October Fireworks in CR

Man oh man... where to begin. First, I apologize that this is long. I try to do summaries for those that do not want to read 2000 words, but this cannot really be summarized like that. So read to the end for the full picture..

For the first time in over a year or so, fireworks erupted in Crystal River that were not fired off of a barge sitting in Kings Bay. Last night's city council meeting rivaled a contentious BOCC meeting. If you have never watched, the Crystal River City Council meets are usually short and relatively casual.

Except last night.

First, I want to address what I said at the end of the meeting.

If you missed it, at the beginning of the meeting, I addressed the council and stated since I do not live there, I do not feel I can chime in on whether the city manager should be fired or not. I should not have a say whether their citizens should pay for a $50k-ish severance package. However, as someone who follows local politics, I felt that I can talk about processes or the lack thereof.

As mentioned yesterday, I get all kinds of tips/rumors/etc. If I cannot verify it on my own, I will not share them publicly for the most part. Trust me when I say I have enough rumors to bring down many of those in Citrus County government (including cities). Certainly not everyone, but several. But no proof of them yet, so they stay locked up so to speak.

Well throughout the last week, I had heard rumors that council member Cindi Frink was constantly texting during meetings. I went and watched several past meetings, but it is not clear in the video. You can see her constantly looking down, but it could just be she is reading her agenda packet or something to that effect.

A few weeks ago, council member Holmes brought up cell phone use at a meeting. He wanted a discussion at some point on creating rules about council members being on their devices during the meeting. I did not see where that went anywhere or that it has come back from discussion. There was a reason he brought it up and I presume because of the rumors I had heard regarding Ms Frink.

So last night, I spent pretty much the entire meeting watching her. I am not exaggerating that she spent the ENTIRE meeting on her phone texting someone... She would look up for a few mins, maybe 5-10 at the longest, but then it is back to her phone.

Here are some texts I sent during the meeting to a friend. I apologize for the typo, fat fingers :)

And here is a screen grab from the video I had someone send me.

I cant tell from here where the phone is, but at the beginning of the meeting, it was on the table in front of her and she would be texting from there.. Later in the meeting it moved to her lap.. and at the end of the meeting, it was back on the table.

Again, this went on for the entire meeting. Kept looking up and down, reading sometimes, typing back others. Almost as if someone was watching the meeting and giving commentary to her.

I had seen enough and sent this to another friend.

So I did just that. At the end of the meeting I explained how public records work because there seemed to be some confusion on the council on how that worked. I explained that once they hit send on an email, it is instantly a public record document that anyone can request. The same extends to text messages, whether on the city device or personal device. If it is in regards to that person's official capacity, then it is considered public record, with few exemptions.

For the record, texting a spouse is NOT one of the exemptions. Spousal privilege does not exist to public records.

I normally would not call out an elected official (or staff member) publicly at a meeting like that. Usually, I will make a broad statement or comment. The person(s) involved know who I am talking about, but I intentionally leave names out of it. Only when I do public records requests do I mention staff, or if I am doing a story of some kind where they are involved. Although, honestly, elected officials are fair game. It is part of what they signed up for.

In this case, I called her out by name and made the formal records request on the spot. I asked to browse the phone that night, as records laws allow me to physically inspect the records under supervision of the clerk, who was in the room, but she left very quickly when the meeting ended.

So why did I do it like that? Because people needed to see it called out. At a minimum, that is an elected official on their device the entire time having a conversation with someone (or maybe watching a movie or tv show). At worst, it is someone feeding her information during the meeting or providing commentary to her about it. Those would qualify, in my opinion, as related to her official job as city council member and thus be subject to public records disclosure.

I also wanted to make the attorney aware of the request, so that he could advise her as needed.

You cannot convince me that those text messages were about dinner plans, a fishing trip this weekend or anything NOT related to that meeting at that moment, but we will see. The city clerk and attorney both confirmed they heard my request and would process it.

For the record, I did not see anyone else on their devices during the meeting. Mr Holmes picked his up to read something out loud, but other than that, everyone had their devices away from them.

Now the rest of the meeting. A few observations.

I have to say this... council member Gabrielle Satchell came out swinging. Three of them (Frink, Meek and Ensing) were trying to ram this through. She held her ground and did not back down. She was the reason that Ms Curts is still employed today. She held firm and was a strong voice for calling out the behind the scenes issues. That, in part, got Ensing back to the table and willing to go along with the 6 month probation period.

That does not happen without her. She made it known that she will not stand for the small town politics. Some people in Crystal River better watch out because she will call it like she sees it. And in a somewhat shocking comment... she made it known that Ken Frink is no longer running the city of Crystal River and that he needed to back off.. more on this in a bit..

Needless to say, I was very impressed.

Mr Holmes is VERY upset. I won't rehash everything, but he was accused of having an affair by someone. There was an anonymous letter sent out with a picture of himself and Ms Curts sitting close at a table. The picture was an extreme crop and intentionally cropped that way to create this narrative. The full picture I am told has city staff sitting next to each of them as it was taken at an event in Crystal River and the 4 of them were discussing something and needed to sit close to hear over the music.

But man... he was "pissed" as he would go on to say and I think that is an understatement. He is determined to find out who is behind all of this and has threatened legal action against them when he found them. He then went on to use a poor choice of words and threatened bodily harm on whoever it would be... poor decision there... but the man was madder than mad.

Also worth noting, he called out the three of them (Meek, Frink and Ensing) for coordinating this behind the scenes. He alluded to conversations someone is having with staff and trying to interject into the city business.

He may not be wrong. The 3 evaluations were very similar to one another.

Mr Ensing stood by his review that he made, but did admit that maybe he made some mistakes in this process. He blamed it on being a new council member and maybe not knowing all the rules/procedures.

At one point, after listening to Mr Holmes accuse him of back door dealings, he got up and said he would resign right there.. He then sat down and said he it was a heated moment. No one asked for confirmation that he resigned, so I assume he officially did not. Heated moment.

But overall, he made his feelings known that he was not impressed with Ms Curts, but that he could go along with Ms Satchell's request for 6 months if Ms Curts would agree to that... she did.

Ms Frink was largely silent. If eye rolls could have comments, she said A LOT. But when it was her turn to speak, she largely repeated what she said in her review. She mentioned speaking to several people, including other elected officials who could not stand to be in a room with Ms Curts. Curious to know who that may be, but public records should tell that story.

She mentioned the issue of "polling" city council members before making a decision on something. She mentioned staff issues and just thought they needed someone new to lead the City. Nothing earth shattering there and she did not really fight the 6 months probation.

Mayor Meek... this was interesting. He was determined going into this meeting that Ms Curts needed to go. He saw no way past that. He stated to me in an email that the city needed to move on and, in part, that was due to 2 members on the council not being able to trust her or work with her. He repeated that last night as well. He was questioned on why that decision was made on his part because 2 members wanted to keep her. Ms Satchell asked him directly why the opinions of Ms Frink and Mr Ensing were more valuable to him than those of herself and Mr Holmes.

Valid question and he didn't really have an answer.

The thing with Joe (he told me to call him that btw), is that he HATES controversy. He wants things to go smoothly all the time. He realizes things can get messy at times, but he likes to keep the temperature down, make votes and move on.

What happened last night had to have him cringing. He will laugh it off as doing city government, but I know that inside he was struggling with what was taking place. He was seeing colleagues, including himself, being accused of back door dealings. He was being accused of meddling with staff and violating the city charter. There was a lot of laundry being aired last night.

And that is why I think he flipped his vote. When Ensing signaled that he would back Satchell's motion, Joe decided then that coming together was the best option for now than a 3-2 vote. So he decided to support the motion to give Ms Curts 6 more months and to have the council create some process for all of this.

The final vote ended up being 5-0. The Chronicle reported it as 4-1 with Frink as the sole person against it, but I am pretty certain I heard it announced as 5-0. I will update this if that is wrong.

Regardless, it passed, 5-0 or 4-1, whatever it ends up being.

What now? Who knows. My understanding is that they will come together next meeting to figure out a process to handle all of this. I had mentioned that there is no HR policy for employees to report issues about their boss. So hopefully they create those processes.

Also, hopefully they clearly define their roles as council members and mayor. I heard several of them mention they talk to staff. While the attorney stated talking to staff was ok, he did not specifically mention that getting opinions about their boss was ok... or if those opinions needed to be documented or any of that. He ignored the HR issues that were raised.

So hopefully, that is addressed and they can start getting to work fixing the issues they felt they had.

Now, let's see if they honor this 6 month "probation" period.

If I am betting in Vegas, I am taking the under and this comes back in less than 6 months. Maybe they surprise me and give her the full 6 months to address the issues, but after last night, I doubt it.

Nothing changed in anyone's eyes. Frink and Meek still think she needs to go. Ensing stands by his review, which means he feels she needs to go. But he got a bit of pressure and backed off a bit. Nothing says that a month from now or whenever, he decides, like Meek, that it is "no longer tenable" to keep her.

Time will tell, but hopefully, they stick to the plan and go through this process and review it in 6 months.

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room... the back door deals.

Satchell brought it up. Holmes mentioned it as well. I feel that makes it fair game for me to address it a bit.

There is something going on behind the scenes in Crystal River. It extends to the county as well. Satchell mentioned a name. Ken Frink.

For those that don't know, he has been a lifelong Citrus resident. Grew up and went to school here, came back after college and has been here since. I don't know his full resume, but I do know he has worked several government jobs in this county, including city manager of Crystal River. He was also on the City Council and is now currently a school board member. He is also married to current council member Cindi Frink.

Satchell mentioned that he is behind the scenes working to oust Ms Curts. I have had several people tell me the same thing, but I have no proof of it yet. But Satchell is convinced he is there lurking in the shadows and even mentioned "Ken Frink is no longer city manager". HUGE statement.

But I am not there... yet.

I do know that there is a lot of influence in this county from a very select group of people. I wont mention names here, but look at the campaign contributions from several of the elected officials and you will see a trend. Look at who endorsed them during their elections and you will see a trend. Not at all difficult to piece it together. Look at your current commissioners, school board and city councils/mayor. Few exceptions here and there, but most are people inside that circle... or at least on the fringe of it. It is a very influential group.

Get inside that group, you have a very good chance of being a successful candidate. Don't get inside that group, there is a very good chance you are not successful, Commissioner Barek aside. You see, that group of people is very connected and they represent A LOT of money and influence.

Not saying they are not good people by any means. Most of them are very active in this community and do very good things. But they are also the ones behind the scenes having conversations with elected officials. The movers and shakers so to speak. Nothing wrong with that at all. Its certainly not illegal to talk to an elected official... and they do carry a lot of influence.

Want something done, go to one of them and if you can get them on board, the chances of it getting done skyrocket, especially if it involves elected officials. Again, nothing illegal there. Fact of life, some people have more influence than others. Why wouldn't someone who wants something done go to someone with influence? That is not to say that is the only reason projects get done or that all their ideas are chosen, but it certainly does not hurt to have them on your side.

The Parkway coming to Citrus... opting out of Transportation Concurrency... zoning cases... Pirates Cove... to name a few. Not saying these are good/bad things, just saying they were largely driven by that circle of people.

Ken Frink is 100% in that circle... as are 3 people sitting on city council. So is it outside the realm of possibility that he is behind the scenes, as Satchell claims, doing the work of those he is connected to? No, not at all. Is he doing that? I don't know.

Again, I have not seen any of that yet, but if it is there, I will find it eventually.

One thing of note... I sat in the back of the room in front of staff intentionally. I wanted to see if they would say anything during the meeting. As soon as Ensing threatened to resign, staff behind me gasped and whispered "No dont resign, we need the vote". Throughout the discussion, they were whispering to each other about the way the discussion was going. When it was mentioned the 6 month probation, one said "no, thats not good".

Holmes mentioned staff holding their ears to walls to eavesdrop on conversations. So it is clear to me staff wants her gone and they want someone else in her place. Is that driven by dislike of their boss because she is not a good city manager? Is it driven by someone behind the scenes wanting to make changes for whatever reason? Or is it a combination of both?

The records will tell the story, so stay tuned.