BOCA RATON

643 S.W. 4 T H A V E N U E FORT LAUDERDALE

S U I T E 110
FORT MYERS
G A I N E S V I L L E , F L O R I D A 32601
GAINESVILLE
TEL 3 5 2 -376-6400
F A X 3 5 2 -376-6484
JACKSONVILLE
gray-robinson.com KEY WEST
LAKELAND
Stephanie M. Marchman
MELBOURNE
Attorney at Law
MIAMI
352-376-6400 NAPLES
STEPHANIE.MARCHMAN@GRAY-ROBINSON.COM ORLANDO
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
To: Rob Perry, City Administrator, WEST PALM BEACH
City of Bradenton, Florida (“City”)

From: Stephanie M. Marchman, GrayRobinson, P.A.

Date: July 27, 2022

Re: Final Investigative Report

On April 13, 2022, a City employee (“Complainant”)1 submitted a formal complaint alleging a
hostile work environment created by City Council Member Bill Sanders (“Hostile Work
Environment Complaint”). Shortly thereafter, on April 18, 2022, Conflict Counsel for the City of
Bradenton (“Conflict Counsel”)2 notified the City Administrator of her withdrawal from legal
representation of the City and reported that the only reason for her withdrawal was due to certain
demands and threats made by Council Member Sanders (“Conflict Complaint”). Finally, on April
21, 2022, the City Administrator brought the Hostile Work Environment Complaint and Conflict
Complaint to the attention of the City Council and City Attorney as well as other concerns about
Council Member Sanders’ conduct (“Administrator Complaint”). Because the allegations concern
a City Council Member and complainants and witnesses at the highest levels of City government,
the three complaints were assigned to me for an impartial investigation. Accordingly, this
investigative report documents my review, investigation, and findings related to the Hostile Work
Environment Complaint, Conflict Complaint, and Administrator Complaint (collectively referred
to herein as “Complaints”).

Allegations in the Complaints

In the Hostile Work Environment Complaint, the Complainant, who is an almost 25-year City
employee in the position of Local Business Tax Clerk and Records Management Liaison Officer
reporting to the City Administrator, alleged that Council Member Sanders’ “continued behavior
has created nothing short of a hostile work environment.” In support thereof, he stated the
following:

1 Given that this report will be a public record and may be discussed at a public meeting, I have elected not to use
the name of the Complainant herein. Indeed, throughout this report, I have attempted not to identify which
witnesses made which statements due to the concern that Council Member Sanders may retaliate against them. At
the request of the City Council, City Administrator, or City Attorney, I will provide the identity of these witnesses.
2 Like the Complainant, I have elected not to use the name of Conflict Counsel herein.

1
 Mr. Sanders behavior is not only rude, unprofessional and inappropriate in
language and attitude, he is willfully hateful, insulting, hostile and mean. He
repeatedly makes false and inflammatory statements about anyone he chooses.
Mr. Sanders regularly makes unwarranted, unsupported and unfounded
accusations of corruption and even violation of laws and accuses incompetence
while never accepting accurate insight presented by others and has no issue with
(and even appears to enjoy) trying to use his position to threaten and intimidate
staff on a regular basis escalating this behavior with each new encounter even
adding physical displays such as raising his voice and shaking his finger.

Mr. Sanders behavior has had an impact on the efficient and effect performance
of day to day operations and performance of duties and has made City Hall a
miserable place to come to each day as one is constantly "looking over their
shoulder" wondering when Mr. Sanders will attack again. Interactions with Mr.
Sanders have so interrupted some days work flow that it has been necessary to
stay several hours after the end of multiple work days in order complete daily
duties.

In addition, these repeated experiences with Mr. Sanders have even had a negative
impact on my home and personal life.

Again, I intend no ill will or malice toward anyone however, any and every
employee has the right to and should expect a workplace free of harassment,
intimidation and offensive and abusive behavior. Mr. Sanders repeatedly,
knowingly and willfully engages in behavior that violates those rights and appears
to have no problem with continuing this behavior.

In the Conflict Complaint, Conflict Counsel cited the sole reason for her withdrawal from legal
representation of the City as Council Member Sanders. Specifically, she stated:

The only reason for my withdrawal is that Council Member Sanders has
repeatedly requested that I become involved in the sale of city hall matter which
I understand is being handled by a different conflict attorney and has asked that
I attend meetings of the City Council on that subject. When I informed him that
I couldn't become involved in that matter on the request of just one City Council
member, he stated that he would file an ethics complaint against me as well as
against others if I did not comply with his request.

In the Administrator Complaint, the City Administrator brought the two complaints detailed
above to the attention of the City Council and City Attorney as well as raised Council Member
Sanders’ “unmeritorious allegations, concerns and accusations” against the City. Further, the City
Administrator stated:

I’ve reached the inescapable conclusion that the Councilor’s conduct must be
examined by his peers and the public. I believe this evidence will indicate a pattern
of unstable, undermining, self-serving, and unprofessional conduct. I have no
option but to bring these matters to your attention for more formal consideration.
Page 2 of 11
In doing so, he provided documents related to the City’s adoption of a Code of Conduct for Elected
Officials.

Summary of Investigation Records and Interviews

As part of this investigation, the following written documentation has been considered:

1. Complaints
2. City Charter
3. Resolution Number 21-02, City Code of Conduct for Elected Officials
4. Resolution Number 21-63, City Social Media Policy & Procedures
5. City Council Meeting Videos and Minutes from the February 10, 2021 (regarding Code of
Conduct for Elected Officials only), May 25, 2022, and June 22, 2022 meetings
6. City Employee Handbook
7. City Records Policy, Procedure & Forms
8. City Organizational Chart
9. List of Complainant’s Job Tasks
10. Mark Young, Here’s why a Bradenton city council member was told to leave seafood
festival in Palmetto, Bradenton Herald, April 8, 2019
11. Mark Young, Video captures scuffle between council member and volunteer at seafood
festival, Bradenton Herald, April 9, 2019
12. February 10, 2020 Memorandum from Reserve Officer Affolter to Chief Bevan regarding
“Councilman Bill Sanders”
13. Email dated March 5, 2020 from City staff member regarding “trying to manage 4”
14. Email dated May 12, 2021 to Mayor and City Council from City Attorney regarding City
Council Member Directives to Staff
15. Emails dated March 11, 2022 and March 14, 2022 with Council Member Sanders regarding
“Meeting with Mr. Perry” and “Your ‘I want’ List”
16. March 11, 2022 letter from the Hernando DeSoto Historical Society regarding Council
Member Sanders’ participation in the DeSoto Heritage Parade
17. March 11, 2022, March 21, 2022, March 24, 2022, March 25, 2022, March 28, 2022, April
2, 2022, and April 4, 2022 public records requests from Council Member Sanders and
related documents including April 1, 2022 email from Council Member Sanders stating
“Please bill to the City of Bradenton” and April 4, 2022 email from Council Member
Sanders stating “You can charge it through Scott Rudacille”
18. March 25, 2022 and April 7, 2022 City employee statements regarding deliveries for
Council Member Sanders’ mailbox
19. March 31, 2022 Memorandum regarding “Request received for more duties”
20. April 12, 2022 Memorandum regarding “Request from Councilman Sanders”
21. Various emails dated April 2022 with Council Member Sanders regarding “Conflict
Attorney”
22. Ryan Callahan, Three people accuse Bradenton city councilman of creating a hostile work
environment, Bradenton Herald, May 16, 2022
23. May 20, 2022 email from Council Member Sanders regarding “FAKE NEWS”
24. Episode 47: Councilman Bill Sanders, The Bradenton Times Podcast, May 20, 2022
25. June 17, 2022 emails between myself and City Council Member Sanders regarding his
interview
Page 3 of 11
 26. June 21, 2022 emails with Council Member Sanders regarding Code of Conduct and related
records
27. Numerous additional communications from Council Member Sanders in 2022 submitted
by City staff
28. Various written notes and statements from City staff members
29. Various photos, Facebook posts, and texts from Council Member Sanders submitted by
City staff
30. https://killinitlifestyle.com/ (last visited July 26, 2022)

As part of this investigation, the following individuals were interviewed (listed in order of when
interviews were conducted):

1. Amanda Lyons, Part-time Receptionist

2. Conflict Counsel
3. Sharon Beauchamp, Retired City Clerk and Treasurer
4. Kelly Thomas, Legislative Aid to the Mayor, Events Coordinator
5. Nilsa Taylor, Director of Administrative Services
6. Scott Rudacille, City Attorney
7. Tom Kelley, Finance Director
8. Tamara Melton, City Clerk
9. Robin Singer, Planning and Community Redevelopment Director
10. Gene Brown, Mayor
11. Rob Perry, City Administrator
12. Jeannie Roberts, Communications Coordinator
13. Jayne Kocher, Council Member, Ward One
14. Bill Ackles, Business Tax Clerk and Records Management Liaison Officer
15. Linda Guth, Senior Accountant
16. Carl Callahan, Retired City Administrator
17. Marianne Barnebey, Council Member, Ward Two
18. Corey Fortin, Policy, Planning and Procedure Administrator
19. Tim Parks, Housing and Community Redevelopment Manager
20. Shelley DeZiel, Executive Assistant to City Administrator
21. Melanie Bevan, Chief of Police
22. Tim Geer, Fire Chief
23. Jim McLellan, Public Works Director
24. Ashley Belzer, Former Executive Assistant to City Administrator
25. Pam Coachman, Council Member, Ward Five, Vice Mayor
26. Wayne Poston, Former Mayor
27. Bill Lisch, Retired City Attorney
28. Patrick Roff, Council Member, Ward Three
29. Rob Perry, City Administrator

Council Member Sanders was not interviewed in this investigation because of the unreasonable
conditions he insisted upon with respect to such an interview. Specifically, at first, he requested:

[A]ny conversation on this matter be recorded with a witness of my choice, your

one representative, and no one else. There is a law firm across from our courthouse
Page 4 of 11
 that all attorneys use for depositions. They provide the room, recording all in
house and are very reasonable in cost. Obviously, you shall bear this cost as we
can schedule at our convenience.

I declined to meet with Council Member Sanders under these conditions. I informed Council
Member Sanders that this is an informal internal investigation. As such, I relayed to him that I
was not taking sworn, recorded testimony, nor was I compelling the testimony of any witnesses. I
further relayed to him that he was welcome to bring a representative or witness to his interview
and that I would be accompanied by one of my colleagues as well. I also offered for us to meet at
the City Attorney’s conference room or GrayRobinson’s conference room. In response, Council
Member Sanders stated in relevant part:

We can meet after an (agreed time): at my office in City Hall or my Home or my

original and best suggestion. The meeting is to be recorded. And I see no need
for multiple people to attend other than as a witness. My witness is there for no
questioning or comment just as observation and that only comments that are
recorded will be reported. Sorry, this has to be done this way.

In response, I agreed to meet with Council Member Sanders at City Hall; however, I again
informed him that this was an informal internal investigation. Accordingly, I would not record the
interview, nor did he have my permission to record it. I also reminded him he was welcome to
bring a representative or witness to the meeting with me and I would be accompanied by one of
my colleagues as well.

In response, Council Member Sanders offered to allow me to provide him written information I
would like to discuss and still questioned why the interview could not be recorded. Again I
reiterated I would be happy to interview him under the conditions I previously described. In
response, Council Member Sanders’ last word on his interview was as follows:

For the record, I want input but not conditional and will take this as a denial by
you. I insist on my right to defend myself against any allegation and to condition
my response is violating my rights to address with record thereof. To speak to any
allegation is my civil right and will consider this as such. Any report without my
input should not be considered.

I informed Council Members I would move forward without his input unless I heard otherwise
from him. To date, I have not been contacted by Council Member Sanders. Despite not being
able to meet with Council Member Sanders under reasonable conditions (with one of my
colleagues present and no recording given the informal, sensitive nature of this investigation), I
have observed his conduct through various video and audio recordings (cited above). I should also
note that two other witnesses declined to be interviewed in this investigation. All other witnesses
voluntarily participated in this investigation, as I have no authority to compel witnesses to
participate.

Background
The City of Bradenton is located along the Gulf Coast and takes pride in being Florida’s “Friendly
City.” The City employs approximately 600 employees who provide a range of municipal
Page 5 of 11
services, including police, fire, public works, utilities, and planning and development services.
The City Council is made up of five members, each of whom represents a ward within the City,
and the Mayor. The City Attorney, City Administrator, and Directors are appointed by the City
Council and the Police Chief is appointed by the Mayor. The City Council meets regularly on the
second and fourth Wednesday of the month, with the Mayor chairing each meeting. City Council
Members and the Mayor have offices located on the second floor of City Hall, as does the City
Administrator.

Council Member Sanders was elected to his first term on the City Council in 2018 and represents
Ward 4. The City Administrator, Rob Perry, was appointed by the City Council in July 2021,
following Carl Callahan’s retirement as City Administrator after 25 years of service to the City.
Scott Rudacille, a Principal with the law firm Blalock Walters, has served as the City Attorney
since the March 2019 retirement of Bill Lisch, who served as City Attorney for 43 years. The City
Clerk is Tamara Melton, following Sharon Beauchamp’s retirement in July 2021 after her 27 years
of service to the City.

Factual Findings
Based upon the documentary evidence and investigative interviews in this case, I find that
allegations in the Complaints are substantiated in toto. I also make the following findings:

1. The City employees interviewed in this case as well as documentary evidence

demonstrated that they are credible, proficient in their job duties, courageous, nonpolitical
at work, and committed to serving the citizens of the City of Bradenton. Despite this,
Council Member Sanders has repeatedly yelled at them, claiming they are “liars”, “crooks”,
“corrupt” and incompetent in carrying out their City duties when there is no evidence of
such.3 As he does so, he often gets in their personal space, points at them, and physically
blocks the exit of the employee’s office. He has also repeatedly threatened City employees,
telling them “I’ll have your job”, “somebody is getting fired”, or “I don’t want you here.”
Council Member Sanders told one City employee “people here hate you”, and another,
“I’m sick of you.” Council Member Sanders raises baseless claims against City employees
at public meetings, causing them public embarrassment. City employees consistently
reported that no one has ever mistreated them in the manner Council Member Sanders has.
2. In one instance, on June 6, 2019, Council Member Sanders became so angry with a City
employee because of the City Council’s decision not to fill an Administrative Assistant
position and his perception that the City employee was to blame for the City Council’s
decision, he came across the desk in anger to grab her and she had to move out of the way
to prevent him from doing so.4
3. As a result of a physical altercation, Council Member Sanders was asked to leave the VIP
area of a Hernando DeSoto Historical Society event by two volunteers. When those
attempts failed, the members called the police to have him removed. As a result, the

3 One City employee reported that Council Member Sanders privately apologized to her after the Complaints were
filed – he said he “had nothing personal against [her] or anyone at city hall.” Council Member Sanders further told
her “it was just politics.”
4 The City employee verbally reported this incident to several individuals and her belief was nothing could be done

about the incident because Council Member Sanders is an elected official and he did not actually hit her. Other
witnesses stated they encouraged her to file a formal complaint and that had she filed a formal complaint, an
investigation may have been conducted sooner than this investigation.
Page 6 of 11
 Historical Society did not permit Council Member Sanders to participate in the DeSoto
Heritage Parade unless he made a public apology. Apparently upset about not being able
to participate in this parade, Council Member Sanders baselessly accused a City employee
of forging a letter from the Hernando DeSoto Historical Society regarding his parade
participation, claiming that she conspired with the Historical Society to keep him out of
the DeSoto Heritage Parade. He also repeatedly made public records requests of the
employee’s emails “because he knew she was lying and he was going to prove it.”
4. In terms of public records requests, Council Member Sanders has accused employees of
hiding and deleting records, despite no evidence of such. When making these accusations,
he yells, points, and gets in the employees’ personal space. He repeatedly asks for
information City employees have already provided to him and denies they ever provided
it. Further, he has complained about being charged for receiving records in response to his
to the public records requests regarding his own personal concerns (such as emails related
to the parade issue, described above). These charges are entirely appropriate under City
policy and state law. However, when asked by a City employee to pay the charges due to
the personal nature of the requests, Council Member Sanders responded “Please bill to the
City of Bradenton” and “You can charge it through [City Attorney] Scott Rudacille as this
will be much less expensive than to Deny the request.”
5. Council Member Sanders shouted at a City employee for sending a media link about City
news to the Council Members and Department Heads, which is part of her job to keep City
leaders informed of what is in the news. He did so after he requested the employee to
“distribute all news media regarding our city please.” Specifically, Council Member
Sanders claimed a May 19, 2022 story form the Sarasota Herald-Tribune regarding a City
employee’s claim that Council Member Sanders created a hostile work environment was
“not true, very one-sided, and ‘fake news’” as well as claimed that she defamed him. He
told the employee her salary “was a waste of taxpayer money because [she] participated in
‘defaming’ him and refused to put a political podcast of his on [the City’s] Facebook page.”
Council Member Sanders also repeatedly requested this employee to add or remove official
City of Bradenton social media posts based on personal or political motivations. For
example, Council Member Sanders requested that the City employee post a photo of him
standing in front of a monster truck with his arm raised toward a “Killin it Life Style” logo
painted across the doors of the truck. According to https://killinitlifestyle.com/, “Killin It
. . . is more th[a]n just stickers, apparel, a state of mind, or an idea. It’s being a live wire
and ramping everything you do up to the next level. It’s Killin It!” In terms of stickers,
“Killin It” sells, among others, “Pole Dancer Fishing” decals.
6. Council Member Sanders yelled at and attempted to bully Conflict Counsel on April 18,
2022. He did so by seeking her involvement in the sale of City Hall despite the fact that
the City had other counsel engaged for this project and he lacked the authority as a single
Council Member to engage legal counsel on behalf of the City. When Conflict Council
justifiably refused to get involved, Council Member Sanders yelled at her and threatened
to file an ethics complaint against her and those at her firm. She refused to tolerate this
treatment and withdrew from legal representation of the City as a result.
7. Council Member Sanders requested City employees to complete work for him after being
directed repeatedly to submit such requests to the City Administrator, Department
Directors, or City Attorney. For example, he requested the Receptionist to do work for
him when her job duties do not include supporting Council Members or the Mayor. He
also requested a copy of a surveillance video of the hallway outside Council Member
Page 7 of 11
 offices from IT staff in an attempt to find out who put the Hernando DeSoto Historical
Society letter in his box.
8. Council Member Sanders told a City employee it was her job to get him re-elected, even
though City employees cannot be involved in City elections while on duty. When she told
him of this restriction, he laughed and said it was still her job. Council Member Sanders
told another City employee, “I want your support for the election”, and reminded the same
City employee of City equipment he “got [him]” while he was in office.
9. Due to Council Member Sanders’ behavior, City employees working in City Hall are
scared to come to work each day because they fear Council Member Sanders will finally
“go postal” and physically harm one of them. They consistently reported that they employ
a “buddy system” and changed their work hours to be sure no one is alone with Council
Member Sanders. They use a hand signal – putting up four fingers – to let each other know
that Council Member Sanders (who represents Ward Four) is in City Hall. The City
installed surveillance cameras which the City employees use to surveil Council Member
Sanders’ whereabouts in the building to avoid interacting with him. Despite this, at least
two City employees have left the employment of the City due to Council Members
Sanders’ mistreatment, one refuses to work with him, and others have considered resigning
because of Council Member Sanders’ treatment of them.
10. Due to Council Member Sanders’ behavior (yelling, pointing, physically coming over the
table at a City employee as if he was going grab her, physically blocking the exit of
employees’ offices when he is berating them), several City employees became emotional
during the course of investigative interviews, with two reporting they are on medications
address conditions they suffer due to Council Member Sanders’ treatment of them, and one
reporting she cannot sleep at night and has nightmares about Council Member Sanders
physically assaulting her and spitting in her face.
11. There is a belief by a number of witnesses that Council Member Sanders is harsher in his
treatment of female City employees, while others described him as an “equal opportunity
bully.” There is no evidence that Council Member Sanders made any inappropriate
comments based on gender or any other protected characteristic. There is also evidence
that Council Member Sanders has yelled at and physically intimidated both male and
female employees.

Legal Findings
My legal analysis is by no means exhaustive, as the behavior engaged in by Council Member
Sanders implicates a host of laws and causes of action, akin to a law school exam. In the interest
of time and brevity, the legal findings herein address what I believe to be the primary federal, state,
and local laws and policies implicated by the allegations in the Complaints and factual findings
described above.

Title VII
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recently summarized the law with respect to hostile
work environment claims as follows:

Substantive hostile work environment claims still require plaintiffs to show that
“the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,
that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s
employment and create an abusive working environment.” Miller v. Kenworth of
Page 8 of 11
 Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th. Cir. 2002) (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at
21, 114 S. Ct. at 370). That intimidation, ridicule, and insult must also bear
“the necessary sexual or other gender-related connotations to be actionable
sex discrimination.” Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1247 (11th Cir.
1999) (en banc). . .

To be sufficiently “severe or pervasive,” the employer's actions “must result in both

an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and an
environment that the victim subjectively perceive[s] ... to be abusive.” Miller, 277
F.3d at 1276 (quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating the objective severity of
the harassment,” we look to the totality of the circumstances, including: “(1) the
frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct
is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4)
whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance.”
Id.

The standards for judging hostility are intended to be “sufficiently demanding to

ensure that Title VII does not become a ‘general civility code.’ ” Faragher v. Cty.
of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 2283, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).
“Properly applied, they will filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations
of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related
jokes, and occasional teasing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[M]ere
utterance of an . . . epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee
does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII.”
Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S. Ct. at 370 (quotation marks omitted) (citation
omitted).

In addition to establishing that the employer’s actions were sufficiently “severe

or pervasive,” a plaintiff must show that the actions were based on her sex
rather than some other unprotected characteristic. Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1245;
see also Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S. Ct. at 370. We have noted that “Title VII
does not prohibit profanity alone, however profane . . . [nor] harassment alone,
however severe and pervasive. Instead, Title VII prohibits discrimination,
including harassment that discriminates based on a protected category such as sex.”
Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 480 F.3d 1287, 1301–02 (11th Cir.
2007).

Tonkyro v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affs., 995 F.3d 828, 836–37 (11th Cir. 2021) (emphasis
added).

Based on the foregoing standard, it is unsubstantiated that Council Member Sanders created
a “hostile work environment” based on sex as defined and applied by the courts under Title
VII. There was no evidence that Council Member Sanders made any gender-related comments to
various members of City staff or elected officials. While there was a belief by some witnesses that
his treatment of them or other women was due to their gender and many of the City employees
mistreated are women, there is also evidence that Council Member Sanders similarly mistreated

Page 9 of 11
men. Accordingly, the conduct described herein has not been proven to be based on sex. Rather,
it may be based on other unprotected characteristics and motivations.

Resolution Number 21-02, City Code of Conduct for Elected Officials

The Administrator Complaint raises concerns that Council Member Sanders’ behavior violates the
City’s Code of Conduct for Elected Officials (“Local Code”), adopted by Resolution Number 21-
02 of the City Council on February 10, 2021, which establishes rules applicable to the City’s
elected officials affective the date of adoption. The Local Code provides that it is:

designed to suggest the manner in which elected officials should treat one another,
city staff, constituents, and others they may come into contact with while
representing the City of Bradenton. It reflects the ideals of the Mayor and City
Council, defining more clearly the behavior, manners, and courtesies that are
suitable for various occasions. . . The consistent theme through these guidelines
involves ‘dignity’ and ‘respect.’ Elected officials experience stress in making
decisions that impact the lives of the citizens. At time, the impacts to entire
community must be weighed against the impact to only a few. Despite these
pressures, elected officials are called upon to exhibit appropriate behavior at all
times. Demonstrating respect for everyone through the words and actions is the
touchstone that can help guide elected officials to do the right thing even in the
most difficult situations.

In terms of specific expectations of City Council Members at public meetings, the Local Code
provides City Council Members will “[p]ractice civility, professionalism and decorum in
discussions and debate” at public meetings, “leading by example.” It further provides that while
“difficult questions”, “challenges to a particular point of view”, and “criticism of ideas and
information are legitimate elements of free democracy”, these concepts “do not sanction
belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments.”

With respect to City Council Members’ conduct with City employees, the Local Code provides
for City Council Members to “[t]reat all staff as professionals” and expects “[c]lear, honest
communication that respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each individual. Poor
behavior toward staff is not acceptable.” It further provides for “limited contact” with City
employees, and states that “[q]uestions of city staff and/or requests for additional information
should be directed to the City Administrator, City Attorney, or individual department heads.” The
Local Code states that “requests for additional staff support should be made to the City
Administrator who is responsible for allocating city resources in order to maintain a professional,
well-run city government.” Finally, of relevance, the Local Code provides that “[e]lected official
should not solicit any type of political support . . . from city staff.”

It is substantiated that Council Member Sanders violated the Local Code based on the
factual findings provided above. Undeniably, Council Member Sanders’ behavior found herein
is a far cry from the dignity and respect expected of him by the Local Code (and by himself, as he
voted to adopt the Local Code). He has also clearly violated the Local Code’s “limited contact”
provision by repeatedly requesting City employees for information or support despite being
directed to contact the City Administrator, City Attorney, or individual department heads with

Page 10 of 11
such requests. He has also solicited political support from City employees while they were on
duty in violation of the Local Code.

Not only did Council Member Sanders violate the City’s Code of Conduct for Elected
Officials, he may have also violated the Florida Code of Ethics. Florida Statute Section
112.313(6) provides the following:

MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.—No public officer, employee of an agency, or

local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official
position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform
his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for
himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s.
104.31.

A review of decisions and opinions of the Florida Commission on Ethics suggests that Council
Member Sanders requesting City employees to charge the costs of his personal public records
requests to the City, post his political podcast and personal photos on the official City of Bradenton
Facebook page, and support his reelection campaign amount to attempts to use his official position
to secure a special privilege or benefit in violation Florida Statute 112.313(6).

City Employee Handbook, 9.8 Workplace Violence

Section 9.8 of the City’s Employee Handbook provides that the City “will not tolerate violence,
threats of violence, harassment, intimidation, coercing, provoking/involvement in a fight, the use
of abusive language and other disruptive behavior by or directed toward employees, supervisor
or any other person at any time on City of Bradenton property.” (emphasis added). It further
provides for disciplinary action, including dismissal, for employees who violate this policy.

It is substantiated that Council Member Sanders violated Section 9.8 of the City’s Employee
Handbook because he was a person on City property who harassed, intimidated, used
abusive language and was disruptive, based on the factual findings provided above. While
he is not a City employee subject to dismissal, if he were a City employee, there is no doubt his
employment would be terminated for his egregious, repeated violations of this policy.
Furthermore, under the City Employee Handbook, City employees have a right to be free from
workplace violence by any person on City property, which includes elected officials. As such, it
is recommended the City takes any recourse it can to protect City employees from any future
workplace violence perpetuated by Council Member Sanders.

Conclusion
A key tenant of the rule of law is that laws are equally enforced, even against elected officials.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the City take any action it deems appropriate to hold Council
Member Sanders accountable based on the findings herein and protect City employees from his
intimidating, abusive, and threatening behavior as well as his direct requests for City staff support,
political or otherwise.

Page 11 of 11