Kevin Kirby, Columbia County’s Co-Commander, files ethics complaint, including collusion, against County Commissioner Rocky Ford
November 11, 2025 11:30 pm | 9 min read
COLUMBIA COUNTY, FL – Kevin Kirby, Columbia County’s Co-Commander, files ethics complaint, including collusion, against County Commissioner Rocky Ford (October 6, 2025).
On October 7, Commissioner Ford was notified of the Kirby complaint. The Columbia County Ethics Complaint ordinance is here.
Mr. Kirby’s October 6th Claims (in his own words)
1. The fact that the procurement process was not followed as it relates to hiring the consultant.
2. Interference with day-to-day operations via fraudulent claims.
3. Retaliation - Commissioner Ford has made multiple attempts as it relates to my employment (per County Manager and other sitting Commissioners) as a result of me pointing out the fact that Commissioner Ford has failed to recuse himself of millions of tax dollars being spent on utilities that directly increases the values of multiple properties he personally owns.
Commissioner Rocky Ford makes a point during a meeting
of the County 5.
A closer look
Mr. Kirby’s claim (1) that the procurement process was not followed had nothing to do with the County Commission or the operation of Columbia County. The “procurement process” that allegedly was "not followed" was that of the North Florida Water Utility Authority, an independent special district of which Mr. Ford is a member. Mr. Kirby provided no exhibits substantiating his claim.
Mr. Kirby’s claim (2) that Commissioner Ford interfered “with day-to-day operations via fraudulent claims” is not easily understood. Mr. Kirby appears to have had his feelings hurt when Mr. Ford challenged Mr. Kirby's official actions by demanding Mr. Kirby answer questions at County Commission meetings, produce reports about the progress of work in departments Mr. Kirby supervised, and question the way the County awarded engineering contracts and their amounts.
Mr. Kirby’s claim (3) that Commissioner Ford “failed to recuse himself of millions of tax dollars being spent on utilities” in Fort White was not supported by any evidence provided with his complaint. Mr. Kirby claimed that Mr. Ford retaliated against him for pointing out that Mr. Ford failed to recuse himself.
Two weeks later, on October 26, Mr. Kirby filed what
he called “an amendment” to his original
complaint. He wrote in relevant part:
“Post the filing of the complaint, I have been informed that Commissioner Ford has attempted to collude with at least two sitting County Commissioners as it relates to my employment. Commissioner Parnell and Commissioner Murphy have both agreed to testify to the above mentioned.”
The Investigator, Megan Logan: not exactly at arms-length
Attorney Megan Logan during a Florida Gateway College
board meeting.
The County ethics policy requires the County Attorney to investigate all complaints, unless he declares a conflict, in which case he chooses another attorney to investigate. While hiring an out-of-town attorney to investigate is common practice in these types of cases, Mr. Foreman picked Megan Logan of Douglas and Douglas. Ms. Logan is the Attorney for the School Board, Florida Gateway College, and conflict council for Columbia County. Ms. Logan’s boss is Vernon Douglas, Columbia County’s Special Magistrate and former Chief Judge. Ms. Logan is not exactly an arms-length investigator.
Ms. Logan interviewed Mr. Kirby, Mr. Ford, County Manager David Kraus, Commissioner Parnell, and Commissioner Murphy.
Ms. Logan did not report whether the interviews were taken under oath, nor whether the interviewees were recorded either electronically or by a court reporter. None of the interviewees was quoted.
Ms. Logan organized her report into sections: the “alleged allegations”; “findings of fact”; “analysis"; and “disposition and conclusion.”
An allegation is “a public statement that is made without giving proof, accusing somebody of doing something wrong or illegal,” (Oxford Learners Dictionary). All allegations are alleged, which is where the word comes from. The only way Mr. Kirby’s allegations could have been “alleged” is if they were rumors. They weren’t. He wrote them down or at least tried to.
Mr. Kirby’s First Allegation: “The fact that the procurement process was not followed as it relates to hiring the consultant” at The North Florida Water Utility Authority (NFWUA)
The first allegation in Mr. Kirby’s own words: “The fact that the procurement process was not followed as it relates to hiring the consultant.”
Mr. Kirby provided no evidence of his first
allegation. He explained his claim this way: “Early
April 2025, there was a meeting held with former Senator
Bobby Payne. At this point, I was made aware that the
North Florida Utility Authority, in which Mr. Ford is
the Chairman of the board, hired Mr. Payne as a
consultant. I then question[ed] how the procurement process
was not followed to allow Mr. Payne to be hired.”
Whether or not Mr. Ford violated any NFWUA policy is a matter that needed to be taken up with the NFWUA and, possibly, the Florida Ethics Commission. The County Ethics Policy does not give the County the authority to investigate this claim, which has nothing to do with Mr. Ford’s performance as a County Commissioner.
Without any authority to investigate the NFWUA, Investigator Logan should have tossed this right away. She didn’t. Instead, she investigated the NFWUA's actions.
In the end, Ms. Logan found no “probable cause” regarding Mr. Kirby’s first allegation.
The County Ethics Policy defines “probable cause” as “the discovery of substantial and competent evidence.”
Mr. Kirby’s Second Allegation: Interference with day-to-day operations via fraudulent claims or Mr. Ford violated the non-interference clause of the County Charter
Anybody who witnessed recent meetings of the County 5 (County Commission) could see that there was bad blood between Commissioner Ford and Assistant County Manager and Co-County Manager (one person), Kevin Kirby.
Mr. Kirby has a checkered history in Columbia County, which dates back to his hiring process. It is well known in County government that if you buck up against Kevin Kirby, he will come after you.
Mr. Kirby gave four instances of Commissioner Ford’s perceived interference between April 17, 2025, and October 1, 2025:
On April 17, 2025, in a regular scheduled Board of County Commissioners meeting, I did not support the Fort White Sewer Plant Agreement… Mr. Ford was gaveled by the Chairman Commissioner Tim Murphy for his inappropriate behavior towards me in this meeting. On three different occasions, Mr. Ford demanded I respond to his questions relating to this matter. Mr. Ford made the environment very hostile which resulted in the Sheriff on duty standing in between he and I.
On July 3, 2025, Administrative Supervisor John Crews had to produce via email the Public Works weekly report to defend day-to-day operations. Mr. Ford made allegations that I cut back on work being performed in his district. These reports are provided to the BOCC office every Friday for review.
On October 1, 2025, I was accused by Mr. Ford of delaying the process of the Hi Dry Acres project in his district.
On October 2, 2025, in a regular scheduled Board of County Commissioners meeting, Mr. Ford requested to discuss continuing services contracts.
Mr. Kirby provided exhibits for his charges.
Did Mr. Ford interfere by questioning Assistant-Co-County Manager Kevin Kirby?
The County Ethics Policy and the County Charter are basically mirror images of each other.
The County Charter, which is the law of the County, has a non-interference clause which states in relevant part:
Except for the purpose of inquiry and information, members of the Board of County Commissioners are expressly prohibited from interfering with the performance of the duties of any employee of the county government who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the County Manager by giving said employee or employees any instruction or directives.
However, the County organizational chart was modified,
and approved by the County 5, to include County Management (in one box) as the “County
Manager and Assistant County Manager.”
County Manager David Kraus has explained during County meetings that Mr. Kirby and he are “partners” in running the County. While Mr. Kirby has not accused Commissioner Ford of giving him directions, it is clear that Commissioner Ford has the right and obligation to question both Mr. Kraus and Mr. Kirby.
Investigator Logan reviews Mr. Kirby’s allegations of interference and Mr. Ford’s responses on pages 3 and 4 of her report.
Mr. Kirby, to support his allegation of interference, claimed that he (Mr. Ford) was gaveled down by Chairman Murphy because he (Mr. Ford) created a hostile environment “which resulted in the Sheriff on duty standing in between he and I (sic).”
Mr. Kirby included a reference to the April 17 hostile meeting, but one had to be there to appreciate the interactions.
Mr. Ford is Mr. Kirby's boss in the co-command structure set up by County Manager Kraus and approved by the County 5; thus, Mr. Kirby's resistance to being questioned is misplaced.
However, while out of the purview of Ms. Logan’s report, a deputy standing up and walking between Commissioner Ford, who was seated at the dais and asking questions, and Mr. Kirby, who was standing at the podium, during a heated discussion, is a chilling reaction by law enforcement, however well-intentioned.
Ms. Logan found: “Mr. Kirby was unable to point to any specific instruction or directive given to him by Commissioner Ford as it relates to his work with the County and even if he could point to such a directive, it would still be difficult to find a violation since, regardless of title, Mr. Kirby is not under the direct or indirect supervision of the County Manager and instead typically reports directly to the Board.”
Ms. Logan concluded: “In the absence of any specific directive or instruction by Commissioner Ford, Commissioner Ford has not unlawfully interfered in the performance of duties by County employees as prohibited by Section 2-518” (of the Ethics Policy).
Mr. Kirby’s Third Allegation: “Retaliation” based on the charge that “Commissioner Ford has failed to recuse himself of millions of tax dollars being spent on utilities that directly increases the values of multiple properties he personally owns.”
The County Ethics Policy regarding “misuse of public position and voting conflicts states in relevant part:
"No county commissioner shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss… or which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the county commissioner. Such county commissioner shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the interest in the matter from which he or she is abstaining from voting…”
Ms. Logan points out that the County policy similarly mirrors section 112.3143(3)(a) of the Florida statutes:
"VOTING CONFLICTS. No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss…. or which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the officer’s interest in the matter from which he or she is abstaining from voting...”
Ms. Logan’s investigation found that “while Mr. Ford and his wife may have benefited from the provision of utilities to the Town of Ft. White, Mr. Ford and his wife were not alone in this benefit. Rather, the provision of utilities benefited an entire town.”
As can be seen in Mr. Kirby's complete complaint with exhibits, he provided no evidence to support his claim of "retaliation."
Mr. Kirby Has a New Complaint: Commissioner Ford colluded with other commissioners to get him fired
Kevin Kirby said Commissioner Parnell "has agreed to
testify" that Commissioner Ford "colluded" with him
regarding Mr. Kirby's continued "employment" with the
County.
On Sunday, October 26, 2025, Mr. Kirby filed another complaint against Commissioner Ford. This time, Mr. Kirby accused Commissioner Ford of collusion, which the term itself does not necessarily signal a criminal offense. (Merriam-Webster).
As mentioned above, Mr. Kirby claimed: “I have been informed that Commissioner Ford has attempted to collude with at least two sitting County Commissioners as it relates to my employment. Commissioner Parnell and Commissioner Murphy have both agreed to testify to the above mentioned.”
Mr. Kirby did not file any exhibits to back up his new allegation.
There is nothing in the County Ethics Policy that states any time limits or procedures regarding amending a County ethics complaint.
Investigator Logan conflated this claim with Mr. Kirby’s first claim of retaliation. The Observer is handling them separately.
Kevin Kirby said Commissioner Murphy "has agreed to
testify" that Commissioner Ford "colluded" with him
regarding Mr. Kirby's continued "employment" with the
County.
Ms. Logan wrote: Commissioner Ford’s retaliation also includes attempts to terminate Mr. Kirby’s employment through discussions with the County Manager and other sitting Commissioners.”
Ms. Logan added, “All parties acknowledge that Commissioner Ford has spoken with the County Manager regarding terminating Mr. Kirby’s employment. Mr. Kraus maintains that he has not been presented with a good reason to terminate Mr. Kirby’s employment.” (See pg. 6 of the Investigative Report: Attempts to terminate Mr. Kirby’s employment)
Ms. Logan's report provides points and counterpoints, some of which are confusing. According to the report, Ms. Logan spoke with Mr. Kirby, Mr. Kraus, Commissioners Parnell and Murphy.
No one is quoted directly, and Ms. Logan reports that no one knew what “happened to” evidence supporting Mr. Kirby’s claim against Mr. Ford.
Ms. Logan pointed out that discussions of topics that may come before the County Commission are off-limits under the Sunshine Law.
According to Ms. Logan, “Commissioner Ford denied any communication with any of his fellow Board members regarding termination of Mr. Kirby’s employment." At the same time, Commissioner Parnell and Commissioner Murphy said that Mr. Ford had communicated with them.
Ms. Logan wrote, “Violations of the Sunshine law are not included among the conduct prohibited by the County’s Ethics Code and thus cannot be addressed within this report.” But she did it anyway.
Ms. Logan’s Conclusion
After speaking with witnesses and reviewing Mr. Kirby's evidence, Ms. Logan wrote that she "finds no probable cause of a violation(s) of this policy,” e.g., the County Ethics Policy.
Then, without any evidence, sworn testimony, or affidavits, Ms. Logan opined, “I do have concerns regarding possible violations of the Sunshine Law as it relates to Commissioner Ford’s discussions with other commissioners about the termination of Mr. Kirby’s employment.”
Ms. Logan is referring the matter to County Attorney Foreman, who said he had a conflict, which is why he referred the matter to Ms. Logan.
Epilogue
With two county commissioners purportedly willing to testify against Commissioner Ford for violations of the Sunshine Law, it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Welcome to the land of the infamous Columbia County 5.