The most newsworthy aspect of the often-intense interrogation and sometimes-stinging criticism two county commissioners launched at County Administrator John Titkanich last week was not his carefully prepared responses.
It wasn’t even County Commission Vice Chairman Deryl Loar’s prosecutorial tone, or the ominous question he put to the other commissioners: “At what point do we decide to take the agency in another direction?”
Instead, the most compelling, revealing and, perhaps, troubling remarks uttered at the April 22 meeting came from three commissioners who challenged the need to grill County Administrator John Titkanich for nearly two hours on such a public stage.
“I was raised that you keep your dirty laundry in the backyard, but it seems like we want to put it in the front yard,” Commissioner Susan Adams said. “That’s fine, if that’s what you want to do.”
But, she added emphatically, “I do find this process distasteful and unprofessional. I think this always devolves into what we just saw, and it makes us look bad. It is embarrassing to me every time we have this conversation.”
The meeting marked the third time since September that Titkanich, at Loar’s request, provided what the commission calls a “quarterly update” from the administrator, who last month began his third year on the job.
Loar and Commission Chairman Joe Flescher have expressed dissatisfaction with how long it has taken Titkanich to restructure the hierarchy, change the culture and make the county government’s operations more efficient.
Both commissioners blame the administrator for the absence of any substantial progress in addressing the concerns, complaints and other issues he inherited.
As a result, Titkanich has used the sessions to not only answer questions, but also to publicly defend his job performance.
Commissioner Joe Earman said he welcomed the quarterly updates, but he would prefer that his colleagues address their criticisms of Titkanich’s work during individual meetings with the administrator, behind closed doors.
“I don’t know if this is healthy or not, to be honest with you,” Earman said after listening to Loar make his case and the ensuing back-and-forth between the former sheriff and Titkanich.
He later added: “I don’t know if I like where this is going today. … If we see that he’s failing terribly, it’s up to us as commissioners to bring it to the dais and say, ‘I’ve talked to the county administrator, and he didn’t do what I asked. What’s y’all’s opinion on this?’”
Earman said he has seen Titkanich “struggle,” and he agreed with Loar’s contention that the county administrator needs to be more “proactive and not reactive.”
But he doesn’t see Titkanich as failing, giving him a “B-minus” grade and saying, “I don’t think we’re broken.”
Earman echoed the comments reported in Vero Beach 32963 two weeks earlier, when he described Titkanich as a “good man and a good boss who cares about his employees,” but said he wants to see the administrator move forward more aggressively with his agenda.
“I stand by what I said in the newspaper,” he said.
Commissioner Laura Moss, on the other hand, said she was disturbed by what she read in the April 17th edition of Vero Beach 32963, warning that board members were “flirting” with violations of Florida’s Sunshine Law, which makes it illegal for members of elected bodies to discuss governmental business anywhere but during publicly noticed meetings.
She suggested that some commissioners might’ve violated the law by using “third parties, such as the media,” as conduits to communicate with each other regarding any potential vote on the administrator’s fate.
All five commissioners – and Titkanich – were quoted in the newspaper’s MY VERO column.
Flescher promptly asked for a legal opinion from County Attorney Jennifer Shuler, who replied, “I don’t think merely answering the reporter’s questions violates the statute.”
Moss also wondered how the newspaper knew before she did that Loar planned to include on the commission’s meeting agenda another quarterly update from Titkanich.
“I don’t think the media should know our agenda before we do,” she said, adding that she was “shocked” to be asked about a not-yet-posted agenda item so far in advance of a meeting and found it “entirely inappropriate” for a commission member to contact a newspaper to discuss such a matter.
“I don’t care who it came from,” Moss went on to say. “I don’t want to see this in the press again.”
Flescher defended his willingness to respond to a call from a reporter, saying Moss was “in the wrong business” if she’s uncomfortable with answering questions from the media – because commissioners should expect to be held accountable by the public.
If reporters call to ask about the business of a county with 170,000 residents and a $500 million budget, Flescher, who is serving his fifth term on the commission, said he will talk to them, adding that it would be “very inappropriate not to.”
It’s worth noting: In the newspaper story, Moss maintained her support for Titkanich, saying he’s “doing fine” and that it was “unfortunate and unnecessary that this keeps coming up,” but she did not offer any comment on his job performance during the meeting.
To be sure, the story contained much of what was addressed at the meeting – by all parties involved – but not everything, as Loar opened the discussion with a thorough examination of Titkanich’s job performance.
As Loar expected, Titkanich responded by providing the commissioners with a long list of accomplishments, including the administrator’s claims that customer service has been improving, particularly in the county’s long-troubled Building Division.
Titkanich, who came armed with data, cited the latest results of customer-service surveys conducted by the division showing that 68 percent of respondents were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied.
The administrator also pointed to overall improvements, such as increased hiring – 85 new employees, 53 of which were full timers – and more personal engagement with the public, especially community groups in Gifford, Vero Lake Estates and the Oslo Road corridor.
“Public engagement does continue to be a cornerstone,” he said.
Loar wasn’t overly impressed, asking if the approval rate revealed by the surveys was satisfactory.
“No, it’s not where the agency should be, but you have to start somewhere, and you have to work to make improvements,” Titkanich replied. “Obviously, there’s room for improvement, but I can tell you: Each successive month, there has been, with the exception of a couple of areas, incremental change for the positive.”
Loar continued to pepper Titkanich with tough questions about the progress made over the past two years, during which the organization underwent two restructurings, and said there’s no reason the county shouldn’t expect operational successes similar to those enjoyed by the local school district under the leadership of Superintendent David Moore.
In December, Moore was named Florida’s 2025 Superintendent of the Year and was among four finalists for the national award.
“This is a great county,” Loar said, “and we can become even better.”
Later in the meeting, Flescher raised similar concerns and also expressed frustration with the lack of progress Titkanich has made, despite the commission’s sizable financial investment in the administration.The commission has funded the addition of two high-level positions – deputy administrator and ombudsman – along with significant increases in staff salaries and various studies.
Still, Flescher said he hears too many complaints.
“I think we should be further along,” he added, “I think we could be further along.”
Sandwiched between the inquiries of Loar and Flescher was praise from Adams, who said, “A lot of progress has been made,” adding that she no longer gets calls from people complaining about the Building Division.
“Quite frankly, I’m pretty amazed how much does get done and how far we have moved forward, considering each of us (five commissioners) has a whole different idea of what we should be doing,” Adams said.
She claimed that some staffers, as well as former employees who were pushed out or left their county jobs, are actively trying to sabotage Titkanich’s efforts to change the culture and structure of the organization.
The criticism of Titkanich from the dais doesn’t help, she added, urging commissioners to come up with a more constructive way to communicate with and critique the administrator.
“The way we’re going about it sets up this black cloud for a whole month: ‘Ooh, what’s going to happen?’” Adams said. “I guarantee you, every employee that works for the county is listening to this, watching this, and not doing any work – because they’re not going to make the changes we want to see made if they feel that their leadership is not on solid ground, if people feel they can undermine the change the way we’re going about it.”
She went on to say: “I think it needs to be done in a different way, because every time it comes up, it’s like a high school cafeteria. You can watch it go around.
“I mean, come on,” she added. “This is juvenile and childish and, personally, I’m tired of it.”
Loar stood his ground, disagreeing with Adams, Earman and Moss.
He believes the commissioners need to be able to talk to each other – in public view, where county residents and employees can hear what’s being said – about the administrator’s job performance.
“I think it’s healthy and important to bring this in front of the public,” the commission’s vice chairman said. “Otherwise, they don’t know what’s going on behind the door. This is the only way we have to share how we feel about somebody’s performance.”
Besides, Titkanich knew what was coming.
“I don’t think you’ve heard anything today that you haven’t already heard,” Flescher told the administrator. “And I don’t feel awkward talking about it, because I don’t think there’s anything mean or vindictive or arrogant being said.
“I don’t think it has been a horrible day.”
Not for Titkanich, perhaps – but he wasn’t the story.
