Two Warrington-area nonprofits suing Escambia County Clerk of Court and Comptroller Pam Childers for withholding $7,000 in county discretionary funds are firing back at the clerk’s motion to dismiss their complaint.
Their attorney also indicated he may want to amend it and add Escambia’s Board of County Commissioners as a party, or defendant, in the lawsuit against the clerk—a possibility that is not fully supported by all board members.
The Greater Pensacola Junior Golf Association (First Tee) and Warrington Emergency Aid Center (WEAC) are asking a judge to order the clerk to release the money commissioners approved giving them, and to reject her attempt to throw out their lawsuit.
In the lawsuit, attorney Alex Andrade claims Childers unlawfully withheld $4,500 earmarked for youth golf programs run by First Tee and $2,500 approved to reimburse food pantry expenses for WEAC.
Andrade, who also serves as the state House representative for District 2, argues that it’s not Childers’ job to determine if the money has a public purpose, and that under state law Childers’ role as the county auditor is strictly ministerial: to “keep their minutes and accounts, and perform such other duties as their clerk as the board may direct.”
He’s asking the judge to determine if it’s lawful for the commission to appropriate county funds to First Tee and WEAC, raising the question of the legality of the “program” issuing discretionary funds at all.
“Neither Plaintiff is confident that, absent a judicial ruling, Childers will stop exceeding her authority and exercising an unlawful veto over Commission expenditures,” Andrade said in his response. “There exists a bona fide, actual, present need for the declaration, otherwise Childers will continue to violate the equal protection and due process rights of local charities, continue exceeding her authority under the existing separation of powers framework, and would have, in reality, asserted for herself a veto over all Escambia County expenditures she subjectively disagrees with.”
Childers points out the court’s decision could impact all discretionary spending decisions.
“Plaintiffs seek for this Court to determine whether the Commission’s alleged “Program” is or is not lawful,” Childers said in her legal motion. “Thus, this litigation could render an entire segment of the Commissions spending unlawful.”
While Andrade says the expenditures to the nonprofits do meet a public need, she argues that they constitute an illegal gift of public money because neither serves a “legitimate county purpose,” and as such is in violation of the Florida Constitution and “no relief should be afforded.”
Comparing discretionary fund lawsuit to retirement suit
Andrade compares the questions raised in this case to legal questions raised when the board sued Childers several years ago over withholding payments for a local, lucrative retirement plan that benefited elected officials who chose to participate in it.
The county lost that lawsuit, but Andrade said the questions at the heart of it are the same ones he is bringing to the court on behalf of the nonprofits.
“This Court accurately assessed the sole question(s) required to be answered: is the payment lawful or prohibited by statute?” Andrade said in his response to Childers’ motion to dismiss. “While the Court determined that participation in the Local Plan was not lawful, this case turns on a much simpler assessment; and one which Childers continues to sidestep, deflect and avoid answering: Is it lawful for the Escambia County Commission to appropriate funds to WEAC to feed Escambia residents in need and to First Tee Gulf Coast to provide recreational and educational opportunities to children in Escambia County; and are there any general laws prohibiting the expenditures?”
Who can legally make the call on spending?
Childers said in her motion to dismiss that using taxpayer money for a “party” for First Tee and buying food for a pantry that only serves a select group of people and excludes most other residents of the county do not serve a public purpose.
The clerk said it is her job to ensure the funds meet a “county purpose,” and she does not believe they do because neither nonprofit has a contract with the county to provide for a “fundraiser party” or a food drive that “by their own admission, excludes all residents of the county not residing in Pensacola.”
Childers argues that the nonprofits’ lawsuit should be thrown out primarily because they have no legal right to sue her and because she has a duty to protect taxpayer money from what she views as unconstitutional “donations.”
She said that commissioners have treated the discretionary line items as individual “slush funds” to curry political favor.
Escambia County as a possible party in lawsuit?
She also says that the lawsuit cannot move forward because Escambia’s Board of County Commissioners is not included in the complaint as an “indispensable party to this litigation.”
She said that’s a critical component if, as the nonprofits claim in their suit, the board “may seek to recoup funds” if she loses the case.
Childers said that claim would make the county a player in the complaint against her and that asking the judge to essentially determine if the discretionary “program” is lawful could also give the board a vested interest in the outcome.
For both of those reasons, she said the nonprofits’ lawsuit can’t move forward without including the county commission.
In Andrade’s response to those claims and in asking the judge to deny Childers’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, he says the clerk “has failed to establish the law that gives her the authority to refuse the lawful payments the Commission” appropriated to his clients.
“They have suffered harm both financially and to their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection,” Andrade said. “If the Court determines the Escambia County Commission is an indispensable party to this action as it relates to Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief, Plaintiffs request leave to file an amended complaint to join the Commission as a party to this action.”
The News Journal reached out to Escambia County’s Community and Media Relations team for comment about Andrade’s request to amend the complaint and possibly add the commission as a party to it depending on the judge’s ruling on motions made in the suit.
“County staff is aware of the pleadings, but only the Board of County Commissioners can direct any action to the lawsuit. At this time, the board has not directed any action,” Escambia County Public Information Manager Andie Gibson said.
The News Journal also reached out to the five commissioners.
Chair Ashlee Hofberger was the only one to respond by deadline.
“I want to stress I am only one of five, and I would in no way support pursuing frivolous litigation,” Hofberger said. “I don’t believe the county should require homeowners to pay property taxes and give those tax dollars away to charities. I firmly believe that tax dollars should be spent on county projects.”
Discretionary fund spending often a point of contention
Childers met with Hofberger and county staff from the budget and legal departments on Jan. 9 to discuss the ongoing issue of discretionary funds.
The clerk says discretionary funds should be used for a county purpose and expenditures based on the same criteria as any other project requiring taxpayer dollars, otherwise discretionary spending can appear like commissioners are “buying votes.”
The county budgets $250,000 in discretionary funding every year, $50,000 for each of the five commissioners. The board votes on any requests, many of them for charitable events, and any money not spent rolls over to the following year.
Escambia County District 2 Commissioner Mike Kohler made the original ask for the board to approve the discretionary funding requests for both nonprofits that filed suit against the clerk.
In the past, he has publicly criticized Childers’ decision to withhold discretionary funds, saying it’s an issue of authority and not just accounting.
“I’m about efficient government and that’s what I want to do, but I also don’t think that the board should be hand-tied,” Kohler said at the meeting in January. “If we want to give to a food bank, we should be able to do that. I don’t think the clerk gets to decide that.”
The issue of discretionary spending also came up at a county meeting on Nov. 19, 2025, when there was some board pushback against Hofberger’s request for an outside efficiency study.
At the time, Commissioner Steve Stroberger said he wouldn’t mind if the discretionary fund was eliminated altogether.
“I don’t like having to decide who gets my discretionary funds,” Stroberger said at the November meeting. “I haven’t even been spending it, and I would be in favor of getting rid of the discretionary fund because I don’t need it. I don’t need it to buy votes.”
At the same meeting, May also questioned why organizations he has supported for years are now being turned down.
“If it’s wrong now, why wasn’t it wrong 12 years ago?” May said.
Childers was first elected in August 2012.
Commissioner Steve Barry has been one of the most vocal critics of Childers’ decision to block these funds.
He has publicly argued that her sudden change in policy is legally baseless and harmful to local schools.
“If you talk to people in leadership at schools and in the administration, they don’t have the ability to fund all these things,” he said at meeting in March 2026, when the issue of discretionary spending was discussed again. “Schools are funded with public money, and it was never an issue. It was never an issue until it was.”
This article originally appeared on Pensacola News Journal: Lawsuit over $7K may put Escambia’s full $250K discretionary fund into question
Reporting by Mollye Barrows, Pensacola News Journal / Pensacola News Journal
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Mollye Barrows, Pensacola News Journal | USA TODAY Network
