Weighing discipline in the 491 mess

It’s Wednesday, so let’s talk about discipline.

Not the discipline I ignore in my intake of Cattle Dog frozen hot chocolates.

No, the discipline that occurs at work. The discipline that many are calling for in wake of the 491 mess.

---

The matter came up during Tuesday’s County Commission meeting. (Here’s the video. The 491 mess starts around the 3:13 mark.)

Commissioner Janet Barek laid out three specific motions she plans to introduce at the board’s May 13 meeting. They are:

— Fire County Administrator Steve Howard.

— Censure board Chair Rebecca Bays.

— File a state ethics complaint against former Commissioner Ruthie Schlabach for her lobbying role.

OK, let’s talk about it.

First up, Howard. As county administrator, he should have stopped this mess before it started. It’s his job to tell commissioners when they’re acting outside board purview. He didn’t do that. Instead, he went along with the developer/lobbyist plan to get a state appropriation for C.R. 491 and signed a form attesting to the truth of another document that (A) he didn’t read, and (B) was untrue.

Me, I think that’s a big deal. Bigger than, “Oh shucks.” 

Fireable offense? No. Here’s why: It’s going to sound stupid, but I don’t think the county has a specific policy that covers this specific action. It would seem to fall into the general category of insubordination.

The man knows right from wrong, and this was clearly wrong. 

Commissioner Holly Davis tried to make citizens feel guilty for suggesting discipline against Howard, because he’s so good at what he does.

“If you drive him to take a higher-paying job elsewhere, shame on you,” she said. “This witch hunt has to stop.”

(Mike note: Holly sent me a note Wednesday saying the “witch hunt” remark was aimed at Barek and Diana Finegan, not at citizens.)

Oh my. As Holly went on about what a tremendous administrator Howard is, I flash backed to my Chronicle years. I was the senior reporter, and won a ton of writing awards. I worked my tail off at that job and I’d like to think the newspaper was a little better off with me.

But guess what? My personnel file included numerous letters of reprimand. This won’t come as a shock to my former co-workers, but I didn’t always follow the rulebook. When Gerry Mulligan wrote me up, I didn’t pack my stuff and start looking for another job. No, I learned from the error and tried not to repeat it. Because I knew I'd be unemployed if I didn't.

Davis is wildly mistaken if she believes a Howard discipline sends the wrong message to employees. It actually is the opposite. Ask Tourism Director Auvis Cole. He recently received a three-day unpaid vacation courtesy of his employer, and his offenses didn’t include falsifying records. How can we let the boss escape unscathed? 

A letter in Howard’s file is wholly appropriate.

Now, Ruthie. I’m not surprised to hear either Barek or Commissioner Diana Finegan target Schlabach for lobbying the county. Finegan and Schlabach openly feuded when they served together, and Barek defeated her in the election. So, no love lost.

My initial thought was to leave this alone. We’re not in the lobbying world, and our focus should be on restoring faith in county government. Pursuing an ethics complaint against Schlabach would seem to deter us.

But Howard’s view is the county was tricked into applying for the funds. He says the lobbyist (Ruthie) misled him into thinking the Tuscany Ranch developer was applying for funds and that the county would be the recipient.

(Stop right there. Geez, even I know state appropriations don’t work that way. You’d think our administrator would.)

From Barek’s standpoint, Ruthie was the firing pin.

“What she did has cost us our good name as Citrus County Board of Commissioners,” she said.

(Barek also completely misunderstood the financial part of this. It was a $3 million ask; the Senate recommended $1.5 million. Somehow, Janet believes we lost $4.5 million. No clue how she reached that conclusion.)

I’m on the fence about the county taking on Ruthie the lobbyist. Seems like more trouble than it’s worth. 

Finally, Rebecca Bays. I’ll say it right now: Censuring is for the birds. It has no place on a five-member board. Totally meaningless. If voters aren’t happy with Rebecca, they’ll let her know at the ballot box.

Rebecca issued a prepared apology Tuesday that was more sincere than “50 lashes with a wet noodle.” As with Howard, the question is not Rebecca’s sincerity to the county or the hard work she puts in. It’s this specific action.

We’re not done with this, folks. It’ll come to a head on May 13. It’s my hope that EVERYTHING about the 491 mess is revealed, discussed, debated, stomped on, and we move forward with a clear understanding about how to do things around here. Discipline? Guess we’ll see.

And with that, I bid you a wonderful Wednesday.

Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Enjoying the blog? Please consider supporting it at Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.
​