Thrive
Mayor sheds light on Gas Plant bonus ‘mistake’
St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch contritely accepted the blame for his administration’s well-intentioned employee bonus payments. “The buck stops here,” he said Friday afternoon.
The 17 lump-sum payments to high-ranking officials, later rescinded, totaled $250,000 and became public Aug. 16. The bonuses – which ignited a firestorm of public opinion – were a reward for those who went well beyond their typical duties during contentious Historic Gas Plant District redevelopment negotiations.
Welch anticipated some backlash and planned to notify the city council before the matter inevitably became public. He did not expect Chris Guella, human resources director, to advise incorrectly that the payouts were legal under Florida statutes.
“It’s important to recognize that Chris (Guella) has apologized and acknowledged that he’s made a mistake here,” Welch said. “We should have known that our existing policy, which dates back to 2005, I believe, was not in compliance with current state law.”
Welch also noted that he and City Administrator Rob Gerdes rely on subject-matter experts to help inform decisions. Welch asked Gerdes if he had the authority as mayor and the budget capacity to issue the payments – ranging from $10,000 to $25,000.
Welch said the answer to all three was “yes.” However, he noted that Guella should have told Gerdes that the bonuses violated state law.
An Aug. 21 email obtained by the Catalyst confirms those claims. Guella wrote Welch and Gerdes to accept “full responsibility” for all matters regarding employee compensation and apologized to them and “the recipients so negatively affected by this.”
“I should have consulted with the City Attorney’s office but failed to do so,” Guella said. “The City Attorney’s office had no involvement with the payments, nor did it have the opportunity to evaluate the process.”
State law allows bonuses if local governments meet four requirements: rewards must be performance-based; policies must describe standards and evaluation methods; all employees must receive notice before they complete their work; and everyone must be eligible. The city has not updated its policies since the latest legislative amendments.
In a July 25 email, Guella said the payments were for “exceptional work” in negotiating the Gas Plant’s $6.5 redevelopment deal with Tampa Bay Rays and Hines. It came after city council members approved the agreements and public subsidies but before Pinellas County Commissioners agreed to their ballpark contribution.
Recent public discourse regarding the bonuses was often vitriolic. Welch stressed that the recipients had no prior knowledge of the payments and were ultimately the victims of a “big mistake.”
“We’re an organization of 3,700 people, mistakes will be made,” Welch added. “The most important thing to me is that those 17 employees have done nothing but give their all to bring in the biggest project the city has ever seen.
“They worked day and night, holidays, through personal issues – through deaths in the family – and were here the next day working.”
Welch rescinded the payments Monday, Aug. 19, after Gerdes realized the legal discrepancies. He suspended Guella Tuesday.
Welch felt the “level of the mistake” warranted the five-day suspension. He also noted that “nobody’s perfect,” and Guella pledged to ensure policies and procedures align with all regulations in the future.
Welch said he discussed potential financial rewards with Chief of Staff Doyle Walsh in July. He instructed staff to issue the payments this month after the commission’s July 30 vote.
He also planned to notify the council but said the focus quickly shifted to Hurricane Debby and budget meetings. “We thought we still had time to communicate,” Welch added.
He “absolutely expected” backlash and “this to be public at some point.” Welch said Gerdes and Walsh did not request or anticipate their $25,000 bonus. “I put that in for those two people.”
Welch is unsure how many recipients returned the payments or if they spent the money. He said previous administrations issued bonuses before new laws took effect.
Welch could not provide details but said administrators are conducting a sweeping analysis of compensatory measures. When asked if he would continue offering bonuses that align with state regulations, Welch said, “We’ll take a good look at what our current policy is and what our history has been, and what the best path going forward is.”
City attorneys have advised that rescinding the bonuses shields the administration from potential legal penalties. Welch realizes anyone can file an ethics complaint “for any reason.”
He remains unconcerned if the matter will hurt his political standing or reelection chances. Welch believes most constituents realize what his administration has accomplished and pointed to the equitable aspects of the Gas Plant’s redevelopment, support for affordable housing and economic development efforts.
“We worry about doing the right thing, having an impact,” Welch added. “And that’s what we’ve done.”
Tim K
August 26, 2024at6:11 pm
I love this. Another smoke and mirrors show look over here while the bay fills up with sewage your house floods the traffic is insane but they don’t care they get their money 🤑
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
August 26, 2024at1:13 pm
There are issues in the Rays Deal that violate state laws. All that money paid to attorneys and major mistakes slipped through the cracks. We do not expect perfection, but that is too much money to be casual. On the deal for the townhouses in front of the Manhatten Casino, there is a $19,000 mistake that Taxpayers have to just suffer. Are you all moving too fast?? Are there enough folk checking the dotted ‘i’s and crossed ‘t’s????
Freddy Cuevas
August 26, 2024at9:24 am
Mayor Welch threw HR under the bus here. At a minimum, it shows that he doesn’t have control of his administration. He’s shown us since day one (His Press Secretary/Deputy Mayor debacle) that he cannot lead. Then this absolutely horrible deal with the Rays. Every day that passes with this administration, I’m left regretful that I voted for him. St Pete deserves better than this. Get ready for the gentrification that comes with the spoiled rays deal. It’s going to be massive.
Hugh Hazeltine
August 26, 2024at9:20 am
I have learned this from TBT reporter Jack Evans, he attended last Thursdays City Council Meeting.
The Mayor’s office considers each bonus a separate expenditure and therefore no individual bonus tripped the $75K requirement for Council approval. For instance, Rob Gerdes $25K bonus came from the Mayor’s office budget. Some individual bonuses were derived from multiple department budgets. The Mayor’s office said the person receiving that bonus either oversaw those departments or interacted with them.
Alan DeLisle
August 26, 2024at6:11 am
This was not the worst mistake made on this deal as bad as it is. The deal itself was far worse. More to come for sure, unfortunately.
Welch is clueless and the sold-out five will be remembered as the mistakes continue to trickle out. This is just another example of how the deal was mismanaged and manipulated. I am so sorry St Pete that such a great city has to endure this for 30 years while city leaders showed no courage.
Hugh Hazeltine
August 25, 2024at11:11 am
The Rays/Hines deal passed with a 5 to 3 vote. If one of the 5 had changed their vote then the measure would not have passed. Would this list of employees still have been candidates for a bonus if it had not passed?
City Council members consider city staff to be subject matter experts in helping them in understanding how they will vote. Is it possible our staff experts knew a bonus would come their way if they got a positive vote? Would this taint the recommendations they gave to city council?
Is it true that city council must approve any expenditure over $75,000? If so, where did this bonus money come from?
Finally, it is cruel to give these employees a bonus and then require them to return it. What if they used it to pay off a car loan, credit card debt, or home mortgage? Will they have to take out a loan to repay it? Will the city offer a repayment plan or payroll deduction?
Donna Kostreva
August 24, 2024at11:12 pm
Bravo SB! Anyone making $220-240k as a city administrator like Gerdes, for example,does not need a $25 K bonus for doing what they SHOULD be doing. Taxpayers are paying for these shenanigans. The “bonus funds” came out of whichever department the recipient worked in, leaving programs to help our city and citizens, underfunded. An increase in our water/ sewer bills and property taxes is to be discussed in early September.How else is taxpayer money being wasted? The city has a legal team to answer any questions. Why did no one ask? This matter needs to be thoroughly investigated by an outside state run group. Taxpayers are being cheated. What else has been going on that we do not know about? “Move along folks, we’re sorry, oops we made a mistake.”
Dean
August 24, 2024at7:15 pm
How many low ranking employees were there working their tails off supporting those high ranking bonus grabbing employees?
The unrewarded workers with harder times paying their bills and attending to deaths in the family, etc during this time?
Saying you’re sorry and blaming the HR guy is a total cop out that needs to be firmly addressed.
HAL FREEDMAN
August 24, 2024at3:37 pm
To say the City Attorney’s office should have been consulted is ridiculous! The City Attorney is one of the 17 employees getting a bonus. Why didn’t she say something a month ago, when the bonuses were initiated. Maybe she should be suspended for taking an illegal bonus.
HAL FREEDMAN
August 24, 2024at3:34 pm
These employees are salaried. If they were side-tracked from their regular duties to push through the Rays/Hines deal, someone had to pick up that slack. How much overtime was paid to hourly employees who did these 17 employees’ work, while they were working on the Rays/Hines deal.
LK Lopez
August 24, 2024at3:17 pm
This entire project has smelled bad since day one. And these bonuses only increase the stench. This is the most untrustworthy group of people to represent this city in a lifetime. I have lost all faith in the City Council and City leadership. Rewarding people who helped push this boondoggle through is insulting to those of us out here pushing the rock up the hill.
Karyn Mueller
August 24, 2024at1:14 pm
The issuance of bonuses to city employees violates multiple Municipal Codes and Florida State Statutes.
The Mayor is ultimately responsible, not the HR Director. The City Attorney should have gone on record opposing this before it happened or immediately after finding out since it is ILLEGAL.
To say that the city needs to update their policies to reflect the law is absurd.
This is a serious problem of rewarding those who helped screw St Pete taxpayers by forcing us to take on $686,000,000 in debt for Stu Sternberg without allowing for it go to referendum.
The City Council members who approved the horrible deal should be held accountable and not be allowed to hold public office.
Don’t let Ed and Gina fool you that they care about fiscal responsibility and taxpayers, they signed us up for 1000 times more in tax debt than the 1/4 million in bonuses.
We need better representation.
S
August 24, 2024at8:55 am
The obvious question remains… Maybe not so obvious… Has anyone else received financial rewards for the outcome of the stadium decision?
Probably worth it for somebody to check that out.
SB
August 24, 2024at8:34 am
In a nutshell, the person who came up with this horrendous idea is the originator of this problem. Even if it were legal to do this, which it isn’t for a variety of reasons and a variety of ways, it’s a horrendous suggestion to make.
The box stops with the mayor. Even though he claims that he received bad legal advice. Which is also his responsibility. If the bucks truly stops with him.
SB
August 24, 2024at8:28 am
Why Rewarding Bureaucrats for Success on Controversial Public Policy is a Terrible Idea — it’s not only just highly illegal
Imagine if, after a heated debate over a new city policy, the mayor decided to give big bonuses—$25,000 each—to the bureaucrats who helped make the policy happen. At first, it might seem like he’s just rewarding hard work, but this is actually a really bad idea, and here’s why:
1. It Undermines Fair Decision-Making:
– Conflicts of Interest: Let’s say there’s a controversial policy—maybe it’s something like building a new stadium that some people love, but others hate because it’s going to be really expensive. If bureaucrats know they’ll get a big bonus if the stadium gets approved, they might start pushing for it, even if it’s not the best decision for the city. Instead of making decisions based on what’s truly good for everyone, they might just be thinking about that extra money.
– Bias Toward Controversial Projects: When money is on the line, bureaucrats might start favoring big, controversial projects over other, maybe more important but less flashy issues. Imagine if they start focusing on things like the stadium because they might get paid extra, while important things like fixing roads or improving schools get pushed aside.
2. It Destroys Public Trust:
– Looks Like Corruption: Even if the bonuses are technically legal, they look really bad. It’s like if a referee in a sports game was given a big tip right after making a call that helped one team win. People would start to wonder if the game was rigged. The same thing happens here—when the public sees bureaucrats getting big bonuses right after a controversial decision, they might start to think that money, not the public good, is driving these decisions.
– Suspicion of Motives: If bureaucrats are getting paid extra for pushing through a contentious policy, people will start questioning their true motives. Are they really doing what’s best for the community, or are they just trying to get that bonus? This kind of suspicion can make it hard for the government to function, as people lose faith in the officials who are supposed to be working for them.
3. It Encourages Risky and Unpopular Decisions:
– Aggressive Tactics: Think about how you might act if your paycheck depended on getting something done, no matter what. You might cut corners, skip important steps, or ignore the rules to make sure it happens. That’s what could happen here—bureaucrats might become too aggressive in pushing controversial policies, ignoring public input or rushing decisions without fully understanding the consequences.
– Ignoring Public Opinion: When there’s a big bonus on the line, bureaucrats might ignore what the public actually wants. For example, if most people in the city are against the new stadium, but the bureaucrats know they’ll get paid extra if it goes through, they might stop listening to the community and just focus on making sure the stadium gets built.
4. It Sets a Dangerous Precedent:
– Pay-for-Play Culture: If this kind of bonus-giving becomes normal, it could lead to a situation where bureaucrats only work hard on policies that come with financial rewards. This “pay-for-play” mentality can make the government less effective because officials might start picking and choosing projects based on what benefits them personally, rather than what’s best for the community.
– Long-Term Consequences: Over time, this could lead to a government where tough decisions only get made if there’s something in it for the people making them. This could mean that important but difficult issues get ignored because they don’t come with a bonus. It also means that public officials might become more interested in their own financial gain than in doing what’s right for the people they serve.
Conclusion:
In the end, giving bonuses to bureaucrats for successfully pushing through controversial policies is a bad idea. It creates conflicts of interest, damages public trust, encourages risky decisions, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Decisions about public policy should be made based on what’s best for the community, not on how much money someone might get for making it happen. When officials start thinking about their wallets instead of the people they serve, everyone loses.
You’ve got to wonder about anyone who would even suggest doing this. And question their judgment and intelligence