By: Katrina Salokar | Roar | EastLeeNews.com
APPOINTMENTS, POWER, AND THE 2026 RECKONING: HOW LEE COUNTY GOT HERE AND WHAT VOTERS DECIDE NEXT
The appointment of Trish Petrosky to the Lee County Commission’s District 5 seat has drawn attention not only to a single vacancy, but to the systems that quietly shape who governs Lee County—and how much influence voters ultimately have in that process.
While the appointment followed state law after the death of Commissioner Mike Greenwell in October 2025, the timing of the appointment and the structure of county governance have prompted questions that extend beyond one seat. Those questions touch on recurring appointments, the effects of at-large voting, long-standing approaches to budget oversight, and a 2026 ballot measure that could fundamentally change how commissioners are elected.
What emerges is less a story about one appointee than a broader look at how process, structure, and continuity interact—often long before voters ever cast a ballot.
A VACANCY, AN APPOINTMENT, AND AN UNEXAMINED PROCESS
The District 5 seat became vacant following the death of Commissioner Mike Greenwell. Under Florida law, the Governor is authorized to appoint a replacement to serve until the next election.
Public records show that the Petrosky family listed their San Carlos home for sale on September 25, 2025, and entered into a contract to purchase property in Alva—within District 5—days before Greenwell’s death. The transaction closed on October 29, less than three weeks after the vacancy occurred.
On December 13, Governor Ron DeSantis announced Petrosky’s appointment. The Governor’s office did not release a list of applicants, interview schedules, or selection criteria.
Petrosky has stated publicly that her move to Alva was coincidental and that she had long been interested in public service, despite having no prior elected or appointed political experience. While the timeline alone does not establish intent, it raised questions among some residents about how the appointment decision was made and who was considered.
DISTRICT VOTES VS. COUNTYWIDE OUTCOMES
The appointment reopened debate over representation in District 5. In the most recent election, Amanda Cochran won approximately 65 percent of the District 5 vote and led countywide Election Day totals. She ultimately lost after absentee and mail-in ballots were counted under Lee County’s at-large voting system.
For many residents, the contrast highlighted a recurring concern: that district-level voter preference can be outweighed by countywide dynamics—particularly in rural areas where land-use and infrastructure decisions carry long-term consequences.
FROM APPOINTMENT TO INCUMBENCY: HOW STRUCTURE SHAPES OUTCOMES
Appointments are not unusual in Lee County government, and their influence often extends well beyond the moment a vacancy is filled.
Commissioner Mike Greenwell entered office through appointment in 2022 following the death of Commissioner Frank Mann, then went on to win election in 2024. That sequence reflects a broader pattern in which appointments function not merely as temporary bridges, but as entry points to incumbency.
The same pattern appears outside the County Commission. Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno was appointed to the office in 2018 by then-Governor Rick Scott after Sheriff Mike Scott stepped down. Marceno, who had been serving as Undersheriff, later ran for the position and won election in 2020.
Critics argue that appointments followed by elections provide structural advantages, including early visibility, institutional familiarity, and the authority of office before voters have an opportunity to compare candidates in a contested race. Supporters counter that appointments promote continuity and stability, particularly in complex organizations such as county government and law enforcement.
Lee County’s at-large voting system amplifies these effects. Because all county voters participate in district commission races, perceived incumbency and countywide name recognition can outweigh district-level familiarity. Appointed officials appear on the ballot as sitting officeholders, with visibility established before voters ever cast a vote.
A DOCUMENTED WEB OF POLITICAL CONSULTING AND INFLUENCE
Public records reviewed by East Lee News show that several key actors involved in land-use policy, electoral politics, and the District 5 appointment share a common political consulting firm.
Neal Communities has retained TM Strategic Consulting for lobbying related to utilities and development issues in Lee County. State Representative Tiffany Esposito has also retained TM Strategic for political consulting services. Campaign finance records further show that members of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners have engaged the firm for campaign-related work in recent election cycles.
TM Strategic is led by veteran political consultant Terry Miller, who authored the political biography used to publicly introduce Commissioner Trish Petrosky following her appointment and has served as a primary public voice describing her priorities.
In January 2025, Rep. Esposito sponsored legislation creating the Duke Farms Stewardship District on behalf of Neal Communities. The special district encompasses nearly 1,100 acres in rural Alva and authorizes long-term assessments and bonding authority to finance infrastructure. Despite organized opposition from residents, the bill passed, and the district was established.
Critics argue that overlapping roles among developers, elected officials, appointed officials, and shared political consultants raise questions about how influence operates in Lee County—particularly when appointments, land-use decisions, and campaign infrastructure intersect. Supporters counter that the use of experienced political consultants is common in Florida politics and does not, by itself, indicate improper conduct.
BUDGET POWER, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND REAL-WORLD COSTS
Petrosky’s public positioning includes strong support for law enforcement—a stance widely shared among county officials and one that carries significant political weight in Lee County.
In media interviews following the appointment, Miller described Petrosky as “a good team player” who supports law enforcement and would “do a good job” on the commission, emphasizing familiar themes such as keeping taxes low, cutting wasteful spending, and backing public safety.
That messaging aligns with a long-standing political consensus in the county. That consensus exists alongside concrete fiscal and safety outcomes.
Public budget records show that the Lee County Sheriff’s Office represents one of the largest components of county government spending, exceeding most other departments combined. Year after year, Sheriff’s Office budgets have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners largely as presented, with few substantive amendments and limited public discussion linking funding levels to measurable outcomes such as traffic enforcement effectiveness or crash reduction.
Critics argue that this pattern functions as a de facto rubber-stamping of one of the county’s most powerful agencies—not necessarily out of malice, but because questioning law-enforcement budgets has become politically risky in a county where “support for law enforcement” operates as a near-universal litmus test.
At the same time, Lee County continues to rank among Florida counties with the highest numbers of fatal and serious traffic crashes. In recent years, roadway deaths have averaged roughly one every few days. Traffic safety advocates note that enforcement visibility in many parts of the county—particularly in fast-growing and rural areas—remains inconsistent despite rising budgets and staffing levels.
The consequences are not abstract. Fatal and serious crashes carry direct human costs for families and long-term financial costs for the broader public. Florida consistently ranks among the states with the highest auto insurance premiums in the nation, and crash severity is widely recognized as a major driver of those rates.
Some residents argue that the combination of rising law-enforcement budgets, limited outcome-based scrutiny, and persistent safety failures reveals a structural disconnect between spending and results. Others contend that factors such as population growth, road design, and tourism complicate enforcement efforts.
A STRUCTURAL CHOICE ON THE 2026 BALLOT
Voters will have an opportunity to address these underlying dynamics directly in the November 3, 2026, general election.
A countywide ballot question authorized by House Bill 4001 (HB 4001)—approved by the Florida Legislature and signed into law—will ask whether Lee County should transition from at-large county commission elections to single-member districts beginning in 2028.
Lee County is currently one of only two Florida counties with populations over 500,000 that still elect all commissioners at large.
Supporters argue that single-member districts would allow each district to elect a representative with direct knowledge of local challenges, improve accountability, and reduce pressure for municipal incorporations driven by perceived lack of representation. Opponents maintain that at-large elections promote countywide cohesion.
The decision will rest with voters.
THE LARGER QUESTION
As of publication, Neal Communities and Rep. Esposito have not issued public responses addressing concerns raised by residents regarding the appointment and the broader political context. Commissioner Petrosky has stated publicly that the timing of her relocation to Alva was coincidental, but has not provided further detail addressing questions about the sequence of events surrounding her move and appointment.
For many residents, the central issue is not whether any single appointment complied with the law, but whether the systems governing appointments, elections, land-use policy, and budget oversight operate transparently—and whether voters are given meaningful opportunities to evaluate those systems before outcomes are effectively set.
WHEN PROCESS SHAPES OUTCOMES
In Lee County, how decisions are made often matters as much as the decisions themselves.
Appointments place individuals in positions of authority before voters have a say. At-large elections spread accountability across the entire county rather than anchoring it within individual districts. Budgets, including those tied to public safety, are approved year after year—often without sustained public discussion about whether spending is producing measurable results.
Each of these practices is lawful on its own. Together, they form a system that can move major decisions forward with limited public friction.
For voters, the challenge is not a lack of information, but that the information is scattered. Appointments, land-use legislation, campaign consulting, and budget approvals move through separate processes, even when their impacts converge in the same rural communities and neighborhoods.
As a result, residents are often left to evaluate outcomes after the fact rather than being part of a transparent conversation before decisions are made.
That dynamic will come into sharper focus in 2026, when Lee County voters are asked to decide whether to retain at-large elections or move to single-member districts. The outcome of that vote will shape not only future appointments, but how accountability, representation, and decision-making function across the county in the years ahead.
EDITOR’S NOTE
This article examines the intersection of appointments, election structures, budget practices, and political consulting in Lee County. It does not allege wrongdoing by any individual. Instead, it focuses on documented processes and systems that shape representation and accountability, particularly as voters prepare to decide the future of county governance in the 2026 election.
East Lee News welcomes factual corrections, documentation, and responses from readers and public officials.
