The cast of characters also features a convicted felon and an inspector who lost his job.
By Dawn Kitterman
The Bradenton Times
MANATEE COUNTY—Additional details are bringing to light issues within Manatee County’s Code Enforcement Division and adding to concerns that a county commissioner may be working outside of his statutory authority. In addition to new information revealed by public records, a former code enforcement officer at the center of an incident involving a political sign agreed to speak with TBT about the incident and his resignation.
The newly uncovered details are part of an ongoing investigation by TBT that began after allegations emerged of an incident involving a local business, code enforcement, and a political sign about Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge.
In a story we first brought readers in May, text message records revealed communications between a county code enforcement officer and his superior regarding a “Hell No, KVO” sign.
The officer was directed to the sign’s location. Finding that it had been erected on private property, he informed his lieutenant that he would not be removing it.
“The sign KVO wants down is on private… Ain’t gonna be my pic blasted for touching that thing. He can get it,” read the officer’s text.
Later, the officer was directed to return to the location, “grab” the sign, and “hold on to it.”
In a follow-up story published in June, TBT reported that the citizen who created the “Hell No, KVO” sign had a complaint filed against him with the Florida Elections Commission. Commissioner Van Ostenbridge’s younger brother, Keith Van Ostenbridge, lodged the complaint.
TBT has since confirmed that the Florida Elections Commission determined the complaint against David Daniels—the citizen who created the sign—was legally sufficient. Daniels will be required to pay a fine of at least $250.
Since the last reports, TBT has obtained call log records from Manatee County Code Enforcement Chief Tom Wooten’s county-issued cell phone. The public records—first obtained by the Florida Center for Government Accountability—reveal that Van Ostenbridge and Wooten exchanged phone calls on 17 occasions between March 1 and May 1.
The records also show that Van Ostenbridge initiated 11 of the phone calls, phoning Wooten from his personal device. The majority of the calls were brief, lasting just one to two minutes.
Call Logs
On April 22—the same day former code enforcement officer Daniel Marchick was directed to remove a “Hell No, KVO sign—Wooten and Van Ostenbridge exchanged four calls.
Records show that early that morning, Van Ostenbridge placed a call to Wooten’s work cell phone. The call lasted one minute.
Roughly six hours later in the afternoon, Van Ostenbridge again phoned Wooten. This call was also one minute long.
About an hour and a half later, another call was recorded, showing that Wooten had placed a call to Van Ostenbridge. Like the earlier phone calls, the call lasted one minute.
The final call recorded between Van Ostenbridge and Wooten on April 22 occurred slightly less than an hour after Wooten had phoned Van Ostenbridge. Van Ostenbridge initiated this call, which lasted two minutes.
Given the recorded duration of each call, it is possible that some (or all) of the calls were instances where a voicemail was recorded. The archiving software used by the county records when one device connects to another; it does not differentiate between a two-way call where both persons were on the line or a call that resulted in a voicemail.
In our May reporting, TBT shared that text message records we reviewed between Wooten and Van Ostenbridge showed that on March 23, Van Ostenbridge sent Wooten a double “thumbs up” emoji. No other text records from that date provided context for the communication. Similarly, on March 26, Wooten texted a “thumbs up” to Van Ostenbridge, and like the text from three days prior, no other texts appeared in the record to show what the message may have been about.
On March 23, when Van Ostenbridge sent Wooten a “thumbs up” text message, Wooten’s call log showed that Wooten had called Van Ostenbridge’s phone hours prior. The duration of the call was recorded as two minutes.
On March 26, when Wooten sent Van Ostenbridge a “thumbs up,” Wooten’s call log showed that Van Ostenbridge had placed a call to Wooten hours earlier. That call also lasted two minutes.
The longest phone call between Wooten and Van Ostenbridge appearing on Wooten’s county-issued phone log between March 1 and May 1 was five minutes long. This call occurred on April 29, the same day that text message records showed that Van Ostenbridge had been texting Wooten about “random businesses that need a visit.”
Van Ostenbridge initiated the April 29 phone call, and like all the other times he texted or called, Van Ostenbridge reached Wooten’s county-issued device from his personal cell phone.
A search of Wooten’s phone records between March 1 and May 1 showed no other commissioner communicating with Wooten.
A “Bad” Employee?
Since our previous reports, TBT has obtained a copy of former code enforcement officer Daniel Marchick’s personnel file. The file includes numerous public documents, including his resume, application, onboarding forms, and employee reviews.
Marchick was hired to serve as a code enforcement officer on July 1, 2023.
Marchick. Photo: Manatee County
According to his resume, Marchick is a veteran of the US Air Force, having served in the Air Force Global Strike Command—the “AFSOC” is one of 10 major Air Force commands and the Air Force component of U.S. Special Operations. Marchick was also an instructor with the Air Force’s Air Education Training Command, a member of the 40th Helicopter Squadron of the Air Force Global Strike Command, and a Special Missions Aviator with the Air Force District of Washington, D.C.
Retiring from the military after serving 20 years, Marchick briefly entered the private sector before applying for a position with Manatee County’s Code Enforcement Division.
Between his hire date and March 2024, Marchick received two employee reviews: a new hire review and a mid-year review.
During his first review, Marchick received praise for his work ethic and focus on completing his training. His mid-year review noted that Marchick had not completed all of his training goals, but Marchick assured his supervisor of his commitment to completing the requirements before the deadlines.
At his mid-year review, Marchick’s supervisor provided suggestions for improvement, “Dan could be more motivated in the performance of his duties. I would like to see an increase in his drive and caseload” but included that “Marchick had established good working relationships with his coworkers and the community he serves.”
Marchick’s file contained no other reviews nor records of disciplinary actions until May 2024.
A Notice of Disciplinary Action dated May 17 stated that Marchick violated county policy on four separate occasions. The dates of the alleged violations begin with April 22—the same day that Marchick was directed to “grab and hold on to” a “Hell No, KVO” sign, and declined to do so.
The additional dates that Marchick was accused of violations were listed as May 1, May 14, and May 16.
It was on May 16 that TBT first requested comment from Chief Wooten regarding the alleged incident with the sign. At the time, our publication had reviewed text messages between Marchick and his superior that appeared to substantiate the claims made to us by a source familiar with the business owner.
Wooten never responded to our initial email, so on May 17—the same day the disciplinary notice was created—we followed up by sending Wooten another email but still received no reply.
TBT’s initial story on the code enforcement sign incident was published on May 18.
The disciplinary notice begins by detailing how, after Marchick was reassigned to a new supervisor—Lt. Brad Szink—Szink raised Marchick’s low caseload on multiple occasions. According to the document, Marchick was not completing required re-inspections, and when questioned, Marchick would respond by saying, “I forgot.”
Referring to the April 22 incident with the “Hell No, KVO” sign, the document reports that when Marchick arrived at the location, the sign was discovered to be “straddling” both private property and the public right-of-way. According to his superior, Marchick communicated with the property owner, and the sign was relocated to be entirely on private property.
The document includes that Marchick inquired of Lt. Szink whether the complaint about the sign came from a commissioner. Szink responded by stressing adherence to the code should be paramount, regardless of the complainant’s identity.
The document also alleges that Marchick failed to open a case file on the sign and, instead, “announced his decision to take the rest of the day off, as well as the following two days, citing exhaustion and the need for a break from the situation.”
The details around the additional alleged violations on May 1, 14, and 16 read similarly throughout the document, citing that Marchick was not completing duties as assigned and questioning supervisors’ directions.
The notice recommended that Marchick be placed on a “performance improvement plan.”
The document was signed by Szink, Wooten, Public Safety Deputy Director Logan Gregory, and Employee Relations Manager Zach Ribble.
The line provided for Marchick to sign the form simply read, “Refused to Sign,” and was dated May 24.
The Notice of Disciplinary Action can be read in full here.
“I resign.”
TBT reached out to Marchick to ask if he would speak with us about the situation and to confirm whether he was still employed with the county.
Marchick told TBT that he refused to sign the form because “It was a poorly executed attempt to make a paper trail on me and set me up for future termination while covering their butts.”
“Look at the document,” Marchick said. “The violation dates start with the KVO sign date.”
Agreeing to share his account, Marchick described that he was phoned on the morning of April 22 by Lt. Szink and told, “KVO saw a ‘Hell No, KVO’ sign by a construction company and he wants it taken down. Just drive down 59th and you will see it.”
Marchick told TBT that when he located the sign, he texted his supervisor to inform him that it was on private property. Marchick described how, as detailed in our previous report, after he sent the text, Szink requested photos to verify the sign’s placement.
“I took one photo directly down the front property line, then pulled forward and took one at an angle into the front of the property,” Marchick explained. “The two photos clearly displayed that it was on private property. After that, I left.”
Marchick said it was sometime later when his supervisor instructed him to return to the location and “grab” and “hold onto” the sign.
“So, I went back,” said Marchick. “And I went through the awkward process of talking to employees at the business to see if it even was their sign. It indeed was, and I explained the situation and said, ‘I’m not touching it.’
“I was not blind to the implications of an employee of a county enforcement agency, in a county truck, showing up, trespassing, and stealing a political sign off private property. Everyone has cameras these days,” he added.
Marchick then described that after the incident, he submitted leave for the rest of the day and the following day, “I just needed space to process what had happened and how to move forward.”
He said that initially, he didn’t perceive any backlash, but that changed in the days and weeks that followed.
“I was sent out to tell businesses along Manatee Avenue to freshen up their landscaping based on the original development plans of the sites, which I don’t have access to. There aren’t mulch ‘freshness’ code requirements.
“My supervisor created eight cases for me, which was also unusual, especially since they weren’t even in my zone. But I did them anyway instead of sending them to the correct officer,” Marchick explained.
Marchick said that some of those cases were used in the disciplinary notice to allege that he violated policy while working on the assignments.
Marchick described how, as he read through the document, he began to feel as though he had been set up to fail. From his perspective, his superiors had taken actual events and conversations, “twisted them,” and did not accurately retell them at certain points.
“They changed conversations to fit their narrative—and that’s the poor execution part—you can’t lie about conversations that are in texts. But I have a copy of a disciplinary action that says one thing and copies of texts that say another, and I wasn’t going to sign off on that,” Marchick said.
According to Marchick, he received a calendar invitation the same day he was given the disciplinary notice. The invitation arrived around noon for a meeting he would attend later that day.
Marchick recalled that when he asked his supervisor about the meeting’s topic, his supervisor advised, “It’s to go over some cases.” Marchick said he sensed “something was up,” so he decided to prepare a two-week notice of resignation “just in case things got goofy.”
“And they definitely did,” said Marchick. “I showed up to a room with Chief Wooten and all three lieutenants waiting. Out came the paperwork. We went back and forth for over an hour.”
Marchick says that after an “awkward standoff” with them waiting for him to sign the form and him requesting to take it home to review before doing so—a request that Marchick claimed was declined—he decided to submit his resignation.
“I didn’t see another option; signing what they had handed me was out of the question,” Marchick said.
Summarizing the situation, Marchick shared, “I don’t feel I need to defend my character, and it would take far too long to address every detail in that report. It’s all public record. If you compare the conversations recorded in texts and emails against the disciplinary, I think it’s pretty clear.
“Tie that to the fact that before the KVO sign, I had been issued zero disciplinary paperwork and had resolved over 500 cases in 10 months. Yes, the supervisors were always on the officers to up their caseloads, but only one officer had completed more cases than I had during my time there. Yet, starting the day of the KVO sign, I magically became a bad officer.”
Code Enforcement Chiefs
When Marchick joined Manatee County’s Code Enforcement Division, the unit was led by its then-chief, George McCorkle.
In January, McCorkle separated from the county. As TBT has previously reported, multiple sources claiming knowledge of the matter had alleged to our publication that McCorkle was “pushed out.”
This week, our publication obtained a copy of McCorkle’s personnel file.
McCorkle’s resume shows that after graduating college with a Bachelor’s Degree in Organizational Studies with a minor in Law and Justice, he went on to serve six and a half years as a deputy with the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office.
Seeking additional experience in law enforcement, McCorkle left MCSO and joined the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, where he served as an environmental crime investigator.
After nearly six years with FDEP, McCorkle’s position was transferred to the Florida Fish and Wildlife, where he initially served as an FWC investigator before advancing to lieutenant. In total, McCorkle was with the FWC for almost ten years and only left the agency to accept the Manatee County Code Enforcement Chief position.
He joined Manatee County in May of 2022 and was dismissed in under two years—markedly the shortest length of time McCorkle had served at any of the public agencies he worked for.
According to records, McCorkle’s first Employee Performance Evaluation in 2022, brought him high praise, and his job performance earned him a 4.58 rating out of a possible 5.
His Aug. 2023 performance evaluation rating was slightly higher, with McCorkle earning a 4.75.
According to the forms, rating scores of 4.5 to 5.0 denote “distinguished performance and role model.”
Within his employment records was McCorkle’s first and only disciplinary action, it was dated Jan. 23, 2024. The document alleged that on Jan. 23 and Jan. 25—the second date having occurred after the document itself was dated—McCorkle had violated employee policy through insubordination, discourteous or abusive language/conduct, unlawful or improper conduct, and other inappropriate behavior.
The three-page document includes a narrative presumably written by Public Safety Director Jodie Fiske detailing disagreements between Fiske and McCorkle. Included in those details was an allegation that McCorkle had expressed to another employee suspicion that Fiske may be “targeting him for disciplinary actions.”
Elsewhere within his personnel file, TBT noted that McCorkle submitted a request for approval of secondary employment. Notably, this request was dated Dec. 20, roughly a month before McCorkle would be terminated. McCorkle’s request sought permission to register as an MCSO reserve deputy.
The disciplinary notice goes on to state that although issues between McCorkle and Fiske were addressed by Fiske in a meeting, and McCorkle was instructed on how to better communicate concerns with his director, Fiske later received a report from two code enforcement lieutenants who alleged that McCorkle’s behavior had not changed.
The names of the persons who submitted the alleged report to Fiske were not listed.
Later in the narrative, it is stated that two lieutenants—Wooten and Szink—had also lodged complaints against McCorkle. Szink alleged that McCorkle had behaved in a “rude and combative” way in a staff meeting, and Wooten alleged he experienced similar behavior from McCorkle in a private meeting.
The disciplinary notice recommended termination and was signed by Fiske and Employee Relations Manager Ribble. McCorkle also signed and dated the form but included a note.
“My signature is acknowledging receipt of this document. These allegations are highly exaggerated,” McCorkle wrote beneath his signature.
On Jan. 26, a formal Notice of Termination was delivered to McCorkle.
After McCorkle was fired, Wooten was made acting chief. Two months later, Wooten was named permanent chief of the division. The lateral move from lieutenant up to acting and then to chief came with a $27,147 salary increase.
In recent weeks TBT has spoken with two sources who shared their knowledge of code enforcement during the time that McCorkle served as division chief.
Both requested that their name not be used in publication, but TBT has verified that each served in county administration during McCorkle’s time as Code Enforcement Chief.
The first source claimed personal knowledge of McCorkle and his hiring, stating that McCorkle came with an exceptional resume and references and was “well vetted.”
According to the source, who again claimed firsthand knowledge, there were issues during McCrokle’s time leading code enforcement regarding certain commissioners attempting to interfere and/or direct the actions of the division. Most specifically, the source alleged was Van Ostenbridge who was applying pressure on the division’s leadership.
The second source said that while they could not provide a firsthand assessment of McCorkle’s job performance, they were able to corroborate the statements of the previous source regarding certain commissioners attempting to direct the actions of—or interfering in the work of—the code enforcement division. The source referenced knowing of at least one specific instance involving Van Ostenbridge but declined to go into detail.
TBT reached out to McCorkle for this reporting, but he declined to speak with us per the advice of legal counsel. We were able to confirm through MCSO that McCorkle has returned to the law enforcement agency and is currently serving as a deputy.
A Troubled Past
Chief Wooten has been with Manatee County’s Division of Code Enforcement for over 16 years and was first hired as a code officer in November 2007.
Before joining the county organization more than 20 years ago, Wooten was one of several MCSO deputies sentenced to prison for crimes committed while serving on the MCSO Delta Task Force.
The Delta Task Force was created in 1986 to combat illegal drug sales but later came under scrutiny due to allegations of corruption. An internal investigation launched in 1998 spawned a federal investigation that led to the arrest and prosecution of at least six MCSO deputies—including Wooten.
Following the investigation, more than 100 criminal charges had to be dropped against 67 defendants who were victims of fraudulent cases made by Delta officers.
In 2000, roughly seven years before joining the county organization, Wooten pleaded guilty to conspiracy, two counts of witness tampering, and one count of failing to report felony crimes during his time with the Delta unit.
Among the allegations, task force members were accused of brutality, stealing money from suspects, searching homes and cars without warrants, planting evidence, paying informants with drugs, perjury, and conspiring to cover up their actions.
During the investigation, Wooten admitted to meeting with three other Delta agents in an effort to cover up criminal acts. Another Delta Agent who agreed to cooperate with the federal investigation secretly recorded those meetings.
Court records showed that before his sentencing, Wooten admitted to taking part in conspiratorial misdeeds, including filing false reports about arrests, committing perjury and coercing others into doing so, and lying to investigators from the sheriff’s office as well as from the FBI.
Wooten’s attorney successfully bartered for leniency on his original 10-year sentence in exchange for Wooten’s agreeing to help prosecutors convict fellow Delta agents. Wooten’s sentence was reduced to 12 months with three years of supervised release.
Wooten ultimately served six months in federal prison after accepting a plea agreement with the US Attorney’s Office and providing substantial information concerning a co-conspirator and fellow member of the Delta Task Force.
Wooten was 30 years old when he was released from prison.
Though unable to ever serve as a law enforcement officer again, Wooten was hired as a code enforcement officer six years after his release. More than 20 years later, he has risen to the highest rank within code enforcement, serving as the division’s chief.
Powers and Duties
The government of Manatee County is organized in accordance with Florida Statutes.
The Board of County Commissioners is the county government’s legislative body. It is responsible for establishing fiscal and legislative policy. As a collegial body, its power and duties are specified in F.S., Section 125.01.
As a non-chartered county, the Board of County Commissioners is required by statute to appoint a county administrator. The administrator is appointed through a majority vote of the board.
F.S., Section 125.74 outlines the power and duties of the county administrator. The administrator’s responsibilities include, “administer and carry out the directives and policies of the board of commissioners, enforcing all orders, including resolutions, ordinances, and regulations of the board to ensure they are faithfully executed.”
County Resolution 09-234 reaffirms the statutory powers and duties of the commission as a legislative and governing body and that the county administrator is responsible for the administration of all departments under the jurisdiction of the board.
Adopted in 2009, Resolution 09-234 states that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Manatee County that the government be managed through the establishment of a “policy of noninterference by county commissioners in the day-to-day administration of the county.”
The resolution’s provisions include, in part, that the board shall act only as a “deliberative and collegial body” and not through “the acts or communications of individual commissioners” and that “all direction of the board to county staff shall be made through the county administrator” except in instances of inquires or seeking information.
In addition, the adopted provisions include, “…commissioners shall not interfere with or issue direction to employees, officers, or agents under the direct or indirect supervision of the county administrator.”
Dawn Kitterman is a staff reporter and investigative journalist for The Bradenton Times covering local government news. She can be reached at dawn.kitterman@thebradentontimes.com.
