 This one is going to sting. The only correct thing Citrus County commissioners did during their discussion of the C.R. 491 legislative mess Tuesday was to vote 5-0 to tell the Senate thanks, but no thanks. Other than that, just a significant amount of B.S. No accountability. Commissioner Diana Finegan goaded Rebecca Bays into apologizing for going behind the board’s back with a lobbyist on behalf of an influential developer. A developer who needs C.R. 491 widened to have a chance to build thousands of homes.
Man, what a bummer. These five and County Administrator Steve Howard had a golden opportunity to come clean on all this and move on. Instead, we still have unanswered questions and the general feeling that commissioners just poo-pooed the whole thing. Howard sounded like a middle-schooler caught turning in someone else’s homework. I didn’t know! I was confused! I’ll never do it again! We’re going a little long today considering interest in the subject. (Here's the meeting video. Discussion starts at 1:59.) Some quotes from the meeting, and my thoughts:
I respectfully disagree. It was wrong to accept communication from a developer’s lobbyist that started this ordeal. It was wrong to ask for state money without board approval or knowledge. It was wrong for the administrator to sign forms stating truthfulness when the stuff on the form was untrue. It was wrong to keep all this from the public until after Just Wright Citrus exposed it. It was wrong to give false statements to the Chronicle. It was wrong to bypass Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, who’s madder than a wet hen. It was wrong to mislead freshman Rep. JJ Grow into thinking the County Commission had supported this request. I could go on and on and on. Plenty wrong.
It’s a bad day when Finegan is the one making the righteous stand. Here’s the thing, though: NO ONE other than Diana did an ounce of looking into the background of all this. She had one interesting idea: An ordinance prohibiting county commissioners and the administrative staff from engaging in communications with a developer while the land-use application is pending. (The fact that this idea originated with Diana is ironic. Had it been in place in November 2023, she’d be in violation.)
(Shaking my head.)
Who didn’t see that coming? Janet is only six months on the job and already in the “will never EVER get a single thing done” category. I’m not defending Steve. Not at all. I just question whether this was a fireable offense. Terrible, yes. Finegan suggested a letter of reprimand in his personnel file, but that didn’t get anywhere. See, that’s the problem right there. Fire him? OK, maybe not. But NO discipline at all? He signed a public document that was false. His employee, Technical Services Director Walt Eastmond, filled out the request form. Howard said he didn’t know anything about that. (Mike note: The blog was edited to remove references to Steve saying he had never signed an attestation form before. I spoke with Steve on Wednesday who said he didn't say that. I thought that's what I heard, and some others came to the same conclusion, but obviously I got it wrong. Sincere apologies.)
So, here’s how this went down. A former commissioner with strong ties to county government was hired by a mega lobbying firm. This former commissioner and another lobbyist with the same firm, representing a developer, reached out to the County Commission chair about getting money for C.R. 491. What followed was a flurry of email activity between lobbyists and Howard. He needed to sign the attestation form before the request could go in. They sent him the form in February, then another reminder in March to please sign it. Why did he sign the form? According to Howard, Bays directed him to. Here’s my question: What, exactly, was he naive about? Was it the legislative process? The lobbyist who told him it was OK to do this without a board vote? Or the County Commission chair giving direction to him outside of the sunshine?
I don’t know about that. It most definitely was NOT “adequately unpacked.” Take a look at the comments on the JWC Facebook page when I posted a three-sentence update Tuesday after the 491 vote. As I’m writing (about 10 p.m.) there are close to 100 comments. All but a handful are critical.
And what are those lessons, Holly? That was it from Davis, by the way, other than to agree with Kinnard. No questions, no observations.
I believe Rebecca meant no harm, though it all looks odd. For a commissioner of her experience, this was WAY out of bounds. She knew better and did it anyway.
Andrea’s one of my heroes and this is why. She describes how we’re all feeling. Upset. Hurt. We have a friendly relationship with commissioners. When this happens, it’s personal. Overall grade: D. While good that commissioners voted to drop the $1.5 million Senate budget request (which was history with this fiasco anyway), the lack of a deep dive is disappointing. We’re not done with this subject. My plan for Thursday’s blog involves the former commissioner’s role. And we haven’t even discussed what this inappropriate behavior does to the Tuscany development. How can Bays claim impartiality in a land-use case when she’s already gone to bat on the developer’s behalf for state funding? Summing up the public’s mood: Not happy, commissioners. Not happy at all. Join the discussion on our Facebook page. Enjoying the blog? Please consider supporting it at Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon. Comments are closed.
|
AuthorMike Wright has written about Citrus County government and politics for 37 years. 
Archives
February 2026
|
