Florida investigators are seeking communications involving Nat Ford just weeks before he is scheduled to become CEO of Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Ford led the Jacksonville Transportation Authority as its financial troubles surfaced, and DART selected him after a divided board vote. The investigation has produced no finding of wrongdoing by Ford, but it has given Dallas a new reason to examine what its board knew when it hired him—and what it needs to know now.

Why Did Six DART Board Members Oppose the Initial Choice?

On July 14, DART’s 15-member board voted 9–6 to select a preferred CEO candidate, whose name it withheld while completing the employment process. A week later, the board identified Ford and approved his employment agreement 9–4. DART says he is scheduled to begin work October 26. Those votes established a hiring decision, but they did not establish unanimous confidence in it.

The opposition was about more than a preference for another finalist. Board member Doug Hrbacek objected to the speed of Ford’s return to the finalist pool and argued that members needed more time to investigate concerns they had uncovered. Nathan Barbera also called for more time to examine the candidate’s history at other agencies. At the subsequent contract vote, Plano representative Anthony Ricciardelli objected to the proposed compensation regardless of which candidate received it.

Those were distinct objections: the selection process, Ford’s record, and the cost of the contract. The six no votes on July 14 should not be treated as six identical judgments about Ford, nor should the later 9–4 vote be treated as proof that every concern disappeared. The public record does not establish how all 15 members would vote if they considered the appointment today.

What Has Changed Since DART Hired Ford?

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s Office of Statewide Prosecution has subpoenaed JTA records as it examines agency spending and contracts. The requested material includes communications involving Ford, his spouse, and the owner of an organizational development firm, along with other financial and program records. A subpoena is a demand for information; it does not establish that anyone named in the request committed a crime. Still, it brings questions about Ford’s Jacksonville tenure directly into the period before he takes charge in Dallas.

JTA is also facing a financial crisis that has prompted layoffs and service cuts. Mayor Donna Deegan said this week that she was “deeply disappointed” and that Ford, as the agency’s leader, had responsibility for what occurred. She also said officials need to determine what Ford knew about the depth of the problem. Dallas board members can ask the same question without assuming the answer—or waiting for prosecutors to finish their work.

How Much Weight Did DART Give Deegan’s Recommendation?

DART board chair Randall Bryant has explained why he supported Ford. In an August account of the search, Bryant said he spoke with current and former Jacksonville mayors and JTA board chairs to understand Ford’s performance, including concerns about his travel spending. He wrote that Deegan told him, “I hope Dallas is fortunate enough to get him.” Bryant presented those conversations as part of the deeper assessment that convinced him Ford was the right choice.

That makes Deegan’s recommendation consequential to the story. She was entitled to share her assessment, and DART’s board—not Jacksonville’s mayor—made the hiring decision. But now that she says she did not know the depth of JTA’s financial trouble and is disappointed in its CEO, it is fair to ask what information supported the confidence she conveyed to Bryant. Did they discuss JTA’s finances and the concerns raised by former board member Megan Hayward, or was her endorsement based chiefly on Ford’s public achievements and her experience working with him?

Was Deegan Required to Recommend Ford?

No general employment rule required the mayor to give DART a glowing recommendation. Many employers choose to limit references to dates of employment and job titles, but that practice varies by organization; it is not a rule that automatically governed Deegan’s conversation. Florida law addresses when an employer can receive protection from civil liability for disclosing information about a current or former employee. It does not turn a mayor’s favorable assessment of an independent authority’s CEO into a legal obligation.

That distinction matters because Deegan has emphasized JTA’s independent governance when discussing the financial crisis. The JTA board was responsible for supervising its CEO, and DART’s board was responsible for vetting the person it hired. Deegan’s formal authority over JTA was limited, but she voluntarily offered an influential opinion when DART’s chair called. The issue for readers is whether that opinion reflected a sufficiently informed view of Ford’s management at the time.

Could DART Reconsider Before Ford Starts?

DART’s board chose Ford and approved an employment agreement; his October 26 start date is approaching. The board can seek more information, ask Ford to address the Florida developments, and obtain legal advice about its agreement and available options. Any decision to change course would depend on the contract’s terms, the board’s procedures, and what additional facts emerge. The Florida subpoena does not itself undo DART’s hiring decision.

Bryant has defended both the search and the choice, including the references he received from Jacksonville leaders. Members who sought more vetting in July can now point to an active state investigation and JTA’s worsening financial picture as reasons to renew their questions. That does not tell us whether any of the nine original supporters have changed their minds. It tells us the board has more to evaluate than it did when it took its first vote.

For Jacksonville, the investigation is about how JTA was managed and overseen. For Dallas, it is also about whether a divided board received a complete picture before entrusting Ford with another transit system. DART does not have to presume guilt to ask hard questions now, including what its references knew, what its dissenting members identified, and whether its original decision still commands the board’s confidence.

THE JTA AT A CROSSROADS SERIES!