Perception of Bias?
Good morning!
Since the campaign contribution reports came out, there has been some chatter about developers providing funding to the commissioners. This was a thing during the 2024 elections as well.
State laws are clear. Individuals and corporations have the ability to donate up to $1,000 each. If someone owns multiple companies, even if they share the same address, each of those companies can donate $1,000. Kind of crazy how that works, but absent becoming a charter county, state law allows $1,000 per entity.
We will talk about being a charter county in a future article... but that would allow the voters to determine what contribution levels are allowed. Sarasota County I believe only allows $200 per person. This could be interesting if we want some type of reform here in Citrus, but that is a huge mountain to climb and a topic for another day.
The questions about the contributions generally come when developers are contributing to a campaign and then later have a project that comes to the board for approval, where the recipient of their contribution is casting a vote for the project. Again, this is not illegal. They are allowed to vote on those projects, however, it does not always look good for optics.
Take the project coming to the board tomorrow.
Hampton Hills is part of the Citrus Hills development group. They operate several different LLCs across several different projects.
This cycle they have done an in-kind contribution for two of those entities for Rebecca Bays for a total of $2,000. One of these is the actual Hampton Hills LLC that will be coming to the board Tuesday.
So far, that is their only contribution for this election cycle.
In 2024, they contributed $13,000 to Jeff Kinnard.
They donated $5,000 to Holly Davis in 2024.
They donated $10,000 to Ruthie Schlabach, who everyone thought would win in 2024 over Janet Barek.
As you can see, that is a lot of cash flowing to campaigns from an entity that has had several projects before the board in recent years, including one on Tuesday.
Again, nothing illegal. It is legal for them to do these donations. However, what does it look like for optics of the commissioners? Here, you have a developer who has paid a total of $20,000 to three sitting commissioners (and $10,000 to one most assumed would win) bringing a project to that board where those three will take a vote to determine the fate of the project.
Here are a few others that have been before the board somewhat recently and have made some contributions to sitting commissioners. And I likely missed some, so this may not be an exhaustive list.
- Friends of Tampa General Hospital (Kinnard and Davis): $1,000
- Gulf to Lakes Associates, LLLP (and related entities) (Kinnard and Davis): $4,800
- James Dicks' Associated Entities(Davis): $6,000
- Metro Development Group (Tuscany Ranch) (Davis): $3,000
- Stephan Ponticos (Bays) - $1,000
- Townsley Construction, LLC (Bays): $1,000
- Laura Boehmer Southern Group Lobbyist (Tuscany/Asphalt Plant) (Bays): $500
- Coastal Engineering and Related Entity (Bays) - $1,000
- Beverly Hills Development Corp (Tuscany related)(Bays and Davis): $4,000
How is that for optics? Again, that is all that this is... bad for optics.
That also does not include dinners. I know that some commissioners love a good dinner with developers. I will save specifics for a later date, but again... bad for optics.
I have been told by a developer what we all assume to be the truth... "I donate to candidates who I think can help get my projects approved". I mean that is why they would choose certain candidates right? Would they donate to a candidate that they do not think will be friendly to their future projects? Why work to get someone elected that will be more likely to deny something.
Now, does that mean that commissioners will vote for these developer's projects all the time? No, not necessarily. We saw them vote against the Dicks project in Pine Ridge during an election year... but then changed their minds a few months after the elections were over... so who knows.
I do not recall a single person listed above getting a vote denied, but again, could have missed one here or there.
Point is, these contributions come to people who are more than likely to be friendly to their projects. Again 100% legal... but bad optics.
So what can commissioners do? Can they just not vote for a project if they received contributions? Yup.. that is exactly what they can do.
You will hear commissioners routinely say something like "We cannot refuse to vote for something. We have to make votes as required by state law".
That is true for regular agenda items and regular business. State Law requires them to make all votes unless they benefit personally (or a family member benefits). That is covered under FS 286.012
However, there is a carve out for Quasi-Judicial cases, like these projects. Remember, all of these development projects are Quasi-Judicial.
Here is the carve out:
"If the official decision, ruling, or act occurs in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding, a member may abstain from voting on such matter if the abstention is to assure a fair proceeding free from potential bias or prejudice."
See that? They can abstain if the vote they are making has potential bias or prejudice. I refuse to listen if they say otherwise. It is there in black and white.
Can it be argued that receiving contributions from a developer who then brings a project to the board where that person has to make a vote has potential bias or prejudice? Absolutely. Note, the law does not say "free from bias...". It says "free from POTENTIAL bias..." That is a huge difference.
Why are we not asking them to abstain from voting on projects that include a developer whom contributed to their campaigns? Want to make changes to campaign contributions? Start getting commissioners to sit out votes and those contributions will instantly dry up.
Perhaps that is what we need to start doing. Put pressure on them to abstain from votes regarding Quasi-Judicial hearings where they received money from the developer of the project. If we do that for this next vote on Tuesday, only 2 commissioners will vote on the matter (Finegan and Barek). The odds of that project being denied skyrocket.
Remember, accepting any contribution is a choice. They can deny contributions from anyone and everyone they want. When a developer comes with a check, they can simply say "no". Saying "yes" opens the door to the optics questions.
Will commissioners this cycle make a promise to not vote on a Quasi-Judicial project from a contributor? I will certainly ask each and everyone of them that question. Then you can decide how to view their answers when it is time to vote.
If they all agree to abstain, that will certainly change what contributions are made going forward and that will remove the issue of the optics. Sounds like a good deal to me.