Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Guest Column

Ousted Wesch needs to live with criticism

By CHRIS LLOYD
Published December 18, 2006

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Deposed county administrator Richard Wesch obviously does not welcome criticism of his professional abilities and actions. Nor does he appear to be cognizant of the fact that his species of public employee serves at the discretionary pleasure of his masters. More precisely, the majority of those masters.

Such it was that election day, November 2004, when Joyce Valentino defeated incumbent Josh Wooten. The safe 3 to 2 vote of Jim Fowler, Roger Batchelor and Wooten was eclipsed at a stroke and Wesch lost his power base on the County Commission.

The clock began counting down the days before he would meet the abrupt justice of Madame La Guillotine.

To the astonishment of many observers, Wesch was able to hang in there for more than a year while continuing, or such was the perception, to show a preference for the new minority vote. Not a smart political strategy. Noting that this word starts with a lower case "p."

Fast forward to early 2006 and the very repulsive allegations arising out of the Lecanto detention facility. Prisoners had filed suit suggesting that their fruit juice had been tainted with urine and that their food was contaminated with feces.

As the story eventually unfurled it became obvious that the county staff, in conjunction with a contractor, had attempted to keep this matter under wraps in some way, shape or form.

We still do not know all the details and probably never will. It was Richard Wesch's direct responsibility to inform every commissioner, which would have resulted in full and frank public disclosure. Any senior executive, and Wesch was the CEO, would have seen this matter as a PR disaster waiting to detonate.

Next we move to the extraordinary gymnastics over a contract for aquatic weed removal that specified a requirement for a performance bond.

Wesch took it upon himself, absent the authority of a County Commission vote, to advise one local bidder that such provision was not required. He failed to advise other bidders of this unilateral decision.

Unlike Wesch, I am not a member of the Florida Bar, but I do have an understanding of basic contract law.

If the bid invitation requires a bond, or if it requires any other condition of specificity, then so shall all bidders meet this standard. The county staff has no legal power to selectively and casually amend these conditions after they are published.

The remainder of Wesch's incredibly protracted diatribe suggests that Commissioner Vicki Phillips was not an admirer of his management style. That is almost certainly true but one must add the names of Commissioners Valentino and Gary Bartell to his list of critics. Not to mention a significant number of voters and taxpayers who regarded him as an egotist of some immense magnitude.

It is difficult to feel any great sympathy for the terminated administrator. He was the beneficiary of $56,000 in severance pay plus $34,000 in accumulated vacation.

Two months later he waltzed into the position of legal counsel to the county sheriff at an annual salary of $90,000.

If he has a problem, I wish that I had the same problem. He has received very generous compensation for the indignity of being "fired" from a job known to be precarious in nature.

As of today, Commissioner Phillips enjoys a very broad base of support. Those who voted for her did so knowing that she was not afraid to ask the tough questions. And not afraid to denounce the dogma espoused by the establishment faction.

As Times editorial editor Greg Hamilton already observed on March 30, 2006, it is fascinating to note the similarity between the Wesch ouster and that of one of his predecessors, Tony Shoemaker, back in December 1996, when Wesch was assistant county attorney and able to observe unfolding events from a front-row seat.

At that time it was Commissioner Jim Fowler who wielded the proverbial Sword of Damocles. Shoemaker opted for resignation over dismissal but otherwise his departure was a mirror image of the Wesch story.

Both Shoemaker and Wesch received equally generous financial settlements. The former was content to walk away absent any defensive comment. The latter apparently desires to defer criticism toward his critics.

My challenge to Richard Wesch would be that he might run for election to office in the 2008 contests. Let him put his name before the voters and we will see if he is the hot shot he believes himself to be.

Chris Lloyd is a Lecanto resident and occasional commentator. Guest columnists write their views on subjects that they choose, which do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.

Re: Stop personal attacks, get back to running county, Richard Wesch guest column Dec. 10

[Last modified December 18, 2006, 01:41:26]