The Spratt Aftermath

Two points about Steve Spratt's resignation as the Pinellas County administrator on Tuesday, in the wake of the Jim Smith land scandal. [Times photo | Jim Damaske]

(1) First, although Spratt's resignation was appropriate, it isn't a magic wand that takes care of everything in the immediate little scandal.

The taxpayers don't get back the $225,000 that the county paid  to Smith, the county's elected property appraiser, for a small piece of land that Smith owned personally. In fact, between six months' severance for County Attorney Susan Churuti and a year's severance for Spratt, the taxpayers are on the hook for well more than they paid for Smith's land.

Smith, the last time he said anything publicly, said he hasn't done anything wrong and intends to run for re-election. And the ultimate responsible party -- the County Commission, which voted 7-0 to buy Smith's land -- is intact. A couple of times, commissioners have bandied about the idea of resigning, but only in a rhetorical context, musing aloud as they pushed Churuti and Spratt out the door.

I am not making these points to be vindictive or ungracious the next day after a traumatic upheaval in the county government. I'm just saying that any rhetoric about "putting this behind us now" or "beginning the healing process" seems to connote that it's all over now, and it isn't.

(2) The second point is much bigger and longer-term in scope. The Pinellas County Commission now has to begin the process of choosing a new administrator. This is a chance for a clean slate and a break from the past in the way that this large, urban county has been governed.

For many years, the Pinellas administrator was a strong, military-style leader named Fred Marquis (the Pinellas Trail is named in his honor). Marquis ran things his way, he ran them behind closed doors, and he ran the County Commission as well. This was "efficient," and the county had a reputation for running "smoothly," but there was never much public discussion or input. Marquis was a bridge between older, small-town way of doing business and the modern world.

That meek deference by the County Commission to the administrator carried over to Spratt's six-year tenure, but Spratt was not Marquis. Ironically, I think, Spratt suffered because he was NOT the heavy-handed top dog that Marquis was. Spratt was bureaucrat-in-chief, and the commission never stepped up and filled the policy and political vacuum that Marquis had left. Spratt by default was expected to play Marquis' role as "county mayor,'' requiring political as well as bureaucratic skills, but he never mastered them.

This is the same situation that the County Commission faces looking ahead. The commission can choose a dynamic, go-getting leader with both political and administrative skills -- a new, de facto "county mayor'' -- and continue in its fairly passive role as the rubber stamp. Or the commission can choose someone in the Spratt mold, more comfortable as more-or-less chief secretary to the board. But in that case, either the commission has to evolve, becoming more of a policy engine and a provider of aggressive oversight to the administration -- or else we will repeat the cycle.

Spratt worked incredibly hard as the county administrator. I disagreed with his approach on several issues but have to give him that. As for his faults, they would have been balanced by a more aggressive commission. In the end, even the fact he had to resign is the County Commission's responsibility.

More in tomorrow's column.

Comments

[Karen]

He gets a years pay?!?!?! For quiting!?!? Disgusting!

[20/20]

Howard,

I look forward to your column. Something I found interesting in today’s article, among several things, was the following comment:

“What he lacked, according to interviews with several commissioners, was political savvy.”

I’ve researched the County Administrator job description and even Spratt’s contract. I can’t find that qualification requirement anywhere.

And frankly, I find the following in rather poor taste, on the part of the Commissioners:

“On Tuesday, several commissioners praised him for sacrificing himself for the good of Pinellas County.”

The ability to disavow oneself of fault, and then attempt to appear paternal for it… is a disturbing – and sadly all to familiar – characteristic found in today’s politicians.

[Boo Boo]

This is a nice feeling. What is? The feeling I get when I am right. Lets think way back to that vote for the Penny for Pinellas. Ken Welch's words not mine "we didn't spend like drunken sailors". I was a pretty unpopular fellow saying geez don't give them a slush fund. Oh my what if we need a sidewalk or bridge where will the money come from? Well the money seems to be used to line the pockets of their insider buddies. A simple easement would have solved this whole deal but noooooo lets fast track, inflate and slip it by the taxpayers. Goodness gracious what a mess, now the BOCC has no rudder they all are in grave danger of losing their collective seats. The next time people want to vote for a tax that politcians beg for maybe they will pay attention. Lets not forget that penny gasoline tax that was imposed on us to solve the traffic woes. That was Spratts baby, are you moving right along yet?

[CJ]

I think the county commissioners should have to personally pay the severance pay for Churuti and Spratt. They need to feel the pain of their decision instead of passing the bill to the taxpayers.