Some college president searches bring extraordinary attention (think New College of Florida). Others receive almost no attention. The search for Carol Probstfeld’s successor as president at State College of Florida, Sarasota-Manatee definitely falls into the latter. But a development this week could change that. 

The college announced three finalists for SCF’s next president, including state Rep. Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch. It’s in some senses an unconventional choice, and in another way exactly what we’ve come to expect in the Sunshine State.

Now, there’s two more standard choices: Martyn Clay, Hillsborough Community College’s Plant City campus president, and Anthony Iacono, president of New Jersey-based County College of Morris. Both have experience working the community college system in Florida or in other states. 

Speaking to Gregory, he made clear he takes the competition seriously. He also dismisses any idea his political connections played a role in making the finalist list. “I think people would only have that criticism if they didn’t know everything in my background,” Gregory said.

Gregory publicized his 20-year military career during campaigns, but as he competes for a college administration job, he talked up the education aspect of his time on duty. Most relevant, he served as general counsel for the Air Mobility Warfare Center, an education institution in the armed forces. Gregory served as a course director or and was an instructor for seven other courses. He was also a JAG officer, and said that involved education the enlisted on a number of legal issues.

“I’m just honored to be considered for this position,” Gregory told me. “Serving as president of State College of Florida Manatee-Sarasota is a very important role because of the service the college provides to community, both for students and as the economic engine of the community, to give a workforce and talent pipeline that businesses in Sarasota, Manatee and surrounding counties depend on.”

But one can’t quite shake the idea there’s more at play than a sudden interest by a lawmaker in becoming a college president, which takes us back to New College.

That presidential transition drew national attention for being so highly politicized. A new set of trustees appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis arrived and promptly fired President Patricia Okker. A lobbying firm signaled Richard Corcoran, a former Florida Education Commissioner and state House Speaker, would be interim president before Okker was even shown the door. Over coming months, the university went through every step in its formal search process in full public view, but it always felt Corcoran’s hire was a fait accompli.

A search that gained less attention happened at a South Florida State College, when a search with finalists in hand was effectively rebooted. As every prior finalist withdrew, the college dropped a requirement of a doctorate, then state Rep. Fred Hawkins, R-St. Cloud, was announced as the lone finalist for the job.

Such upheaval certainly hasn’t been part of the search at SCF. Probstfeld announced her retirement after more than a decade on the job. Gregory, for what it’s worth, has a juris doctorate. Gregory acknowledged being nominated for the job, but already had interest. He declined to say if anyone urged him to apply. 

Time will tell if he’s fast-tracked into the job. Of course, it’s not terrible to have a lawmaker as college president, or unprecedented. Probstfeld was preceded as SCF president by former state Rep. Lars Hefner. And Corcoran, while remaining controversial among students and faculty, has demonstrated the financial boon possible for an institution when a president has a deep understanding of the state appropriations process and rolodex of friends in Tallahassee.

We’ll see where the process goes from here. There’s undoubtedly been an effort in recent years to put conservative leaders in head roles in higher education. If Gregory lands this gig, he would qualify. From there, we’ll just have to see what happens next.

Jacob Ogles is contributing senior editor for SRQ MEDIA. 

Photo courtesy Florida House: State Rep. Tommy Gregory, R-Lakewood Ranch.

As an educator for many years, I believe that to be successful as an educational community, we must fully include as many diverse human experiences and identities as possible. Any incongruity in our demographics should be investigated as a potential breakdown of inclusion and addressed proactively and accordingly.

Gender inequality, for instance, has long been a major problem in many industries and, of course, historically, in educational settings. Often, these settings suffer from the under-inclusion of those who identify as women. However, there has been a unique shift in recent years—particularly in the realm of higher education. Currently, colleges and universities across the country are facing a major drop in enrollment and graduation rates… of men. 

According to a Pew Research report in December 2023, there are 1 million fewer American men ages 18 to 24 enrolled in college than there were in 2011 (compared to 200,000 fewer women in the same age range). The biggest decline has occurred in four-year colleges in the U.S., where young men now account for only 42% of enrollees, down from 47% in 2011.

At Ringling College of Art and Design, the widening gap is even more obvious: Nearly 75% of our current student population self-reported as female, compared to only a quarter as male. Twenty years ago at our school, and for decades before, those numbers were virtually reversed, and the men attending heavily outnumbered the women. To be clear, such a significant imbalance is a problem—no matter which way it skews.

It seems there are two primary issues at play in our current situation. One is that fewer men are following the traditional path of high school to higher education. And two, too many of those men who do enroll in four-year colleges still aren’t completing their degrees and graduating. But we don’t really know why.

We may never know for certain why these trends exist, and indeed there are likely many causes. Theories range from the economically positive (like the draw of career opportunities that aren’t directly tied to college education such as apprenticeship programs and trade schools) to the culturally problematic (like a rise in toxic masculinity and its aversion to education and emotional support).

Whatever the cause, we cannot simply lament these issues as “the way things are”—especially not when we, as a leading educational institution and community, are in a prime position to make a real difference. We need to address this gender discrepancy in college enrollment. And we must continue to support our male students throughout their educational journeys and their growth as human beings. Our opportunities shouldn’t just be open to men but should be equal; and the pursuit of higher education by men should be supported, encouraged and celebrated. This is especially true in the arts and other related fields. 

While ensuring that we embrace a broad range of students—including all genders, races and backgrounds—we must remain cognizant of workplace and industry inequality that still skews heavily in the other direction—in favor of men. Despite enrolling in and completing their degrees at a much higher rate, women who graduate from Ringling College and other four-year colleges still face career-long financial and leadership disadvantages in many industries. And this has to change. 

Neither of these issues is acceptable. We must take responsibility as leaders and as educators to do what we can to turn the tide and balance the scales.

Dr. Larry R. Thompson is President of Ringling College of Art and Design. 

Photo courtesy Ringling College: Ringling College students collaborate in the Alfred R. Goldstein Library..

“Transparency” is government’s obligation to share information with citizens that is needed to make informed decisions and hold officials accountable for the conduct of the people’s business.

In the spirit of transparency, let’s make sure we give the readers of SRQ Daily the full truth and not just the version that fits a selective narrative. Claiming a government lacks transparency is an easy opportunity to build on people’s fear and mistrust. But just because you write it doesn’t make it true. 

In two separate guest columns in this publication, North Port has come under criticism from a member of the North Port Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors who is the executive director of a local nonprofit. In my 25 years of government experience, it’s highly unusual to be attacked online by a member of such groups, which we typically communicate with regularly to answer questions and share various partnerships.

North Port has been overly transparent the last few years. We hold multiple town halls during the budget process to share information and gain public feedback while creating our budget submissions to the City Commission. We travel the city on our North Port United Tour events, held in partnership with North Port Forward, which shares the same vision and purpose of ensuring government is communicating accurate information and holding itself accountable to residents. We don’t shy away from making ourselves available and accessible to anyone who seeks information from us or who wants to share ideas and feedback with us.

The latest accusation is that we are not being transparent about construction cost for a new North Port police station and how to pay for it. That’s simply not true. This project has been on our Capital Improvement Projects list for years and evolved over time. At one point, the CIP included a $50-million expansion of the existing station. However, last year a study by a firm that specializes in police headquarters advised it would be more cost effective to build a new station that will meet the future needs of the department and the city as we grow. The Commission agreed, and design planning began on a $100-million project that was included in this year’s budget as unfunded.

We are now in the process of trying to identify funding sources. Everything is on the table, including some combination of surtax dollars, selling City land, a millage increase and possible state and federal assistance through grants and appropriations.

That brings us to the writer’s criticism regarding surtax, or penny sales tax, funds. The Surtax IV extension approved by Sarasota County voters in 2022 includes certain parameters for how funds can be used; construction of a police headquarters certainly qualifies. My staff and I proposed we use $74 million of surtax funds ($50 million principal, $24 million interest) toward the police headquarters, even though it was not on the City’s original list of surtax projects, so we can lessen the potential increase needed to our millage rate.

We suggested the Commission move Phase 2 of the Price Boulevard Widening Project from the end of Surtax IV (in the years 2034-39) to the beginning of Surtax V in 2040 to free up available funds. It is true Surtax V has not yet been approved. But surtax extensions have been overwhelmingly supported by county voters since first approved 35 years ago. The extension in 2022 received 78% of the vote, the highest level for any tax measure in the state. There is no reason to believe 14 years from now it won’t be supported again.

Let’s be clear: We are talking about Phase 2 of Price widening, a long-term project not expected to begin for another decade. This is NOT Phase I, widening the stretch of Price between Sumter and Toledo Blade boulevards, which we all agree is much needed and has been delayed far too long. That project is now underway, with construction expected to begin this year. Unfortunately, the writer’s accusations misled many community members into thinking this critical project is being delayed.

Every municipality in Sarasota County has its own policy for rearranging, adding and subtracting projects from its surtax project list. I am certain this same process was followed when our critic was a county commissioner, yet she now finds it to be unacceptable. This is not anything new or unique to North Port. A City resolution states our commissioners “may alter or amend the project list in the event that the City Commission finds that such a change is in the public interest.”

We have an obligation to solve the problems of our residents and business community, and that is what we are attempting to do. We provide real information in real time before decisions are made – the very definition of transparency in government. In the true spirit of transparency, anyone can reach me at jfletcher@northportFL.gov or on my cell phone at (941) 224-5402. In two-and-a-half years in this position, not once has this individual called me or attended public meetings on these or other topics. 

If you disagree with the decisions we make or don’t like the information you receive, that does not mean transparency doesn’t exist.

Jerome Fletcher is the North Port City Manager. 

Photo courtesy North Port Police Facebook page.

Fletcher is responding to a Mar. 16 column by Christine Robinson.