It’s silly to think County Administrator John Titkanich, knowing he was already under intense scrutiny by the County Commission, would have dared attempt to give himself an unauthorized pay raise this past May.
But did he?
He said he didn’t.
“I did not unilaterally execute a pay raise for myself,” Titkanich said Friday, explaining that he reviewed the language in his contract, consulted with legal counsel and discussed the matter individually with each of the five members of the Board of County Commissioners.
“I would have happily placed it on a board agenda if any one of them had raised a concern about it,” he added. “It is disingenuous to imply I was not forthright, and I believe the public record reflects I acted with transparency.”
The most recent public record, however, shredded Titkanich’s explanation and rejects his contention that he was entitled to the “progression pay increase” discovered during a routine audit.
In fact, a 32-page audit report completed last week by Internal Audit Director Edward Halsey of the county’s Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller’s office not only challenged the justification for Titkanich’s salary increase, but it also questioned the process he followed to obtain it.
While the report stopped short of accusing Titkanich of any ill-intent, Halsey wrote that the manner by which the pay increase was approved represented a “breakdown in internal control procedures.”
The salary increase the administrator was seeking should have been brought to the County Commission board, the report’s “Conclusions and Recommendations” stated, adding that the raise would not be included in Titkanich’s future pay checks until and unless it is approved by the commissioners.
“There’s a huge problem with this,” County Clerk & Comptroller Ryan Butler said last week, days before the Aug. 26 audit report was shared with the County.
Butler said he had spoken with each of the commissioners – as well as Titkanich and County Attorney Jennifer Shuler – to inform them of the auditor’s opinion and the need to address the matter at the board’s next meeting.
Adhering to the report’s recommendation, the commission is planning to confront the controversy when it meets again Tuesday.
“Perhaps, it will set the stage for ensuring contracted employees have clear and consistent language,” Titkanich said, referring to the murky circumstances that allowed him to believe he was acting in good faith with the raise, which he made retroactive to the one-year anniversary of the date he was hired in April 2023.
Commission Chairman Joe Flescher, who along with Vice Chairman Deryl Loar have been among Titkanich’s toughest critics, said he’s disturbed by the report’s findings and is eager to discuss the matter with his peers on the dais.
He expressed concern, however, that the commissioners will not be able to rely on their county administrator or county attorney for guidance – because both have a financial stake in the panel’s decision.
“They’ve already provided their interpretation of their contracts and our administrative policy,” Flescher said, “and those documents were interpreted differently by the comptroller.”
Contained in the report was an email exchange between Titkanich, Shuler and Human Resources Director Suzanne Boyll that began shortly after 8 p.m. May 20, when the administrator made his case for the progression pay increase.
Minutes after 8 a.m. the next day, Shuler responded with an email stating she had spoken with Titkanich and agreed with his conclusion that he was “entitled” to the same annual pay-progression increases available to the county’s other contract employees.
She was quick to add that she has “similar language” in her contract and should receive the same pay raise on her anniversary date – which happens to be this month.
Shuler did acknowledge the county’s administrative policy “makes the progression pay increase contingent on satisfactory performance,” but she promptly dismissed the requirement.
The attorney wrote that it “doesn’t make sense that the employees under my direction are entitled to pay progression increases but I am not,” citing the commission’s authority to fire her if her performance isn’t satisfactory.
Despite the performance-evaluation requirement in the policy – and no mention of progression pay increases in the contracts of the administrator and attorney – Shuler’s May 21 email never recommended that Titkanich seek the commission’s formal approval before directing Boyll to process his raise.
“I don’t believe he got the best advice,” Flescher said, emphasizing that Shuler works for the commission, not the administrator.
According to Halsey’s report, the opportunity for progression increases is included in the contracts of the deputy county administrator, deputy county attorney and assistant county attorney.
Those 2.5-percent annual raises are not found in the contracts of the county administrator and county attorney, however.
For those wondering: The report states that Titkanich had been paid $9,158 in progression raises, starting on June 6, when he received $6,520 in retroactive increases. He also received $2,638 in base-pay increases between June 6 and Aug. 15.
Butler said the confusion probably stems from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the county’s administrative policy manual – specifically, where it provides a distinction between “pay” and “benefits.”
Titkanich and Shuler considered progression pay increases to be a benefit enjoyed by other county employees. As such, they believed they, too, should be eligible for them.
They are not, according to Halsey’s report, which faulted Boyll for not recognizing the problems with Titkanich’s request during their email exchange.
In his recommendations, Halsey stated that Boyll should have examined Titkanich’s contract – which didn’t include progression pay increases – and informed the administrator she could not approve the requested raise without the performance evaluation required in the policy manual.
“The director of human resources,” Halsey wrote, “should act as the last line of defense against questionable transactions.”
Boyll didn’t.
Her boss told her he was entitled to a pay raise, the county attorney agreed with him, and Boyll complied.
“Frankly,” Titkanich said, “I was surprised to learn this item was raised by the audit team as concerning.”
Now it’s up to the commission to either approve Titkanich’s pay raise or demand that he reimburse the county for what Halsey described as “improperly paid amounts.”
If Titkanich’s salary increase is approved, you can expect Shuler to be eligible for a similar raise. She was out of town and unavailable for comment.
As of last weekend, the board appeared to be divided on how to respond to the report: Flescher and Loar were troubled by Halsey’s findings and remained unconvinced that Titkanich and Shuler are entitled to progression pay increases, while commissioners Susan Adams and Laura Moss supported giving both the administrator and attorney the requested annual raises.
Commissioner Joe Earman did not respond to a voice message from Vero Beach 32963 last week.
Adams and Moss said the commissioners should amend the wording in the contracts to ensure Titkanich and Shuler are eligible for the same pay raises as their deputies and assistants.
“I don’t think he gave himself a pay increase,” Adams said. “I respect the auditors and what they do, but I don’t feel it’s being characterized appropriately. The contract states John is entitled to the same benefits the other contract employees get.”
She said Titkanich discussed the progression pay raise with her last spring.
“Nothing was done underhanded,” Adams said. “If that’s what’s being implied here, that’s erroneous.
“Should he have put this before the board? Hindsight is 20/20,” she added. “It certainly would have allowed us to avoid all this. But he consulted with our attorney and, as far as I know, he spoke with the other commissioners, too.”
Moss echoed Adams’ remarks in defending Titkanich, saying, “Nothing nefarious occurred.”
Asked why the administrator didn’t seek commission approval of his raise request, Moss replied, “He probably didn’t think it was a big deal, since other employees were getting those raises. It didn’t seem to be a huge problem for me. We’re not talking about a lot of money.”
Both Flescher and Loar, meanwhile, said they see no reason to amend Titkanich’s contract to include progression pay raises because they believe he should be required to get board approval for any salary increases.
Flescher said Titkanich approached him with his progression pay request months ago, and he told the administrator the policy doesn’t apply to him – and nothing has changed since.
Instead, Flescher said, the audit report and the email exchanges it contains, has put the commission in a “grave situation” that must be confronted Tuesday.
Loar agreed the report doesn’t paint the county government in a positive light, especially with the commission having refused to give Sheriff Eric Flowers the $14.6 million budget increase he claimed was needed to give his deputies pay raises.
“We’re going to look bad,” said Loar, who served three terms as our sheriff before retiring from law enforcement and later running for a commission seat. “John had the sheriff’s budget request, so he should’ve known money was going to be an issue. And now we’re dealing with this.
“It comes down to judgment.”
To be sure, the audit report revealed there’s plenty of blame go around – from Titkanich not taking his request to the board, to Shuler not counseling him to do so, to Boyll assuming her boss had the authority to give himself a pay raise.
There are also some uncomfortable questions to ask:
- Would any of us, including the commissioners, have known about the administrator’s pay increase if Butler’s auditors hadn’t caught it?
- Would any of you have known about it had county resident, public-records aficionado and part-time political operative Jeff Andros not cc’d my name in his Aug. 20 email alerting the commission and other county officials to Titkanich’s raise?
- Will the State Attorney’s Office, which received a copy of the audit report from Halsey, launch an investigation into this mess?
For what it’s worth, Butler, a former state prosecutor, doesn’t believe there was any criminal intent, especially since Titkanich sought legal counsel from the county attorney before putting in for his raise.
“Now it’s in the hands of the county commissioners,” Butler said, “which is where it should’ve been from the beginning.”
