SOMEONE IS HEARING YOU OR SOON WILL

update: WHEN YOU SPEAK WITH MS. KAREN, PLEASE REMEMBER SHE IS A NEIGHBOR. SHE MADE THE OFFER, YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN IF YOU DO NOT TALK TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION. HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO PRESENT YOUR CASE. HELP MS. KAREN KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW. HELP HER SEE THE DESTRUCTION THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY THIS. BUT DO IT RESPECTFULLY , WHICH GOES WITHOUT SAYING.

WE THANK THE GOOD COUNCILWOMAN FOR HER EFFORT TO OPEN THE FLOOR TO PEOPLE CONCEREND.

LET’S SEE WHO IS NEXT

I am sorry, but given all of the evidence we have uncovered and provided to the Village and the elected, there is a reason you are not hearing from the others. Ask yourself, why? Reach out to them regardless, let them know whats on your mind. We did have Ms. Waters Brown @ the Town Hall to listen.

Why is it there is no Town Hall called to hear citizens worries, fears, facts and science? Not 3 minutes @ a podium – we want open dialogue.

There sure seems to be enough outcry for it. We have proven that at our Community Task Force Meetings and our Town hall. So, again, WHY?

Why is it that Loudoun County was chosen as a success story for our wayward traveling friends and neighbors?

Who else do we know that has development interests here and in Virginia?

We keep coming back to one shark in the water. Bet you can’t guess their name. We will detailing a web of financial and business relationships between people serving in your government and those in a web of back room deals, more to come ………

(Correct: “Loud-un” Incorrect: “Low-Down”)

(the PZAB member who also serves as Chairwoman of the Economic Council of Indiantown recently returned from a data-center tour in Loudoun County, Virginia, paid for by Kevin Powers — a fellow Economic Council board member and local real-estate broker — framed as an “example of success,” and she will still vote on Silver Fox 606), here is the precise ethics analysis under current Florida law.

1. Does this automatically create a statutory voting conflict requiring mandatory recusal?

No. Florida Statute § 112.3143(3)(a) requires recusal only if the matter (Silver Fox 606) would inure to the special private gain or loss of the member herself, her principal/employer, a relative, or a business associate.

• Kevin Powers paying for the trip does not automatically make him her “business associate” under the Ethics Commission’s definition (a formal business relationship beyond shared volunteer service on the same nonprofit board).
• Uncompensated service on an economic-development council has repeatedly been ruled not to create a voting conflict when the council supports a project (see Florida Commission on Ethics opinions CEO 14-11, CEO 04-6, CEO 11-04). The benefit to the community (jobs, tax base) is considered public, not “special private gain.”
• The trip itself is educational/promotional and does not give her a direct financial stake in Silver Fox 606.

However, if evidence showed the trip was intended to (or did) create a personal obligation or financial benefit to her or Powers’ real-estate interests, that could change the analysis.

2. Gift / Unauthorized Compensation Issues (§ 112.313(2), (4) and § 112.3148)

This is the stronger potential problem.

• If Kevin Powers (a private citizen and real-estate broker with a clear interest in Indiantown’s economic growth) paid for travel, lodging, or related expenses, it is likely a gift that must be disclosed and may be prohibited if its value exceeds statutory thresholds without proper reporting.
• Public officers cannot accept gifts that are intended to influence official action (§ 112.313(2)). Framing the trip as a “success story” for data centers right before a vote on a data-center project creates the appearance that the gift was meant to shape her perspective.
• Failure to disclose the gift on the required form (if required) or to report it at the hearing could itself be an ethics violation.

3. Misuse of Public Position (§ 112.313(6))

This is also implicated. Using her PZAB position while accepting a privately funded, targeted educational trip on the exact type of project she will vote on could be viewed as using her office to secure a special benefit (the trip) that is not available to the general public. The Ethics Commission looks at whether the action “tempts dishonor.”

4. Quasi-Judicial Appearance of Bias (Due Process)

PZAB hearings on major site plans like Silver Fox 606 are quasi-judicial. Florida courts hold that decision-makers must be (and appear) impartial.

• A paid site tour sponsored by a vocal economic-development advocate immediately before the hearing creates a strong appearance of bias.
• Courts have overturned local approvals when board members had undisclosed ex-parte influences or site visits funded by interested parties.
• Even if no statutory conflict exists, this is the kind of fact pattern that opponents routinely use to file a certiorari appeal or § 163.3215 lawsuit challenging the entire approval.

Bottom Line and What Should Happen

• No automatic mandatory recusal under the strict voting-conflict statute.
• Strong appearance-of-bias and potential ethics issues under the gift and misuse-of-position rules.
• Best practice (and what protects the process): The Chairwoman should publicly disclose the trip, the funding source, and any communications at the start of the Silver Fox 606 hearing and voluntarily recuse herself from discussion and voting. Indiantown’s own PZAB rules and the board attorney would almost certainly advise this once the facts are on the record.
• If she participates without full disclosure, it gives any aggrieved resident solid grounds to challenge the PZAB recommendation and/or the eventual Village Council approval in court.

What Citizens Can Do Right Now

1. At the upcoming PZAB hearing (still expected in the next few weeks), ask on the record: “Did any PZAB member attend a privately funded data-center tour, and if so, will they disclose it and recuse?”
2. If she does not disclose/recuse, file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Ethics (simple online form; anyone can file; it’s public and triggers an investigation).
3. Document everything for a possible later court challenge under § 163.3215.

This situation is exactly why the ethics rules exist in small communities where economic-development volunteers overlap with land-use decision-makers. The trip tips the scales from “common dual role” to “needs careful handling.”

or the upcoming PZAB hearing on Silver Fox 606 (or any similar item). Everything below is based on current Florida law and the Village of Indiantown’s adopted Land Development Regulations (as of the latest ordinances available on the Village website and agenda packets).

1. Exact Language to Use at the Hearing

You can read this verbatim during public comment, or when the Chair asks “Does any member have a conflict or ex-parte communication to disclose?” (This phrasing is common at Indiantown PZAB meetings.) It puts the facts on the record without being accusatory.

Suggested statement (read slowly and clearly):

“Madam/Mr. Chair, before the Board proceeds on Application [insert number if known, or “the Silver Fox 606 major site plan”], I would like to ask the following for the record:

Board Member [Name], who also serves as Chairwoman of the Economic Council of Indiantown, recently returned from a data-center tour in Loudoun County, Virginia. That trip was paid for by Kevin Powers, a fellow member of the Economic Council board and a local real-estate professional who has publicly advocated for data-center development.

Under Florida Statute § 112.3143 and the Village’s PZAB ordinance, I respectfully ask:

1. Will Board Member [Name] please disclose on the record the details of that trip, including who paid for it and whether any discussions occurred about data-center projects in Indiantown?
2. Will she also disclose any ex-parte communications she has had with Mr. Powers or the applicant regarding Silver Fox 606?
3. Given that the trip was framed as an ‘example of success’ for the exact type of project now before this Board, does she believe she has a voting conflict or an appearance of bias that would require her to recuse herself from discussion and voting under F.S. § 112.3143 and Village LDR Section 11-5(c)?”

(If she does not recuse after this, you can follow up with:) “Thank you. For the record, I believe this creates at least an appearance of bias that may violate the quasi-judicial standards required for this hearing. I ask that the Board attorney advise on this matter before proceeding.”

This language is factual, cites the exact rules, and creates a clear public record that can be used later if needed.

2. Link to the Florida Commission on Ethics Complaint Form

The official form you must use is CE Form 50 (Ethics Complaint Form).

• Direct download: https://ethics.state.fl.us/Documents/Forms/Complaint%20Form.PDF
• Full instructions and filing process: https://ethics.state.fl.us/Complaints/Complaints.aspx

Important: The complaint must be printed, signed, and notarized (original mailed or hand-delivered — no emails or photocopies). It is confidential until the Commission makes a preliminary determination.

3. Relevant Sections of the Indiantown LDRs / PZAB Ordinance

These are taken directly from the Village’s current Land Development Regulations (codified in Ordinance XX-2022 and subsequent amendments, Section 11-5):

(b) In the event that any member of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board fails to attend three of the regularly scheduled meetings per calendar year or abstains from voting on a matter before the Board due to a conflict of interest on four different applications within a period of one year, such member shall cease to be a member of the Board. (c) Any member of the Board, who has a voting conflict under F.S. § 112.3143, concerning any matter before the Board, shall make that interest known and shall recuse him or herself from participating in that matter, in addition to otherwise complying with the requirements of F.S. § 112.3143.

This is the exact language the Board is bound by. Note that it requires full recusal from participating (not just voting) if a § 112.3143 conflict exists.

You now have everything you need to go on the record cleanly at the hearing. If the member does not disclose or recuse after your statement, the transcript of the meeting becomes powerful evidence for an ethics complaint or a later court challenge.