In the upcoming City Council meeting, line item #7 quietly reads: “Consider for approval — Take Action on JEDCO Board Membership.” It may sound routine, but beneath the surface lies a decision with real consequences for governance, legality, and public trust.

At the last meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Demarcus Holmes made a motion to retain three legally appointed JEDCO members — Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda — alongside four long-standing individuals who have remained on the board despite lacking lawful reappointment. As Holmes put it, they’ve “been there seventeen, twenty thousand years.” His motion would leave ten seats to be filled — two picks per council member.

JEDCO has operated with seventeen seats since 2008, thanks to a maneuver that raised eyebrows even then. And while the number hasn’t changed, what should have changed is the membership. Several individuals have served well past their terms — not because they’re unqualified to return, but because they were never properly reappointed as outlined by law. And frankly, one would hope that the first qualification for serving on a public board is a commitment to follow the law. When that commitment is disregarded so blatantly, it doesn’t just raise doubts locally — it feeds a broader narrative of corruption and erodes public confidence in every level of leadership. If adherence to the law isn’t at the top of the list, then maybe it’s time we revisit what qualifies someone for public service in the first place.

What’s more concerning is the reasoning offered by Councilman at Large Lequin Hilderbrand during the recent workshop. He suggested reapproving the old members to manage the “open files” while the new members are groomed. If that’s the rationale, then the public deserves to ask: groomed for what, and by whom? This isn’t mentoring — it’s gatekeeping. And if legacy members are being held in place as handlers, not peers, then we’ve replaced transparent governance with a private club wearing public skin.

During the meeting, Holmes’s motion was seconded immediately by Hilderbrand and proxy member Bob Mayhar followed with a quick “good choice” — no names listed, no debate. Councilwoman Angel McCroskey rightly challenged the legality of voting on a blank motion. When pressed for clarification, City Attorney Billy Morian responded that it “should have been addressed in the workshop.” Holmes amended his motion to table the issue.

I reviewed this past year’s agendas related to JEDCO, and each one listed clear, precise descriptions — until now. So what exactly is the action being considered? Is the council showing up to discuss when the workshop will be held, as recommended by City Attorney Billy Morian? Or are we witnessing yet another attempt to sidestep process while the public watches in silence?

At what point do our leaders learn the lesson? If you’re walking in truth and serving every citizen, why all the shenanigans?

What does line item #7 actually mean?

Are we still trying to ratify board members who were never legally reappointed?

Why has the reappointment process been ignored — year after year?

And what exactly are the “open files” that require grooming to be understood?

We must demand transparency — not just in outcomes, but in how decisions are made.

Because public trust isn’t restored with vague motions or quiet votes. It’s restored with truth, legality, and leadership that stands in the light.