Strange Assumptions of Some CSAC Committee Members.
People let their guard down when they think the public is not watching.
On May 29th, the CSAC Grant Subcommittee finalized their funding recommendations. The Sunshine Journal covered it here. Today at 3:00 PM, the Main Committee of CSAC is deciding on final funding recommendations to be submitted to the County Commission tomorrow morning. At stake is $3.2 million of taxpayer dollars. If the rhetoric of previous meetings and public hearings is any indication of it being done with purpose, then guess again.
Members will be making grand oratories to their peers of how they should spend “our money,” as one member declared. “That’s our millage that we literally stood and held signs for out in that circle,” said Grant Subcommittee member, Caryn Toole. She wanted to make sure that the committee was granting every dollar the commission allocated for fiscal year, 2025-26. Last year, CSAC did not allocate around $128,000, which Toole claimed wasn’t returned to the taxpayer but to the General Fund. Before the discussion of funding programs, Toole said, “I feel strongly that, as we enter into this piece, these are our dollars. And if we start chipping away at them and not giving them, then someone is going to say, ‘You didn’t even need all of that $350,000 that you got this year, because clearly, you didn’t allocate it.’ The taxpayer is not getting a check. They are not getting a reimbursement. It goes back to the General Fund.”
From the General Fund, the constitutional officers’ budgets are supplied as well as county operations. The citizens of the county have agreed to live under the system of elected representation. Whether that money is spent on Fire and Rescue, the Sheriff’s Office, or wherever else it may be needed, it is never the money of a single committee. Even if CSAC recommends $3.2 million be divided up among the 52 programs, the commissioners can choose not to fund any one of them. The dollars belong to the people those commissioners represent.
Programs have been cut by the commission on a vote. Yet, that tool of the commission hasn’t slowed CSAC’s growth. Since 2015, when CSAC’s budget was a mere $623,890, the allocation has grown over 558% to the FY 2025-26 proposed budget of $3,479,492. Over $1.4 million in growth since FY 2022-23, when CSAC surpassed $2 million. The committee membership has grown too. It is filled with employees of various non-profits that are at the government trough applying for funding. The nonprofit career employees on the grant subcommittee would often be heard recusing themselves by declaring “conflict” to the room when their organization’s program was being discussed. However, they never left the room while their organization was being critiqued. All of them received a measure of funding.
Not that it always mattered when it came to the various non-profits. Community Services Director, Cindy Emerson, explained how the programs are graded according to an RFP. The applicants are working through a bid scenario for funds. The agencies provide a service to the county government. Emerson repeated, “We are not a charity,” in explaining the funding of programs. Chairman Bob Schlitt repeated the mantra that even commissioners have used to political effect. He said, “We fund programs, not agencies,” adding later, “An audit is not a requirement of CSAC.”
Most Requests for Proposals, or “bids,” require some kind of audit to make sure the organization can fulfill the terms of the contract should they be selected. The best example of an RFP that may be dead on arrival is the current award to Clearpath for the Three Corners project.
Why? The Clearpath team does not have funding.
There was an audit done by the City of Vero Beach’s consulting firms of each bid and each team’s financial wherewithal to access dollars needed to fulfill their commitment outlined in the RFP. Clearpath scores were very weak on financing when audited by the professionals. Yet, the city council voted for them anyway. Now, 45 days remain for Clearpath to find a financial partner. In many ways, the behavior of CSAC mirrored that of the city of Vero Beach. They funded programs that could not be independently sustained even though that was a stated requirement.
Chairman Schlitt referred to things stated as rules differently. He called them guidelines. It fit with his view of how he would analyze a program. He said, “We don’t have any say in whether we think that what a program is designed to do, is good or bad, as long as it meets the Need Assessment.”
The Needs Assessment is a broad range across three generic categories named “Success in School and Life,” “Health and Well-Being,” and “Nurturing Families and Communities.” The RFP judges are not looking for quality programs. They are looking for something not provided, even if it is not logically justifiable. There were many conversations about how there is already some organization doing a type of program that was funded by CSAC.
In discussing the Fatherhood program by Healthy Start, It was mentioned the program lost a commitment from Southeast Behavioral Health which coincides that prevention programs were being cut across the state. Subcommittee member, Dr. Deborah Long responded, "It really is an oxymoron. I think they are getting cut [by the government] because they want to see those problems so they can put those people in jail, but anyway, let's go.”
Nervously laughing, Human Services Director, Megan Kendrick said, "This is a friendly reminder to keep the conversation to the rubrics.”
Dr. Long defensively shot back, “Sorry. It is based on the rubric."
One reasonable voice on CSAC is Doug DeMuth. He is a member of the Taxpayer’s Association board, and serving as the required finance professional on the committee. Last April, DeMuth addressed the Commission about the flawed process of CSAC that has led to the aforementioned decision premises. In response to The Sunshine Journal article on June 22nd, in the comment section, he wrote, “For all too long, CSAC has had a scattergun approach to funding almost everyone coming to the public trough for funding. The current Needs Assessment is unfocused and far-ranging so that almost every program can apply in some manner. As the number of organizations receiving funding grows, so does CSAC's unfocused generosity.”
That “unfocused generosity” sometimes expresses itself in a selfish manner. Former George Soros employee and CSAC member, Hope Woodhouse, demanded an increase in millage, though the Commission is not required to do anything. In April of 2024, she said, “I wish we could start the process of living up to the commitment,” adding, “Based on the mistakes of the past, we are living now in a community where you cannot hire qualified people. You can’t hire therapists. You can’t hire teachers.”
Then, in a moment of realization, she poignantly offered a final rhetorical question straight from her own experience of living with a perceived hardship. “Why does John’s Island have to go to Eastern Europe to hire people every year?” she asked at the podium.
Does the John’s Island resident believe it’s the committee’s money?
This is conflict of interest by definition.
No one on the committee should be allowed to have any direct or indirect relationship with anyone receiving grants.
Moreover, the sheriff needs additional funds to raise starting salaries of his officers. Here is a pocket full of misused funds that could be redirected. It should be noted that the sheriff sits on this committee.
As someone with long time and various non-profit experience, this process of granting funds is severely flawed. No potential recipient of funds should be on the commodities granting funds. There are much better and fairer ways of meeting community needs. Either there are rules or guidelines. They need rules that are followed.