Beaufort County Council chair: No manipulation in administrator votes | Opinion

It is my high honor and privilege to chair Beaufort County Council, a position I didn’t seek.

In January, I inherited a council split 5-5, two failed searches for an administrator, a foiled attempt to hijack the chair election, a demoralized staff, and a recent history of council members being publicly disrespectful to one another and to county staff.

This year, we have hired an outstanding administrator, staff morale has been restored, committee leadership is proving to be effective, public bickering has ceased, members are being respectful, significant business has been transacted on behalf of the citizens, and council has been essentially of one mind on all major issues.

Last summer, I addressed transparency in a Packet and Gazette op-ed, noting that public engagement has been increased this year with several new initiatives, including 1) Public comment being added to committee meetings, 2) public engagement being encouraged at committee meetings, 3) public hearings being moved from third to second readings, 4) council meetings being more informative, such as Consent Agenda items being highlighted rather than just blindly passed; and 5) the county and the municipalities engaging through the recently established Mayors Round Table.

Allow me to set the record straight on some lingering issues from 2018:

First, was there manipulation as purported recently in the Packet and Gazette? No, there clearly was not.

As background, the first search for an administrator reached an impasse with Josh Gruber leading among the three candidates. Had we voted on just the top two, Josh would be our administrator. He was clearly well-qualified for the position and had already helped to successfully guide the county in multiple executive roles for over the course of prior years.

I was naive enough to believe that we should be unified, and thus supported restarting the search. At the conclusion of the second search, as you have reported twice, we voted to hire Josh. If one wanted to manipulate, as has been alleged, we could have simply adjourned at that point and Josh would have been permanently hired as the administrator.

It became clear that one council member did not have a clear understanding of parliamentary procedures and its resulting impact of such a significant vote. As such, and being on the prevailing side of the previous vote, I called for a re-vote. A couple of members, including Jerry Stewart, changed their vote and we offered the position to a strong candidate from Georgia, who subsequently declined due to potential hardships on his family.

Rather than using parliamentary procedures in a manipulative way to thwart the will of council, I did exactly the opposite by initiating the re-vote.

Second, I did prepare a back-up plan, not a manipulative strategy as has been headlined by the Packet. However, this proved not to be needed. Having a Plan B, in what has been described has a “bizarre” period, was prudent and not inappropriate.

Third, would a “stay bonus” for Josh have been appropriate? At the time, we had no administrator, no deputy administrator, and three senior staff members had turned down the opportunity to be the interim administrator. We were adrift. There is no difference between offering a stay bonus to an experienced leader and hiring a temporary leader. Stay bonuses are commonly used in business and it would have clearly been appropriate under the circumstances to address the difficult situation in which we found ourselves.

Fourth, was the consulting contract for Josh appropriate? Josh led the county through recovering $36 million of $38 million from FEMA for Hurricane Matthew, a feat unparalleled in sister communities dealing with FEMA. With hurricane season well under way, and Hurricane Irma fast approaching, my first reaction was to recommend that we hire Josh temporarily. I was delighted to learn that Josh was already under contract for hurricane recovery and to help provide a transition since we were effectively leaderless.

When this issue surfaced at council, with Irma bearing down on us, we voted 10-0 to extend, and thus ratify, his existing contract on its already-existing terms because it was readily apparent that this contract, and his institutional knowledge and expertise, were unquestionably needed during this time. Council’s action in ratifying and extending the contract eliminates any and all arguments that it was either illegal or inappropriate.

It remains my unwavering opinion that these 2018 actions, taken or contemplated, were appropriate; were consistent with government and business best practices; and, most importantly, were in the best interest of the good citizens of Beaufort County.

In my 13 years on council I have not asked for anything for my district, I have not made a political deal, and I do not publicly criticize members. As chair, transparency has been increased; no member has privately or publicly criticized my leadership; and I strive to honor the will of council.

Stu Rodman of Hilton Head Island represents District 11 on Beaufort County Council.