Sunday, December 11, 2016


Estimable St. Johns County Administrator MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK's contract should not be renewed.
There's no Inspector General, no Ombuds and no accountability in a $700 million/year County government operation.
There's no whistleblower protection policy, as at the Anastasia Mosquito Control District of St. Johns County.
No collective bargaining agreements.
In short, there's nothing standing between BOSS WANCHICK and ethical employees if he wants to retalite.
And we know that WANCHICK does retaliate, right?
This makes WANCHICK Republican Lord of All He Surveys, a failed administrator without adequate Commission oversight.
Mr. WANCHICK is a sneaky devious developer doormat.
Mr. WANCHICK tries to take credit for all progress and points fingers elsewhere on "externalities" of rapid development of communities plagued with poor planning and zoning decisions, construction defects and lack of adequate buyer protection law or enforcement.
When he errs, he makes excuses or blames others.
He retaliates against whistleblowers.
And he lies.
Too often even for local government work.
Who does he think he is, President-elect Trump?
After depositing 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated material there after Hurricane Matthew, WANCHICK publicly and snippily said in response to citizen concerns that Butler Park is not a park but a "boat ramp," despite County park and road signs saying it's a park.
Mr. WANCHICK remains a dull, unethical manager without charisma or class.
His contract expires in 2017.
Read it.
Go to meetings.
Thank him for his service.
Don't renew his contract.
Rebid it: let him and others apply.
Otherwise, it's time for him to go.
What do you reckon?
Ed Slavin

St. Johns County Commission to revisit county administrator’s soon-to-expire contract

St. Johns County commissioners in upcoming meetings will discuss whether they will renew, amend or terminate County Administrator Michael Wanchick’s contract, due to expire July 30.

According to the contract, the “Agreement shall automatically be renewed, at the expiration of each term, for a two (2) year term unless written notice that the Agreement shall terminate is given from the County to the County Administrator at least 180 days before the expiration date.”

Wanchick on Dec. 1 sent commissioners a memo informing them of their options for moving forward and expressing his desire to continue serving as administrator.

Commissioners can allow the contract to roll over (with or without discussion), in which case all contract provisions would remain as they are for a new two-year term. However, by statute, severance would need to be reduced to a maximum of 20 weeks and there would be no severance available to Wanchick if he were fired for misconduct as defined by statute.

“Should the Board wish to change the renewal period or alter the contract in any manner otherwise, I am open to discussing other options should they arise from the Board,” Wanchick wrote.

He said although he would be “disappointed” should commissioners wish to make a change, he would respect the decision and would anticipate receiving written notice of non-renewal by Jan. 31, 2017, consistent with his contract.

Wanchick said he would be “honored” to continue serving in his role.

“The County has faced many challenges during my nine years in this role and it is gratifying to have been part of the team that has brought St. Johns County to our current status as the number one County in the state in so many areas,” he wrote, also assuring commissioners of his “interest and continued commitment.”

According to the contract, in the event the agreement is not renewed, all compensation, benefits and requirements of the agreement shall remain in effect until the July 30 expiration date, unless the administrator voluntarily resigns.

With just two meetings before the Jan. 31 deadline to take action, commissioners on Tuesday expressed interest in revisiting the contract.

Commission Chair Jimmy Johns, in his closing comments, had asked fellow commissioners to each come up with 2-3 topics of interest in their districts, or the county as a whole, that the board and county staff could try to focus on for the next year. Two examples he gave were restoring the county’s communities and assets after Hurricane Matthew, and revisiting Wanchick’s contract.

He encouraged other commissioners to read the contract and to be prepared to talk about it as an agenda item at the next meeting, on Dec. 20. He did not commit the board to making a final decision on the contract at that meeting, with another scheduled in mid-January. He also encouraged input from the public.

“I would like to, professionally, as leaders, have an open dialogue,” Johns said, adding he felt some discomfort talking about somebody’s career path in a public setting but that he saw no other legal recourse.

“Nobody’s perfect, and it’s not a time that I want to necessarily air out dirty laundry, but I think we need to look specifically at the contract and talk about it,” Johns continued.

Wanchick on Nov. 15 received a 2.8 percent raise after a strong evaluation from commissioners, although two of those commissioners, Rachael Bennett and Bill McClure, have since been replaced by newcomers Paul Waldron and Henry Dean. Commissioner Jeb Smith, in the meantime, had voted alone in dissent.

Wanchick had scored 3.87 overall, putting his annual evaluation between “Meets Expectations” and “Exceeds Expectations.” The 2.8 percent rate awarded to Wanchick was the same granted to all county employees this year. His raise was retroactive to Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year.

According to the agreement, entered into on Nov. 3, 2009, Wanchick’s annual base salary was initially $170,000.

He has received raises periodically in the years since. With the latest 2.8 percent increase factored in, his $5,828.08 raise brought his salary up to $213,973.95.

Leading up to that vote, Bennett said Wanchick stepped into his role just before the economic downturn and at a time when commissioners were spending money “with both hands and both feet.”

“Our county has risen to the top just like cream and that doesn’t just happen,” she said. “I really believe that excellence starts at the top.”

Although she made a motion to give Wanchick a 5 percent raise, Wanchick said he had never received a higher percentage raise than those available to his employees and preferred to keep it that way.


Tom Reynolds said...

County Administrator Michael Wanchick is a very good County CEO and or County Administrator.

Why ?

1) Wanchick can take criticism and learn from it or ignore it if it is unwarranted. (not cry about it)
2) Wanchick is well respected by the County Employees and the employees know he is the boss.
3) Wanchick has two degrees in Public Administration and completely understands State Laws/Regulations as well as Federal Laws/Regulations.
4) Wanchick is ALWAYS willing to meet with residents or speak with residents to get their County problems solved.
5) Wanchick has proven himself in times of crisis, (recession and hurricane Mathew) working around the clock when needed.
6) Wanchick does an EXCELLENT JOB in money management. (turns 80 cents into a dollar) getting the most for the County Taxpayers.
7) Wanchick truly cares about this County and always makes decisions based on what is best for the County as a whole. (very unselfish thinker)
8) Wanchick is not the slightest bit snobby/arrogant and treats the Commissioners with full respect they deserve.
9) Wanchick works long hours and works very hard to make our County the BEST place in the State.
10) Wanchick treats the Residents like they are Customers and has a Policy of the Customers ALWAYS COME FIRST and demands that all County Employees do the same.

Those reasons and more is why I will be supporting the extension or continuation of Employment for Michael Wanchick as our St Johns County Florida CEO and or County Administrator.

Thank you,
Tom Reynolds

Ed Slavin said...

You are wrong.
1. He's thin-skinned and reacted angrily at May 2016 budget hearing to questions, including yours and mine. Play the tape.
2. Fear, not respect. He's a louche loser secretive wannbee badass dictator, a developer toady in your terms.
3. Does not understand or would not have used park for contaminated solid waste staging area, or lied about it being a park.
4. Nope.
5. That's his job; working hard is not the same as working smart.
6. NO IG, no ombuds, no independent oversight -- flummery,dupery and nincompoopery here.
7. He's a spineless developer-directed doormat, a lapdog, not a watchdog.
8. He's snooty.
9. That's his job; working hard is not the same as working smart.
10. I disagree. Do I know you?