Florida Commission on Ethics
Issued October 29, 2009

PRESS RELEASE

After reading the article by Jeff Schweers in the October 29, 2009 edition of FLORIDA TODAY I feel compelled to explain the facts that were reported inaccurately. The probable cause findings against the three deputies are attributable to minor errors in judgment, conflicting, ambiguous Florida statutes and statutory language that fails to define “political campaign.”

Newspaper Error 1:  Lance Larsen is not the Chief Deputy; he is Executive Assistant to the Property Appraiser.  Mr. Larsen’s actions were initiated by his reliance on Section 104.31(1)(b), Florida Statutes, yet that statute was ignored by the Ethics Commission in lieu of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes under which the probable cause finding was made.  Furthermore, his activities had nothing to do with a “political campaign.”

Newspaper Error 2:  Mark Johns did not solicit campaign contributions at work.  The one isolated incident reviewed by the Ethics Commission involved a taxpayer who had called Mr. Johns about one of his properties, and during the same conversation the taxpayer brought up the subject of when he could contribute to my 2004 campaign.  Mr. Johns, in an effort to be courteous, had a lapse in judgment and allowed the conversation to continue too far.  I was informed of this and reprimanded him for not stopping the taxpayer when he started talking about a campaign contribution.  I never took a contribution from that person in 2004.

Newspaper Error 3:  John Sternagel had two documents on his office computer that were the basis of the Ethics Commission’s finding.  These documents were not related to my 2004 re-election campaign.  One document was a draft that Mr. Sternagel did not author regarding a question that was being asked of the local Republican Party Chairman about party policy.  It was dated on the computer more than a year after the 2004 election.  The other document was a letter to the City of Melbourne that I had asked him to prepare, which dealt with a legal problem in the City of Melbourne’s sign ordinance when a political sign bond is not returned as was the case in my 2004 campaign.  Mr. Sternagel did not consider this to be political campaigning since the election had ended six weeks prior to his drafting the letter.  Mr. Sternagel had no idea that “political campaigning” could take place after an election was over.

In conclusion, I have never authorized nor would I direct any of my staff to engage in political campaign activities during working hours or use office equipment.  There was no improper intent on the part of any of my deputies, and the only repercussions these deputies will receive will be whatever is ultimately determined by the Ethics Commission.

Jim Ford, CFA
Brevard County Property Appraiser