A History of Conficts of Interest
Several months ago, I downloaded all of the meeting minutes for the EDA from 2023–2025. I had initiated a cursory review in an effort to aggregate what the EDA has both attempted and accomplished in the past three years. What I found was that the vast majority of its efforts have been limited to ROSE loans. For background, a ROSE (Restoration, Opportunity, Sustainability, and Enterprise) loan is a structured forgivable allowance of money that functions more as a conditional grant than as a loan. So long as the business does not close up shop or move locations, they do not have to pay that money back. These grants are paid for by your tax dollars, and while they help make areas (mostly downtown) a little prettier, they do not really stimulate any business. I found that most of the ROSE loans were granted to people who had connections with either the EDA, the City Council, or both. When I asked around town, many business owners were unaware that these conditional grants were available to them. While there are numerous situations surrounding the EDA that are highly questionable, in the interests of brevity I will only focus on the most easily documented conflict of interest.
This conflict of interest revolves around the dispersal of the ROSE loans. This relates to loans provided to Ashton Pankonin, who served on the EDA from 2019 to 2025 and served as President during at least one period. Current acting Mayor, James Evans has served on the EDA since the winter and spring of 2022 and has served as President during at least one period. Sarah Duklet has served on the EDA since at least 2022 and is currently serving as President (since February 2025). Ashton is also the owner of Pankonin Enterprises LLC and holds property downtown at 104 E. Main St. and 106 E. Main St. James Evans’ Agency (Farmer Insurance), has been located at 106 E. Main St., Suite 105, since 2019. This makes James a business tenant of Ashton Pankonin and thus a compromised party anytime Ashton has a matter before the committee or the City Council.
Ashton Pankonin requested two ROSE loans from the EDA in April of 2023. At that time, he was a commissioner of the EDA. In the interests of clarity, it is important to note that simply being a commissioner on the EDA does not disqualify the owner of a business from receiving these loans. However, by the nature of the positions held and the influence wielded, any and all conflicts of interest are legal required to be declared, with the compromised party excusing themselves from the process and abstaining from voting.
When the EDA met on April 10, 2023, to decide if Ashton Pankonin’s request (Proposal 23-02) would be approved, Ashton himself was not present. At that time, the acting President was James Evans, and he should have also excused himself from both leading that portion of the meeting and from voting, because as a business tenant of Ashton Pankonin he was in conflict. Likewise, his business was the beneficiary of one of the two ROSE loans, as it was specifically identified for improvement to 106 E. Main St., where his business resides. Community Development Director Smith Strack was present according to the meeting minutes and should have recognized the conflict and how important this is, but no mention of any conflict was documented in the minutes. The motion to recommend giving $6,000 under Proposal 23-02 was made by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Woletz (our former Mayor). Everyone present (Commissioners Evans, Fahey, Duklet, and Woletz) should have been aware of the compromising circumstances, but each voted in favor of the proposal, and the motion was approved. I could stop there, but this story continues.
A year later, Ashton Pankonin had not completed the work that these ROSE loans were for. Ashton Pankonin was by then the President of the EDA. An extension was proposed on April 8, 2024. Those who were present at the meeting were Commissioners Woletz, Evans, Buck, Cox, and Krant. The motion to extend the time allowed for completion was made by Commissioner Woletz and seconded by Commissioner Cox. Commissioner Pankonin properly abstained. Though a clerical error lists Woletz vote twice in favor; this was most likely Evans vote, and while this does provide some ambiguity, there is no record of James Evans’ abstention, which should have been required.
Later again that same year, in August of 2024, Ashton came back to request a third ROSE loan. At the EDA meeting held on August 12, 2024, Commissioners Buck, Evans, Duklet, Krant, Woletz, and Cox were all present. Commissioner Pankonin was still the President of the EDA. At this meeting, a motion for approval of Resolution 24-10 was made by Commissioner Buck, with a second by Commissioner Cox. Commissioner Pankonin properly relinquished the chair. However, Commissioner Evans was chosen to run the meeting, despite his undeclared conflict of interest. He should have followed suit and relinquished the chair to one of the other commissioners. Instead, he assumed the chair and held the vote. James Evans also voted in favor of Resolution 24-10 rather than properly abstaining.
A fourth request for a ROSE loan was made on behalf of Pankonin Enterprises in 2025, and the motion to approve Resolution 25-09 was considered at the December 8, 2025, EDA meeting. In attendance were Commissioners Krant, Stacey, and Fahey. As Commissioner Duklet was not present, Commissioner (James) Evans filled in as the chair. The motion was made by Commissioner (Rex) Stacey and seconded by Commissioner Krant. All voted in favor, including Commissioner Evans.
When I brought this forward in a public forum, I was asked if anyone had been denied a ROSE loan. The answer is no. But that is unto itself a problem. The assumption here is that so long as no one is denied a loan, then no conflict exists. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. The injured party here isn’t other businesses. This conflict of interest is not about what is fair to them. The injured party is the tax paying public. The EDA has never, within the evaluated time period, denied a rose loan for any reason. In fact, they have proposed increases to their budget more than once to meet the needs of every applicant. This questions the merit of every application. What criteria has been applied to each applicant, if every one of them has been approved? How can one claim to be the protector of the public purse when they will not declare when they are in a conflict of interest? Likewise, it’s been said that there was no harm from not declaring these conflicts. It doesn’t work that way. Comparably, if you commit perjury, it doesn’t matter if what you lie about actually has any bearing on the case before a court. It’s still perjury. That fact is the only one that matters in the end.
(1) EDA Meeting Minutes 20230410
(2) EDA Meeting Minutes 20240408