et tu, Tim Enos?
Looking back and looking ahead
Since the beginning of time, we’re seen betrayals played out in history and portrayed in cinema. In the writings of Shakespeare, Julius Caesar says "Et tu, Brute?" when he recognizes his friend Marcus Junius Brutus as one of the assassins who are stabbing him to death. In the biblical Book of Genesis, Cain killed his brother Abel because God accepted Abel's sacrifice but rejected Cain's.
In today’s era, all of us can be victims of a scam. I don’t know anyone who has not been wronged - from a cheating spouse to a contractor gone missing to a friend who didn’t keep a secret.
Conceivably the biggest deception has been successfully pulled off by the next President of the United States. He has duped millions of Americans who live in an echo chamber of propaganda and Rogans. Even if they saw evidence of what is to come, it’s hard to admit being bamboozled for so many years.
When we’re blindsided, conned and/ or deceived, we put it on ourselves. We’re the idiots. We beat ourselves up for allowing what we perceive as a humiliation and disrespect.
Let’s open up the curious case of Sarasota School Board Member Tim Enos, who appeared to do a complete 180 right before the public’s very eyes.
The surreal nature of the November 19 School Board meeting saw a new Chair (Enos) and vice-chair (Robyn Marinelli) being chosen. As citizen after citizen recommended Enos for chair during public comments, they also had one ask: Vote for Tom Edwards, who is of a differing political party. This action would represent the voice of Sarasota constituents who voted on the November 5 ballot in an overwhelming measure that keeps the school board races non-partisan.
Public speaker Sebastian Martinez reminded the board of this in his speech before the five-person panel: “Our community does not support partisan leadership.”
Displaying good faith, the public-school advocates in the boardroom almost unanimously (with the exception of one speaker) encouraged the selection of Enos and Edwards. It’s no secret that Edwards and board member Bridget Ziegler butt heads, but that’s part of the Democratic process. Disagreements are going to occur between a mother who sends her own children to private schools and is against LGBTQ+ protections and a board member who supports all students.
Marinelli had dramatically and memorably tore up a resolution that Edwards presented at a workshop, because she hadn’t been forewarned. What was the motion that created such angst? A resolution to follow federal guidelines. Screaming that this was “political” in nature and to keep politics out of the board, Marinelli’s reaction was, most would agree, over the top.
Enos stated a logical position that the board already must follow federal guidelines, so it’s a moot point.
Weeks later, Ziegler and former board member Karen Rose blindsided the public, the board members and possibly even the school board attorney, by writing a motion (without legal assistance) to override Federal Guidelines of Title IX. The public went into Herculean mode and let the board members know what was at risk in losing millions of dollars in Federal funding if the board approved the last-minute agenda item.
The woman who tore up Edwards’ resolution to follow Federal guidelines, stated to the people in the audience with a firm defiance that she would sign this. It was a stunning hypocrisy. It took Enos eleven seconds before he also voted yes to the motion. His vote was seen more as a weakness to go against his political party’s hateful messaging, than a reflection on how he really feels.
After all, he had apologized to India Miller, a transgender public-school advocate when board member Rose went on a career-ending attack of bigotry against Miller.
The public cut Enos a break in understanding that his views won’t always represent what they believe is in the best interest of the district, but felt assured they will always be heard and acknowledged. Those 11 seconds saved Enos, as well as his words at the next meeting when he angrily demanded that motions be workshopped in advance, and he didn’t want to be placed in that position again.
Cut to the November 19 meeting. Enos is voted in as the new chair. However, in a stunning turn-around, he didn’t acknowledge the public speakers and voted for a less-experienced Marinelli, a Republican, to co-chair with him. The extended olive branch was snapped in two expeditiously, with his lack of acknowledgement that trust works both ways.
Also playing out in this meeting was Agenda Item 6, which hadn’t been workshopped in advance. This motion called for twice-monthly school board meetings to be cut back to one time a month. 20-year-old Martinez let the board know that there should be consequences if they voted for this.
It would only be fair that board members take a pay cut and with all due respect and love in my heart - maintaining the same salary while cutting responsibilities would be unjust and if we’re talking about efficiency, we must also address the efficient use of taxpayer dollars when it comes to your salaries.
I believe this schedule change could risk further division and a rift between the community and the board may appear to undermine transparency and accessibility.
Every speaker in the room spoke out against this motion citing a future lack of transparency. The clear optics in reading between the lines were to quell accountability and collaboration through community involvement - not ‘efficiency’ as school superintendent Terry Connor projected. Most stated that without this agenda being workshopped first, there would be no set replacement to continue engagement with the public. Not workshopping such a decision would be further setting the precedent that Enos himself loudly complained about when feeling forced to take the Title IX vote.
In a jaw-dropping, and some could call it a duplicitous and hypocritical double whammy, Enos did vote in favor of passing the motion, with no complaint (this time) of the lack of workshopping it first.
“This was like a shiv in the back,” described one public school advocate. “I wish I hadn’t heaped praise on him.” Some who attended the meeting also expressed regret in biting the bullet in a show of non-partisan support.
Another woman said she convinced someone into endorsing Enos publicly and has remorse over that.
Enos attempted to explain his vote:
I like the idea of having office hours where we would have a set schedule that we could actually meet people no matter where you were from... I also like the opportunities that we should have special meetings with different topics and town halls. . .
I hate to say, I could take it either which way. I mean I definitely want to make sure we have as many meetings as we need to as we move forward because I think that something that’s significantly important I know at 3:00 was not attended.
The only difference would be is that our agendas would be longer as a consent agenda and different items of topic if we go to a once a month, which everybody would be able to come to because it wouldn’t be at 3pm.
If he could “take it either which way”, why didn’t he take the public’s unanimous voices into consideration? Why didn’t he vote “No” until the topic could be workshopped - as that is what he demanded previously. A believing, trusting and grateful community had heard him.
Newly sworn-in Board Member Liz Barker rejected the motion citing the public’s reasoning.
Marinelli voted to cut back the meeting to once a month and stated: “I do value everyone’s input.” Pointing to a small notebook, she wanted to acknowledge that she listens to the public and took three pages of notes.
In a scratch-your-head moment, Marinelli explained her vote: “It was many years ago there was one meeting a month, but the district was smaller and no one came….It wasn’t anything like it is today so I’m going to support this with the caveat that we evaluate it.”
The obvious argument is that the board members voting in support of the motion put the cart before the horse. Emails and private meetings are not covered by the local media or publicly accessible. Citizens want to go on record, not shut behind closed doors or emails that require public records to access it.
Board Member Tom Edwards also voted against the motion and was simply not having it:
When I originally spoke to the superintendent that I was open to talking about one meeting per month, it was because Mr. Enos did an admirable job of stepping into the role of chair. He was able to calm the community down, he was able to lead us into a really collaborative atmosphere at the board.
But the board tonight just broke my heart in the way they arrived at the 4 to 1 votes that were crammed down my throat and the public’s throat for the four years prior to Ms. Barker arriving here.
And so what I hear again is a partisan board driving an agenda. Period. And why I won’t be supporting one meeting a month is because Mr. Connor said to me ‘Oh, we could have special meetings.’ Well Mr. Connor, every time I have asked for a special meeting over the last two years whether it be of the chair or of the superintendent, I was denied because the only people who can grant special meetings are the chair or the superintendent. So when it comes down to listening to the public because I do hear the public. . .which is why I will not support one meeting a month.
We can’t get through this meeting, a special meeting and the board meeting and it’s already a quarter to eight. . .When I got here as a board member, what I saw was a collegial rotation of board. Mrs. Ziegler was in a minority situation…and they put her to the board chair collegially, because it was the way to be a . . .collaboration but that’s not who the board demonstrated once again. So I will not be supporting this and it has to do with trust.
Enos immediately followed up that Edwards would be heard and would be “given 100% consideration”. His words rang hollow, until Edwards made his request for a workshop on the spot and on the record regarding the public meetings. Enos was forced to reply with an answer, which was “Yes”.
At the end of the meeting, Enos stated: “We will make the best decisions as it relates to the kids and become more and more cohesive as we go down the road. That’s my commitment at 110%.”
It wasn’t his commitment at the November 19 meeting, so why would anyone believe that he would switch up the words ‘political’ with ‘cohesive’ at that point?
Barker, expressing disappointment in an email also emphasized hope: “It’s just the first of many opportunities to keep building bridges.”
The Past and the Future
Enos displayed a duplicity that is an affront to Sarasota’s voters. During his first week on the board, he had voted to fire Superintendent Asplen (on no viable grounds). Months later, he asked the public to forget the past. The public didn’t forget, but they forgave him believing that there was untold pressure on the new board member.
These votes will be harder to forgive and forget, because it wasn’t a superintendent he was firing - it was the disregard, diminishing and disrespect of the voices of an involved community.
“Sarasota holds elected officials accountable, while moving forward.”
Is there any coincidence that this meeting would take place at the end of the year, with only one school board meeting left? Was it the hope that the lack of workshopping an agenda item would be forgotten as some new issue that harms the public education comes to vote?
The board members who voted in favor of cutting meetings to one time monthly underestimated the public in their capacity to multi-task. Sarasota holds elected officials accountable, while moving forward. Wrongs aren’t dismissed or let go, until there has been an acknowledgement, an apology or a change. If the public carried on like nothing had happened, more destructive precedencies would become the norm.
The votes of Marinelli, Enos and board member Bridget Ziegler indicate that they want a divide with the community. They want chaos. They want the public to know that they are not listening, so there’s no point in even coming to the meetings.
Fortunately, Sarasota citizens know that their voices matter. If the board won’t listen, they’ll talk louder. If they still won’t listen, more of them will talk. The citizens have already gotten back to work. A second meeting will take place with video available and media present - with or without the board in attendance.
The public are not the idiots for showering support and praise on Enos. He displayed a blatant and unexpected turnaround on two different counts: Ignoring the citizens who represented the voice of the voters (in voting against non-partisan leadership); and making a decision that was not workshopped in advance.
The onus is on Enos.