Hillsborough County Commissioner Christine Miller is turning up the heat on the Tampa Sports Authority, zeroing in on how the agency handled a pivotal vote that put Raymond James Stadium upgrades ahead of a proposed Tampa Bay Rays ballpark.
After the Sports Authority board voted on June 2 to tell local leaders that its top spending priority should be renovations at Raymond James instead of a new Rays park, Miller asked the county attorney to dig into a touchy question: can county commissioners boot their own appointees before their four year terms are up?
The answer, delivered in a written opinion, was no. Commissioners do not have the statutory power to remove Tampa Sports Authority members midterm, according to WUSF. Miller requested that opinion on June 3, the day after the board’s stadium priorities vote. County attorneys attached it to the commission’s online agenda and stressed that even if removal tools are limited, authority members are still bound by state ethics laws.
Miller is also pressing the agency to adopt clearer rules and procedures, arguing that the commission’s trust in the Sports Authority has taken a hit. Her push comes on the heels of a public letter accusing several board members of possible property related conflicts tied to where a Rays ballpark might ultimately land.
The Tampa Sports Authority is an independent special district created by the Florida Legislature to manage county owned venues. Its 11 member board includes county, city and gubernatorial appointees who serve fixed four year terms, according to the Hillsborough County agency page. That special act structure, officials say, limits how directly the county commission can wade into appointments or try to yank members off the board midstream.
The authority operates Raymond James Stadium, the county sportsplex and several public golf courses, which helps explain why questions about who is in charge and what they must disclose have suddenly become a hot local political issue.
Tampa attorney Jared Willis helped light that fuse. He sent a letter urging the resignations of four board members he said held undisclosed property interests that could be affected by stadium siting, and he asked appointing bodies to consider removal under state rules, WUSF reported. The authority’s counsel, Jeffrey Gibson, responded that owning nearby parcels did not meet the legal threshold for a conflict serious enough to require recusal. Willis has said he will keep pressing the issue with appointing officials and, if that goes nowhere, the Florida Commission on Ethics.
Legal limits on removal
Even when local officials want faster remedies, state law narrows their options. Florida’s removal statute, Section 112.501, lays out how municipal board members can be suspended or removed for malfeasance or neglect, but those rules typically apply to municipal boards and may not override a separate legislative act that created a special district, according to the Florida Senate.
County attorneys pointed to the Sports Authority’s origin as a special act district as the reason the commission’s general appointment policy does not automatically give it midterm removal power, per Hillsborough County.
What’s next
The county commission was expected to receive the attorney’s written opinion at its Wednesday meeting and could debate whether to formally ask the Sports Authority to adopt clearer rules, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Miller told the paper, “When there’s smoke, there’s usually fire,” arguing that the authority needs better processes to make sure appointees are not quietly advancing private interests from the dais.
All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of high stakes talks over a proposed $2.3 billion Rays ballpark, a project that has turned debates about public funding priorities and board transparency into front page politics in Hillsborough County.
