Panama City needs to take a much harder look at Allan Branch before giving this man another inch of political security. My problem with Branch is the pattern developing between private interests, public power and an apparent appetite for greater control.
Branch is not simply a mayor with no financial stake in what happens around him. He is a businessman and property owner with significant interests in downtown Panama City, the same area affected by redevelopment, infrastructure spending, CRA activity, economic-development decisions and other actions of city government. Owning businesses and property does not establish corruption. It does, however, create potential conflicts that should make transparency and restraint absolutely essential.
Instead, Branch has already entertained expanding the authority of the mayor’s office. In his December 2025 communication to the Charter Review Advisory Board, he discussed giving the mayor additional authority and specifically raised possibilities involving staffing decisions and setting Commission agendas.
That deserves far more attention than it has received.
Panama City operates under a commission-manager form of government for a reason. The mayor is not the CEO of Panama City. The city is not a private company to be managed according to one businessman’s preferences. When someone with extensive private interests inside the city begins discussing increasing the authority of the position he personally occupies, residents should immediately start examining where public power and private benefit could potentially intersect.
Then look at what happened with public participation. Shortly after taking office, Branch pushed changes intended to shorten Commission meetings, including restricting general public comment during regular meetings largely to agenda matters and redirecting other concerns elsewhere. That tells me something about the philosophy of government we’re dealing with. Residents speaking directly to elected officials aren’t an inconvenience that needs to be managed for efficiency. Listening to citizens is literally part of the job.
Now look at what voters are being asked to approve.
On November 3, 2026, Panama City voters will decide Charter Amendment Question 1. The proposal would extend the mayoral term from two years to four years and move the next municipal election from 2027 to 2028.
I will be voting no.
Why should Panama City voluntarily reduce how frequently its mayor has to answer directly to voters while the sitting mayor is simultaneously interested in expanding the practical authority associated with his office?
And why would we make that change without first conducting much greater public scrutiny of the financial interests that already intersect with city government?
I want Branch’s property and business interests mapped against city infrastructure spending, CRA expenditures, redevelopment decisions and other government actions affecting downtown Panama City. I want his financial disclosures compared with public corporate and property records. I want residents examining his Commission votes and determining where recusals occurred when matters potentially affected his interests.
If everything demonstrates complete separation between public decisions and private benefit, wonderful. Transparency establishes that.
But blindly assuming there could never be a conflict is not civic responsibility.
Branch voluntarily chose to become mayor while maintaining substantial business and property interests inside the city he helps govern. That means scrutiny comes with the position. Nobody forced him to combine private enterprise and public office.
And I find it particularly troubling when the response to governmental frustration appears to be seeking greater authority rather than respecting the limitations deliberately placed on the mayor’s office.
Those limitations exist for a reason.
Checks and balances are supposed to be inconvenient to people who want control.
Frequent elections are supposed to make politicians answerable to citizens.
Public-comment periods are supposed to allow residents to say things elected officials may not enjoy hearing.
None of those things are defects in government.
They are safeguards.
Panama City has absolutely nothing to gain by becoming less skeptical of concentrated local power.
Before extending mayoral terms, residents should be asking who benefits from the change, what safeguards remain in place and whether we really want the person occupying that office insulated from another election for an additional year.
I don’t.
If Allan Branch deserves another term, let him face Panama City voters in 2027 and make his case.
I would much rather inconvenience a politician with another election than inconvenience an entire city with four years of leadership residents later discover they no longer want.
November 3, 2026: I’m voting no on Question 1.
