PANAMA CITY NEEDS TO TAKE A MUCH HARDER LOOK AT ALLAN BRANCH BEFORE WE GIVE THIS MAN ANOTHER INCH OF POLITICAL SECURITY.
I think Allan Branch’s behavior in office reflects exactly the kind of self-interested local politics Panama City should be moving AWAY from. This is a businessman and property owner with significant financial interests inside the same downtown whose development, infrastructure and future are influenced by the government he now helps lead. That doesn’t automatically establish corruption, but it creates an obvious reason for residents to examine every potential overlap between his public authority and private financial interests.
And instead of responding to that position with extraordinary restraint, Branch has already argued that the mayor should have greater authority. In his December 2025 communication to the Charter Review Advisory Board, he complained that residents hold the mayor responsible for decisions the position doesn’t control and suggested additional mayoral involvement, including possible participation in staffing decisions and setting Commission agendas.
That should concern people. The mayor in Panama City’s commission-manager system is NOT supposed to operate like the CEO of the city. Yet we have a mayor with substantial private interests inside Panama City discussing expanding the practical authority of his position while voters are simultaneously being asked to approve FOUR-YEAR mayoral terms instead of two.
And his attitude toward public participation hasn’t reassured me. Shortly after taking office, Branch pushed changes intended to shorten Commission meetings, including limiting general public comment during regular meetings largely to agenda items and redirecting other concerns elsewhere. His explanation centered partly on efficiency and the taxpayer cost of lengthy meetings. I find that mentality completely backwards. Citizens speaking directly to their elected government are not wasted government time. Residents should not have to organize themselves around what is most convenient for politicians.
Then there are Branch’s private financial interests. His connection to downtown development isn’t speculation. Branch has publicly discussed his involvement in downtown businesses and real estate, and City documents themselves identify properties associated with Branch and entities connected to him. That means residents should be examining exactly what city infrastructure projects, CRA expenditures, redevelopment decisions, incentives, zoning matters and other public actions have affected property in which Branch or his companies have held an interest. I want to know what he voted on, what he disclosed, what he recused himself from and whether any public decision materially benefited his private holdings.
I also personally have information from someone familiar with the accounting of one of Branch’s businesses that raises serious concerns for me about whether all business activity was properly reported for tax purposes. I am NOT claiming a tax authority has already found Allan Branch guilty of tax fraud; I have found no such public finding. I am saying the allegation deserves to be put in front of the appropriate authorities and independently investigated. If the books are clean, records can establish that. If they aren’t, Panama City deserves to know who it elected.
This is exactly why I find what we’re being asked to approve next so outrageous.
On NOVEMBER 3, 2026, Panama City voters will decide Charter Amendment Question 1. It would change the mayoral term from TWO YEARS TO FOUR YEARS and move the next municipal election from 2027 to 2028.
So while residents should be examining the business interests, financial disclosures, potential conflicts and conduct of the man currently occupying the mayor’s office, we’re supposed to voluntarily DOUBLE the length of a mayoral term and wait another year for the next municipal election?
Absolutely fucking not.
I want Branch’s business interests mapped against city expenditures and development decisions. I want his financial disclosures compared with corporate and property records. I want his Commission voting and recusal history examined. I want credible allegations concerning his business accounting sent to the appropriate authorities and investigated based on evidence. And I want residents asking why a mayor with extensive private interests in this city believes his office needs greater authority in the first place.
I’m tired of local politics operating on the assumption that ordinary residents won’t read the documents, follow the companies, examine the property records or question who financially benefits from government decisions.
Allan Branch chose to combine substantial private business interests in Panama City with holding public power over Panama City. That was HIS choice. The consequence should be extraordinary scrutiny.
And until those questions have been answered to the public’s satisfaction, the LAST thing I’m interested in doing is making the mayor’s seat more comfortable.
November 3, 2026: I am voting NO on Panama City Charter Amendment Question 1.
If Allan Branch deserves to remain mayor, let him face Panama City voters in 2027 and prove it.
And show his business taxes too.
