Because ... Manatee County

Manatee County has always been a tough place to take seriously when it comes to local politics. But on the last two occasions that both a county commission and school board meeting took place on the same Tuesday, we reached new heights–or should I say depths–when it comes to political depravity.

And now that there are some crossover characters, it’s almost as if you’re watching a bad soap opera and its equally lousy spinoff, back-to-back. Talk about Must (not) See TV.

On April 1, Manatee County Commissioners hired Manatee School Board member Scott Hopes as the "interim" county administrator. This was after a 4-3 majority of the board unceremoniously fired former administrator Cheri Coryea at the behest of the developers who paid for their election campaigns because ... Manatee County.

The commissioners who orchestrated Coryea’s sudden departure then–without a hint of irony–lamented the fact that, after having done so, they weren't left with enough time to conduct a proper search for a full-time replacement. In other words, the situation they themselves had created had then rendered them unable to take a prudent course as a result. Move on, dear reader, that sentence won’t make sense no matter how many times you read it because É Manatee County.

Rather than admit they’d made a big mistake in acting so rashly and not considering the potential and painfully obvious consequences, they simply promised the public that they would hire Hopes for a one-year interim in order to get through the looming budgetary process and other pertinent matters on the near horizon and then conduct the national search to find the permanent administrator.

Five weeks later, Kevin Van Ostenbridge, the newly-elected commissioner who’d led the move to terminate Coryea and was the driving force behind hiring Hopes, decided that he had seen enough to scrap all of that and just make Hopes’ position permanent. On Tuesday, four commissioners joined him and now it is so.

No one was really able to explain why there was such an urgent need to take an employee who was under contract for a year and essentially change his job title and give him a significant raise before he’d even had 90 days under his belt–the period for which the rest of us are generally under a probationary period when it comes to new employment.

Look, this was always going to play out this way. As I wrote in a previous column, once a developer-approved candidate was in the seat, there was little chance that a national search would ever be conducted and there would likely be some other excuse given near the end of the one-year interim. But I gotta admit, even I didn’t think we’d be here in less than two months, the fact that this is Manatee County notwithstanding.

That said, Hopes seems to have done a perfectly fine job so far, and probably is a much better fit for the board’s new majority than Coryea would have been–though I’m not sure that latter would be a compliment. But after the way in which they mishandled the first half of the equation, it would seem a little self-restraint would have been prudent, but restraint doesn’t seem to be this crew’s strong suit. Reckless abandon on the other hand É

Board meetings themselves have become harder and harder to sit through. The volume of petty digs, under the breath mumblings, and general petulance is at an all-time high, yet those same commissioners keep asking for things like decorum and respect, both from each other and the public, as if the term Manatee County Commissioner still meant something other thanthe developers who run this county thought I’d be a better steward of their interests than the other handful of people who were willing to do that job.

Meanwhile, the Manatee School Board showed citizens that it has no intention of letting the BOCC wrest the crown of most dysfunctional organization in the 941 from its head. On Tuesday evening, that board tried to continue keeping a straight face in giving reasons as to why it again wanted to conduct an important referendum in a special, off-year election that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than put it on a regularly scheduled one when more people would participate and it wouldn’t cost anything.

Let’s be clear. There’s a strategic reason for running special elections in non-election years. Turnout is much lower and the public institutions behind them presume that it makes it easier to control an election and influence it with special interest money when the numbers you need to influence are smaller and largely driven by self-interest. In most cases, they are correct.

In this case, the district has shrewdly tied some employee compensation to an additional one millage point school property tax increase narrowly approved by voters in a special election back in March of 2018. Turnout for the referendum was only 23 percent. Given that there were more than 6,000 employees that would have benefited from the referendum passing, not to mention their spouses, friends, and other family members, the fact that it was only approved 51-49 percent–even with an expensive and somewhat misleading dark money PAC supporting it–says an awful lot about what voters think about how the district’s been spending their money.

As new board member Mary Foreman pointed out on Tuesday, tying compensation to such an unstable funding source was a bad idea policy-wise, as there is now a sizable contingent of district employees who would presumably face a pay cut each and every time the matter is up for reconsideration. However, from a purely political perspective, it was brilliant.

Most voters who have kids in school have good relationships with many of their kids’ teachers and support staff. Rather than attempt to make the laughable case that the district and its board have been good stewards of the massive investment our community has made in public education (we are the only county in Florida with both the extra millage point and half-cent), do it for the teachers is almost always a winning slogan.

Nevermind that rampant population growth and skyrocketing property assessments have seen both funding sources swell to much greater numbers than estimated, and that board members refused to heed Foreman’s attempt to compromise at half a millage point this time out as a result. On Tuesday, she was harassed by other members for voting against the item, even though she expressed a commitment not to campaign against the referendum and to work with the board on the matter going forward.

Board members James Golden and Gina Messenger berated Foreman for her lack of unity and said that having the board’s only member with a finance background support the referendum would go a long way in easing the public apprehension on a question that barely squeaked by last time out. Foreman said that she simply doesn’t believe that an enterprise should pass a tax first and then decide all the ways it’s going to spend it afterward.

That seems pretty elementary, however, that also seems to be exactly what transpired. If our district has proven anything, it’s that no matter how much money the community gives, it will always be able to find a way to spend more. Far too often, that spending goes to vendors and consultants and administrative bloat with far too little trickling down to where taxpayers are happy to see it go: the classroom.

If the board wants its only member with a bonafide financial acumen to vote with its majority, they might consider listening more closely when she speaks.

After the county commission chided the board for using the special election, members did at least agree to reduce this referendum’s effective period from four years to three and only put it to voters during presidential elections going forward. Thank heavens for small favors, I suppose.

Another item to keep a close eye on is school impact fees. Back when the 2016 referendum on the optional half-cent sales tax loomed, the board made a devil’s bargain with developers, agreeing to discount their impact fees in exchange for their support on the referendum, which essentially amounted to them not campaigning against it with dark PAC money the way they had when the county tried to get a half-cent sales tax in place for indigent health care.

You see, a Florida county can only have two half-cent sales taxes in place at any given time from three categories: health care, infrastructure, and education. Developers wanted the infrastructure tax in place because, as you might imagine, that means lower impact fees. So, don’t be surprised if you see a little quid pro quo this time out as well, because É Manatee County.

Dennis "Mitch" Maley is an editor and columnist for The Bradenton Times and the host of ourweekly podcast. He is also the host ofPunk Rock Politixon YouTube. With over two decades of experience as a journalist, he has covered Manatee County governmentsince 2010. He is a graduate of Shippensburg University and later served as a Captain in the U.S. Army. Clickherefor his bio. His latest book, Burn Black Wall Street Burn, is availablehere.