Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents call for removal of Santa Rosa County chair after unvetted text; commissioners hear criticism but take no removal action
Summary
Multiple public commenters accused the board chair of participating in circulation of an unvetted derogatory text about a resident and urged a vote of no confidence. Commissioners heard the criticism, discussed standards for behavior, but took no formal removal action at the Jan. 22 meeting.
Several residents used the public‑comment period at the Jan. 22 Santa Rosa County Board of County Commissioners meeting to sharply criticize the chair and call for his removal, but the board took no formal action to remove him.
Jerry Cooley of Milton told the board he had previously given the chair an opportunity to address a matter and accused the chair of agreeing with a derogatory comment and reading an unvetted text about a citizen at a public meeting. “I think you gentlemen need to have a vote of no confidence today and remove Mr. Wright as chairman and end this debacle before it gets any worse,” Cooley told commissioners.
Other commenters echoed that criticism. Sherry Chapman and Cindy Smith urged transparency and a public apology for people who had been publicly identified and criticized the chair’s handling of the matter, saying the chair’s actions had damaged public trust and could have reputational effects on county business.
Commissioners acknowledged the public concern and debated the meaning of consistency and precedent in reviewing volunteer appointees’ conduct. Several commissioners said they have received constituent complaints about the prospective zoning‑board appointment and discussed whether the commission should set clearer expectations for volunteers’ conduct online. No commissioner moved or called for a formal vote to remove the chair during the meeting.
The board did not hold an internal vote of no confidence nor schedule a formal personnel or ethics proceeding. Commissioners asked staff to consider a path forward on guidance related to social‑media conduct for volunteers and advisory‑board members so the county can respond more consistently to future concerns.
What’s next: Public commenters urged further accountability; the board indicated it will review options for policy or guidelines but did not announce a timeline or formal action to address the specific removal request.
