Ethics Commission Dismisses Conflict of Interest Claims Against Palm Coast Council’s David Alfin and Ed Danko

The Florida Ethics Commission last Friday dismissed a pair of complaints claiming that Palm Coast Mayor David Alfin and City Council member Ed Danko, the vice mayor, voted on matters in which they had a conflict, and did not disclose it. The commission found the complaints legally insufficient.

Anyone can file an ethics complaint at no cost. While the ethics commission provides for whistleblowers or concerned citizens to report public employees or elected officials who may be abusing their position for profit, complaints are also at times filed with the express purpose of damaging the reputation of the person targeted, especially ahead of elections.




That was the case several years ago when Flagler County commissioners and the county attorney were all falsely and maliciously targeted. The cases can be expensive for targeted individuals to defend. But they can also seek reimbursement of fees if they prove that the complaints were knowingly false, as Flagler County proved. Proving malice is a high bar, intentionally. The ethics commission does not want to discourage citizens from flagging concerns, nor give weight to so-called slapp suits–strategic litigation that censors or silences public critics by intimidating them with counter-lawsuits.

In the cases of Alfin and Danko, the commission’s investigation found that the complaints were more along the lines of a misinterpretation of the two officials’ roles and rights on and off the commission. The complaints raise legitimate concerns: Alfin voted on land use matters brought forth by a colleague at the real estate firm where Alfin works, and Danko voted on a land use matter whose applicant had contributed to his campaign. But neither matters were ethics violations, the commission found.

But both complaints, filed by different people, were filed the same day, suggesting at least some collusion.

“The timing obviously, it’s a political intent and it’s completely without merit of any kind,” Alfin said this morning. “The problem with these things is the perception they create. I don’t know that the complainants often consider the consequences they impose on the people they complain about.” Alfin nevertheless recognized the right of residents to file such complaints, what he termed “the right of people to ask the questions and to participate in the process. It’s not up to us to question their intention. The system itself has its checks and balances to protect everyone from complaints that might be ou of order.”




Darlene Shelley, a resident of the Hidden Lakes subdivision in Palm Coast, filed the complaint against Alfin on Jan. 23. Alfin had voted approvingly on a master plan for Old Kings Village at the end of December, a 205-home subdivision near Polo Club West. The applicant was Bob Million, a long-time Realtor and land-use manager in the county. Million and Alfin are both Realtors at Grand Living Realty. To Shelley, that’s a conflict. Alfin did not file a conflict form before the vote or noted the Grand Living connection. (Alfin says he knows of Million but has “no relationship with him.”)

“Conflict of interest has been addressed, several times during the city council meetings during public participation,” Shelley writes in her complaint to the commission–not herself noting that she has raised the conflict of interest allegations in her frequent appearances before the council.

The Ethics Commission order signed by Commission Chair Ashley Lukis dismisses the claim outright, if with an unintentionally witty line: Alfin, it states, “allegedly serves as the Mayor for the City of Palm.”

For the conflict-of-interest law to apply, the order found, “the vote in question must inure to the special private gain or loss of the public officer, or the public officer must know the vote will inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom the public officer is retained, a relative, or a business associate. ”




That’s not the case in the degree of association between Alfin and Million, the commission found. They appear on the same masthead. But that doesn’t mean they have a relationship that benefits one or the other. “There is no indication that they occupy at that company–or in any other context–a type of relationship specifically enumerated by the statutory definition,” the order found.  “In particular, there is no claim that they are partners or co-owners of the company, only that they are co-workers there. This relationship, where they simply hold responsibilities for the same corporate entity and, essentially, occupy a nominal status there in relation to each other, is not sufficient to constitute a ‘business associate’ relationship for purposes of the statute. Accordingly, there is not a legally sufficient basis here to conduct an investigation here under” the relevant law.

The order in a footnote also dismissed a claim by Shelley that Alfin’s accepting a campaign contribution from Grand Living was improper. “Respondent accepted a campaign contribution from the real estate company that employs him,” the order states. Politicians routinely get campaign contributions from their employer, the company they may own, the companies they have associations with, or their spouse’s company. That has generally not been found to be a conflict, especially under the ethics laws, since the contributions are not personally profiting the politicians beyond their public role.

A campaign contribution is similarly at the center of the complaint Jeremy Davis of Palm Coast’s P Section filed, also  on Jan. 23, against Danko. He’d accepted a $1,000 contribution last September from Geosam Capital US, owner of the same Old Kings Village parcel, then voted on the item at council. Again, Lukis’s order found there was no nexus between the contribution and any profit to Danko personally. Danko is ending his first term as a council member. He is running for a County Commission seat.




Danko had not even been aware of the complaint. “Campaigns are expensive and donations are important in order to get elected,” he said, “and as I tell everyone who donates to my campaign, I appreciate your support, but you don’t own me and I don’t owe you anything except the same courtesies and respect that I would give anyone regardless of whether they donated to my campaign or not.”

The Old Kings Village issue at any rate had been rigorously vetted through several hearings before the council as the two sides–residents of Polo Club West and representatives of the Village project–negotiated an arrangement amenable to both. The Old Kings Village land, initially approved for development by the county, had long been vested for over 200 homes. The debate wasn’t over the number of homes, but the conditions surrounding the development, which both sides eventually agreed to. (See: “Up to 210 Homes Approved on Old Kings Road South of SR100 But Polo Club West Neighbors Have Worries,” “Proposed Old Kings Village’s 205-Home Subdivision Still Clashing With Polo Club West’s Cling to Old Florida” and “Old Kings Village Development of Up to 210 Houses Clears Obstacle Course with Polo Club West as City Approves Rezoning.”)

Had the complaints been found to have merit, the ethics commission would have investigated, then acted on recommendations of its lawyers. Actual ethics violations result in fines of from $500 to up to $10,000. Complaints are vexing even when meritless.

“When somebody attacks your integrity and you have integrity, it’s a terrible moment in time,” Alfin said. “It’s a personal attack on your ego, on your ethics, on your honesty, on everything you believe in, so it’s quite emotional, and takes its toll.”