Ethics board declines jurisdiction on Pine EZ CDD campaign-question, refers author to local legal advisor and elections supervisor

The Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board on June 16 recommended denying a request for an advisory opinion from a Pine EZ Community Development District (CDD) supervisor who asked whether he could distribute meeting minutes while campaigning for re‑election and whether the CDD would have to pay for the distribution.

Board attorney John explained that the board lacks personal jurisdiction over the individual in his capacity as a CDD supervisor. He drew a distinction between community redevelopment agencies (CRAs), which are authorized by Chapter 163 and operate within the city's redevelopment framework, and CDDs, which are created under Chapter 190 and function as stand‑alone entities with different funding sources and governance. Because the CDD is not a city department and its supervisors are elected by district residents, John said the ethics board could not issue the requested opinion and recommended the supervisor consult the CDD's legal advisor and the Supervisor of Elections.

Board members asked clarifying questions about how CDD supervisors take office (John confirmed they appear on the ballot and are elected by residents of the district). The board recorded the jurisdictional denial and did not reach an advisory determination on the campaign distribution issue. Staff emphasized the distinction between CDDs and CRAs to explain why the matter falls outside the board's purview.