It became clear in 1997, when he went along with a plan to cut health care for the poor, that Hillsborough County Administrator Dan Kleman would not speak up if his elected bosses decided to compromise sound policy to score cheap political points. His finger is too often raised in the wind when it should be driving home a point. But Kleman is nonetheless, on balance, a steadying force in an oftentimes shrill political environment, and his timidity does not cancel out his contributions to county government. The county commission, which will discuss Kleman's fate Wednesday, should keep him in the job.
Some of Kleman's record is difficult to defend. He is too accommodating to his elected board. He has allowed commissioners, in several high-profile cases, to use the administrative staff as cover to demagogue political issues. There was no reason, for example, that the county spent so much time and money trying to shut down public access television, one of those pet crusades of Commissioner Ronda Storms. Kleman takes too long to confront personnel problems, and at times he fails to support his staff in the face of commission criticism.
But Kleman, in fairness, has accomplished much. He worked successfully, at the board's direction, to help pass the Community Investment Tax and keep the Buccaneers in Tampa. He instituted a two-year budget cycle, which improves the county's ability to plan, and he took conservative budget steps that strengthened the county's financial standing.
For the tenth straight time since becoming administrator in 1994, Kleman has proposed a drop in property taxes for the coming year. He modernized county operations and made the decisionmaking process more open to the public. Those who diminish these achievements as unimportant don't grasp how bad the county's image was after the 1980s bribery scandal.
We also find that much of the criticism of Kleman is misdirected. He serves a board that has no clear mission and whose members are quick to brandish the swords of partisanship. He has been too willing to feed their egos at times. He also relinquished much of his authority by being overly deferential to the board for policy direction. But he is not solely responsible for the county's failure to address major issues, from transportation to health care. His weakness reinforces a divide on this board over the fundamental role of government, a debate that has sharpened since conservative voters in the burgeoning suburbs have gained influence.
There should be a clear and compelling reason, if competence and conduct are not an issue, for removing a county's chief executive. None is apparent here.
We have yet to hear commissioners articulate the qualities of an ideal administrator, much less agree on a broader vision for the career staff to pursue. Nor has the board shown it would hire a stronger personality in Kleman's place. The timing of a buyout also would be bad. With the county attorney gone and the leadership of other senior offices in question, this is not the time to create a vacuum at the top. Kleman has his faults, but he knows the job, and firing him would distract a government that needs to focus on bigger issues. Commissioners should retain Kleman, and both sides should work harder to foster mutual respect.
