The campaign, called "Yes for Greenlight," is being led by Ronnie Duncan, chairman of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, and Chris Steinocher, president of the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce. In place of a traditional campaign manager, it will be run by Tucker Hall, a Tampa-based public relations firm, which has put vice president Keith Rupp in charge of daily operations.
Not yet fully formed, the "Yes for Greenlight" campaign has only begun to court donors, Duncan said, and has not amassed a war chest to pay for months of advertising. It has set up a tax exempt advocacy organization, a 501c4, he said, a step that will allow it to collect contributions and keep funders anonymous.
Organizers would not say how much they expect to raise, but similar campaigns in other cities have cost in the range of $1 million to $2 million.There is a problem when the chairman of a state agency, serves as chairman for a private organization, who's anonymous big dollar donors are hiding behind a 501c4, who's true interests are as hidden as the donors. We can only assume they are hiding because ... they are hiding something.
Who's interest will Ronnie Duncan be representing? The seven counties, or a multi-million dollar anonymous donor group? What are their real interests? Do they align with your interests?
Ronnie Duncan, who's your master?
|Ronnie Duncan, who's your master?|
112.311 Legislative intent and declaration of policy.-
(5) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state that no officer or employee of a state agency or of a county, city, or other political subdivision of the state, and no member of the Legislature or legislative employee, shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect; engage in any business transaction or professional activity; or incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public interest. To implement this policy and strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the state in their government, there is enacted a code of ethics setting forth standards of conduct required of state, county, and city officers and employees, and of officers and employees of other political subdivisions of the state, in the performance of their official duties. It is the intent of the Legislature that this code shall serve not only as a guide for the official conduct of public servants in this state, but also as a basis for discipline of those who violate the provisions of this part.
112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government attorneys.—(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.—
(a) No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee, excluding those organizations and their officers who, when acting in their official capacity, enter into or negotiate a collective bargaining contract with the state or any municipality, county, or other political subdivision of the state; nor shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties. 1. When the agency referred to is that certain kind of special tax district created by general or special law and is limited specifically to constructing, maintaining, managing, and financing improvements in the land area over which the agency has jurisdiction, or when the agency has been organized pursuant to chapter 298, then employment with, or entering into a contractual relationship with, such business entity by a public officer or employee of such agency shall not be prohibited by this subsection or be deemed a conflict per se. However, conduct by such officer or employee that is prohibited by, or otherwise frustrates the intent of, this section shall be deemed a conflict of interest in violation of the
Highlighting is ours.
So it should be clear that Duncan has an "interest, financial or otherwise" is incurring "professional activities" that is in "substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public interest." He also holds an "employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties."
The fact the Ronnie Duncan believes he can get away with such disregard of the public trust confirms that he is unsuitable as a public servant.
Ronnie Duncan, who's your master?
Ronnie Duncan must go.