Espinosa says she will seek a public hearing, praised the Florida Commission on Ethics for conducting what she described as a fair process, and sharply criticized portions of the media. A probable-cause finding allows part of the case involving Business Boost 2.0 funds to move forward but is not a final finding of an ethics violation.
By Marcos A. Tejeda
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
The Sun Post News
KISSIMMEE, Fla. — Kissimmee Mayor Jackie Espinosa is publicly pushing back after the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause to believe she may have violated state ethics law in connection with public funds distributed through the city’s Business Boost 2.0 program.
In a Facebook Live broadcast Wednesday night, Espinosa addressed Kissimmee residents directly, discussed the state ethics proceedings, announced plans to request a public hearing and sharply criticized some journalists who have covered the months-long controversy surrounding her administration.
The mayor acknowledged the probable-cause determination under Florida’s ethics statutes and said her attorneys are already preparing the next step.
Espinosa said she has 14 days from the order to request a public hearing.
At the center of her response was one distinction she repeatedly emphasized: a finding of probable cause is not a final determination that she violated Florida ethics law.
That distinction is important.
Probable cause means there is sufficient basis for an allegation to continue through the ethics process. It does not, by itself, establish guilt or constitute a final judgment against the mayor.
“NOW IT’S MY TURN TO SPEAK”
Espinosa’s Facebook appearance marked a noticeable shift in her public strategy.
For months, she had generally limited her comments while investigations and proceedings involving Business Boost 2.0 moved forward.
Now, Espinosa says she wants to present her side.
She indicated that a public hearing would provide an opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding allegations that have followed her administration for months.
Her attorneys, according to Espinosa, are working on formally requesting that hearing.
The mayor’s message was clear: the state proceeding is not over, and she believes the next phase will allow her to more fully defend her actions.
ESPINOSA PRAISES THE ETHICS COMMISSION
One of the more notable aspects of Espinosa’s response was that she did not attack the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Instead, she praised the agency’s handling of the matter.
Espinosa characterized the Commission’s work as thorough, professional and fair and said the agency — rather than political opponents or media outlets — should be relied upon to explain its process.
That creates an important distinction in her emerging defense.
While Espinosa is challenging how portions of the controversy have been portrayed publicly, she is not portraying the state Ethics Commission itself as part of a campaign against her.
SHARP CRITICISM OF SOME JOURNALISTS
Her assessment of some members of the media was considerably less favorable.
During her public response, Espinosa criticized journalists she believes have sensationalized the controversy and suggested some were behaving more like social-media “influencers” than reporters.
She also said she did not want to become “clickbait.”
The comments reflect growing tension between City Hall and some of the news organizations covering the Business Boost investigations, ethics complaints and the previous effort to move impeachment proceedings against her forward.
Espinosa chose Facebook Live as a way to speak directly to residents rather than relying exclusively on a traditional press conference.
Her criticism of news coverage, however, does not alter the underlying state proceeding.
The Florida Commission on Ethics has found probable cause regarding an allegation involving Espinosa, meaning that portion of the matter can continue toward further proceedings.
WHAT DID THE ETHICS COMMISSION ACTUALLY FIND?
This is where precision matters.
The Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause to believe Espinosa may have had a prohibited contractual or employment relationship involving an entity doing business with the City of Kissimmee when a business associated with her received funds administered through the city.
The controversy involves approximately $50,000 in Business Boost 2.0 grants awarded to three businesses associated with Espinosa and members of her family.
Business Boost 2.0 used federal pandemic recovery funds to provide financial assistance to qualifying small businesses.
The state finding means the allegation can proceed.
It does not mean the Commission has made a final determination that Espinosa violated the law.
That distinction will become increasingly important if the case moves into a public hearing.
NOT EVERY ALLEGATION MOVED FORWARD
The Commission did not find probable cause on every allegation involving Espinosa.
That is another important part of the story.
In a separate allegation involving disclosure of a gift worth more than $100, the Commission did not find probable cause.
Published accounts of the proceeding indicate Espinosa had disclosed the gift using the wrong form after receiving guidance from the city’s attorney.
The distinction matters because describing the Commission’s action as a blanket finding against Espinosa would misrepresent what occurred.
Some allegations did not advance.
At least one significant allegation did.
A CENTRAL LEGAL QUESTION: IS A GRANT A CONTRACT?
A major issue in Espinosa’s defense involves the legal nature of the Business Boost 2.0 grants.
Her attorney, Neil Henrichsen, argued that receiving a grant should not be treated as entering into a prohibited contract with the city.
The businesses receiving the money, the defense argues, were not required to provide goods or services to Kissimmee in exchange for those funds.
The defense has also argued that Business Boost 2.0 was not a conventional competitive procurement process in which city officials selected one company over another to perform work.
Instead, qualifying businesses could receive available assistance if they satisfied the program requirements.
The legal question is therefore more complicated than simply determining whether businesses connected to Espinosa received city-administered money.
The issue is whether that financial relationship falls within prohibitions contained in Florida’s ethics laws.
The Ethics Commission determined there is sufficient cause for that question to continue.
A public hearing could provide a more developed examination of that dispute.
THE $50,000 AT THE CENTER OF THE CONTROVERSY
The political controversy surrounding Espinosa has largely centered on approximately $50,000 distributed through Business Boost 2.0 to three businesses connected to her and members of her family.
The broader questions have included whether Espinosa had a conflict of interest, whether relevant financial interests were properly disclosed, what involvement she had in matters connected with the program and how state and local ethics rules apply to the grants.
Those questions have now produced multiple proceedings.
And that is where the public discussion can become confusing.
THE STATE ETHICS CASE AND IMPEACHMENT ARE NOT THE SAME THING
The Florida Commission on Ethics proceeding should not be confused with the impeachment process that recently unfolded at Kissimmee City Hall.
They are separate proceedings.
A special prosecutor appointed to investigate alleged violations of Kissimmee’s municipal ethics code previously found “clear probable cause” on three of seven allegations involving Espinosa and recommended that impeachment articles move forward.
Kissimmee commissioners then considered whether those articles should proceed to an impeachment trial.
On August 18, the Commission divided 2-2.
Commissioners Janette Martinez and Angela Eady voted to move forward, while Noel Ortiz and Carlos Alvarez III voted against doing so.
Espinosa did not vote on the proceedings involving herself.
Without the required majority, the impeachment case did not advance to trial.
That vote did not terminate the separate Florida Commission on Ethics proceedings.
The state investigation continued under Florida ethics law and ultimately produced the probable-cause determination now confronting the mayor.
WHAT DOES “PROBABLE CAUSE” ACTUALLY MEAN?
The phrase can easily be misunderstood.
A probable-cause finding is not equivalent to a conviction or final finding of wrongdoing.
It means there is a reasonable basis to believe a violation may have occurred and sufficient evidence exists for the allegation to continue through the process.
Espinosa will have an opportunity to challenge that allegation and present her defense.
That is why the next stage matters.
A public hearing can allow for a fuller examination of evidence and legal arguments before a final determination is reached.
The opposite interpretation would also be incorrect: the fact that Espinosa has not been found guilty does not mean the allegation has been dismissed.
It remains active.
THE NEXT 14 DAYS
Espinosa says she has 14 days from the order to formally request a public hearing.
Her attorneys are preparing that request, she said.
If the case proceeds to a hearing, the Business Boost controversy could move into a considerably more substantive phase.
Documents, testimony, legal interpretations and evidence could receive greater scrutiny than they have during months of political debate and competing public statements.
It would also provide Espinosa with the forum she says she has been waiting for to fully present her defense.
A DIFFERENT PUBLIC STRATEGY
Wednesday night’s Facebook Live may ultimately be remembered as a turning point in how Espinosa handles the controversy publicly.
She is no longer simply waiting for the proceedings to unfold.
She defended the integrity of the state Ethics Commission.
She challenged portions of the media coverage.
She announced her intention to pursue a public hearing.
And she signaled that she intends to say considerably more.
For Kissimmee residents, however, three things should remain separate: the allegations against Espinosa, the mayor’s defense and the ultimate findings of the agencies responsible for deciding the case.
At this stage, one conclusion can be stated with certainty:
The Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause for part of the case involving Mayor Jackie Espinosa to continue. It has not yet made a final determination that she violated Florida ethics law.
The next phase could determine much more.
The Sun Post News will continue reviewing the proceedings, public records and statements from all sides as the case develops.
