The drama is building in Bradenton Beach.
The city commission discussed for two hours Sept. 22 initiating proceedings to oust Mayor Bill Shearon before continuing the discussion to 11 a.m. Monday, Oct. 6.
On Sept. 18, Vice Mayor Jack Clarke requested the special meeting Sept. 22 “to initiate a Forfeiture of Office Proceeding of Mayor William Shearon … and issuance of a formal directive to the city attorney to commence the forfeiture proceeding and prosecute the commission’s claim to the fullest extent allowed by law, which shall include representing the city, producing any and all evidence referenced in the 9/16/13 city commission workshop and communicating with elected officials and staff.”
The mayor voted against the measure. Commissioner Janie Robertson was absent Sept. 18. City attorney Ricinda Perry, whose presence was requested at the meeting, did not have an estimate for how long the process would take. She said only that the city would rely on Robert’s Rules of Order for guidance in conducting the prosecution.
According to the city charter, an office is forfeited if an elected official:
• Lacks at any time during the term of office any qualifications of office prescribed by the charter or law.
• Violates any standard of conduct established by law for public officials.
• Is convicted of a felony while in office.
• Fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the commission without a formal excuse by the commission entered into the minutes.
• Has become physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of office.
• Voluntarily changes his or her permanent residence to an area outside the ward from where the public official was elected.
The charter also states, “Notwithstanding any legal proceedings, in all circumstances arising under this provision, the commission shall be the sole judge of its members as to the applicability of these provisions.”
Clarke hinted at his intention to challenge Shearon during a Sept. 16 city commission workshop. That meeting began with a discussion of a tree removal policy, but quickly turned contentious when Clarke directed the proceedings to a discussion of the mayor’s authority and accountability.
We are taking on water
Noting that the mayor has likened his position to being the captain of a ship, Clarke read from his nine-page manifesto, “In just over 300 days, our city, or to use the mayor’s metaphor, the ‘ship,’ has been repeatedly taken off course and has been directed into the eye of many storms. At this point, we are taking on water, the ship is barely seaworthy and what is left of our crew … well, they are exhausted and battered.”
Among the examples of the mayor’s misguided course cited by Clarke as he read his statement was replacement of the city computer system.
The commission “gave full rein to you and your staff to purchase all the computers and hardware needed to ‘keep the city running’ within generous budget limits since these expenses were unbudgeted for FY 2014.
“What we got for that faith and trust,” Clarke said, “was an unusable waste of a software package in the unauthorized Microsoft 365 program.”
The commissioner added that there have been multiple add-on purchases outside of commission approval and beyond the city’s fiscal limitations.
“In a nutshell, the entire technological package was not thought out, was poorly planned and disastrously executed by unqualified personnel,” Clarke said. “As far as I can see, the city’s technology functioned better before we purchased the $500,000+ upgrade.”
Clarke also referred to the mayor’s hiring of the city clerk and the treasurer, stating, “Once again we gave you unlimited discretion and gave your recommendations the benefit of the doubt.”
Clarke alluded to the recent debacle regarding new clerk Gia Lancaster, who only one week after taking the job suffered an apparent breakdown at the Sept. 4 commission meeting and was hospitalized. Lancaster has not returned to work since the incident and, according to Shearon, the city is consulting with an attorney to determine what action can be taken and when.
Said Clarke: “The entire administrative department, where you have been heavily involved, has undergone one setback after another.”
Stating that “the point of this workshop request is to really examine your authority, the city’s policies and, if need be, hold you accountable,” Clarke went on to outline several issues that he claims are in violation these policies.
Among these are a lack of accounting of the use of discretionary funds, the mayor’s conduct with city staff, which Clarke described as “a heavy-handed form of dictatorship,” and an unwillingness to honor the decisions and policies of prior commissions, particularly with regard to ELRA Inc., corporate owner of the BeacHhouse Restaurant and the Southwest Florida Water Management District stormwater project.
Of the latter, Clarke said, “ It is shameful to me that we cannot solve a citywide problem, simultaneously terminate two of our costly lawsuits — in one of which we are forced to defend the mayor for actions alleged to be in violation of his authority — and honor our agreement in a public-private partnership for the benefit of our city property.”
Taking up the gauntlet
The mayor, who fidgeted during the 25 minutes of Clarke’s comments but otherwise remained stoic, responded by categorizing the comments as “untrue” and “inappropriate.”
He then made it clear that he would not yield his position in response to Clarke’s challenge of his fitness for office, stating, “I was elected by the citizens to run this city and plan on doing it for the rest of my term. And if I run again, then it will be the voters’ decision, not a commission decision.”
The mayor stressed that department heads are the ones who carry out the functions of the city.
“I, or this committee, cannot give direction to the department heads,” he said. “We can recommend, we can suggest, but we can’t tell them what to do. That’s their job and that’s their responsibility and they are accountable for their actions.”
Shearon also said that, as mayor, he has administrative powers. “To get into the day-to-day operations, what has to be done, when it has to be done and how it is to be done, that is not in the realm of this commission. That is why (the charter) states very clearly that I have administrative supervision — it doesn’t say that for commissioners.
“I’m a full-time mayor,” he added, noting that he “is in this building five days a week. I put in more time and effort than anyone else. Some might think I’m doing an injustice. I don’t believe so. I’m trying to get things going.”
Commission response
“I would like to applaud Commissioner Clarke for bringing this to the attention of the citizens,” said Commissioner Vosburgh when given the opportunity to express her opinion. “I know for a fact that his statements are true.”
Reading from a prepared statement, Vosburgh added, “I feel morally obligated to communicate to the citizens and taxpayers how bad the city is being run under the current mayor. Without elaborating further, I would like each and every one of you to know … the city is in a mess and needs to be fixed.”
Robertson and Straight both indicated that they needed more time to digest Clarke’s contentions. Robertson said that she started making some notes, but “I had no idea the Commissioner Clarke’s opinions were going to be so lengthy, so I quit” note-taking.
“There may be a few things I agree with,” she added, “but there are a few things I disagree with. I find it amazing that Commissioner Vosburgh can absolutely agree with everything Commissioner Clarke has said without sitting down with his comments and going over them and really looking at them for content.”
“I need a copy to go through,” Straight concurred. “All I have is my opinion. The morale problem needs to be handled soon. But I don’t know all the details.”
Straight added that he shares Clarke’s concern about the mayor’s handling of the Swiftmud project.
Clarke’s written statement was entered into the record as “exhibit A.”
Mayor Clarke?
According to the city charter, forfeiture must be declared by a majority of the remaining commissioners. If this occurs, Clarke would succeed to the office of mayor until the next election. The commission then would elect a vice mayor from the remaining members and fill the commission vacancy for the remainder of the mayor’s term by voting among nominees. If a majority of the Commissioners are unable to fill a vacancy or vacancies after two meetings, then the successor shall be chosen by lot by the city clerk from the nominees proposed.
Or, perhaps, in this case, a commissioner would be chosen by a clerk pro tempore?
We may know more Oct. 6.
So let me get this straight. . . Ed Chiles’ minion asks for his blessing in sending out an email endorsing the removal of Bradenton Beach Mayor Shearon from office. He gives his support with the caveat that she removes her “corporate” affiliations from the signature. She carelessly sends it out with not only her corporate tag in place, but also Chiles’ approval attached. Wow, talk about being caught with your pants down! We are supposed to believe that there hasn’t been any illicit cooperation or communications between Vice Mayor Clarke (or other malcontents in the City) and representatives of The Chiles Group, yet Caryn Hodge is circulating a petition in support of Vice Mayor Clarke’s efforts to pursue forfeiture of office? Really!!!
Caryn Hodge’s email contains blatant, egregious lies and exaggerations. There is no harassment suit. There have only been complaints, which have yet to be substantiated. Mayor Shearon has never made any email records requests of any Commissioner or staff member, nor hired a lawyer to investigate them. That is an absolute fabrication.
Don’t believe everything you hear.
Umm…wow.
While High School was a long, long way back for me, it had more children and less drama.
This city has maybe 1300 full-time residents, no significant budget and no upward path to being a power player for an elected politician. But it does have aging infrastructure, dilapidated housing, crumbling beach groins and seawalls, a rising crime and homeless problem, and dangerous traffic congestion that causes non-island “locals” to routinely gun the gas to pass slower cars from the shoulder, putting kids and other people at risk. Our bridges are failing, inland dirtbags are having sex on the beach in front of families, and litterbugs and smokers do everything in their personal power to make the beach as disgusting as possible, every day they can.
In short, I don’t see why all this drama exists. We have a lot to work on, and frankly it won’t get done with half a team. There is almost literally zero upside to the fight, for anyone.
Is there a provision for residents to sweep clean the whole city electoral staff and replace them anew, all at once?
Actually less than 1,200, and only a sad percentage of those are registered voters. Considering only two members of the current governing body were elected by the people (Mayor Shearon and Commissioner Robertson), it is pretty clear that the answer lies in having informed residents commit to keeping themselves abreast of what is going on in the City, or stepping up to run for office to make unopposed candidates actually compete for their seats. Kudos to candidate for Commission Tjet Martin for walking the talk and saying that the current bickering in the City is non-productive for staff, visitors, and residents alike! Show up on election day and make your voice heard.
On point
In reviewing Bradenton Beach Vice Mayor Jack Clarke’s agenda back up for the Sept. 22 meeting, which was called with the sole purpose of initiating the process to remove a duly elected mayor from office, I was struck by the fact that his diatribe was long on personal opinion and short on facts.
As someone with more than a little insight into the situation, I feel compelled to comment.
In the fashion of Clarke, I would like to do a point-by-point review of his assertions:
First of all, Clarke’s Sept. 16 workshop agenda item was a calculated, premeditated ambush and was the definition of a personal attack. His agenda request, which appeared to request discussion on how to practically execute the requirements of Resolution 14-812 — which he drafted with city attorney Ricinda Perry — purposefully cloaked his real intension of unseating the mayor. This intentional misrepresentation on the part of the vice mayor prevented the mayor, the press and the public from being properly noticed or prepared. This is a clear demonstration of his un-interest in having informed public input on the issue. He then launched into his prepared attack.
Here are my comments on his monolog:
• A new server was absolutely a time-sensitive necessity. The previous server was incapable of handling the needs of the city and had been cobbled together for years from used components to avoid necessary upgrades. Server outages routinely affected staff productivity.
• The Microsoft 365 program was never an “unusable” component. Hundreds of thousands of users successfully utilize this software. In spite of that, commission voted 3-2 to scrap it in favor of purchasing redundant software at an additional unbudgeted cost of over $4,000.
• No additional “components” have been required. There are no “non-operational” components. There are two components that require the allocation of additional staff time to fully implement. The only additional expenditures have been for annual renewals on maintenance agreements for the city financial software (Asyst).
• One of the first tasks the previous city clerk initiated was obtaining a detailed IT status report from an amply qualified IT provider to determine “big picture” technology requirements for our municipality. The entire technology package was well thought out, properly planned and could have been professionally executed by qualified personal. But due to political maneuvering, commission over-ruled the recommendations of the qualified provider and the city clerk and decided to continue working with a vendor with no formal education or experience in providing services to government entities. In addition to ensuring a continued stream of income for a former commissioner, this was primarily motivated by ensuring that he continues having full access to all incoming and outgoing city emails.
• The previous city clerk identified fatal flaws in the system and attempted to rectify it to ensure all city public records were being preserved. Prior to her interventions, the city webmaster/email vendor — Ric Gatehouse — had made absolutely no provisions for maintaining city public records sent/received via his email system. That is egregious malfeasants by a vendor who represented himself as being qualified to provide such services to a municipality. It is also interesting that Gatehouse failed to register a fictitious name filing with the state of Florida for more than 10 years and he only did so when questioned by city clerk Jamie Anderson.
I also question: If Clarke is so satisfied with the current email system, why does he still routinely use his private gmail account to correspond with Commissioner Jan Vosburgh, city attorney Ricinda Perry and Joe Hendricks? Can it be to avoid the correspondence being included in the public record read file at city hall?
I also question what possible reason public works director Tom Woodard, who has an office, a city computer and a city cellphone, had to create and continue to routinely use a private gmail account to conduct city business? What correspondence is taking place that has not been captured by city public records?
Speaking of IT cost overruns, how about the $4,000-plus unbudgeted dollars that commission approved in early summer to replace the woefully outdated and largely unusable city website? At that time, Gatehouse assured the commission that the new city website would be up and running in 30 days.
We are now much more than 90 days out and kissing the heels of fiscal 2014-15. As far as I can tell, the website has not been fully updated and Gatehouse was paid in full long ago. Where is the concern for fiscal accountability here?
And there is more:
• The only reason the outcome of the previous city clerk was unsuccessful was because Jamie Anderson attempted to stay apolitical and would not be a “team player” with Clarke, Vosburgh, Perry and other department heads to try to remove the mayor from office. That is the true reason she was let go. It had absolutely nothing to do with her qualifications or leadership abilities.
• Examination of the innumerable emails between Clarke and Perry on his private gmail account belie his statement that he gave the mayor his full trust and support. It is evident that he has been working against the mayor with the city attorney since soon after he was sworn into office.
• The “discretionary” spending of the mayor has finite limits. Department heads can spend up to $1,000, the mayor can authorize up to $2,000 — but every check/expenditure issued by the city is signed by two elected officials and every expenditure over $1,000 comes to commission for approval either under the consent agenda or new business.
Every expenditure passes through the auditor’s recommended system of checks and balances. There is no hidden, secret spending. Clarke is woefully uneducated on how city spending occurs. Perhaps he needs to meet with the city treasurer again to acquaint himself with the procedures.
Comments on point-by-point
• The March 20 policy was initiated by Clarke with the city attorney, what is the concern?
• The mayor is the executive head and directly supervises department heads. What is the issue?
• Complete monthly financial reports and on-demand reports have been provided since the new city treasurer came on board. Total rhetoric. Commission has absolute control. Due to requirements initiated by this Mayor, one commissioner is required to sign every single disbursement the city issues. This never occurred in previous administrations. The city clerk and the mayor signed all checks with no oversight or involvement at all by commissioners.
• Hiring. The city attorney participated in the hiring process in both the previous and the current city clerk. In fact, she was responsible for verifying the references of the current city clerk. Due to the shoddy treatment of the previous city clerk, there was not a pool of certified municipal clerk’s with experience with Florida Sunshine statutes to choose from. It was Gia or re-post.
• As for the loss of four employees in the past nine months, the loss of the staff member with more than 10 years ten experiences was no detriment to the City. Even the previous commission was aware that she could and would never be the next city clerk. The mayor did not unilaterally do anything. Karen Cervetto resigned after being reprimanded for failing to execute her duties as required. Then the commission unanimously voted to appoint myself and Audra Lanzaro into the two open positions in the clerk’s office.
Now Clarke is whining about the waste of time, effort and dollars regarding something that he and everyone else on the commission unanimously voted in favor of? Jamie Anderson and I were both causalities of the vendetta of a couple of bitter department heads and two disgruntled commissioners who all thought there was no way Mayor Bill Shearon or Commissioner Janie Robertson would ever be elected. From the time Shearon announced, the department heads (with the singular exception of the building department) and the city attorney all stated that there was no way that he would win, and that they couldn’t/wouldn’t ever work for him. While no one put their money where their mouth was, it is clear that they have all stuck true to their statements and have never worked for him, but only against him. It is unclear what Clarke is stating regarding the mayor causing one of the employees to be terminated. The only terminated employee was Jamie Anderson, and that was at the hands of Clarke.
The claims of a hostile work environment from the public works department stems from resentment for being asked to be accountable for their time and resources. If public works employees are routinely seen outside of city limits, and in places where it is unlikely they are conducting city business, someone should be asking why. That would be being fiscally responsible for city resources. If an entire department is absent from the public works building, and no one is answering their city provided cellphone, someone should be asking why. Why does the city pay for cellphones for city employees unless it is to be able to contact them as needed? There have been repeated concerns that timecards are being falsified and that all employees are not working full eight-hour days. There should be accountability – that is not hostility.
In my experience working in the clerk’s office I have never heard of any allegation or concerns from any vendor, contractor or county representative regarding the mayor.
From my experience, the allegation that department heads can’t make agenda requests without the “blessing” of the mayor is totally fabricated by Clarke. Staff routinely makes agenda requests. The PD, public works and building/planning department submit agenda requests for nearly every commission meeting. The only scrutiny by the mayor is to ensure they include adequate backup so that commission and the pubic is educated on the request.
The meeting issue is interesting. The handful of meetings that were rescheduled thus far in Shearon’s tenure have all been at the request of Clarke. In an attempt to keep scheduling to a minimum and respect commissioners’ and department heads’ time, Shearon initially scheduled work sessions immediately ahead of commission meetings. Clarke is the one who initiated scheduling them on another day.
Regarding reports, this ordinance was orchestrated by Clarke. It was from its inception met with resistance from the mayor and department heads. The only detailed reports came from admin/finance and the building department. If the mayor attempted to push for reports from the PD or public works, he was accused of bullying!
Again, his attempts to hold all departments accountable were called heavy-handed and micro-managing. Commissioners have the ability to meet with individual department heads on a rotating monthly basis, and more often if necessary. Neither the mayor nor the vice mayor can force fellow commissioners to meet with staff if they aren’t inclined to do so. Regarding Clarke’s request to identify how much time is devoted to providing mayoral assistance, he needs to immediately acquaint himself with the requirements of ADA compliance. Upon election, Shearon could have requested from the city ADA accommodations for his visual impairment. That could have been for a dedicated staff member to provide him assistance as needed. The city would have been required by law to provide him that support. He chose to make due with the current clerk’s office staff. Should the commission decide that his need is too onerous, he could demand the support of additional qualified support, which the city is mandated to provide by ADA regulations.
I believe Clarke very much enjoys his attempts to discredit the mayor. It is clear Clarke has been plotting and manipulating city staff and resources with the sole purpose of unseating the mayor and putting himself in his place. It began long before the orchestration of attorney Robert Lincoln attending a commission meeting to recall the liaison appointments, whereby Clarke was elected vice mayor. It is clear when he repeatedly interrupts from the dais and attempts to take charge steering the direction of the meeting that he wants to be mayor. If that is his desire, he should work with the mayor and commissioners to productively complete his tenure as commissioner with a little dignity and decorum, and then seek the mayor’s position at the next election. May the best person win.
There is a hostile work environment in the city, but it is not at the hands of the mayor. I was harassed at the hands of Tom Woodard in retaliation for daring to object to a public works employee illicitly taking pictures of a public record which were in my possession (as city clerk pro tem) and leaking it to an attorney who is suing the city. He encouraged her to do it, when interviewed by law enforcement lied not once, but twice. For some reason, the PD intentionally omitted the involvement of both Woodard and Clarke in this incident. Why would that be? As a result of that, I became a target of harassment.
While Clarke derides the mayor over lawsuit costs, I would caution that Clarke and Vosburgh should have better guarded their own actions. They have opened the city up for another very costly lawsuit for making libelous statements about me under the pretense of evaluating Jamie Anderson. While the evaluations were anonymous, it is clear who submitted each, and it isn’t really irrelevant, since the fact is that the “commission” as a body submitted the evaluations. The only employees commissioners have the authority or responsibility to critique are department heads. They grossly overstepped their authority by publicly commenting on their perceptions of my performance in an evaluation of my supervisor.
As a final thought, I hope the citizens will take note that many of the decisions commission renders come down to a 3-2 vote. The thee being Clarke, Vosburgh and Ed Straight — none of whom were elected by the citizens for their last term because they ran unopposed. Not one person voted for them. The only two members elected by the people were Mayor Bill Shearon and Commissioner Janie Robertson.
Clarke and Vosburgh are attempting to overturn the will of the constituents. I also contest Vosburgh’s statement that she desired to take the high road and not be disrespectful to her opponent. In a public record email correspondence, she called her opponent an idiot on the record. That doesn’t sound very much like she is taking the high road and running a respectful campaign to me. Remember that on Election Day.
Tammy Johnson