🏖️ Walton County spent six hours debating how to manage its $60 million tourism operation
🏛️ Commissioners split over bringing back an Executive Director of Tourism amid budget concerns
💬 TDC members urged action, warning the county needs “centralized accountability”
SANTA ROSA BEACH — The Walton County Board of County Commissioners spent six hours this week debating how best to manage the county’s $60 million tourism operation — and whether to bring back an Executive Director of Tourism.
Of the five items introduced by Commissioner Danny Glidewell, District 2, only one passed easily — a resolution recognizing Nov. 6, 2025, as Election Worker Appreciation Day, which was unanimously approved. The rest sparked a long, tense debate.
Over the past month, the board has debated whether the Executive Director of Tourism (EDT) position is necessary and whether it is fiscally responsible to fill it.
Tourism Director Matt Algarin currently serves as liaison between the Tourism Development Council (TDC) and the commission. Algarin took on the role after the previous executive director was terminated.
With salary and benefits — including Florida Retirement System, FICA, transportation and a potential assistant — estimated at $400,000, some commissioners questioned whether the role is necessary. The position has already been approved in the county’s 2026 tourism department budget.
Some commissioners also pointed to what they see as unnecessary layers of management within the department. A discussion on the proposed organizational chart for the position failed to move forward at both the last meeting and again this week.
Glidewell reiterated that he does not support adding employees who would report directly to the commission, citing the Sunshine Law, which “requires all meetings of state or local government boards or commissions to be open to the public unless there is a specific statutory exemption.”
He said that managing employees under the Sunshine Law means “all matters, including performance issues, [must] be addressed in the public eye.”
That, Glidewell said, is why the proposed executive director, if hired, should report to the county administrator and not the commission.
The first of Glidewell’s items called for “approval for the county attorney to bring back a ‘confirmation’ resolution that requires confirmation [before formal hiring] of the Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, TDC [Executive] Director, Planning Director, and Deputy County Administrator.”
Commissioner Dan Curry seconded the motion, and Chair Donna Johns opened the floor for discussion.
Commissioner Brad Drake, District 3, said, “The proposal on the table is what it is…I have a difference of opinion. I don’t believe that we should go through a confirmation process. I believe it diminishes the power and authority vested within the County Administrator. And at one time, Commissioner Glidewell, you had agreed with that. But now it looks like ‘the winds have changed,’ and the desire of the majority of the Board wants to go in that direction. So, as far as where we are now, in crafting the policy,…While I disagreed with going this route [with the Confirmation process], it looks like the path has been chosen [meaning that a Confirmation Process will pass].”
Drake continued, “So, now if we’re going to do that, then let’s do it ‘right.’ We all claim to be conservative, philosophically grounded republicans. So if we do this, let’s not pick winners and losers. Let’s not select out certain positions…While I disagree with going this route, I don’t agree with the policy, but now that we are [moving forward with the Confirmation process for new hires], why don’t we go ‘full blown’ and say all the Director positions have to go through confirmation?”
Curry voiced his support for the confirmation process, saying he was “elated” and joked that it made him want to “do cartwheels.”
Drake made a secondary motion to expand the confirmation requirement to all director positions, which Curry seconded.
County Administrator Brian Kellenberger cautioned that such a process could discourage applicants. “People in these positions,…often times may not tell their current employer that they are looking for another job. And for us to ‘confirm,’ [going through a formal public process,] – that means that we have to do it in an open meeting. Therefore, we will have to disclose that these people who have applied with us [for employment] and are actively seeking another job [allowing what is typically a private or secret process for a professional to become completely public knowledge with open records].”
He added, “And I want you to consider that [a process like this] may stymie professionals to seek employment with us.”
Glidewell clarified, “Mr. Kellenberger hires people. We [the BCC] do not hire people. Mr. Kellenberger sends that name to us, and we either say ‘yes’ or ‘no.'”
County Attorney Clay Adkinson confirmed, “There is no cross comparison of one versus another applicant.”
Curry responded, “What we had before was the person who was already hired, and two weeks later we wanna confirm them… that’s the tail wagging the dog.” Glidewell replied, “That could happen right now.” Curry concluded, “If I have zero [information on the ‘applicant’ and no information such as a resume or CV] but [only] a blank piece of paper, I am not confirming a damn soul.”
Kellenberger added that confirmation votes could put new hires in an uncomfortable position. “Consider how a person [the new hire] would feel if they got a 3-2 vote for confirmation. They come to work with us, but they know that two of you don’t want to work with them… I can’t figure out what the benefit of it [the confirmation process] is — other than you would like to make the decision yourselves.”
Commissioner Tony Anderson, District 5, opposed the motion. “I trust him [Mr. Kellenberger] to hire people that’s going to help him do a good job,” Anderson said. “I think this is overreaching on the Board’s part.”
The commission ultimately voted 3–2 to approve Drake’s motion for a confirmation process covering all director positions.
Glidewell then introduced a proposal for an executive director of tourism who would report to the county administrator. Under that structure, the directors of tourism and beach operations would report to the executive director.
Anderson said, “It is too expensive.” Glidewell agreed, responding, “It is still too expensive.”
Anderson pressed further: “It is $400,000 plus an aide…” He questioned why Glidewell had changed course after previously opposing the hire. Glidewell replied, “I don’t believe it was a wise use of money, and still don’t.”
He said his goal was to find a compromise after the board split 2–2 at the prior meeting. “Those three positions are enough…To put another one there is asking for problems — asking for trouble.”
Drake, however, said, “We are not eliminating any of the other two steps in the bureaucracy. We are just adding to it. Ok, so that is not conservative government. That is not fiscal responsibility. And it is not republican policy.”
He added, “This same role and responsibility in Bay County is done by one guy, one rooftop, one mission, one focus — with a larger tax base — with a larger population. Same in Okaloosa County. One centralized office and all the responsibility goes up under there. But we want to do three positions to do what can be done with one position.”
Drake made a motion to have the executive director report directly to the commission. Curry seconded. After the discussion, both Drake and Glidewell withdrew their motions, and Curry’s attempt to revive Glidewell’s original proposal died for lack of a second.
In public comment, Tourism Development Council members Amy Wise-Coble, Tiffany Edwards, and Tim Taylor urged commissioners to reinstate the position.
Wise-Coble said, “You [BCC] are basically saying that you do not want ‘centralized accountability’ to run a $60 million dollar business. That is mind-blowing.” She argued the cost was minimal, saying, “If you divide $400,000 [the estimated salary] by sixty million, it is .006 percent.”
Edwards stated that the TDC had already allocated funds for the position. “We cut our budget by 10 percent in different departments… We also cut an FTE position [in anticipation for] adding in this position for the Executive Director position… So the ‘tag line’ of the extra cost is actually covered in our current budget.”
Taylor added, “The bed tax collectors are responsible this past year for $60 million dollars. So, listen to us, please. The Executive Director position — it was my feeling — was that person would report to the County Commissioners… Have that individual report to you… Because you were elected and that makes for a better Executive Director.”
Despite hours of discussion and input, the commission took no action — leaving the tourism department’s leadership structure unresolved.
Pro Communi Bono
St. Francis De Sales, Ora Pro Nobis!
Register or login with Mid Bay News and never get another pop up on our site!
