Manatee Commission Addresses County Administrator Salary Increase

BRADENTON – In a regular meeting on Tuesday, County Administrator Scott Hopes, along with the Manatee County Commission, sought to put to rest further debate or questions concerning employee wage and salary increases that appear to have deviated from that which the adopted FY22 budget described.

Sometime after 8:00 p.m. the night prior to the meeting, an item was added to Tuesday’s meeting agenda–item number 38, Discussion and Explanation of Employee Compensation for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2022. However, when the meeting convened in the morning, the item was pulled from the agenda during the reading of agenda updates.

Commission Chair Kevin Van Ostenbridge told the board that he and the county administrator had added the item "last minute" due to their having anticipated the matter arising during commissioner comments. Van Ostenbridge then turned to Commissioner Misty Servia and asked whether she felt the item was needed for discussion, and whether or not she personally intended to raise the matter in her comments at the end of the meeting.

After Servia clarified that she did not request the item be added and that she had not intended to bring the matter up, Van Ostenbridge said, "Okay, then, in that case, I will strike it from the agenda because I don’t think it is necessary."

Two hours into the meeting, Commissioner Reggie Bellamy broached the issue again. Bellamy explained that he had received emails and calls from community members with questions about the issue and that he had anticipated the matter would be addressed during the meeting. After hearing from Commissioner Bellamy, the chair returned item 38 to the agenda.

When the meeting reconvened after the lunch recess, Administrator Scott Hopes addressed the board and public concerning his decision related to how employees–and himself–would receive salary and wage increases during the current fiscal year.

"I think over a week ago, an article in an online whatever by a writer, brought into question the 3.9 percent pay increase we gave employees over four months ago," Hopes began. "There were some interesting questions, concerns, allegations, political attacks, and whatever you want to call it."

Hopes went on to explain that the issue appeared to have arisen due to language related to the initial recommended budget. He described how the budget process included September hearings before the final approved budget. Hopes told the commission that the final budget included authority for a 3.9 percent pay increase for Board of County Commission employees, as well as constitutional offices.

The September hearings are available for review on the county’s YouTube channel and contain no open discussion about the change from 1 percent Pay-for-Performance (PFP) and adjustment to pay levels of 2.9 percent. Administrator Hopes told the board on Tuesday that the changes were–in fact–written into the final budget which they approved.

Hopes also stated that at the time of his decision to revise the June 9, 2021 budget message recommendation of 1 percent PFP and the 2.9 percent adjustment to the pay levels to the 3.9 percent across-the-board salary increase, the decision was made in consultation with the then-acting Director of Human Resources. The former Director of Human Resources, Kim Stroud–who had worked for the county for over ten years–had been dismissed by the administration in August during the budget process. Ashley Burton–the county compensation manager–assumed the role of acting Director of HR upon Stroud’s dismissal. Burton has since left her position with the county to take a position with the Manatee Sheriff’s Office.

Contrary to his remarks in a February 1 meeting where he alleged he was unaware "who floated" any of the increases being related to the 2020 minimum wage requirement passed by Florida voters, the administrator acknowledged there was talk about the minimum wage requirement early on in the budget process.

"If the concern is that this decision was not the directive of the board, then I take responsibility and accountability for the decision," Hopes offered. "As county administrator, I bear the full responsibility and accountability that the board’s directives are implemented."

Hopes reiterated that the Chief Financial Officer was aware of his intention to forgo PFP and instead initiate an across-the-board wage increase to all county employees of 3.9 percent. He repeated from his explanation in the February 1 meeting, that the decision to do so was driven by considerations of the economic climate and impacts of the pandemic. Hopes concluded his comments by telling the commission that if they retained concerns directly related to his personally receiving the salary increase, "Then this is an issue for the board to address."

Commissioner Carol Whitmore stated that she had no issue with the administrator having also received the salary increase, citing another contracted employee, the Port Authority Director, who had also received it. "You being new and everything," Whitmore said to Hopes, "and getting the increase," Whitmore continued, "I possibly may have concerns about this, but I am going to talk to him (Hopes) about this. Only he can possibly do what I am thinking." Whitmore said she would rather not share those thoughts in a public meeting, but intended to follow up in private, citing her preference to not encourage or create "drama."

Commissioner Misty Servia thanked the administrator for his comments and stressed her belief that whenever there is a question of this nature raised by the public or press, the county should address it with answers. "I don’t think there was anything nefarious that happened. I do think that there’s been a bit of a communication breakdown," she said. "I do think that the public deserves to know the truth in clear language and if there's ever a question, then please, let's just get it answered."

Commissioner Vanessa Baugh expressed her opinion that the board should improve on things such as ethics and transparency. "I'll just go back to what I’ve brought up a few times in commissioner comments, and that is ethics and transparency. I think that, as a board, we need to work on those," Baugh said.

Baugh then referenced a conversation she had with the county administrator on the topic, and how she expects him to bring "some things" back to the board to help with those subjects. Baugh added that she felt the matter of the across-the-board salary and wage increases–and whether the administrator was subject to those–had been blown out of proportion, stating that Hopes' contract entitled him to the raise.

"Those of us that voted for his contract probably should have realized that it was in there, that he would probably be getting the increase." Baugh continued, "I didn’t specifically think, oh, he's going to get a cost-of-living increase," she then corrected to say, "not a cost-of-living, but a raise. It never occurred to me."

Baugh also shared her overall positive opinion of the administrator’s performance and work ethic, saying, "He deserved the increase in my opinion."

Commissioner Bellamy echoed some of his colleagues' comments regarding the importance of communication. "My biggest concern was the protocol," said Bellamy. "Was there something that was done that we were not aware of? I did feel a public explanation was needed after the reporting."

Bellamy then recognized Hopes’ willingness to acknowledge the concern and to take accountability, thanking him for doing so.

Commissioner Satcher encouraged the public to be mindful that it is election season, and that publications may try to get clicks and sell papers. He offered a reminder that there are two sides to every story. "I just want to point out that if you’re at home, take all this stuff with a grain of salt."

"Is it worth our time, and your time, to be going after every little concern?" Satcher added, seeming to direct his comment to the public.

"When people raise concerns in the public, of course, we look into it," Van Ostenbridge offered. "That’s what we do."

Van Ostenbridge mentioned his effort to confirm the reporting on the issue among department heads, asking whether the reporting had legitimacy. "I don’t think it’s something that needs to be discussed in a public meeting," said Van Ostenbrige. "It can easily be handled behind closed doors."

"I would encourage my fellow board members–don’t lend too much credibility to what is like an alt-left tabloid," Van Ostenbrige advised the board.

After concluding his comments, Van Ostenbridge moved to close further debate on the agenda item. Servia and Whitmore spoke out against his motion to do so, noting that they were still on the board with additional comments to add. The motion to allow continued debate was put to a vote, but failed 4-3, with Commissioners Van Ostenbridge, Baugh, Kruse, and Satcher voting to close debate.

Despite the board having closed debate on the agenda item earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Servia returned to the topic during commissioner comments before adjournment. Servia began with the comments she was unable to make when the debate on agenda item 38 had been closed.

"We are accountable to our taxpayers," said Servia. "That is our main job. I don’t want to discount the importance of this topic as some people have done."

Servia described a process she undertook upon reading reporting on the issue, following up by checking the reporting’s accuracy.

"I did not find that there were any facts that were misstated (in the reporting) when I spoke to our CFO and when I spoke to our staff here," said Servia. "I just want to get that out there."

None of the commissioners responded.