Palm Beach County's next administrator has big shoes to fill
The Verdenia Baker era is over, and Palm Beach County officials must choose a new county administrator. It's an important job, almost akin to running a Fortune 100 company. The key word here is "almost" as Palm Beach County is so much more than a private enterprise, and its government deserves an administrator with a proven track record.
Palm Beach County is Florida's fourth-largest. The county is home to more than 1.5 million and growing. Its 39 municipalities are varied and diverse, ranging from an island enclave of billionaires to more underprivileged rural and working-class communities. It is one of the nation's wealthiest counties, but at the same time, it struggles with ever-increasing cost of living, particularly in housing and rentals. Traffic combined with over-development is also a concern.
Its county government runs on a $9 billion budget and is one of the few counties in the nation with an AAA credit rating. Still, the county must balance a lot in meeting the demands from a variety of constituents — from residents and small business owners, to corporate interests and developers, to state and municipal governments. To put it bluntly, the next county administrator has some very big shoes to fill and had better have the credentials and experience to fit them.
County commissioners who have the final say in picking a new administrator initially passed on conducting a national search, a procedure that would assure the best available and experienced candidates. Instead, they opted to advertise the job, winnow the 200 applicants down to six finalists through the county's Human Resources office and a task force of volunteers selected by commissioners. The commission will interview them and make a final selection later in June.
Editorial: Florida's new parks law is just a start in protecting our state's environment
Under normal circumstances, the county's approach in choosing Baker's successor might be appropriate. But, for anyone who's been paying attention, these aren't exactly normal times. In Tallahassee, state lawmakers aren't yet close to an agreement that will guarantee the state has a new budget. The ongoing grudge match between Gov. Ron DeSantis and House Speaker Daniel Perez offers little reassurance that the county will come out whole in the process.
It's not much better in Washington, where House Republicans passed President Trump's big beautiful bill that contains major cuts in key programs that many Palm Beach County residents have come to depend on — Medicaid services, food stamps and Medicare. Add to that the ongoing chaos of executive orders and DOGE pursuits that have hollowed out several federal government services and eliminated important grants that have helped Palm Beach County.
Editorial: Boynton Beach moves closer to creating its very own downtown
Closer to home, there's talk within the business community that Palm Beach County will "open up" after Baker leaves county government. In a contentious lawsuit against the county over what it should pay the county for six acres of land in West Palm Beach, the backers of Transit Village, the Miami-based BH Group, noted in a court filing that Baker's retirement could lead to a settlement. Growth and economic development remain important. However, the next county administrator shouldn't simply be a doormat for developers. There's a larger interest to be served, and it is the regard for the public that must be the priority. Any candidate failing to grasp that isn't qualified to hold the job.
Neither Baker nor her predecessor, former county administrator Bob Weisman, had a problem with keeping the county's concerns in the forefront of the many decisions they made, whether it was formulating a county budget, creating a workforce housing program or successfully getting voters to approve bond referenda for needed road improvements, school services or housing programs. That priority was shaped by years of county government service.
It's a high benchmark for any of the six finalists. Hopefully, it will be readily apparent in Baker's replacement.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Palm Beach County's administrator search marks new era | Editorial
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Florida Republican foresees Trump-Musk reconciliation
Rep. Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.) said President Trump and Elon Musk's feud wouldn't last for long, noting that the Republican Party and the president's allies are all a part of 'one big family.' Musk in recent days has criticized the president's budget bill over its effects on the national debt, which the tech billionaire says 'undermines' the work he completed at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The fight reached a fever pitch this week, with the two exchanging harsh words on social media. But as the spat continues, Patronis said he believes the two will soon reconcile. 'I don't know how many times I've seen Donald Trump throw [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [(R-S.C.)] out by the side of the street and say the guy's crazy. But then you know what? The next week they're playing golf together. This is no different,' Patronis said during a Friday appearance on NewsNation's 'The Hill,' referencing the president's sometimes fraught relationship with the South Carolina lawmaker. 'Trump knows that sometimes you're going to have falling out with those that you trust, you like, that you're friends with. It happens with us in D.C. all the time. So again. Mark my words. About a month from now, these guys will be hanging around again,' he added. The Florida lawmaker also poured cold water on Musk's recent proposal to launch a third party to challenge. 'Elon Musk is not gonna create a new new political party,' he told NewsNation. On Friday, Musk floated 'The America Party' as a potential new political faction after posting a poll for his followers to weigh in on the social media platform X the day prior. 'I appreciate what Elon Musk has done with DOGE. He's brought things to light that we're going to act upon in Congress. But the end of the day, the only friends I look at making in Washington DC [are] probably my wife and my kids,' Patronis said. 'The friends I care about are the ones in Congressional District 1 … and they elected Donald Trump,' he added. 'They did not elect Elon Musk.'
Fox Sports
32 minutes ago
- Fox Sports
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know
Associated Press The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. A look at key numbers associated with the case: 389,700 Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments 101,935 Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. 357 Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. $2.8 billion Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. 95% Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in the power conferences. $20.5 million The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. 153 NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. $600 All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. $20 billion The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. $10 billion The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. $475 million Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorneys are claiming. ___ AP college sports: in this topic
37 minutes ago
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. 'Approving the agreement reached by the NCAA, the defendant conferences and student-athletes in the settlement opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote. Her decision, however, took nearly a month to write, leaving the schools and conferences in limbo — unsure if the plans they'd been making for months, really years, would go into play. 'It remains to be seen how this will impact the future of inter-collegiate athletics — but as we continue to evolve, Carolina remains committed to providing outstanding experiences and broad-based programming to student-athletes,' North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
