Tourist Development Chaos

Would anybody still want the job?

That might be one reaction to any candidate who observed last week’s county commission meeting at which the appointment of a new Tourist Development Council executive director to replace Paula Pickett, who has spent the bulk of the decade in the post, was the primary topic for, er, discussion.

The outcome of a motion to alter slightly, but significantly, was not so much the important aspect, more so how the “debate” highlighted so much of the DNA of county government.

The Flop

The entire episode was initiated, clearly given comments before and during in way not unknown to commissioners prior to the meeting – hello, Sunshine Laws – by a motion from Commissioner Billy Traylor to alter a process that was adopted barely a month prior.

The change: the interviewing would be done by a group comprised of county administrator Don Butler, county human resource director Denise Manuel, the chair of the Tourist Development and Pickett.

This after the commission adopted a process, unanimously, in which a screening committee composed of members of the TDC board, and representative of the county and both municipalities, would winnow the applications, interview a set number of finalists and advance the final one or two names to the county for processing and background checks.

The change might be subtle, but arguably significant. As any employer in the private sector understands, a resume or application is a whole different beast than sitting down and talking face-to-face, getting answers to a set of questions from different folks to glean the kind of answers one hopes to hear.

That doesn’t come from a review of a resume.

But regardless of one’s position, what is evident is still another case in which the commission’s actions can change like the winter weather.

The Foundation

Mr. Traylor said he was just following through with a decision the TDC board had made the week prior, to essentially keep much of the process in-house among a narrowing number of people.

Only no such thing happened. As one observer pointed out to commissioners later in the meeting, and Pickett herself verified the following day, no such motion came from the TDC board during its meeting, gavel to gavel.

Now, it would be easy to try to play a game of six degrees of separation and conjure all kinds of conspiracy theories under a host of scenarios and individuals, from Mr. Traylor’s strongest patrons and friends to the bloodlines that suddenly are thrust into play by altering who the interviewees become.

Better, though, to consider this another instance in which action is brought to the board out of the blue and too on a foundation built of nothing.

Whether accurate or not these are the kind of actions the commission takes that have the smell of a fix, or a hidden agenda.

Inconsistent application

Mr. Traylor argued that since the TDC board wanted the change – and, as demonstrated, that was not true – the commission should follow along since they did not get involved in the TDC actions and the vice versa.

Crock doesn’t even sum up such a statement.

Commissioners have a history of meddling in everything from the Economic Development Council to the very existence of the Port St. Joe Redevelopment Agency to how the city of Port St. Joe conducts its business.

They are the micromanagers to beat all micromanagers, even if they are micromanaging outside their jurisdiction.

And the TDC position is no small potatoes, overseeing a budget that is in the hundreds of thousands of taxes collected in the county, advocating for the entire county in luring the tourist dollar to Gulf County, being a quasi-government agency.

The executive director’s salary and benefits package is healthily above the median for the county.

Commissioners can’t seem to decide when its appropriate to roll over and when to sit up and bark.

The “Discussion”

And bark they did.

The end result of the motion from Mr. Traylor was a debate that was 1) over before it started and 2) suddenly raised the volume while eliminating all sense of decorum in the room.

Over because in issues of importance to one of the Three Kings, they will, as Mr. Traylor and Commissioners Carmen McLemore and Nathan Peters, Jr., did last week, vote in unison, rendering the other two commission seats the Two Irrelevants.

That is precisely how last week’s vote went despite the fact that the motion was founded, as Commissioner Warren Yeager noted “hearsay”, and essentially took the commission, as Commissioner Bill Williams said, out of the equation, “decapitating” them.

And the vote came after another of those verbal barrages which reveal the unprofessional and bullying behavior that simmers just below the surface during commission meetings.

This exchange said it all.

“I don’t know what I’m voting on … I’m not voting on something I don’t have in front of me,” said Mr. Yeager at one point.

“I don’t care if you don’t know,” yelled Mr. Traylor as at least three commissioners attempted to be heard at once, progressively raising their voices to create a din.

Commissioners can rattle on all they want about a rebellion coming in reaction to stances taken by state and federal agencies, but as long as shenanigans as those witnessed last week are part of the landscape, the rebellion might come closer to home.