Manatee's move to hire another interim administrator goes awry

A wild week in the Manatee County Commission could be wrapped up with two words: Never mind.

Two separate moves during commission meetings probably have led to some confusion among residents. One had to do with replacing the interim administrator with another interim administrator, while the other had to do with dumping Commission Chair Kevin Van Ostenbridge for two days in favor of District 5 Commissioner Vanessa Baugh before reinstating him.

The April 25 commission meeting started with the revelation that a clerical error placed the appointment of Jon Mast, currently the head of the Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association, as interim county administrator under the “Consent Agenda,” which is reserved for matters that already have been discussed and are ready for an official vote.  

County Attorney William Clague immediately explained that the resolution, which would authorize Van Ostenbridge to execute an employment contract with Jon Mast, should’ve been designated as a regular item. 

That revelation was followed with accusations of “sidestepping” public input.

Commissioner George Kruse kicked off the debate about coming to terms with Mast with concerns about timing and of cost, then ended it with a new motion to include Commissioner Jason Bearden in future negotiations of a possible contract. That motion was unanimously approved.

Kruse has been openly against a second interim appointment while commissioners work to fill the position. Lee Washington, who was the director of community and veterans services, became the interim county administrator Feb. 7 when embattled Scott Hopes resigned.

A public budget meeting will be held June 6 and the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 so it wasn't clear why a replacement interim administrator was needed. Mast's proposed contract had a start date of May 22.

“Now we have a new interim county administrator starting 15 days before the first public budget meeting who has to present a budget that isn’t even being prepared by that interim county administrator," Kruse said. "It's only three weeks before we turn over the entirety of this county to somebody (if the contract with Mast was accepted), who most likely wouldn’t have had time to even introduce themself to all the employees. This timing is incredibly terrible.” 

He also called Mast’s contract “out-of-market” compared to other contracts they’ve been presented. He said it sets the county up to fail when it comes to the national search for a permanent hire because candidates will have access to the same information. 

Kruse estimated Mast’s contract at “a solid 20%-plus higher” than both the current interim and last permanent county administrators. Fellow commissioners agreed that Mast’s current proposed contract sets too high a benchmark for potential applicants. 

Washington’s contracted salary is $200,000; Hopes was $215,000. Hopes contract didn’t include benefits, a car allowance or an automatic pay increase when employees receive raises. Mast’s proposed salary was $225,000 annually plus benefits, a car allowance and automatic raises.

It was the second consecutive time the commissioners said a national search would be conducted to fill the administrator position. The first time was in March 2021 when then-Administrator Cheri Coryea resigned. By May, Hopes had transitioned from interim into the permanent replacement, with the national search being dropped. 

“The vote to negotiate the hire of an interim county administrator, who would be the third boss staff members have had in less than three months, would be laughable if it wasn’t so outrageous,” Former Congressional Candidate Martin Hyde said during public comments at the meeting. “To hire, even temporarily, a man who is currently president of one of the largest builder/developer advocacy groups in the region is like hiring a bank robber to run a bank.”

Three other members of the public spoke in addition to Hyde about their concerns in hiring another interim administrator, and one who has ties to the building industry.

Commissioner Mike Rahn defended the board's position to consider Mast.

“I’m supporting this motion to bring Commissioner Bearden into the process (of negotiating with Mast). I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with some of the comments that were made insinuating that somehow we’re on the take or being taking advantage of or anything like that,” Rahn said. “We’re going to have over 500,000 residents in this county in seven years, and we better be prepared for it. If we’re not, you’re going to have urban sprawl, and it’ll be worse than it is today.”

Rahn said it’s an advantage to have someone with development expertise to help the new permanent administrator get started. As part of the proposed contract, when a replacement was made, Mast would have automatically assumed the deputy county administrator position.

As commissioners Bearden and Baugh pointed out, Mast could not have become the permanent county administrator and kept his current address in Sarasota County. His wife, Teresa, is currently running for a seat on the Sarasota County Commission. 

The never-mind portion of the issue came two days later when Mast alerted commissioners he was removing himself from consideration for the position.

Bearden said he had opened negotiations with Mast with a $195,000 base salary offer. Bearden suggested that Mast might have been told by other commissioners that his original contract offer would be accepted.

The other never-mind moment came after commissioners voted 4-3 to relieve Van Ostenbridge of his board chair duties, then two days later reinstated him. Van Ostenbridge was dumped as the chair in favor of District 5 Commissioner Vanessa Baugh, the veteran of the Commission who has served as chair in both 2016 and 2021.

Then two days later, Amanda Ballard told the Commission that she changed her mind and wanted to take another vote for Van Ostenbridge to be the chair. With Baugh absent, the vote was 4-2 in favor of Van Ostenbridge getting his chair back.