Ayscue loses bid to deny Fernandina Beach Funded Defense in Paid Parking Recall

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

Vice Mayor Darron Ayscue stood alone Tuesday night in opposing the city’s decision to provide insurance-funded legal defense for Commissioners Genece Minshew and Tim Poynter as a citizen-led recall effort continues to gather petition signatures.

In two separate 3–1 votes, the Fernandina Beach City Commission approved resolutions authorizing insurance counsel to defend Minshew and Poynter against the recall petitions. Both commissioners recused themselves from discussion and voting on their respective items. Ayscue voted in opposition both times.

“I just don’t subscribe to it,” Ayscue said of the city attorney’s opinion that the city has a legal duty to defend. “If this is born out of frustration from the city residents… why not let it go? Why wouldn’t you let it go to a recall (vote)?”

Ayscue noted that under Florida’s recall process, organizers must ultimately obtain signatures equal to 15% of the city’s registered voters in order to force a recall election. “If things are going so well (in the city), it’s (the recall) going to get crushed at the ballot,” he said.

Ayscue, who voted against the paid parking ordinance that took effect Feb. 16 and is running for re-election to the city commission in 2026, also referenced having paid his own legal expenses in past election complaints and said he disagreed with using public insurance coverage in this instance.

“I paid thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees,” he said. “I didn’t complain about it. I didn’t say anything. I just went on about my business and did what I was supposed to do as a commissioner.”

Poynter responded forcefully, calling the recall allegations “a ridiculous charge.”

“We voted because that’s what we have to do (as a commissioner),” Poynter said. “This is what they’re accusing us of doing.”

He argued that recall is intended for illegal conduct, not policy disagreements over legislation such as paid parking, and warned that failing to defend would create a chilling effect on future officeholders.

“The chilling effect of this for people moving forward — when you're doing your job and you're doing an unpopular thing for some people — but other people are loving the idea of having their taxes not raised, generating some revenues from people who don't contribute anything to this community — that's two different things,” he said.

Commissioner Joyce Tuten echoed that concern, emphasizing that state law requires commissioners to vote on matters placed before them unless they have a conflict of interest.

“If there’s no legal reason to recuse, we have to vote,” Tuten said. “Voting on parking is required by law.”

Tuten cited Florida’s statutory grounds for recall — malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude — and questioned whether voting on a controversial ordinance meets the legal requirements for a recall.

The recall petitions, filed with the City Clerk on Jan. 29 at 3:06 p.m., accuse both commissioners of malfeasance and neglect of duty for voting on Oct. 21, 2025, to reject a certified citizen-initiated ordinance prohibiting paid parking without a fiscal impact analysis, and for voting Jan. 6, 2026, to adopt the city’s paid parking ordinance despite a potential August 2026 referendum and more than 1,700 signatures opposing the measure.

Minshew and Poynter can challenge the legality of the petition language in Nassau County Circuit Court if the citizen's group collects enough signatures to qualify for the next step in the recall process.

City Attorney Teresa Prince advised the commission that under Florida Supreme Court precedent in Thornber v. Town of Fort Walton Beach, a municipality has a common law duty to pay for a defense if the litigation arises from an official’s duties and serves a public purpose.

Both resolutions — 2026-23 for Minshew and 2026-24 for Poynter — cite Thornber and conclude the recall allegations stem from votes taken in the performance of official duties and that defending against a recall petition serves the public interest in ensuring proper procedures are followed.

The city’s insurer, Preferred Governmental Insurance Trust, through Summit Risk Services, agreed to provide a defense under the policy’s non-monetary claims provision, subject to a reservation of rights. The policy carries a $0 deductible and up to $100,000 in defense costs for non-monetary claims during the coverage period.

Prince told commissioners the insurance carrier would appoint counsel and that coverage was appropriate because the petitions concern actions taken in the commissioners’ official capacities.