Ethics Commission Finds Probable Cause on Beruff Complaint

The Florida Commission on Ethics has found probable cause after investigating a complaint filed by Manasota-88 almost three years ago during June 2017, alleging that several violations of Florida Statutes were made by Medallion Homes CEO Carlos Beruff.

There were specific allegations of violating the requirements to disclose assets on Financial Disclosures (known as a CE Form 1) for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Additionally, Manasota-88 alleged that Beruff, while serving as Chairman for the Southwest Florida Water Management Board, had a voting conflict when he made a motion to approve a permit to destroy wetlands that benefited fellow developer Pat Neal. Neal and Beruff were beneficial owners of several lots in a development known as the Inlets, the same property that was not described as required on financial disclosures Beruff filed.

The "ORDER FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE" cites that the commission finds there were violations during the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 when Beruff filed inaccurate financial disclosures. A notice of hearing as of this date has not been set. Under the commission’s rule 34-5.020, F.A.C., Beruff can resolve the complaint through a stipulation, settlement, or consent order, if approved by the commission.

The Bradenton Times received the information during a request for public records and no records exist as to any resolution by Beruff. The order was executed on March 11, 2020.

Beruff admits in testimony that his financials did not comply with the requirements. He stated he did not fill out the forms, which he says were completed by an employee who prepared them before he added his signature and submitted them to the state (click here to listen to an audio recording of Beruff's testimony to the commission).

Another violation was investigated involving Beruff when he served on the governing board for the Southwest Florida Water Management District and voted on the permit involving Pat Neal’s Harbor Sound project on Perico. It is a violation for a person serving on this board to vote on a matter that would inure to the special private gain or loss of a business associate.

Manasota-88 submitted several images of newspaper articles, a deed, and other information reflecting Neal and Medallion Homes buying the lots together. Additional items submitted in the complaint included an LLC with Neal and Beruff employees acting as managers, and the permit application listing Pat Neal as permittee. Pat Neal was also part of a settlement agreement with St. Joe, owner of Perico Island that listed Neal as the beneficiary of the Land Trust 97-12 .

However, Melody A. Hadley, Advocate for the Commission on Ethics, made a determination that there was no probable cause to believe Beruff had voted on the permit, and action that would have caused a conflict under Florida Statutes 112.3143(3)and (4). The testimony by Neal claimed he did not own the Perico property but his son did with a Trust name that was never associated with any permit or recorded documents at the Manatee County Clerk’s office.

Neal also stated to the advocate that he never had any financial interest in the property. Finally, Hadley cites that the relationship of Neal and Beruff as joint beneficiaries does not meet the definition as to be "business associates.“ Using a Webster definition, Hadley extrapolates that Neal and Beruff are not engaged in an agreement sharing resources and control even though it appears the complaint includes documentation to prove otherwise.

Furthermore, the advocate states that SWFWMB granted a permit to Michael Neal, which contradicts the permit records which never had Michael Neal’s name on any of the records. Anyone who has followed the permit fiasco, from the City of Bradenton ignoring its development rules to the Army Corp of Engineers permit for wetland destruction, the owner’s representative on the property was Pat Neal. Neal states he never had any financial interest, even though a settlement agreement he signed as having beneficial interest states the opposite would cast doubts on the investigative efforts made by the commission.

From the records obtained, there was no real investigative work done, particularly given the serious nature of the allegation. There was no researching simple online records of property ownership, no request for the trust documents that both Neal and Beruff admit as being joint beneficiaries of a trust at the time Beruff made a motion to approve Neal’s permit.

Neal, who once served as chair of the Florida Ethics Commission, was not subject to any complaint for the violation, only Beruff. Neal knows, however, that Florida law prohibits a governing board member from voting on a permit if the vote would inure to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. After Beruff made the motion to approve Neal’s project, the former resigned from the governing board.

According to the Commission on Ethics, the commission cannot reopen an investigation into an allegation already ruled upon as a part of the Manasota-88 complaint. Any such allegation of new facts would have to be filed as a new complaint. That complaint would then be subject to the initial jurisdictional review as with any complaint which would include an analysis as to whether or not the specific facts alleged in the new complaint were previously ruled upon by the commission.