On January 10, 2013, Historic City News reported that, even though Seraphin had failed to produce the national sponsors, like American Express or Coca Cola, that he represented he could, he was being transferred from “employee” to “consultant”. In consideration of the loss of health insurance and retirement benefits reserved for employees, Seraphin was given a bump to $78,000 a year to compensate for his “loss”. A copy of his independent contractor agreement, drawn by City Attorney Ronald W. Brown, was included in the article.
As recently as this month, the city renegotiated the consulting agreement; this time drawn by City Attorney Isabelle C. Lopez, for another year from October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015, to continue at the rate of $78,000 a year.
Although the contract for consulting services was never put out to bid, it remained vague as to what, exactly, it was that Seraphin, who was given an office at City Hall and business cards bearing the official City Seal, was supposed to do next year — or, what he has done worth nearly $250,000 over the past three years. The most recent amended contract appears below, along with a copy of today’s termination letter.
According to our sources at city hall, and comments made by City Manager John Regan in recent commission meetings, Seraphin found himself working on “non-city” projects; that is to say projects that various other organizations were the producers and beneficiaries of. The standing joke over the past four years has been that Ste. Claire, custodian of the mayor’s 450th Money Pit, will classify two tourists crossing the street as a “450th Signature Event”. For example, Seraphin might busy himself with any one of the “450th Alliance Partners” helping them produce an event, carnival, or celebration; even though the city’s actual involvement, and benefit, is to lend the organization use of the latest version of the city’s several iterations of a 450th logo.
Regan described, by comparison, a “city project” to be something like the Picasso exhibit which the city paid for, or the Mumford and Sons Gentlemen of the Road Stopover; where city money was used and contingent liabilities for the city loomed.
However, on Friday, October 24th, everything changed.
A Davis Shores resident, who turns 81-years-old next month, wrote a Letter to the Editor of the St Augustine Record newspaper. In that letter, the content of which was republished on Historic City News and appears below, he wrote that “Nancy’s tested and proven professional skills will offer deliberative execution of plans and development as mayor.” He went on to say, “Nancy brings a far more broad experience package to the table than does Joe, while not taking a back seat to his charisma. I gotta’ go with Nancy Shaver.”
The importance of access to a free press, and the capability to express our approval, or displeasure, with our government, along with the right of our citizens to vote in open elections, is the keystone of our democracy. This sense of civic responsibility moved the writer to share his political opinion regarding next week’s mayoral election in St Augustine.
What happened next was shocking, and when we learned about it at Historic City News, the consensus was that it could not stand un-reported.
Charles R. Seraphin, who resides at North Beach, outside the city limits of St Augustine and who does not vote in the city elections, took time from his work for the city to call the letter writer and challenge him on the opinions that he expressed. Historic City News contacted the writer yesterday and he told editor Michael Gold that although he knows Seraphin, he was not expecting Seraphin’s call.
After the call was ended, the writer called several people; including mayoral candidate, Nancy Shaver.
Shaver told Historic City News that the information conveyed to her concerning the conversation between Seraphin and her supporter was so disturbing that she immediately called Seraphin and left a message for him to return her call. After a brief discussion with Shaver, Seraphin was moved to send Shaver a “follow-up e-mail”, wherein he reiterated most of the allegations Shaver was told in her phone call from the letter writer, and appears below.
In the letter to the editor, the writer said, “I have learned that Nancy can document 25-years of deep managerial and executive experience in business planning and development with seven major corporations, and also having formed her own business.”
In the e-mail to Shaver, Seraphin described the reason for calling the city resident who wrote the letter was because, “He said he had delved into your resume and was convinced that you are the best candidate based on your professional experience.”
Seraphin goes on to pick apart Shaver’s resume — stating, “Your professional credentials are unclear, and unfortunately that casts a shadow on your integrity.” He also wrote, “John assured me that you provided him with a detailed resume and he read it to me over the phone.”
Seraphin wrote, “Let’s assume that you simply have a bad memory and you don’t remember dates and titles, and that all the companies you worked for (with the exception of MCI) are not well known.” How extremely unprofessional for the man, himself a contract consultant, whose boss, John Regan, describes as an “ambassador for the city”.
To add insult to injury, a false rumor, being spread by Ken Bryan and other members of the re-elect Joe Boles campaign, was repeated by Charlie Seraphin in his e-mail. As if it were an issue, Seraphin makes an allegation that Shaver, a widow who came to St Augustine with her dying husband to spend their remaining time together, was not “legally” married. That is beneath contempt; and, it is so far out-of-bounds in an election for mayor as to be considered vulgar.
Seraphin writes, “Let’s further assume that with the exception of your late husband’s obituary (which refers to you as his partner and not as his wife) there’s been nothing about you in the public record for the past twenty years (perhaps because you have led a private life without media recognition).” But, looking inward, Seraphin describes himself saying, “I don’t vote in the City. I came to the area about the same time you did,” and, he proclaims, “I don’t seek the limelight”.
The specter of a government representative attempting to silence a citizen’s published support for a political challenger is unconscionable. It’s un-American. It’s illegal. And, if that is the type of tactic you have to stoop to get re-elected, you do not deserve to hold the office.
Perhaps Charlie Seraphin, who wrote to Nancy Shaver, “I think you’d be surprised by my knowledge of city government,” holds a different opinion tonight.
Discover more from HISTORIC CITY NEWS
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.