Confederate monument debate rages on in Jacksonville: Here's what to know about the fight

Debate over Jacksonville’s Confederate monument in Springfield Park rages on – 108 years after its dedication and a month after its removal.

In just three years, plans have been made, changed and abandoned as the city reckoned with the “Women of the Southland” monument. Weekly protests and hours of public comment, for and against leaving the structure, dominated City Council meetings.

Campaigns waged on a candidate’s beliefs about the fate of the monument. The state Legislature entered the fray, potentially voting for Jacksonville to return the statues.

Now, though parts of the monument rest in a storage facility, the debate continues.

Removal: Confederate monument removed from Jacksonville's Springfield Park early Wednesday

List of Jacksonville monuments: Here are the 11 Jacksonville Civil War monuments, markers coming down

Mayor Donna Deegan ordered the removal of the two bronze statues – one of a woman in robes carrying a Confederate flag and another of a woman reading to two children – on Dec. 27 of last year without getting City Council or Planning Department approval.

In the month since, City Council has interviewed the city’s top lawyer twice to discuss what gave Deegan the legal authority to accept the private financial donations from two local nonprofits that paid for the work and whether she needed approval from the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission for the work.

As council continues looking for answers and considers future action, here’s everything you need to know about what has happened so far:

Have Confederate monument removals happened without council approval before?

Yes.

Mayor Lenny Curry, a Republican, removed the Confederate monument in James Weldon Johnson Park, at the time Hemming Park, downtown in two parts without publicly informing City Council ahead of time.

In 2020, Curry removed the statue of a soldier on top of the monument using money from the Parks Department. The removal happened as the city and members of the Jacksonville Jaguars called for police accountability after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd, an unarmed Black man. Curry promised the protestors he would work to remove all of the Confederate monuments on public property.

In May 2023, Curry removed the obelisk of the same monument, again without council approval and with public funds. He did not make a statement at the time but his office disclosed later that the removal was part of the park’s renovation.

What made the Springfield monument removal different?

Like Curry, Deegan did not seek City Council approval for the removal.

But, instead of using public funds, she received a grant from the Jessie Ball duPont Fund and anonymous donations to 904WARD that covered the cost. Under current Jacksonville law, mayors do not have to get council approval to accept private donations.

The structure itself was in a historically designated park, bringing legal challenges Curry did not face for the monument downtown. Deegan received a verbal opinion from the city’s top lawyer, General Counsel Michael Fackler, confirming she had the authority to alter the structure.

Opponents of the move, however, say Deegan needed the approval of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission in the form of a certificate of appropriateness. A certificate can affect the seemingly most minor details of projects, such as what windows can be put in a historic home, or the most significant, like what design a home must have to blend into the neighborhood.

What did the General Counsel opinion say about the removal?

Fackler broke from the opinions of his predecessors – who told Deegan and previous mayors that a certificate of appropriateness was necessary.

He wrote a legal memorandum explaining the opinion after City Council President Ron Salem requested it after the monument removal. Fackler reiterated points he explained to City Council in previous meetings, that Deegan had the legal authority to use private funds without council approval, but expanded on the lack of certificate.

The city created the Springfield Historic District in 1992, covering an area that includes the park, which used to be called Confederate Park. The district, including the park, also is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 1991 legislation requiring a certificate for buildings in historic districts had an attached exhibit outlining the actions where a certificate would be necessary. Fackler said the partial removal of a “structure” – not a “building” – did not require the certificate, giving Deegan clearance.

“Because the Code requires that all actions requiring a COA be listed in the designation ordinance… the City is prohibited from requiring a COA for alteration of the Monument,” the opinion says. “If the City Council desires to prohibit such an activity from occurring on any of Springfield's non-buildings in the future, it should consider amending the Code or the specific legislation to specifically require that.”

What have we learned from public records requests?

Public records requests have shown two other reactions to how the monuments were removed.

Emails obtained by the Times-Union showed debate within OGC over whether Deegan needed to obtain a certificate. Former General Counsel Jason Teal said it was necessary. The team met over the following days, however, and reached a consensus, Fackler told City Council.

The Times-Union also learned that the Public Works Department did not submit a formal request to the Procurement Division for the administrative award to the company paid to remove the statues until after they were already removed.

Public Works retroactively awarded the company, Acon Construction, the $187,000 contract Jan. 3. The procurement division chief, however, determined that award “null and void” and recommended to Deegan in a Jan. 16 memo that she should cure the error by authorizing a contract with Acon Construction, which happened on Jan. 17.

What has City Council said about the removal?

Reactions from City Council members have largely split down party lines. The majority of Republicans, with the exception of Matt Carlucci, have taken issue with the “process” Deegan used to remove the monument. Some council members, like Nick Howland, have called the move an “abuse of power.”

The majority of Democrats, like Jimmy Peluso, have spoken in support of the removal.

Salem, the council president, requested Fackler answer council questions in a Rules Committee meeting Jan. 16. Salem hosted another meeting Jan. 25, during which the nine Republican council members present questioned whether Deegan influenced Fackler’s decision because of meetings Fackler took with her and her staff prior to releasing his official opinion.

What would the local proposed legislation do to stop removal in the future?

Salem introduced legislation following the removal that would prevent mayors from using private donations for public projects without City Council removal.

The bill will head to committees in February.

What has Mayor Donna Deegan said since?

Deegan has repeatedly defended her decision to take down the monument, as she promised she would do when running for mayor.

Ahead of council’s meeting with Office of General Counsel attorneys, Deegan released a statement rejecting certain council member’s opinions that she overreached or would make similar moves in the future.

"If some City Council members want to continue litigating the Civil War for their perceived political gain, that is their choice," Deegan said in a Jan. 23 statement. "My administration will continue moving forward from this unnecessary distraction and keep delivering on policies and projects that are good for our city."

In the news release, the mayor’s office also called council member scrutiny over the Acon Construction contract a “clear double standard” because of lack of reaction to similar actions when Curry was mayor. Contract curing has happened 32 times over the past four fiscal years, including 26 times under the Curry administration, the release said.

When council members questioned whether she influenced Fackler’s decision, she said she only acted on the advice he gave her.

"There seems to be a lot of projection going on with some council members,” Deegan said. “At no time did I or my staff exert any pressure or try to influence the decision of the General Counsel. My message to him has always remained the same from day one: call balls and strikes."

What would state proposed legislation to do stop removal?

Rep. Dean Black, R-Jacksonville, proposed legislation last year that would prevent Florida municipalities from removing Confederate or other historical memorials – and require them to return any that have already been taken down.

The bill last cycle died in committee, but Black refiled it for the current session.

If passed and signed into law, it could lead to elected officials being removed from office and levy fines and damages to any "person or entity" who "remove(s) a monument or memorial displayed on public property."

“Accordingly, the state preempts any local elected officials who may be swayed by undue influence by groups who may feel offended or hurt by certain actions in the history of the state or the nation,” the bill reads.

This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: What to know Jacksonville Confederate monument removal debate continues