County Commissioners vote to terminate County Attorney’s contract

Jackson County, Fla, - The Jackson County Commission’s decision to terminate County Attorney Michelle Jordan’s contract came after a long and at times uneasy conversation that revealed frustration, disagreement, and competing interpretations of both motive and process.

County Administrator Jim Dean opened the agenda item by stating the action before the board: “Next item, Mr. Westbrook, item number 12 is a request for ratification for the termination of a contract with legal services for Jackson County Board of County Commissioners.”

Chairman Jamey Westbrook followed with a simple prompt: “What’s the board’s pleasure?”

What followed was a lengthy exchange that showed the board was not unified on the reasons behind the move, even if most members ultimately supported taking it.

Commissioner Paul Donofro spoke first, describing his experience working with Attorney Jordan over the past five years. He said he found her to be “professional” and “thorough,” but he also acknowledged that tensions had risen in recent months.

According to Donofro, the issue began over Jordan’s request for increased fees. He said he had originally suggested researching comparable counties to determine whether her proposed increase was reasonable, but the board instead moved forward with a formal RFQ.

Since that vote, he said, the working relationship had declined. “It seems like there has been a degradation in the relationship between our attorney and certain members of our administrative staff. And there’s been a little bit of a degradation in the relationship between our attorney and some of the commissioners. And I think it’s become obviously an untenable situation.”

He concluded by making the first motion to terminate: “With that being said, I want a motion to move forward with termination.”

Commissioner Dr. Willie Spires raised immediate concerns about how the termination was being framed. He pointed out that the memo from Administrator Dean classified the termination as “without cause,” yet Commissioner Westbrook had just listed several specific reasons, which sounded like causes.

“Commissioner, you just gave several reasons for agreeing with the request to terminate. Is that in keeping with your thinking?” he asked.

Dean responded by clarifying that the county was using the contract’s no-cause provision, regardless of opinions expressed around the table, “My intent was to present this in a way that we would terminate the contract without cause.”

Spires did not hide his unease. Later, he said the timing “reeks of vindication” following disagreements at the previous meeting. He also warned the board not to pin broader financial issues on the attorney, “I just want to say this. I think our financial woes extend far beyond what we’ve spent on legal service, guys, so keep that in mind.”

Commissioner Ed Crutchfield repeatedly pressed for clarity on how the RFQ would operate if Jordan remained under contract. His central point was simple: if the county is going to accept bids, the current contract would need to be ended so she could compete. “If it’s going to be going out to bid, then she’s allowed to bid too. But to be able to select a bidder, we gotta account for her contract. I mean, if she’s got a contract already….”

Dean confirmed that the current contract does not prevent Jordan from submitting a proposal. Spires echoed this question later, asking directly whether termination would block her from competing. Dean answered, “No, sir. It does not.”

When discussion returned to Westbrook, he said that public speculation and personal accusations had played no part in his vote. His reasoning, he said, was financial.

“My position is not what somebody says about me. I can take care of that in time. But I will say that the expense of it and the cost of it is, in my opinion, astronomical. We’ve just gone through a budget situation where we were lacking about a million dollars.”

He added that he had spoken with others who shared concerns about spending and said he wanted to focus on reducing costs where possible.

Commissioner Donnie Branch reminded the board that his support for the RFQ was based on wanting to see whether the county could obtain equally strong legal services at a lower cost. “My original thought on this was simply to find out if we could get services cheaper or better or not. Made it no secret that I’m a proponent of the bid process.”

Branch said he wanted to “see what else is out there,” including the option that Jordan could submit a bid.

When Dr. Spires warned about attributing too much to legal costs, Branch agreed but argued that savings start somewhere, “We got other problems, but we got to start somewhere. If we can save here, save there, that’s money we saved.”

As the board neared a vote, Westbrook again stated he wanted “the best person for the best price.” Dr. Spires pushed back, saying the language should be more precise.

“I think our financial woes extend beyond legal, but when you use the term the best person, it involves me, because how do we determine the best person?”

Westbrook attempted to clarify, noting that the evaluation team on the RFQ would know what qualifications to look for. The two went back and forth, with Spires even using Westbrook’s business as an example, saying he might not claim to have “the best well driller,” but instead a qualified one.

The chairman asked, “Are you satisfied now?”  Spires replied, “Not really.”

Audience member Sheila Ellis stepped forward to ask the commission a direct question. She said if Dean is already reviewing most legal documents to save money, the board should consider whether it truly needs a full-time attorney. “If we’re all concerned about saving money for the county and Mr. Dean primarily does all the reviewing of any legal documents, then what’s the purpose of a full-time attorney?”

Westbrook said the board could be considering a full-time role, but he declined to give a definitive answer. Commissioner Donofro clarified that Dean was not being asked to review everything, only the documents he felt comfortable handling.

Ellis thanked them and returned to her seat.

Before voting, Dr. Spires pressed for a specific termination date. After some back-and-forth, the board agreed that the 90-day notice window would begin at the end of November, ending around March 1.

With that cleared up, the vote was taken. Westbrook restated the motion. Commissioner Donofro reminded him that he had actually made the motion earlier. Branch seconded it. When hands were raised, the motion passed  3-2 with Dr. Spires and Crutchfield voting against. 

As the chairman announced the result, he added one more personal note, “I’m not interested in nothing but having the best person for the best price. I’ll deal with all that other private stuff. I know just how to do it.”

The meeting moved on, leaving behind a debate that made clear the county’s legal landscape is about to shift, but also that questions remain about how the board arrived here and what direction it intends to go next.