Jensen's response to Commissioner Woods from 1-23-12RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER WOODS
1/23/12 MOTION TO TERMINATE CITY ATORNEY CONTRACT WITH CAUSE
At the city commission meeting on 1/23/12, Commissioner Woods handed out a written
motion to terminate the city attorney's contract for cause, with attachments, the first 2
pages of which were her examples of causes for termination.
In order to correct the record, the following are responses to those examples:
In stating that I had "inadequately performed duties as required of him by the
Commission," she states:
1. Conduct that is disloyal to the City
a. Mr. Jensen inappropriately approved payment of $140,000 before
obtaining insurance as required by the city commission. The city commission approved
this payment. I do not have the authority to approve such a payment. Title insurance
was ordered by my suggestion in the amount which the city paid for the easement.
b. Mr. Jensen failure to obtain appropriate insurance as requested by
the Commission, the policy he negotiated to cover the $140,000 tree mitigation payment
specifically excludes the basis of the ongoing lawsuit, i.e. the reverter clause. I did not
negotiate the title policy, I merely ordered it from a title insurance company. The
policy was not to cover $140,000 tree mitigation payment, but to cover the city's
payment of $140,000 for the easement. The "claim of reverter" recorded by someone
on behalf of the RCBS corporation happened after the title policy had been ordered,
and I forwarded it to the title company. Any title company would exclude such an
undetermined claim on the properoJ from coverage.
C. Mr. Jensen failed to represent all Commissioners fully and equally.
i. Mr. Jensen gave a defended a legal opinion concerning
committee formation methodology that broadens the Mayor's powers beyond the powers
vested by the Charter. My opinion on appointment of committees merely stated what is
setforth in the Charter and in the Code of Ordinances, and in no way broadens the
powers of the Mayor. The Mayor is given certain powers by the Charter above and
beyond those of other commissioners. Those powers have been regularly exercised
consistent with my opinion by the current and past mayors, at times when
Commissioner Woods sat on the commission and expressed no objection to the
appointment of committees and their members by the Mayor.
2. Negotiation, preparation, and approval of unsatisfactory contract
a. Mr. Jensen negotiated, prepared, wrote, and approved the
Easement Agreement that led to Commission and Community prolonged discourse, ill
will and an ongoing lawsuit. I neither negotiated nor approved the Easement
Agreement. I assisted in preparation of the Agreement with input from the city
commission, city manager, and the attorneys for EAB. The "prolonged discourse and
ill will" was created by another, and the `ongoing lawsuit" resulted from Bull family
members attempting to reclaim an interest in property outside of Atlantic Beach, and
who were funded in part by neighboring property owners who reside in Atlantic Beach.
1. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote and approved entering into a
contract for use of property when the property had and still has a clouded title. This led
to an ongoing lawsuit. Again, I neither negotiated nor approved any contract. There
was no "clouded title" according to the title insurance policy owned by EAB, and the
"declaration of reversion" by ROBS was not executed and recorded in the public
records of Duval County until May, 2010. The original Easement from EAB to COAB
and Agreement between EAB and COAB were approved by the city commission and
signed in September, 2009.
2. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote, and approved a contract
requiring the city to clear -cut a long and wide swath of Mature Oak Hammock to create a
road that had been denied permits twice. Again, I neither negotiated nor approved any
contract. The requirements of the city under its contract with EAB are not as setforth
above, but are as set forth in the contract.
3. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote, and approved the tree
mitigation payment of $140,000 for the city to pay for removing trees that could not be
permitted for removal. Again., I neither negotiated nor approved a tree mitigation
payment. I am unaware of any application to COJfor a permit to remove trees on
EAB property, which would trigger mitigation costs.
4. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote, and approved this contract,
which was unclear and ambiguous enough on many points to cause cantankerous and
acrimonious debate between the commissioners and the community. Again, I neither
negotiated nor approved any contract. Negotiation was done by others in the city, and
approval was by the city commission. The "cantankerous and acrimonious debate
between the commissioners and the community" was created by another, beginning
with the letter to the State Attorney's Office.
5. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote, and approved the Agreement,
which obligated the city to perpetual financial obligation without preparing a resolution
as required by Article II Sect. 17 of the Charter. Again, I neither negotiated nor
approved the Agreement. Sec. 17 of the Charter addresses ordinances, and has
nothing to do with resolutions. Sec. 17 of the Charter does not appear to apply to this
situation.
6. Mr. Jensen negotiated, wrote, and approved this
Agreement, which required $140,000 payment for tree removal that would require $0 if
permits were approved. Again, I neither negotiated nor approved the Agreement.
Payment of $140,000 as ultimately approved by the city commission was for acquisition
of the easement on EAB's property. I believe COJ had indicated mitigation payment
would be required if trees were removed
Af
Q
Xfw�
^
ill
E
I
I " . 6L. mom
d -, fLl 11
.41
oil