LWV Manatee School Board Notes: 8/15/25

The League of Women Voters of Manatee County Education Issues Committee observes the Manatee County School Board meetings for items of interest to citizens and the League and notes adherence, or lack of adherence, to good governance procedures and the sunshine laws. The following are the key points from the Special School Board Meeting held on August 15, 2025.

Chair Chad Choate called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of the Agenda. Approved 5-0.

Chair Choate turned the meeting over to Attorney Dye. Mr. Dye read into the record the purpose of the meeting, which is the last step of a disciplinary hearing that went to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) as per State Rule: 

Final Hearing Concerning Exceptions to DOAH Recommended Order in the Matter of Manatee County School Board v. Verlin Wilhoit, DOAH Case No. 25-0360

[Background note from the agenda: Executive Summary]

“Verlin Wilhoit is employed by the School Board of Manatee County. Based on misconduct, the Superintendent recommended the termination of Mr. Wilhoit. An Administrative Complaint for Employee termination was prepared and served upon Mr. Wilhoit on December 20, 2024. Mr. Wilhoit requested an Administrative Hearing disputing the acts of misconduct.

A hearing on the merits was convened and entered before an administrative law judge on July 7, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the Respondent filed an Exception to the Recommended Order.

The Board must consider the ALJ's Recommended Order, the Respondent's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, and enter a Final Order. The Board may adopt the Exceptions to the Recommended Order as the final order of the board, or may reach other legal conclusions. The Board shall give both parties an opportunity to address the Exceptions and each party's respective position. The Board will then deliberate and vote on a Final Order.”]

Mr. Dye shared that the Administrative Law Judge upheld the former superintendent’s decision to terminate the employee. The Board has options, and Mr. Dye explained the choices before the Board in light of the conclusions of law, findings of fact and penalty. Each party is allowed 15 minutes before the Board, but Mr. Wilhoit did not appear to be present, and no one spoke on behalf of the School District. 

The Board was to consider an alternative recommended order from Superintendent Chapman. 

Superintendent Chapman read a statement. Dr. Wilhoit had filed exceptions to certain details in the Administrative Law Judge’s final order issued by DOAH, to which the district responded. However, he did not file an exception to the penalty recommended by the ALJ, which was that Dr. Wilhoit be terminated. The School Board may accept the recommended penalty but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the record and justifying the action. Mr. Chapman recommends the penalty for the violations be reduced as follows: Dr. Wilhoit will serve a disciplinary suspension without pay of 20 work days, a one year performance contract contingent on him incurring no further discipline issues during that year, will be assigned to an appropriate position that does not involve responsibility for or oversight of student discipline, and must take and successfully complete six hours of HR-approved training.

He believes “the School Board’s reduction of the recommended penalty is justified by record evidence showing Dr. Wilhoit’s length of service to the Manatee County School District and his stated desire to continue that employment.”

Chair Choate made a motion to accept that recommended order subject to and incorporating the Superintendent’s recommended modification to the penalty, and Ms. Spray seconded.

Mr. Tatem asked MSTV to play a few moments of video about a B-52 bomber crash in 1994 and the actions of a pilot and lack of action by his superiors that led to those four deaths. He understood Dr. Wilhoit is a veteran, but the point is that over the course of his career, many people have told us “he’s dangerous, don’t let him fly the plane anymore.” Dr. Wilhoit has five reprimands and two suspensions. Multiple supervisors and multiple superintendents have expressed concern about this employee. Dr. Wilhoit has 25 years in the district. Mr. Tatem asked the attorneys if he would lose his pension? The response was that he would not. Mr. Tatem continued, saying in Dr. Wilhoit's appearances, there’s never any remorse, it’s always someone else’s fault. He had hoped for some contrition, remorse or self-introspection, but instead Dr. Wilhoit was somewhat angry and arrogant. Mr. Tatem said he does this with a heavy heart and no desire to see something like this happen to a veteran, but he is a danger to the organization, and the record shows that. He will vote against Superintendent Chapman’s recommendation.

Ms. Felton agrees with Mr. Tatem and will not support the recommended order for all the same reasons. She too reviewed the binder full of incidents: 7 incidents of progressive discipline, generally for ethics violations, and this concerns her. Dr. Wilhoit was told in 2020 that if there was another incident, he’d be terminated, and now there have been two. These are our co-workers. She regrets her decision to retain him on salary. Dr. Wilhoit’s actions in the video of the incident were unacceptable to her, as Dr. Wilhoit put his hands on the child first. She shared the disappointment in his lack of remorse. She shared an experience where she had to leave a job because upper management did not act to protect their employees from harassment in what became a hostile working environment. As she doesn’t expect Dr. Wilhoit to be put back into a school, child safety risks may be minimized, but we need to protect our staff. The behavior pattern has continued with him regardless of where he’s been placed into different positions around the county. She quoted two different parts of the district policy that he violated. We are not following our own policy if we do not terminate him. She will not be supporting the Superintendent’s recommendation.

Mr. Kennedy said he’d be brief because it’s known where he stands. To characterize Dr. Wilhoit as “a danger to himself or others” is unfair, and to refer to “victims” is unfair. Two previous disciplinary incidents were for being disciplined for arguing with a co-worker and we all have moments where we could handle ourselves better. Also, one was for sending an email to someone in Tallahassee and another about a book he wrote on his own personal time. He doesn’t know how you bring discipline against someone for what they do on their own time. He thinks Dr. Wilhoit could have handled himself better but for him, it didn’t rise to the level of termination. He was “very surprised” by the order from the ALJ. He disagrees with it but it deserves consideration and respect. He does support the modified order. A month of no pay is a significant penalty and there is some discipline that should be handed down. Being reassigned to a job without student supervision, a performance contract and six hours of training is a good middle ground for him from where he was originally and the final order. Mr. Kennedy said he found the language in the order problematic because it includes the word “chokehold” and no one used that word in the transcript of the incident. The penalty is harsh and addresses the fact that Dr. Wilhoit could have handled himself better and is a middle ground. He will support the modified order.

Ms. Spray has followed the case from its inception and has printed every page and report from all the players. She also looked at the history of all sides. She was not presented with conversation from people who do not want to go on the record. They do not want to be singled out- people that worked for the district and retired, or work there now, or community leaders who have never worked for the district. She says you have to look at the history of all sides, not just the adult in this case, but also the student. We have a Student Code of Conduct and if a student crosses that red line in behavior, that’s putting district employees in challenging and uncomfortable situations. It’s a snap decision that you make, and you have to follow through and feel like you did the right thing. In this case, she will support the recommendation. She “could have brought a binder of the other side that would be more significant than what you have.”

Mr. Tatem said it’s not an exaggeration to say Dr. Wilhoite is a danger to himself and other people: it has progressed from verbally aggressive behavior to putting his hands on a child, grabbing him, marching him out, there’s a progression of anger. What will trigger him again? He’s been around long enough to see this is a continual progression of an anger problem that he seems to have no contrition of and he’s concerned for what’s next. Hands on an adult, another employee? He’ll have his pension and he wishes him the best but he has an anger problem and a bit of arrogance and has to ask himself how did I get here where there’s a panel of supervisors and judges and leaders saying he should no longer work in the school system.

Mr. Kennedy asks people to read the ALJ’s order and Dr. Wilhoit’s exceptions. Those exceptions (15) are very compelling in defense of himself. As a technicality, the School Board’s former counsel Mitch Teitelbaum discussed Policy 4213 being for conduct with students and that 4210 would be the proper policy. He finds Dr. Wilhoit’s exceptions more compelling. Mr. Tatem is right in that he would collect pension but it would be at a reduced rate because he didn’t make it to 30 years. So that’s a penalty he would serve for the rest of his life. A month without pay plus the other conditions, when he’s been sitting home since October with his career in the balance, is significant.

Mr. Choate believes this should never have been a termination. There’s been 15 years of nothing in his file. Some people took offense to a book Dr. Wilhoit wrote. Two years ago, he was recommended by a committee of his peers to replace George Schrier. It didn’t happen and that whole situation is still a conundrum. He doesn’t believe Dr. Wilhoit is a danger to the people around him and thinks he is valuable to the organization. The Board has disagreed with DOAH before, and did several months ago, that’s not unusual. 

Ms. Felton offered a final thought: Mr. Kennedy said Dr. Wilhoit “could have” handled things differently but he “should have” handled those differently. The “continued behavior of speaking before he thinks” is concerning. She does not want a repeat of this, and hopes Dr. Wilhoit proves her wrong. This pattern of behavior cannot continue and she highly recommends anger management.

Ms. Spray said in regard to “a danger to himself or others,” she never saw in her file any criminal charges brought in the case - neither DCF nor law enforcement filed any criminal charges. As far as remorse, he’s had several months to reflect and she thinks there has been time for that. She thinks they should call the question.

Mr. Choate had no one lit up to speak, so he thought they were ready to vote to accept the recommended order subject to and incorporating the Superintendent’s recommended modification to the penalty.

Mr. Kennedy sought clarification on the conditions of the penalty: the Superintendent’s recommendation is to modify the penalty from termination to 20 work days without pay, one year on a probationary contract contingent on no further personnel issues, re-assignment to a position not involving student supervision, and 6 hours of training to be decided by the Superintendent in coordination with HR.

This was approved 3-2 with Chair Choate, Ms. Spray, and Mr. Kennedy voting yea, and Mr. Tatem and Ms. Felton voting nay.

Adjourned at 9:49 AM.

GOOD GOVERNANCE

In planning and announcing this meeting, the Board again gave the public minimal notice. The short notice, irregular day and time, and reasoning that there had to be a special meeting immediately before hiring a new superintendent is questioned.

Mr. Kennedy has shown a positive bias towards Dr. Wilhoit from the beginning, leaving the observers doubting his objectivity.  

We question why Ms. Spray was talking with community members about a person who is facing disciplinary action by the School Board. 

Ms. Spray needs to realize that violations of ethics and policy by school board employees are not criminal and to use ‘no criminal charges’ as a reason to accept behavior goes against school board policy. 

Observers wonder what impact this decision will have on current employees. Will it embolden improper behavior and will it silence those who want to report improper or unethical behavior to their supervisors?

Observers question whether the District would be open to any liability should Dr. Wilhoit’s actions continue. 

It was not clear to the observers as well as some of the Board Members whether Dr. Wilhoit would be in a position to be in contact with students. It was said he will not be supervising them, but the question is whether he will be around students. It was also not clear if the contract was one year only, and would be up for renewal after one year.

The observers were surprised that the Board Members were willing to accept Dr. Wilhoit’s longevity and desire to remain employed as justification for reducing the penalty given the repeated and escalating incidents in the disciplinary file.

It is inappropriate for Board Members to speculate on whether Dr. Wilhoit has spent these months of paid leave in self-reflection.