BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:

October 9, 2017

TO:

Rick Fernandez, City Manager

FROM:

Commissioner Bill Proctor

SUBJECT:

Request for Termination of Roxanne Manning

I. Racial Discrimination is practiced under Roxanne Manning’s leadership of the CRA.
The CRA process is Roxanne’s personal playground of projects from which she rejects or seeks
approval of proposed projects for CRA funding.
I am thoroughly horrified by the April 6, 2017 response staff sent to Dr. Geraldine Seay
indicating why her proposed project would not be considered by GFS CAC. I did not know that
GFS CAC had a place in filtering proposed CRA projects. Did you know? After attempting to
submit her proposal sent Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 12:05 p.m., Dr. Seay was rejected within
almost 24 hours as she received a letter of refusal on April 6, 2017 at 12:41 p.m. Were there any
other applicants who were processed and notified as quickly as Dr. Seay was noticed?
Copied on this April 6, 2017 letter to Dr. Seay, are Wayne Tedder, Roxanne Manning and
Richard McGraw. Please provide me a copy of Florida Statutes, City or County ordinances or
any policy that states any outstanding debt to the Historic Property Loan disqualifies one from
securing CRA support from a proposed project to receive free grant money. Must one be totally
debt free to receive free public grant funds from the CRA or is this another race base decision by
the City of Tallahassee?
Until otherwise disproven, I am maintaining that Dr. Seay has been discriminated against based
on her race. She was denied review from the CRA and never received consideration on the
merits of her project. She deserves a fair, unbiased and reasonable chance to receive CRA
funding which is open to anyone. This whole process or rather lack of process is knee jerk
administration personified. Is this the best the City can provide for leadership over the CRA?
Wayne Tedder, Roxanne Manning and Richard McGraw made an arbitrary decision against Dr.
Seay. What role does Michael Parker play in blocking CRA applicants? Who orchestrated this
effort to utilize Sherri Curtis, a black woman, to deny Dr. Seay, a black woman and to make it
seem this is not a gender or race issue—in appearance? Who went out of the way to discover
such information? Does Sherri, Roxanne, Wayne, Rick or Michael Parker examine the debts of
all other applicants? Why hasn’t the CRA Board know of such debts?
An explanation is owing. I desire to know how this travesty will be addressed. Dr. Seay
deserves an apology and she should be given a chance for full consideration before the CRA.
The City has to treat all citizens with dignity and with the same fair opportunity. Further, among
the numerous property owners who have received prior CRA support, have any of these people
owed a report or had an outstanding debt to the Historic Property loan or to the City or County?
How is it that one’s debt plays a role against their receiving free non-loan related grant funds
from the CRA? This is bogus and made-up criteria. Except for the race of this applicant, what is
the correlation between anyone’s debt preventing them from getting free CRA money? Has any
white applicant been sent the same letter? If so, when?

 What City ordinance serves as the basis for denial of a project receiving CRA Board review
because of historic loans or previous reports due to the CRA?
Did Big Bend Cares not owe any debts when Roxanne presented this organization for 1.2 million
dollars for direct support? How debt free were all other project presenters from owing Uncle
Sam, the State of Florida, a bank or two, the City of Tallahassee or the County of Leon before
being considered for proposal review—not by the CRA Board—but by Roxanne’s staff? Must
Puerto Rico pay off its previous loans to receive free assistance from FEMA?
Why are you allowing Roxanne to practice racial discrimination against Dr. Seay on behalf of
the City of Tallahassee?
Request:
1. I am requesting that the CRA be allowed to directly receive and review Dr. Seay’s
proposal given the bias and previous discriminatory practices against her by the entire
staff of the CRA who were noticed in the copy of Sherri Curtis letter dated April 6, 2017.
2. I request a formal apology from you to Dr. Seay for the CRA staff’s actions.

II. Washington Square excluded from CRA Staff list in July.
I ask you to please review the letter I have received from Walter Hall. This letter also complains
about the CRA staff. Walter Hall as Principal of Fairmont Development LLC wrote to me these
words on (September 28); “Although I don’t know why we were excluded from the CRA staff
list of projects valued above $2 million in the development pipeline represented at July Board
meeting…”
Do either of you know why the Loews Hotel project by Fairmont Development was “excluded”
from the CRA staff list of projects”?
Considering the substantive value of previous projects brought to Roxanne’s attention, it boggles
understanding to grasp why this outstanding corporation has to shuffle and wait its turn to tap
dance and shimmy for Roxanne for her to green light their advancement to the CRA Board. This
arbitrary and capricious management borders on incompetence and is unacceptable.
(Attachment)
Request:
I am requesting that the CRA be allowed to directly receive and review any proposal that Mr.
Walter Hall desires to share in the interests of securing support for the Washington Square
project. Please schedule his presentation for our next meeting.
III. Call for New Review Process of Future Proposals.
I propose that all future proposals be allowed presentation directly to the CRA Board first. If the
CRA Board is sufficiently persuaded the project(s) has merit, then it should be given assistance
by the staff of the CRA Board and the CRA will direct its staff accordingly.
The CRA Board must begin to screen and review all projects as a first step. Otherwise, you
leave a process in place that is arbitrary, capricious and open to graft and the perception of the
CRA maintaining a graft oriented process headed up by Roxanne Manning and Company.
The current pervasive suspicion against the City’s CRA, especially Downtown, compels
modifying our approach to our processes. How else can you restock credibility to a fractured

 structure reeking with criminal review?
Recommendation:
The triumvirate of Roxanne Manning, Richard McGraw and Wayne Tedder should be disbanded
as the ruling power and governing authority of the CRA. Place the control and decisioning of the
CRA Board from start to finish under the Board. Please identify persons who will serve as staff
persons who are supportive of the CRA Board without competing agenda that nullifies our
interests and CRA objectives.
IV. Manning – Renzi Communications
A recent memo between Roxanne Manning and Rob Renzi shakes my confidence in Roxanne
Manning’s professionalism. Correspondences at 5:41 a.m. and 6:56 a.m. smack of inexplicable
closeness between a city administrator and an applicant for CRA funds. Sunday conversation
about CRA business is equally unsettling. Can all other CRA applicants have 24/7 access to the
staff of this CRA.
The Renzi-Manning exchanges are less than professional and borderline sinister. Roxanne’s
comments about not calling Dr. Edward Holifield by title say much. I was disappointed by the
marked and isolated interest shown in these memo exchanges about Dr. Holifield. Whether Dr.
Holifield is in the Tallahassee Airport or not should not be a piddly detail of the CRA Director.
This is offensive and beneath the office of a CRA Director. All citizens are welcome to CRA
meetings.
In other CRA Districts across the state, would the casual and personal reflections about and
against a singular citizen be a norm or accepted?
Regardless, her comments went overboard for an administrator for the City of Tallahassee. More
than ever, I disbelieve she ever conducted an objective review of the Big Bend Cares project.
Certainly, I do believe she orchestrated a friendship deal for Rob Renzi’s Big Bend Cares 1.2
million dollar mortgage payment agreement.
Read the email exchanges between Renzi and staff three times. Then later on read them again
carefully and allow your thoughts to tune in to their frequency.
Is the FBI investigating the deal between Renzi and Manning? Is this a squeaky clean and
absolutely straight deal that meets all rules and applicable laws?
V. Renzi Threat to sue CRA Member not Disclosed.
As her boss, were you ever notified by Roxanne that she had received written communications
confirming that a CRA board member would be sued by a recipient of CRA dollars? A written
declaration like the one Roxanne received warranted notification to you and you owed
notification to me of such threat. None of this occurred. There exist no internal protocols.
Roxanne manages by accommodation, manipulation, friendship and arbitrary practices.
“My purpose to speak will be to but (sic) Proctor and Holifield on notice that once this is cleaned
up, we will not hesitate to seek legal actions against them if they continue to lie.” Renzi,
himself, acknowledges the site is contaminated by writing: “once this is cleaned up…” His own
words verify the truth that his site is contaminated.
Exactly, what would be his basis to sue Proctor or Dr. Holifield? Threatening legal actions
against Proctor and Holifield for legal remedies would not “clean up” Renzi’s contaminated site.
The Department of Environmental Protection cited his site for contamination. Proctor and
Holifield did not contaminate his property. Proctor and Holifield did their best to inform others

 about the DEP findings per their interests in public health and safety.
With appropriate financial contributions perhaps the State of Florida’s silence can be bought so
that DEP will “shut up”. Proctor and Holifield’s voices will not be muted, bought nor be
intimidated by Rob Renzi.
There remain multiple questions that are unsettling about the BBC project. These unsettling
issues range from environmental to financial arrangements, including the extraordinary cash deal
of a 1.2 million dollar gift to meet the mortgage payment of BBC for four years. Is this legal?
Would the FBI think this a rather unique sweetheart deal even for Florida’s notoriously regarded
CRA’s?
VI. FBI Investigation
Under Roxanne’s management, the FBI has subpoenaed 90,000 documents of which many of
these transactions were reviewed by the staff of Roxanne and under her direction.
I believe the FBI queries about the transactions of multiple projects warrant your stronger
oversight, attention and review. Silence over the mediocre administration of the CRA has grown
quite loud. I request more from you. Do you allow the City government to sit idle as Rome
burns? The CRA needs a facelift, a new culture and energy. It needs you to act and be proactive
now. Greater accountability and transparency is needed.
VII.

Solicitations by Rick McGraw and Roxanne Manning to orchestrate parties
(applicants to attend public meetings)
Why does Rick McGraw and Roxanne Manning on February 9, 2017 and February 12, 2017,
respectively, solicit specific parties to attend the Village Square and Southside Advisorary
Committee meetings?
Renzi wrote Manning on February 12: “I am on vacation and quite frankly am not willing to do
more than I have already…” Would you talk to anyone like this who secured and gave you 1.2
million dollars? I am irked that this man is talking to our employee who worked hard to give him
over a million dollars. But, they are talking on a Sunday so I guess that’s how they roll.
Manning wrote Renzi on February 12: “I hear you. All I ask is that “we” have some kind of
professional back up.”
Why does Renzi talk down to Manning? Is she an employee of the City/CRA or does she answer
to and work for Rob Renzi? What had Renzi already done which made him not willing to do
more?
What kind of “professional” back up was Manning referencing to Renzi? Why is Roxanne
orchestrating a team of people to fight off and beat down the Southside Citizens’ Advisory
Committee?
Is it Roxanne’s job to protect and orchestrate the responses of CRA applicants before citizen
groups or who exactly pays her and why do “we” need “some kind of professional back up”?
I find it unusual that on a Sunday city officials are working cleverly and diligently with a CRA
applicant so that the applicant will back the City staff up and help the City staff look correct and
proper when the City defended the applicant and defended the CRA’s support of the applicant.
This mutual assistance of CRA staff with the CRA applicant appears to be a conflict of duty
between the agency as an oversight authority. This comingling of staffs is, indeed, questionable.

 Do other applicants have access to the CRA staff 24/7, including Sundays? Something is awry
and if this deal was straight up tight and right, there would not exist the uneasiness and all day
long communications occurring between the CRA staff and Rob Renzi after hours (from 11:00
a.m. until 6:27 p.m. Sunday discussions).
VIII. Audit Request Back to 2010
I am requesting an audit of the CRA program back to 2010. All of these deals involving millions
that were brought to the CRA Board by Roxanne Manning need to be scrutinized; especially the
irregular offering of mortgage payments to Big Bend cares in sequential payments of 375,000 for
four years.
1) I request a review and audit of the entire Big Bend Cares so-called application and the
review process that resulted in the CRA Board approving to pay the mortgage for Big
Bend Cares for four years.
 Please audit the documentation placed before Roxanne which validates the financial
claims of Big Bend Cares. Why was it required by the financial backers of BBC that
the CRA had to guarantee the mortgage payments of BBC?
 Has the CRA agreed to pay any other mortgage payments for any other private
applicant?
 On what basis did Big Bend Cares merit CRA dollars to pay their mortgage for your
years?
 Has such arrangement occurred anywhere else in the state?
 Who really are the partners/backers of BBC?
 How can BBC, an exclusive HIV/AIDS medical specialist, suddenly leap to instantly
providing comprehensive health services overnight? This HIV/AIDS Center will now
provide dentistry, women’s medicine and can mirror the service offerings of Bond
and Neighborhood Community Health Centers. It took Bond 30 years to reach its
current service capacities. But it takes BBC overnight to do the same.
 To move and build a new building across the street from its current site the CRA
promised Renzi $1.2 million dollars even though Renzi has announced BBC will not
see nor treat non-insured persons.
 Can public dollars be dispensed to a health agency that avows to not see taxpayers
citizens who are uninsured?
Conclusion
Central to the review and approval of all projects under the auspices of the CRA is its director.
Largely, control over who enters and advances through the CRA process and who enters its
“pipeline” is determined by its Director.
As the Senior Manger over the CRA Director, it is my understanding, you are responsible for the
performance of Roxanne Manning. In my opinion her performance is mediocre and even
suspect. She should be fired along with senior managers.
In addition to the voluminous documents sought from the City of Tallahassee by the FBI related
to the CRA, I have outlined concerns, doubts and suspicion I have about the CRA under Ms.
Manning’s leadership to warrant suspending the Director of this agency. I am one member.
Roxanne has led the City’s CRA into the largest FBI investigation of a local government in
history. This distinction is not shared by any other local administrator. It warrants her removal
from the post and the senior ranks should all be sanitized.

 We need a fresh start period with a new culture and a professional approach to administering the
CRA program.
As City Manager, you cannot abdicate taking managerial control over a unit or agency that has
lost so much public support and respect. To not suspend this Director under the multiple
dynamics of the current situation involving the FBI and coupled with her deficient and arbitrary
management would say a lot more about the City. Inaction against this Director would equate to
administrative malpractice. Negligence, as you know, results from when one does not exercise
the requisite duty of care appropriate to a situation.