Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Storms absolved on ethics charge

The commissioner got no "special private gain" from new landscaping codes, a state ethics panel says.

By JUSTIN GEORGE and BILL VARIAN
Published October 20, 2005

	Ronda Storms said the dismissal of ethics charges "was not unexpected."

The Florida Commission on Ethics has cleared Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms of any ethics violations after she voted on landscaping regulations while her family ran a landscaping business.

"It was not unexpected," Storms said Wednesday after learning of the decision. "I thought there was nothing to it from the beginning."

Storms cast one of the deciding votes in a 4-3 decision in June 2004 that legalized the operation of businesses that grow plants and trees as well as do landscaping, mow and install irrigation in agricultural zones. These type of businesses had been limited to commercial areas before.

Storms' husband owns Storms Landscaping Nursery, which performs many of the above duties, and 20 county residents felt she had misused her powers and made a decision that would benefit the family business. They filed an ethics complaint in August 2004.

Storms called the allegations political when they were made, and the County Attorney's Office ruled that she could vote since her company was just one player in a large industry and wouldn't especially benefit from the new rules.

On Wednesday, the state ethics commission released a public report and a response saying it had investigated the claims and determined there was no probable cause to believe Storms would reap any "special private gain" from her vote. State law prohibits public officers from voting on anything that would result in a private gain or loss to them, their relatives or business associates.

The commission additionally found that Storms did not misuse her public position during the vote nor did she pressure the county's planning director to back the land use amendment with the "tone of her voice," "raised voice" or a "mean look," as the complaint alleged.

An analysis by the ethics commission showed that since Storms' business was one of more than 200 plant farms or nurseries that could be affected by the amendment to the Land Development Code, her business' interest in the amendment amounted to about 1 percent.

Between 1 and 2 percent is the legal threshold for qualifying as a "special private gain," according to the ethics commission.

The commission also said Storms' argument - that her family business was "grandfathered in" under old rules years ago and thus never needed the amendment anyway - had merit, too.

Two people who filed the complaint against Storms declined to comment Wednesday, while others couldn't be reached.

[Last modified October 20, 2005, 01:19:18]