For months, some on the council have defended a board whose expired terms and internal contradictions eroded public trust. What followed was a workshop unlike any before — a clash of legal clarity, political maneuvering, and community frustration. What was framed as a reset quickly exposed a deeper divide: between those calling for genuine accountability and those determined to preserve power, even if only “for a few more months.”
Starting the workshop, the mayor announced they would go around twice to hear each member’s suggestions.
Councilwoman Mamie Horn offered a pragmatic solution: remove the illegal board and allow any expired member to be reintroduced only if a council member nominated them outright. It was a clean way to reset without ignoring the community’s choices.
Councilman Bob Mayhar made his position clear — he wanted all expired members who had helped achieve quorum at the previous JEDCO meeting to remain on the board. Curiously, he omitted mention of Ronald Sample, who had also been present.
Councilwoman Angel McCroskey reiterated the legal issue at hand: the expired members had violated the board’s own staggered term requirement by remaining in place for years. She firmly stated she would not vote for any of them, arguing that it was illegal and the council should not collectively bear responsibility for their continued presence. She supported a reset, keep the three legally appointed members and allow each council member to nominate two new citizens.
Councilman Lequin Hilderbrand jumped in early with his stance: “I think it would be a foolish decision not to approve at least five or six of the current JEDCO board members, who by the way anyone that has been there now, that’s been proactive, been totally engaged — they don’t want to be there but just a few more months…”
That statement was a surprise. After months of council resistance to change, the defense now hinged on temporary convenience. If the board members only planned to serve a few more months, what are they really protecting — and at whose expense?
Council members have spent months defending the board’s continued presence, citing experience and engagement. But when Hilderbrand described their remaining term as “just a few more months,” the premise began to unravel. What had once been framed as essential civic continuity now sounded like a stall tactic. That contradiction underscores a deeper question: are council members shielding legitimacy — or simply preserving influence long enough to finish something quietly?
About thirty minutes into the workshop, the conversation took an unscripted turn. Prompted not by scheduling but by direct audience intervention, Councilmember Demarcus Holmes FaceTimed in. The gentleman assisting didn’t just support the technology — he initiated the call, recognizing Holmes’s input was important for both the workshop and the upcoming vote. Holmes’s recommendation echoed his previous position: preserve the three legally required members, allow the council to appoint two additional ones, and retain a couple of senior voices.
The mayor introduced round two. Ms. Horn repeated her first suggestion. Mr. Mayhar asked whether, if they pick two, the council could have a second round of nominations — since there were quite a few seats to fill.
McCroskey asked to be recognized and reminded the council that the city attorney had previously confirmed they didn’t have to choose all seventeen seats at once. The attorney, present via video, reaffirmed this and clarified that only five seats were required to be filled immediately.
McCroskey then offered her second-round pick and reiterated her agreement with Ms. Horn’s plan. Holmes remained consistent in his recommendation. Hilderbrand returned to his argument about retaining the “backbone” of the board — members he claimed were essential for completing ongoing projects.
Ms. Horn responded with a long-overdue question: “These projects we keep hearing about — I would like to see them or have someone come to the council and tell us how far they are on that project. What important projects they are working on…I need to know that.”
A back-and-forth followed between McCroskey and Hilderbrand. McCroskey noted that although she’d never been part of a board that retained expired members, she asked whether, if Hilderbrand saw them as essential, he would be willing to nominate them outright.
Hilderbrand replied that just because the council might choose not to retain them, he would gladly nominate the expired members himself.
McCroskey responded: “Well, we’ve never done this before — where the council is being told, you can pick two or three or however many, but you’ve gotta keep these senior members. The very members you’re trying to keep didn’t follow the bylaws. And you’ve been on boards — have you ever seen one ignore its own bylaws that clearly state two-year terms?”
Hilderbrand acknowledged that he had — in a couple of state boards, in fact. He continued, saying: “It’s been made clear in numerous writings — we’ve got the authority to do what we want.”
Once again, the mayor attempted to pin JEDCO’s dysfunction on the city council. But when asked, city manager Greg Kelly stepped in, reiterating that it was never the city’s responsibility to manage JEDCO appointments.
As the conversation wrapped, the mayor asked for a summary and path forward. McCroskey stated clearly: “I have no problem making a motion to remove all members from the JEDCO board, with the exception of the three legally appointed in May of 2024, and allow each council member to choose two — starting with Districts 1 through 5. I have no problem at all making that motion. That’s how it’s been done in the past.”
Mayhar asked whether she was okay with each member choosing three. McCroskey agreed — and the full council did as well.
During the vote, the full JEDCO board was removed, with three exceptions: Lequin Hilderbrand, Ronald Sample, and Jennifer Miranda would remain in their seats until their terms expired. The council then moved forward with expanding and repopulating the board. Each council member nominated three new appointees:
– Mamie Horn nominated Ray Charles Lewis, Bill Grant, and Maureen Bidwell
– Bob Mayhar nominated Tressy Morgan (expired), Charles Warren (expired), and Jessica Larkin
– Demarcus Holmes nominated Terrya Norsworthy, Keith Scott, and Derek Seastrunk
– Angel McCroskey nominated Tamala Parks, Tena Wright, and Pam McDonough
– LeQuin Hilderbrand nominated Bill Snelson (expired), Nicole Colvin, and Chris Lanier (expired)
Though the council officially voted to remove the prior board, four expired and legally ineligible members — Tressy Morgan, Charles Warren, Bill Snelson, and Chris Lanier — were immediately renominated and reinstated by Councilmen Mayhar and Hilderbrand. This raises a key question: if the reset was about restoring legality and accountability, why return the very figures whose expired terms contributed to the board’s collapse?
Adding to the contradiction, Hilderbrand himself stated during the workshop that several current board members “don’t want to be there but just a few more months.” If their service is reluctant and short-term by design, one wonders: is the council protecting civic engagement — or just stretching influence under the guise of continuity?
JEDCO’s reboot may be in motion, but for many watching closely, the deeper reset — one of values, legality, and trust — is still unfinished.
After the JEDCO vote, the zoning item was tabled.