В Апопке не подтвердили передачу дела о конфликте между комиссаром и сотрудниками в этическую комиссию

APOPKA, Fla. – An internal City of Apopka investigation details complaints from three planning employees who raised concerns about Commissioner Nadia Anderson’s conduct during a meeting over a proposed development — including one planning manager who said he interpreted her comments as an attempt to intimidate staff. Anderson strongly disputes that characterization, telling News 6 she did not threaten or intimidate anyone, was not representing the developer and believed she was fulfilling her responsibility as an elected official by questioning how the city handled a constituent’s concerns. The city’s Human Resources director ultimately recommended that the findings be reviewed by the city administrator and that the matter be referred to the Florida Commission on Ethics. The city confirmed to News 6 Monday that no referral to the Ethics Commission has been made. The development involved in the dispute, at 412 Old Dixie Highway and identified in city records as Adam Retail Plaza, is currently on hold, according to the city, which says it is waiting for a resubmittal. Three planning employees complained after June meeting The Aug. 19 memorandum was written by Human Resources Director Joe Patton and sent to Interim City Administrator Radley Williams. Its subject identifies it as a determination resulting from a city staff complaint concerning Anderson and a June 29 meeting. According to the memo, complaints came from Planning Manager Bobby Howell and planners Amer Hamza and Dr. Jun Sohn. The document says the complaints stemmed from a June 29 meeting requested by Anderson concerning 412 Old Dixie Highway and Adam Retail Plaza. The memo identifies people at the meeting as Anderson; the owner/developer, identified only as Adam; civil engineer Ali Teherani; an associate of Anderson; Public Works Director Vladimir Simonovski; Howell; Sohn; and Hamza. According to Howell’s account summarized in the memo, the developer said the city had cost him $70,000 in fees because he had initially been told the proposed use was permitted and the site plan would work, but was later told the use was not permitted. Howell said he explained that the plans had not been approved and were required to comply with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The memo says Howell wrote that Anderson responded that he was wrong and said the city attorney would “back her up.” Howell also wrote that Anderson accused staff of acting unprofessionally, described herself as a professional on whom people relied and said the otherwise unpermitted uses should be approved because of what she described as staff’s mistake. Those are allegations and accounts contained in the HR investigation; the memo does not state that an independent ethics body determined Anderson violated an ethics law. Other planners describe what they heard Sohn provided a similar account, according to the memo. He wrote that Anderson told the property owner the matter should be brought before the City Commission and indicated she was willing to help him do so. Sohn said he directly heard Anderson’s comments about the planning staff’s performance and professionalism as well as her suggestion that the issue be taken to the commission. Hamza’s account went further. The memo quotes Hamza as writing that “Commissioner Nadia Anderson was representing the applicant” and that she was verbally attacking planning and zoning staff, calling them unprofessional and saying the department should approve the project. Anderson unequivocally denies that characterization. “I was not representing the applicant. I represent the people of Apopka,” Anderson told News 6 in a written response Monday. Anderson said that responsibility extends to homeowners, seniors, families, employees and businesses who bring concerns about city government to her. “My involvement was not about taking the applicant’s side or staff’s side,” Anderson wrote. “It was about taking the side of what I believed was right and fair.” Planning manager said he interpreted comments as intimidation The memo’s summary of findings says staff reported that Anderson accused city employees of being unprofessional and said the applicant’s project should be approved. Howell wrote: “I interpreted these statements as an attempt to intimidate staff and publicly embarrass them because she was dissatisfied that her constituent’s or client’s project would not receive approval.” That language represents Howell’s interpretation of Anderson’s conduct, as recorded in the HR memo. Anderson denies intimidating or pressuring city employees. “I did not threaten, intimidate, or misuse my authority against anyone,” Anderson told News 6. She said her purpose was instead to bring everyone involved to the table, listen to both sides and determine what she believed was right. Anderson acknowledged that she can be direct when she believes something needs to be corrected, but said direct questioning should not be equated with intimidation. “Elected officials have a responsibility to question government actions when citizens or businesses believe they have been treated unfairly,” she wrote. In another part of her response, Anderson said asking difficult questions of government employees “is not bullying; it is part of accountable government.” Anderson says she did not attend meeting to demand approval Anderson also disputes the allegation that she went into the June meeting seeking a predetermined result. She told News 6 she did not attend the meeting to demand that the project be approved. Instead, she said she brought the parties together because she believed legitimate questions existed about how the matter had been handled. “My responsibility as a commissioner is to advocate for all citizens of Apopka, including residents and businesses,” Anderson wrote. She said commissioners should not interfere with the professional decisions of city staff but argued elected officials also should not remain silent when they have concerns involving fairness, process or accountability. Why Anderson declined to participate in the internal review The HR memo says Williams told Human Resources that he notified Anderson about the staff complaints and asked whether she wanted to provide a statement. According to the memo, she said no. Anderson explained that decision to News 6 Monday. She said she had concerns about participating in a process in which she believed allegations and conclusions appeared to be developing before her perspective had been fully considered. “I did not believe responding within that framework would necessarily produce an objective assessment of what happened,” Anderson wrote. She maintained that she was not attempting to bully staff, pressure anyone into approving the project or use her elected office to benefit a private party. “I was advocating for neither side,” Anderson wrote. “I was advocating for what was right.” HR recommended further review — including Florida Commission on Ethics At the end of the Aug. 19 memo, Patton wrote that he was forwarding the summary to the city administrator “to review and to determine appropriate action, if any.” He added: “I would also refer to Florida Commission on Ethics for review.” News 6 asked the city what happened after that recommendation. The city confirmed Monday that Human Resources conducted the investigation and said the HR findings represent the city’s documented response to the matter. But the city also told News 6: “The City has not made a referral concerning this matter to the Florida Commission on Ethics.” The city did not explain in its response why that referral was not made. Anderson told News 6 she would be comfortable with an independent review of her conduct — with a condition. “I am comfortable with an objective review of my conduct, provided that review examines the entire situation, all parties involved, and the full context of what occurred — not simply allegations made by one side,” she wrote. City: Employees and elected officials expected to act professionally In its response to News 6, the City of Apopka said it expects both employees and elected officials to conduct themselves professionally. The city said it is committed to ensuring “that every employee is treated with the utmost respect and dignity.” It also said workplace concerns are taken seriously and addressed through established city processes. The city’s response did not state that Anderson had violated a city policy or ethics provision. Development remains on hold The city also provided an update on the development that led to the June meeting. According to the city, the project at 412 Old Dixie Highway/Adam Retail Plaza is on hold, and officials are waiting for the applicant to submit revised materials. The city did not indicate in its response when a resubmittal might occur. For Apopka resident Chanel Chapman, the allegations raised a broader concern about how employees should be treated while doing their jobs. “No one should feel intimidated when they come to work to do their job on a daily basis,” Chapman told News 6. The dispute now leaves two separate issues moving on different tracks: the development itself remains on hold, while the city has completed its HR review without making the Ethics Commission referral recommended in the Aug. 19 memo.