or nonprofit interests rather than grassroots community viewpoints. Harris criticized nominees she said had not acted on tenant concerns and accused at least one named official of meeting with residents without producing results. "He met with them as the human rights director and did nothing," she said. Dennis Sanchez warned the public process left residents out of vetting and noted "there's $4 million there right now," a reference to program funds tied to the model the board will oversee. Matchet said the selections left the community with a "perception of collusion."
Other speakers framed the dispute as more than personality clashes: Leslie Jean Bar, who said she represented the Together East Site Coalition, described the original legislative model as designed to prevent "fraud, waste, and abuse" and urged the committee not to "rubber stamp" nominations without deeper inquiry. Don Curling said the community expected a vetting step mirroring the opioid-model process, with public review before appointments became final.
Committee members acknowledged the public concern. Chair (unnamed in the transcript) and several council members said they would seek additional information and argued for clear criteria. The administration signaled its willingness to explain how nominees were selected at a future meeting.
For now, no formal reversal of the slate occurred at Rules; several appointments tied to the east-side effort remain on the committee calendar and are expected to return for additional review. The committee asked the administration to provide the vetting rationale and encouraged community members to continue submitting concerns before final votes.
Ending note: Committee members said they would consider additional outreach and clarification of selection criteria before acting on outstanding nominations tied to the east-side program.
