City employees say a councilman is ‘abusive.’ Will Bradenton take action before election?
The Bradenton City Council quickly reversed course Tuesday after initially deciding to delay potential action against Councilman Bill Sanders until after the election in November.
Earlier this summer, an outside investigator determined Sanders has shown a pattern of “abusive and threatening behavior” toward city staff. The investigation, which involved interviews with nearly 30 current or former city employees, followed at least three formal complaints against the councilman.
The council has not yet publicly discussed the report or taken any action.
“While he is not a city employee subject to dismissal, if he were a city employee, there is no doubt his employment would be terminated for his egregious, repeated violations of this policy,” the report said.
Some disciplinary actions do not apply to elected officials, but the report recommended city leaders take “appropriate” action to correct Sanders’ behavior.
The city’s decision about what to do could now come during an upcoming public workshop meeting. A date for that meeting has not been announced.
Influencing the election?
The report into Sanders’ behavior was included as an agenda item for discussion during a City Council meeting last week, but Councilman Patrick Roff moved to put the debate on hold before it could begin.
He pointed to Florida laws that direct officials to refrain from influencing elections.
Sanders, who represents parts of East Bradenton near the Manatee River, is up for re-election in November. He is being challenged by Kurt Landefeld and Lisa Gonzalez Moore.
“Now, there’s some people who question the timing of this coming up right now, so I have a simple solution to keep this body in accordance with Florida State Statutes,” Roff said before asking council members to vote on tabling the discussion until election season is over.
Roff, who noted that his motion was meant to “protect the integrity and credibility of the elected body, not an individual,” also read from F.S.S. 104.31, which states an elected official shall not “use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election.”
At first, council members voted 3-2 to hold off on deciding what to do about the report. Council members Pamela Coachman, Sanders and Roff voted in favor of the motion, while Councilwomen Jayne Kocher and Marianne Barnebey voted against it.
“I am very distressed that we have a third-party report identifying behavior — I mean, we’ve all witnessed it The public has witnessed it. If I saw a report about me like that, I would modify my behavior, but unfortunately, that’s not happening,” Kocher said. “I feel for the staff and the people working here in City Hall. Yes, I don’t want to be political, but I have to stand up for them, as well.”
A heated argument and a change of heart
Less than 30 minutes after the first vote, Coachman had a change of heart. She sits between Sanders and City Administrator Rob Perry during public meetings, and listened to the two of them have a heated argument over the sale of City Hall.
Just moments after their exchange, she asked Mayor Gene Brown what the process would be to have a discussion about the report on Sanders.
“I’m under some consideration sitting here and listening to the passionate conversation about everything. I feel I’m slighting the situation about the report that was prepared,” Coachman said. “I feel like this is something that should be discussed.”
Coachman decided to change her vote, allowing for a discussion on the report to move forward at a future workshop. The decision angered Sanders, who accused fellow his board members of political tampering.
“I believe what you’re attempting to do is unethical, political and perhaps illegal. There’s nothing in our charter that says this is possible,” said Sanders, who also tried to undermine the validity of the report.
The accusation led to a terse back-and-forth between the two council members.
“I did not pull that item off the table for any political reason, but it was for discussion,” Coachman explained. “I feel our opinions and our thoughts should be said. In the sense of timing, there’s an election in November and the public will decide.”
“You’re influencing the public,” Sanders shot back.
“That was not my intent,” Coachman responded.
Should Sanders have a vote in the matter?
In anticipation of the vote, City Attorney Scott Rudacille suggested that Sanders reach out to the Florida Commission on Ethics to determine whether he would be allowed to vote on the matter.
“My only intent was to make sure you got the advice you needed from the ethics commission,” Rudacille explained to Sanders. “It’s a personal decision whether or not you vote on the matter.”
According to Sanders, the ethics commission said he could participate in the vote, but Sanders took issue with Rudacille’s recommendation.
“I took it as a threat,” he told the city’s legal counsel.
What can the city do?
While city officials are planning a workshop meeting to discuss the report, it’s unclear what power the board has to take action against Sanders. The charter is silent on the issue, but the city’s Code of Ordinances suggests the mayor could levy a fine for his behavior.
According to Section 2 Chapter 31, “the president of the council” has the ability to “fine delinquent members.” In a previous interview with the Bradenton Herald, Brown said the city’s legal counsel was still researching that definition.
Sanders has expressed skepticism about the board’s ability to issue any punishment.
“In my opinion, I don’t think they’ll take action because I don’t think they can,” Sanders said. “The (city) charter is the Bible.”
A workshop on the Sanders report will be announced at a later date.
This story was originally published August 31, 2022 at 12:11 PM.
