Unethical, illegal campaign tactic? CHRIS ELLIS, City Commission candidate, pledges support for business owner's planning and zoning application

It is unethical for a political candidate to promise how to vote on a matter that will likely involve a quasi-judicial hearing. That did not keep disgraced ex-Mayor JOSEPH LESTER BOLES, JR. from pandering, stating on Facebook that he would always vote against the 7-Eleven proposed at May and San Marco. Fortunately, we defeated both him and the 7-Eleven. Had he been re-elected in 2014, he would have likely been asked to recuse himself, giving 7-Eleven a wedge issue under the Due Process clause.

In BOLES' unethical spirit is CHRISTOPHER ELLIS, leader of a Facebook Hate Group, "Vagrant Watch, which is directed against panhandlers.

ELLIS is obviously unsophisticated, for he posted on Facebook his support for a quasi-judicial hearing request by O.C. White's for the Santa Maria restaurant's request for vested rights on planning and zoning, including boat docks:

Chris Ellis
Another reason to VOTE! I'm just throwing this out there! get me in office and lets get this iconic restaurant and our city back its charm!

Edward Adelbert Slavin 
unethical campaign promise?

Edward Adelbert Slavin 
quasi judicial hearing?

Oxford English Dictionary lists one of the meanings of "Vagrant" as "Moving or behaving unpredictably; inconstant."

We don't need City Commissioners who are "vagrants," pledging to support a business owner's project and prejudging a quasi-judicial hearing.

That would invite litigation and violate everyone's Due Process rights.

CHRIS ELLIS is not ready for prime time. ELLIS is running against St. Augustine City Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline, who has probably earned another term. While we don't always agree, she has developed gravitas, and we expect continued good things from her leadership.

Planning and zoning matters should be decided based upon the law and facts of records, not illiterate campaign promises by operators of Facebook hate groups.

104.061 Corruptly influencing voting
(1) Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector’s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 for the first convic- tion, and a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for any subsequent conviction.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertise- ment, including a campaign message designed to be
worn by a person.J�utqt{0—ss. 1, 3, ch. 6470, 1913; RGS 5918; CGL 8182; s. 1, ch. 19617, 1939;
s. 1, ch. 20934, 1941; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 8, ch. 26870, 1951; s. 1, ch. 65-379; s. 25, ch. 71-136; s. 35, ch. 77-175; s. 51, ch. 79-400; s. 21, ch. 81-304; s. 22, ch. 90-315; s. 616, ch. 95-147; s. 29, ch. 98-129.