The Political Whore

By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor & R-LAND activist

Hillsborough County Administrator Pat Bean took more than a few stutter steps last week when the discussion at the budget workshop finally addressed the earlier article in the St. Petersburg Times about her issuing fat raises to a handful of her BFFs. Commissioners are in the middle of a budget nightmare, up to 900 jobs could be eliminated and Bean is passing out up to double-digit raises to some of her faves, including the bean counters.

So at the end of the day’s budget workshop last Thursday, Commissioner Kevin Beckner acknowledged the elephant/s in the room and brought up the subject to Bean newspaper in hand.

I had my own concerns with two of her minions getting these raises. Lucia Garsys is listed in the Times article as a “former planner,” yet she makes even more money than the head of The Planning Commission. How can Bean justify this, and more importantly how can Commissioners let her get away with this? (Especially with elections nearing?)

Edith Stewart, a lobbyist, makes more than even the commissioners do. I challenge Bean and commissioners to justify a lobbyist making this kind of fortune when they can’t even tell me if Stewart or any of our eight registered lobbyists spoke on the record in committee this session on ANY bills this year. Judging by their inactions on SB 360 I don’t think we can afford this kind of lobbying! I also noticed that five of the lobbyists listed under Hillsborough County appear to have the same long list of clients including the Florida Chamber, who you might recall was very much for SB 360. I still wonder how much we paid those other lobbyists but back to Bean’s recession proof raises.

It seems to me that Bean can usually talk herself out of (or the majority of the Commission into) anything but this time I think she slipped up pretty bad. When initially questioned about the raises she uses the excuse that the raises are a requirement under civil service rules (problem is she later contradicts herself when questioned by the Commissioner Al “New Blair” Higginbotham and states those positions are unclassified positions that are not controlled by the civil service office.) See for yourself, here are the transcripts and the excerpts that blow her cover are as follows: (Comissioner Beckner is questioning her)

BUT MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE JUSTIFY TO THE RANK-AND-
FILE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ASKED TO TAKE ON MORE
RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEY’RE NOT GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL
DOLLARS?
>>PAT BEAN: WELL, COMMISSIONER, IF THEY ARE GETTING A
PROMOTION TO A NEW POSITION, THEY WILL GET COMPENSATION IN
ADDITION BECAUSE THAT’S A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE CIVIL
SERVICE RULES. WE DON’T HAVE THAT OPTION NOT TO GIVE THEM A PAY RAISE.

but then later when questioned by Higginbotham about this Bean changes her story:

>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IT WAS NOVEMBER 6th, 2008, AND IN THAT
PRESENTATION WE HAD A NICE FLOW CHART.
I WENT BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING, AND I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING
THAT TALKED — IT TALKED ABOUT RECLASS, BUT AS I CAN
REMEMBER, AND I WENT THROUGH THE — THE MINUTES, IT DIDN’T
OUTLINE WHAT THAT PAY WAS GOING TO BE OTHER THAN IT SAID
THERE WAS NO FISCAL — ON THE COVER SHEET, THERE WAS NO
COST OF REORGANIZATION.
THE COST IS COVERED WITHIN THE BUDGET OF THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR.
>>PAT BEAN: THAT’S CORRECT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO — YEAH.
AND THAT’S WHERE — BECAUSE — AND THIS COMES THROUGH OUR
CIVIL SERVICE.
>>PAT BEAN: NO, THIS DOES NOT COME THROUGH OUR CIVIL
SERVICE.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YOU MENTIONED CIVIL SERVICE EARLIER.
>>PAT BEAN: NOT IN REGARD TO THIS.
I SAID THERE ARE CIVIL SERVICE POSITIONS THAT ARE
CONTROLLED BY MR. GARDNER’S OFFICE.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: GOT IT.
>>PAT BEAN: THE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS ARE NOT CONTROLLED
BY HIM FOR ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY.
I JUST MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID THERE, AND I THOUGHT
MAYBE THERE WAS SOMETHING — I MISSED SOMETHING ALONG THE
WAY.

I rarely stand up for or even agree with Higginbotham, but in this case I don’t think he missed anything. Bean did seem like she was trying to make them believe she had no choice but to give them raises when she said “we don’t have that option NOT to give them a pay raise.”

She also wanted to make sure we knew this happened last Oct-Nov (pretty sure they knew about huge budget cuts looming back then too). I found the link to this memo from Bean in an earlier article in the Times during this reorganization last fall and it doesn’t mention a thing about raises. In fact, it boasts about $500,000 worth of savings and never mentions the $100,000 in raises significantly decreasing those savings! Another inconsistency I found was that in this article they mentioned that four of the six got promotions with their raises but Bean seems to indicate that they all got promotions not just raises during the workshop with this statement:

I USED SOME OF THE MONEY SAVED FROM ELIMINATING THREE
POSITIONS TO PROMOTE THESE INDIVIDUALS AND ASK THEM TO TAKE
ON THE WORK IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING THEY WERE ALREADY
DOING.

Well, which is it Ms. Bean? Did they all get promotions with their raises, or only four of the six? Were the raises mandatory by civil service laws or not?

Guess who was the only Commissioner supporting Bean? You knew it would be Commissioner Jim Norman didn’t you?

In the meantime, The Times named Bean The Loser of the Week and the Tampa Tribune titled its editorial “Bean-headed pay raises.” Glad to see the MSM increasing its snark factor.

Should be interesting to see how the board handles this one as the media is all over it and the public is outraged (judging by the hundreds of comments under the stories). Commissioners will most certainly be blamed by the public for not keeping a tight rein on this runaway horse. Will they continue to pay to keep her in the barn or realize it is past time to turn this one out to pasture?

Posted in Fix-it-now, Tampa Bay Politics | Leave a comment