Official Backed Plans Of Business Connections

Under that scenario, "Larry gets 25k," Peter R.Q. Knop wrote in a 2005 e-mail that began "Beerman proposal."

Greenvest had rebuffed Knop's attempt to purchase the property the year before. And Knop said no payment was made to Beerman, noting that it would have been inappropriate. Knop said in an e-mail to his lawyer that he did not believe the ideas from the e-mail were presented to Beerman, calling them "internal thoughts."

In a lawsuit against the county, Knop challenged the development, saying it was incongruous in that area and should not have been approved. Attorneys in the suit took depositions from Knop's employees and others and obtained their e-mails, including the message from Knop to his lawyer.

Kelleher, Knop's former accountant, who described in an interview a Knop payment to Beerman, remembers it being for $5,000 and said she thought it was connected to the Greenvest dispute. She said she was certain it coincided with his time on the Planning Commission.

"I remember writing the check, because it was one of those, 'Hmmmm, should we really be writing this check to this man?' " Kelleher said. She worked for Knop until mid-2005.

In July 2004, Knop sent Kalina, his lobbyist, an e-mail demanding an "up to date list of ALL contributions made to ALL politicians and other groups" from 2002 through 2004. Knop was frustrated at a county official's skepticism about his entertainment center.

"This should include the 'consulting fee' of 7,000. paid to Beerman. . . . Also any other fees or retainers or other sums paid to people not in their official capacity (I would include . . . other fees paid to people on the inside," Knop wrote. "If we are ever to operate efficiently, AND win, this is something which better be done ASAP," he wrote, referring to the accounting of contributions.

Kalina, a tobacco and oil company lobbyist before she began working for Knop in early 2004, was asked in a deposition about that e-mail and the $7,000 fee.

"And he was a member of the Planning Commission at the time that this $7,000 consulting fee was paid. Isn't that right?" asked the attorney questioning her.

"Yes," she answered.

Later in the deposition, after answering further questions about the payment, she said she was uncertain whether it was ultimately paid to Beerman. "Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't" a payment, she said. She ended the deposition saying, "We had paid Mr. Beerman consulting fees related to other business activities for things that he did."

During the time Kalina worked for Knop, Beerman was on the Planning Commission.

Knop and his son said in an interview that the $7,000 was payment for Beerman's consulting work on a cell tower venture sometime between 2000 and 2002. Peter J. Knop said he used quotation marks around the words "consulting fee" because he believed Beerman had overcharged. As evidence of the consulting work, Knop's son later produced a copy of a canceled check to Beerman for $7,500 dated June 19, 2002.

Kelleher said the payment to Beerman that she recalled was more than 18 months later, when he was on the Planning Commission. The Knops did not respond to written questions about that discrepancy.

Knop said he has continued to work with Beerman over the years because he is good at what he does.

"His business is knowing, both in politics as well as in business, knowing where the deals are. And how do you find out where the deals are? You know -- and are on good terms with -- everybody. Larry is a very likable guy."

Staff researchers Madonna Lebling, Bobbye Pratt and Julie Tate contributed to this report.