Donna Deegan's “Promises Kept” Dashboard: Government Accountability or Political Messaging?

John Hawley

Aug 31, 2026

The Mayors' Office: Part VI- The 101 Report

“Promises made, promises kept” has roots in Jacksonville's 2023 mayoral politics. Now similar language headlines a taxpayer-funded City Hall account of Deegan's record during her reelection campaign—but without the costs and independent review needed to measure ROI.

Before Donna Deegan became mayor of Jacksonville, another candidate for the job was already talking about “promises made, promises kept.” During the 2023 mayoral campaign, Deegan’s Democratic rival Audrey Gibson used those words while describing her vision for Jacksonville in an October 2022 candidate profile. Their association didn’t end with the election. After Deegan won, Gibson participated in the incoming administration’s budget-review process and was subsequently appointed by Deegan to lead Jacksonville’s Grants and Contract Compliance Division.

Three years later, remarkably similar language has resurfaced in a very different place: not on a campaign mailer or in a political advertisement, but on Jacksonville.gov. “Promises Made. Promises Kept. What’s Next.” now headlines a taxpayer-funded presentation of what the Deegan administration says it has accomplished and where it intends to go next.

The language has an unmistakably political pedigree in Jacksonville politics. Now, during the final year before Deegan faces voters again, it has become the organizing theme of an official City-government presentation of her administration’s accomplishments.

That raises a larger question: Is this an accountability report—or an administration’s led account of itself?

The Title Starts With the Verdict

Consider the wording. “Promises Made” points directly to commitments an elected official made to voters. “Promises Kept” declares those commitments fulfilled. “What’s Next” turns toward what the administration intends to do in the future. Put together, it creates a compelling narrative for an incumbent seeking another term: Here’s what I promised, here’s what I delivered, and here’s what comes next.

There is nothing unusual about a political campaign making that argument. That is precisely what campaigns do. The question changes when government itself makes the argument using public resources. Technology Solutions isn’t Democratic or Republican. Neither are Public Works, Finance, Parks, Planning or the other departments whose work and data ultimately become accomplishments an administration can claim. Those departments serve Jacksonville, and taxpayers across the political spectrum pay for them.

Government information therefore ought to give residents enough evidence to reach their own conclusions about whether their government is performing well. That is where the structure of Promises Kept becomes important.

An Auditor Wouldn’t Begin With “Promises Kept”

If Jacksonville’s Inspector General or Council Auditor were assigned to determine whether an administration fulfilled its promises, they wouldn’t begin the examination by declaring that the promises were kept. They would first determine what was originally promised, establish the baseline, identify how much was budgeted and actually spent, determine whether projects were delivered on schedule, examine change orders and measurable outcomes, compare costs with similar work elsewhere and identify failures along with successes.

Only after examining that evidence would an auditor reach a conclusion. An auditor examines the evidence and reaches a verdict. “Promises Kept” supplies the verdict before taxpayers examine the evidence.

Jacksonville already has independent auditing and oversight functions, but Promises Kept is not presented as an audit from either of them. It is an administration-produced account of administration performance. That doesn’t automatically make its statistics inaccurate, but it makes the distinction between self-reported accomplishment and independently verified performance important.

An Accomplishment at Any Cost Isn’t Necessarily an Accomplishment

The presentation contains plenty of impressive numbers: roadway miles improved, parks updated, streetlights installed, affordable housing units, Public Works projects and small businesses certified. Those numbers may be entirely accurate. But accuracy isn’t the same thing as completeness.

If Jacksonville completes a project for $10 million that another comparable government routinely completes for $5 million, the project was still completed. The output is real and the accomplishment statistic is technically accurate, but taxpayers may have received a poor return. Conversely, if Jacksonville completes comparable work for substantially less than another agency, taxpayers ought to know that too and the administration deserves credit for it.

That matters because Deegan herself has made return on investment an important part of her argument for government spending. Her administration produced an analysis concluding that Jacksonville households receive nearly $3 in estimated economic value for every $1 paid for City services. The Mayor subsequently promoted that finding while making the case for her budget, but local reporting raised questions about the methodology, including reliance on national studies and modeled economic values rather than direct measurement of every claimed Jacksonville benefit.

The analysis was produced through the Mayor’s Office by Chief of Analytics Dr. Parvez Ahmed, rather than Jacksonville’s Inspector General or Council Auditor. That does not mean the analysis was wrong. It means administration analysis should not be confused with independent verification. And if City Hall wants taxpayers thinking in terms of ROI, the standard should be simple: If you’re going to show us the return, show us the investment.

Where’s the Other Side of the Ledger?

Take the administration’s claim that more than 113 miles of roadway infrastructure have been improved. That sounds positive, but taxpayers still need additional information to determine whether it represents good performance. What did those improvements cost? What was originally budgeted and ultimately spent? What was the cost per mile? Were there significant change orders? Were projects delivered on time? How does Jacksonville’s cost compare with similar work performed by JTA, FDOT or comparable governments?

Those answers could make the accomplishment look better rather than worse. Perhaps Jacksonville delivered some projects substantially below comparable costs. If so, put that information on the dashboard and give the administration credit. But taxpayers cannot determine value when one side of the ledger is missing.

A meaningful government performance system would connect the entire chain: promise, original budget, actual cost, output, measurable outcome, comparable cost and independent review. Only then can taxpayers meaningfully determine whether a promise was kept and whether keeping it represented good government.

Not All Dashboards Are the Same

Jacksonville deserves credit for developing some genuinely useful operational dashboards. MyJax, for example, allows residents to see service requests that are past due. That is meaningful transparency because the system can expose poor performance as readily as good performance. Microsoft has also credited Jacksonville’s dashboard and automation work with saving more than 600 staff hours in two reporting processes, while the City says more than 20 transparency dashboards were developed in-house by its Technology Solutions Department.

That is precisely why Promises Kept deserves to be examined differently. This isn’t simply a neutral feed of permit applications, trash collections or service requests. It is organized specifically around Donna Deegan’s promises and Donna Deegan’s record.

Producing and maintaining this kind of information also requires government resources somewhere. Technology employees build and maintain systems, departments generate information, analysts process data, managers review it, communications employees package it and software and cloud infrastructure support it. We don’t know precisely how those responsibilities were divided in producing Promises Kept, but taxpayers can certainly evaluate the final product they received.

And with all of Jacksonville’s technological capability, the obvious question remains: Why aren’t taxpayers seeing the entire ledger?

City Hall Has the Information

The City isn’t incapable of providing it. Public Works knows what projects cost. Finance knows what was appropriated. Procurement knows what contracts were awarded. Departments know their expenditures. Capital-project records contain budgets and Jacksonville tracks change orders. The City employs a Chief of Analytics, while Technology Solutions has demonstrated its ability to integrate large quantities of City information into sophisticated public dashboards.

Imagine if every significant item in Promises Kept showed the original promise, original budget, actual cost, deadline, completion date, measurable target, actual outcome, comparable government cost and whether the result had been independently reviewed. The final status could then be something more neutral: Kept, Partially Kept, In Progress or Not Kept.

That would be an extraordinary government accountability tool. Sometimes it would make the administration look good. Sometimes it wouldn’t. That is precisely the point.

The Political Overlap Makes Neutrality More Important

The timing makes this distinction particularly important. Deegan is running for reelection, and her campaign naturally promotes the accomplishments of her first term. Meanwhile, Jacksonville.gov is presenting an administration-centered narrative organized around “Promises Made. Promises Kept. What’s Next.” The phrase itself appeared in Jacksonville mayoral politics before Deegan took office through Audrey Gibson, who subsequently became part of Deegan’s administration.

There is an obvious appearance problem when taxpayer-funded government communications and an incumbent’s reelection narrative begin occupying substantially the same territory.

Government has a straightforward way to protect itself from that appearance: show everything. Show promises kept and promises missed, projects completed and projects delayed, savings and overruns, original estimates and final costs, favorable comparisons and unfavorable ones, accomplishments and failures. And tell taxpayers which significant findings have actually been independently reviewed.

That would look considerably less like political messaging and considerably more like government accountability.

Government Departments Belong to Jacksonville

This also brings the discussion back to how Jacksonville allocates its personnel and resources. Our earlier budget analysis found the Mayor’s Office at the top of the departments examined in budgeted salary dollars per authorized position, while the administration is seeking additional salary resources for its executive operation and many operating departments are not seeing comparable percentage growth.

Those operating departments already have enormous responsibilities. Public Works has roads, drainage, facilities and infrastructure. Technology Solutions has cybersecurity, enterprise systems, software modernization, automation and support for the rest of City government. Finance has a multibillion-dollar consolidated government to account for. Those responsibilities don’t disappear when an administration launches another initiative.

If operating departments are also devoting personnel and resources to collecting, processing and presenting information that ultimately supports an incumbent-centered accomplishment narrative, taxpayers have a legitimate additional question: What is the full cost of the Mayor’s agenda once work performed elsewhere in City government is included?

That cost doesn’t disappear because the employee performing the work is budgeted to Technology Solutions, Public Works, Finance or another department. It simply appears somewhere else in City government. And the question becomes particularly relevant when the executive operation directing those priorities is receiving greater compensation resources while departments carrying out the work are not necessarily seeing the same increases.

Give Taxpayers the Whole Ledger

Fiscal accountability doesn’t mean government must always choose the cheapest alternative. It means government should know what something should cost before buying it, determine what it actually cost afterward, measure what taxpayers received and compare the result against reasonable alternatives. Then let someone independent check the math before declaring success.

Donna Deegan’s reelection campaign has every right to tell voters that she kept her promises. That is what campaigns are for. Jacksonville government has a different responsibility. Its job isn’t to persuade taxpayers that an administration succeeded. Its job is to provide complete, neutral and verifiable information that allows taxpayers to decide that for themselves. If the information on Promises Made, Promises Kept. What's Next was provided by the Mayor’s Office by Chief of Analytics Dr. Parvez Ahmed, that should be listed on the dashboard.

If Promises Made. Promises Kept. What’s Next. is intended to be an accountability tool, make it one. Add the costs, overruns, misses, benchmarks and independent findings. When a promise wasn’t kept, say that too. And when Jacksonville delivers exceptional value, document that and give the people responsible full credit.

Because government transparency shouldn’t begin with the government’s preferred conclusion.