By Roger Jimenez, Contributing Correspondent
In Summary:
The Apopka City Council approved Resolution No. 2026-06, creating a policy that allows the city to advance funds to the mayor or commissioners for legal defense in specific civil or administrative matters, excluding criminal cases. The policy comes as Commissioner Nadia Anderson faces a lawsuit challenging her residency at the time she ran for office, and as other elected officials cite past ethics complaints and litigation costs. Public comment featured strong opposition, while supporters argued the policy protects public servants from costly or politically motivated legal challenges.
*****
Should the city help cover legal expenses for elected officials facing civil lawsuits? That question dominated the discussion at the January 21 Apopka City Council meeting as Resolution No. 2026-06 was passed, establishing a policy that would allow the city to advance funds to the mayor or commissioners for legal defense in certain non-criminal cases.
Related: Who’s really worth what? Apopka to review city commissioner pay.
The proposal comes months after Commissioner Nadia Anderson became the subject of a lawsuit challenging her residency at the time she ran for office. Filed in September 2025 by Apopka resident William J. McLeod, the lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment on whether Anderson met residency requirements for the March 2024 election.
The proposed policy would allow the city to advance funds to cover legal defense costs for the mayor or commissioners in specific civil or administrative matters, excluding criminal cases. If the official is unsuccessful, repayment would be required.
Coverage would apply only to governing board members—not city employees—and would include matters such as ethics investigations, qualification challenges, or internal charter-related disputes. Officials seeking assistance would be required to submit a written request to the city administrator detailing the legal matter and providing a cost estimate. Requests would be placed on the public City Council agenda and require a majority vote.
The policy includes a $5,000 cap per advance, though the Council retains the ability to approve amounts above that limit. A written agreement would outline permitted use of funds, documentation requirements, and repayment terms. “Successful” outcomes are defined as dismissal, exoneration, or prevailing on the merits. If unsuccessful, officials would be required to repay the funds within 30 days unless the Council approves an alternate arrangement. The city may recover funds through lawful means, including offsets against future compensation.
Commissioner Diane Velazquez opened the discussion by addressing questions raised by residents.
“I had written a couple of emails [to city attorney Cliff Shepard] on behalf of residents and the inquiries they have sent me,” she explained.
Velazquez asked whether the policy would apply to a recent civil lawsuit filed by Mayor Bryan Nelson against Commissioner Christine Moore regarding Moore’s residency. Shepard responded that it would not.
Velazquez also questioned whether taxpayers would be responsible for covering legal costs related to City Clerk Susan Bone, who is named in Nelson’s lawsuit against Moore for allegedly failing to verify residency requirements.
Shepard disputed that interpretation.
“Miss Bone was not sued because of any errors she committed. She was sued as a necessary party to the lawsuit. She has no personal liability, and I will be representing her in her official capacity to simply assure the court that we will comply with any valid court order concerning the election.”
Later in the meeting, assistant city attorney Andrew Hand clarified that City employees are covered under the City’s insurance policy and that, if they prevail in litigation, the City is obligated to pay their legal defense costs.
Velazquez also asked whether Nelson and Anderson could vote on the resolution while facing pending legal matters. Shephard declined to answer.
“Neither I nor the Florida Commission of Ethics will respond to a question from someone other than the council member about the council members' proposed conduct. This policy avoids the use of either the Commission on Ethics or the City Attorney's office for political purposes.”
Commissioner Alexander Smith questioned whether $5,000 would be sufficient to cover legal costs. Shepard responded that the amount could be adjusted at the Council’s discretion.
Public comment reflected strong opposition from several residents.
“Whether you get off or you are found guilty, you need to be responsible for your own bill, because if it's a citizen out there, if something happens to them and they get charged, the city ain't coming to the rescue,” said resident Leroy Bell. "But if you remember, a while back, they had an ethics violation on the mayor for lying. Then the mayor brings it to the city council to ask for a vote for himself to be reimbursed with city taxpayer money. This makes no sense.”
Albert McKimmie questioned why stricter safeguards were not already in place.
“It's not that long ago that the residents came to you and suggested that we really needed to have the city clerk look at who was putting in documentation to the city, and we wanted you to have a policy put in place where driving licenses or documentation was checked,” McKimmie said. “If you'd listen to your residents, we wouldn't be discussing this today and finding that yet again, we have another lawsuit similar to the one that we got 18 months ago. If you can suddenly approve a policy to supply funding to commissioners, why can't you supply a policy for the residents, for you to check on our behalf who's actually legally entitled to run for office?”
Resident Rod Olsen argued that existing insurance coverage already protects elected officials.
“It's $5,000 per event. So if one of you has five events, that's $25,000… The city has general professional liability. Is that correct? Yes, then you are covered. You are covered in the performance of your duties. If it's outside, we have no business. The city has no business providing you money.”
Ace Woodham raised concerns about fairness.
“Our firefighters, our police officers, our building department employees— they don't have legal representation. They can be sued individually, along with the city, but if they get a lawsuit against them or something they've done wrong, not criminal, they get sued. And y'all are coming up here as elected officials wanting this position, and y'all want us to pay your legal fees?”
But speaking in support of the resolution, Anderson’s attorney Philip Kaprow argued that legal challenges place an undue burden on elected officials.
“You all make a princely sum of little over $1,000 a month… It doesn't matter if it's a meritorious claim or a non-meritorious claim... the issue is that it is burdensome and chilling to ask a commissioner to come out of pocket to defend themselves against a spurious allegation simply because somebody didn't like the outcome of an election.”
Kaprow cited Florida case law, including Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach (1990), arguing that public officials are entitled to legal defense when litigation arises from their official duties. He also said the $5,000 cap was insufficient and criticized the case-by-case approval process.
Nelson voiced his support, sharing a personal anecdote from his time in the Florida Legislature.
“So I started in the legislature for eight years and had a good friend in the legislature who had the means. I mean, really, well, well means. He was sued by the federal government, which we know has unlimited capabilities. And even with his means, he got to the point where he could no longer fight, even though he knew he was innocent. He couldn't afford the fight, so he ended up settling the case… and the only reason he did that is that he couldn't afford to keep the fight going.”
Nelson also referenced prior ethics complaints involving former and current officials, emphasizing what he described as inconsistent treatment.
“There were two ethics violations against the former mayor. One of them was found guilty and ordered to pay restitution. The other one was found not guilty. And guess what? I came to the city council and voted to pay his court costs and attorney's fees. I did that… Fast forward, now I have an ethics violation. Commissioner Smith also had an ethics violation. Everybody agreed to pay for his attorney's fees. I came forward with an ethics violation, and two members voted against my being reimbursed, even though I was found not guilty. It makes no sense, either not guilty and you pay money back, or you're found guilty, and you end up paying those attorney fees. And so we need to be consistent here… you need to have protections.”
Smith echoed that sentiment, recounting his own experience.
“When the ethics complaint was filed against me, I knew I was innocent… but I still had to hire a lawyer, and I paid my own legal fees. But once I was found not guilty, I came back to the city, and they reimbursed me for my legal fees. Fortunately, I was able to do that. Not everybody's able to do that. I know of another elected official in another city who has a lawsuit filed against her. She went to court and had to mortgage her home to pay legal fees. And that's just not the way it ought to be for a public servant.”
Anderson expressed support for moving forward.
“I think it's important that we move forward with this… maybe we can get a recommendation from the attorney on what the average cost of legal fees is.”
Commissioner Nick Nesta suggested postponing the vote to refine the language, but Anderson opposed the delay.
“I’m not recommending postponing it," Anderson said. "You can motion to postpone it, but I motion to move forward with it.”
As the council prepared to vote, questions remained about whether members involved in pending lawsuits should participate. Nelson said he would feel more comfortable if Anderson recused herself, which she did.
The resolution passed 3–1, with Nesta voting against it.
Key Points:
- The Apopka City Council approved Resolution 2026-06, establishing a process to advance legal defense funds for elected officials in certain non-criminal cases.
- The policy applies only to the mayor and commissioners, not to city employees, and covers matters such as ethics investigations, qualification challenges, and charter-related disputes.
- Funding advances are capped at $5,000 per request, though the council can approve different amounts, and a written agreement governs documentation and repayment terms.
- If an official is unsuccessful, they must repay the funds within 30 days, unless the council approves another arrangement; the city may recover funds through lawful means.
- The resolution passed 3–1, with Nick Nesta voting no and Commissioner Anderson recusing herself after questions were raised about voting during pending legal matters.
