Questions surround shellfish workforce appropriation tucked into budget

A small appropriation tucked into the state budget is creating a bit of a stink on Florida’s waterfront.

The budget that lawmakers are expected to pass Friday includes a $500,000 appropriation for an aquaculture workforce development program — a trivial amount in a $114.5 billion spending package, but nonetheless questionable.

The Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Workforce Development Program request, carried by Rep. Chad Johnson, aims to rebuild and grow Florida’s shellfish industry by supporting internships. The allocation includes $370,000 to cover labor and living expenses for workers and another $55,000 for a stipend to help interns secure work equipment, such as rubber boots and gloves.

While subsidizing labor costs is unusual, the other $75,000 may prove more controversial.

The funding request sets aside $20,000 for the salary and benefits of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association’s Executive Director, who would help administer the program, match interns with employers and assist with curriculum development. Another $55,000 is earmarked for curriculum development and related content creation — a task the Executive Director is directly involved in.

Even fishier, the Executive Director, Adrianne Johnson, doubles as the trade association’s lobbyist.

The arrangement is unlikely to violate any law on its face, but it certainly toes the line. Organizations employ lobbyists, Executive Directors draw salaries, and workforce programs routinely rely on outside partners.

Even so, directing taxpayer dollars toward the salary of a registered lobbyist is the sort of arrangement that tends to invite scrutiny, particularly in a state Capitol where lawmakers have increasingly sought to limit the use of public funds for lobbying.

That scrutiny may be especially acute given that the appropriation flowed through the budget silo of Rep. Jason Shoaf, who just last month warned that taxpayer-funded lobbying “creates conflicts of interest” and erodes confidence in government.

The optics are more complicated when considering the association’s recent history.

Johnson previously served on the host committee for a fundraiser benefiting a Democratic challenger to U.S. Rep. Neal Dunn, who at the time was still seeking re-election and had long been one of the shellfish industry’s most reliable allies in Washington.

Supporters would likely contend the appropriation is about workforce development, not politics.

The challenge is that the paper trail tells a more complicated story — one that leaves taxpayers subsidizing an arrangement that appears to benefit the industry’s advocate as much as the industry itself. That’s a lot of baggage for a program that was supposed to help keep the industry afloat.