Walton County Commissioner Brannon accused of ethics violations

[GoodWitch58]

what authority did they use to vote to keep you from speaking in a public meeting of elected officials?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Good question, goodwitch. Do they have the authority to silence the public in open forum? Sounds like another lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[wrobert]

what authority did they use to vote to keep you from speaking in a public meeting of elected officials?

I understand that the statute covers the meeting being public, but nothing in the statute says that they have to let the public speak.

 

[GoodWitch58]

I haven't looked it up. I know that the meetings are public, and in some instances there is a provision--not sure if it statute or otherwise, that if a member of the public makes a written request, they are allowed at least three minutes to comment/present.

It continues to amaze me that our leaders seem not to want to do business in the sunshine and all too often, it seems they do not want to hear things they do not agree with. I am not talking about this specific instance, but others I have witnessed. I was not at either of these meetings, but when I have been there to hear Alan, he has always been appropriate in his remarks, while at the same time being assertive.

It just seems to be that so much more positive work can be achieved, if the issues are brought out into the open and whomever wants to speak to them has the opportunity to do within reason. And, IMO, the Driftwood issue has gone on much too long, and someone somewhere in County government should be able to come up with a solution for the homeowners in that area.

 

[wrobert]

I haven't looked it up. I know that the meetings are public, and in some instances there is a provision--not sure if it statute or otherwise, that if a member of the public makes a written request, they are allowed at least three minutes to comment/present.

It continues to amaze me that our leaders seem not to want to do business in the sunshine and all too often, it seems they do not want to hear things they do not agree with. I am not talking about this specific instance, but others I have witnessed. I was not at either of these meetings, but when I have been there to hear Alan, he has always been appropriate in his remarks, while at the same time being assertive.

It just seems to be that so much more positive work can be achieved, if the issues are brought out into the open and whomever wants to speak to them has the opportunity to do within reason. And, IMO, the Driftwood issue has gone on much too long, and someone somewhere in County government should be able to come up with a solution for the homeowners in that area.

The three minute thing is a policy, not a statute. You say they do not want to do business in the sunshine, do you have examples since this is accusing them of illegal activity?

 

[GoodWitch58]

Robert, if you will read my post carefully, I said SEEM-- it is the appearance that is given when people are not allowed to speak.

I did not accuse anyone of anything.

This message board is not the appropriate place to deal with any specific issue I might have. I will follow proper procedures if and when I feel something is needed.

 

[Surf4play]

Here ya go smiling joe,
this is one of the closing documents in our paperwork that has been submitttted to the DCA. We also have lots of title work that says we are a part of the Sandestin PUD and a letter from the state that says we have always been a part of Sandestin and the current Master Plan on file still says that. I'm sure they know they have the power by decleration to take the dues over for Driftwood since it has no common property left. They will never have the votes to take over our rights per the DRI. We're vested and have title insurance. There is active ethics complaints despite the rumors.View attachment 12793

This attachment actually highlights the points I was making concerning the Sandestin Resort, the SOA and the Driftwood issue:

1.) The Letter pertains to homeowners within the Sandestin Golf & Beach Resort. It does not pertain to homeowners within the Sandestin DRI. These are two distinct and seperate legal entities. Driftwood is not currently part of the Resort but it is part of the DRI.

2.) The letter clearly states that the 4 rights (discussed earlier in this thread) are "rights you receive via your assessment from the Sandestin Owner Association" (SOA). Driftwood owners voted to not continue paying SOA dues. So, one could logically conclude that these rights were forfeited (Driftwood residents would argue otherwise).

3.) The letter states that "when you purchased your Sandestin property, you automatically became a part of the SOA". This is true. But this is an organization with ongoing association dues. So what takes precedence:

a.) Originally being part of a homeowners association at time of purchase,

b.) Being a homeowner within an area (Driftwood) that is no longer within the current confines of the Sandestin Resort (which the SOA relates to; SOA does not relate to the Sandestin DRI) and also being part of an area (Driftwood) that is not current in dues payments to the SOA (by their own preference).

These issues will be answered in their proper venue... the courts.

By the way, the reason I'm bringing up these points concerning Driftwood is mainly for reasons of balance and making sure that the other side of this issue is aired on this board. The issue is not as straight forward as many believe. If it were, it would have been settled long ago.

 

[Kurt]

BCC take stand against resident Osborne | bcc, osborne, resident - Local News - WaltonSun.com

The heated debate between the Walton County Board of County Commissioners and Driftwood resident Alan Osborne came to a quick end during the April 28 regular BCC meeting.
Osborne was on the agenda to address the board.
Before he could speak, Sara Comander, commission chair, said, "You came before this board with severe allegations at the last meeting and that will not happen again. You have channels to take your concerns to, the Ethics Commission."
Comander dismissed Osborne and the meeting moved forward.
At the April 14 BCC meeting Osborne accused Commissioner Scott Brannon of unethical conduct and presented documents supporting his position to the board over the protests of board members and County Attorney Mike Burke.
At this week's meeting Comander asked the board, with Osborne standing ready to speak, to vote to hire a special master (legal arbitrator) to review Osborne's concerns.
The motion was approved by all commissioners.
As Osborne attempted to speak, Comander told him "There will be no more discussion."
When told he would not be allowed to speak, Osborne spoke directly to Comander.
"You don't want to hear what I have to say?" he asked.
"No, I don't," she replied. "We are not going to discuss this any further at this time."

When contacted later, Osborne said his right to free speech has been violated.
"I was scheduled to speak at the BCC meeting," he said. "Comander refused to allow me to speak and that is a violation of my civil rights. What happened to freedom of speech?"
According to Comader she is well within her rights as commission chair to take items off the agenda or move them around.
"I spoke with County Attorney Mike Burke prior to doing this," she said. "I feel it's time to find a solution. That is why I recommended to the board to hire a special master to review all the issues Osborne has brought before us and find a final solution."
"He has been coming before this board for five years. His rights have not been violated," said Comander.
Osborne has petitioned the BCC regularly for the past five years on the behalf of the homeowners at Driftwood Estates regarding problems with storm water drainage and non-compliance of the developer. It is their content that the developer deviated from the original approved development plan.

 

[Kurt]

Commissioner Brannon issues public statement on ethics allegation | public, allegation, statement - Local News - WaltonSun.com

Commissioner Scott Brannon has once again become the spotlight for ethics accusations leveled at him by Driftwood resident Alan Osborne.
In two previous charges, Brannon entered plea agreements.
At the April 14 Walton County Board of County Commissioners meeting, Osborne, a resident of Driftwood Estates, presented paperwork to the board which he claims show Brannon is a business partner with C. Wayne Jones.
Jones owns 70 lots in Driftwood Estates which he purchased from the original developer of Driftwood, Northtip Development.
For the past five years Osborne has petitioned the BCC on the behalf of the homeowners at Driftwood on issues regarding drainage problems resulting from inadequate storm water management. The homeowners of Driftwood assert that the developer did not follow the approved development plan or the original Development of Regional Impact approved under the Sandestin DRI.
Osborne contends Brannon's vote against holding the developer in compliance is a conflict of interest and thus has enriched his partner.
At this Tuesday's Board of County Commissioners meeting Brannon read a written statement regarding the most recent allegations.
Brannon's public statement touched on each allegation. Brannon's final word on the matter states he will "abstain from further discussion or votes related to Driftwood Estates until I have received a written opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics clarifying whether my vote would present a conflict of interest."
Immediately following his statement, Comander gaveled "no discussion" and the regular meeting continued.
----------------------------------------------
Statement in re: Driftwood Estates and Alleged Conflict of Interest
At the April 14, 2009 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting, Mr. Alan Osborne, representing Driftwood Estates, made allegations to this Board concerning what he stated was unethical or improper conduct on my part. At the time these comments were made, I had stepped out of the room and I was unable to hear what was said, or to respond. I have since had an opportunity to review the audio tape of Mr. Osborne's comments and have also met personally with Mr. Osborne to discuss his concerns.
I feel it necessary to clarify certain issues. First and foremost, I own no interest in any property in Driftwood Estates. Mr. Osborne stated that I was a "partner with those lots." To the contrary, I do not own and have never owned any interest in Driftwood Estates.
Secondly, Mr. Osborne stated that a business partner of mine was property owner in Driftwood Estates. This person is C. Wayne Jones. I am a minority member of a company in which Mr. Jones is also a minority member. This company has no association with Driftwood Estates and is the only company I am involved in that is associated with Mr. Jones. This business was created for a transaction in 2005 and now owns a single piece of property.
I have reviewed the information that Mr. Osborne relied on when making his statements at the April 14 meeting. Additionally, I have researched Mr. Jones' ownership of property in Driftwood Estates. In 2005, when Freeport Group LLC was created, Mr. Jones did not own property in Driftwood. Unbeknownst to me, at a later time, Mr. Jones, operating under a separate LLC and with another business partner, purchased the lots Mr. Osborne made reference too. I didn't know at that time, or at the time of any vote, on Driftwood that Mr. Jones owned those properties. Additionally, no vote this Board has made on Driftwood provided a special gain to Mr. Jones.
When I met with Mr. Osborne, I discussed these issues with him and explained to him what I have just stated. Additionally, I have, at all times, acted on the advice and information provided to me by staff and county legal. My votes regarding Driftwood issues were based on that information and no outside influences. Because of these reasons, Mr. Osborne and the Driftwood Homeowner's Association are in agreement that I was not acting unethically or improperly.
However, because I am now aware of Mr. Jones' ownership interest in that property and because I believe it is important to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I have asked my personal attorney to seek a written opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics. Until I have received an opinion on this issue I will abstain from any future board action related to Driftwood Estates.
I believe that Mr. Osborne and the Driftwood Estates community have a right to have their issues presented to this Board without the fear of improper motives for Board action. A full and fair hearing on their issues is important for a reasonable resolution of this matter. While I would never put my personal interests, or the interests of any business partner, over those of the public, it is important to avoid voting in any matter that could be perceived in that way. Therefore, I hereby abstain from any future discussion or votes related to Driftwood Estates until I have received a written opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics clarifying whether my vote would present a conflict of interest.
Scott Brannon, county commissioner, district one, statement read at the April 28 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Well that settles it. After reading this, I am convinced that there is no drainage problem in Driftwood.