Below are Mayor John Eric Hoover's responses to a complaint filed by former council member Todd Maklary accusing Hoover of misconduct:
The following is my response to the ethics complaint filed by Todd Maklary. Obviously, I have previously responded to the allegations as they are the same as what was listed in the recall petition. However, I find it interesting that there is one very distinct difference now in that in this ethics complaint, it alleges that I "potentially violated" statutes not that I "violated" them as is alleged by the recall petition. This is yet another example that they are pushing a false and unsubstantiated narrative on the public in an attempt to mislead them and garner enough support for their political agenda. That being said, I am actually glad that Mr. Maklary has followed up with a corresponding ethics complaint with these allegations because now, an actual competent, impartial entity can review the allegations and render a professional and accurate opinion. For the purpose of this news article, I am happy to comment as well on each of the allegations again, addressing the additional detail that was provided in the complaints.
Complaint #1: Violated the City Charter 3.02 & 3.05 by giving order to, and making requests of, city employees who were subordinates of the City Manager
Mr. Maklary alleges that an e-mail I sent to our City Clerk, Ashlee McDonough with the City Manager in copy requesting records I needed for an upcoming council meeting violates the City Charter. Contrary to his allegation, the City Charter specifies the following:
Sec. 3.02(j), the City Manager is to: Provide staff support services for the Mayor and Council members
Sec. 5.01(c), the City Clerk is: To be the custodian of all records, documents and papers of the City
Sec. 5.01(n), the City Clerk is: To perform such other duties as may be required by the City Manager, Mayor, and Council as well as other duties required by ordinances of the City of Port Richey and the laws of the State of Florida
Given the parameters outlined in the City Charter above, it undeniably shows that there was no violation in my request for records from the City Clerk.
Complaint #2: Potential violation FL Statute 112.3143.3(a) or other by voting in an official capacity upon measures of open storage on properties within the city limits to his special private gain
Mr. Maklary alleges that my voting on clarifying that open storage is to be a permitted use in the entire C3 zoning district was a potential violation because I also own a property that is zoned as such and that I would be receiving a special private gain. Mr. Maklary fails to understand the statute and the definition of a special private gain which are as follows:
FL Statute 112.3143.1(d) “Special private gain or loss” means an economic benefit or harm that would inure to the officer, his or her relative, business associate, or principal, unless the measure affects a class that includes the officer, his or her relative, business associate, or principal, in which case, at least the following factors must be considered when determining whether a special private gain or loss exists:
1. The size of the class affected by the vote.
2. The nature of the interests involved.
3. The degree to which the interests of all members of the class are affected by the vote.
4. The degree to which the officer, his or her relative, business associate, or principal receives a greater benefit or harm when compared to other members of the class.
Open storage has always been an accepted use within the C3 zoning district, in fact, the majority of the city's open storage exists in that zoning district. However, our current Building Official has a different interpretation of what "General Storage Establishment" means and was enforcing his interpretation despite the established standard that had previously been practiced. Council made the decision to clarify that open storage was actually allowed. My property was just one of many C3 properties in the city that was affected. I stood to receive the exact same benefit as every other member of that class. To further clarify, after being made aware of this particular accusation and at my request, the City Attorney made clear to the public that I had no conflict, there was no special private gain per the statute and I was indeed authorized to vote at the 2nd reading of the ordinance on 8/13/2024.
Complaint #3: Potentially Violated FLS 112.313.6 or other by using and attempting to use his official position to influence the resolution of Building and Code violation cases to secure exemption and/or special privilege for himself and others
Mr. Maklary references a specific property that was set for demolition. The property owner had reached out to me complaining about the Building Official and stated that the Building Official told him that he would continue to work with him but yet was still pushing for demolition. I had relayed the information to the City Manager for review and he informed me that it was on the upcoming agenda. During the open public meeting, the property owner pleaded his case and the Building Official also confirmed that he did indeed state that he would continue to work with him. The owner's appeal time period had passed but yet the Building Official was obviously not providing correct information to the owner and led him to believe he could still remedy the property. Council authorized the demolition with a vote of 4 to 1 with me in opposition as I had concerns that staff had not appropriately handled the case and could open the city up for a potential lawsuit if allowed to proceed. To date, the structure has not been demolished and it is my understanding that the demolition was not pursued due to several issues with the process that the Building Official followed. The outcome of the property was and is still being addressed by the City Manager, City Attorney and the Building Department. Outside of making the City Manager aware of the owner's complaint and asking questions during the open public meeting as did other council members, I have had no involvement or influence into the outcome of this case.
Complaint #4: Potential violation of FLS 112.313.2 or other by submitting an employment request to Pasco County Sheriff's office and subsequently proceeded to act in an official manner as Mayor of City of Port Richey supporting dissolution of Port Richey Dispatch office to the benefit of Pasco County Sheriff's office without public disclosure of prior relationship and potential benefit for his own personal gain
Mr. Maklary alleges that my application for an open role with the Pasco Sheriff's office and NOT being selected created a conflict and influenced my support of moving our city dispatch operations to Pasco County's Consolidated Dispatch. I would like to make clear that the Pasco Sheriff's office is also a customer of Pasco County's Consolidated Dispatch and the 2 entities are entirely separate. Mr. Maklary also presents an inaccurate timeline and references a meeting with the Sheriff that had nothing to do with their open position. The meeting with the Sheriff was to resolve the issue of his office refusing to sign the mutual aid agreement due to our Chief of Police listed as the commanding officer. Our City Manager was also in that meeting and it was agreed that if his name is listed as the commanding officer instead, that the Sheriff would sign the agreement. I have provided the timeline of the 3 unrelated events below.
Mutual Aid Agreement Discussion
11/15/2023: Meeting with Sheriff Nocco, Col Harrington and Matt Coppler regarding Mutual Aid Agreement
Personal Job Opportunity
2/3/2024: Applied for Pasco Sheriff's IT Director Position
2/28/2024: Virtual Interview with CIO Brian Alvero
3/13/2024: On-Site Interview with CIO Brian Alvero and Major James Mallo
3/22/2024: Received Email stating I was not selected for the position
Port Richey Dispatch Discussion
4/23/2024: First Council Meeting to Discuss Port Richey Dispatch Issues
5/13/2024: Council Workshop to Discuss Port Richey Dispatch Issues
6/6/2024: Toured Pasco County Dispatch Center
6/18/2024: 2nd Council Workshop to Discuss Port Richey Dispatch Options
7/9/2024: Second Council Meeting to Select Dispatch Option
As detailed in the timeline above, a mutual aid agreement discussion happened in November of 2023. Over 2 months later, I pursued a job opportunity at the Pasco Sheriff's office and was NOT selected. One month later, our City Manager began discussions with the council about our dispatch issues and potential solutions to rectify them. Almost 3 months later, and after several lengthy discussions, the council decided by a 4 to 1 vote that we would move our dispatch services to Pasco County Consolidated Dispatch (not Pasco Sheriff where I applied and was NOT selected). I will also reiterate that this option was not only the cheapest option, but also the most comprehensive option of the 3 we considered and guarantees a successful dispatch solution for our community at the best possible price.
In closing, I am saddened by the repeated attempts of a select few to attack me, mislead the public and draw unwarranted attention to our city that has worked so hard to move past a tarnished history. I have worked extremely hard to make sure that Port Richey is well respected and admired by our neighboring communities and state, financially strong and fiscally responsible, able to provide and enhance the exceptional services our residents and business owners deserve and expect, outperform the standard in areas of communication and transparency as well as to move us into the future where our potential is endless. Regardless of these senseless, baseless and politically motivated attacks, I will continue to serve the City of Port Richey and will do so unselfishly, in the best interests of our residents and business owners and to the absolute best of my ability, so help me God.