Santa Rosa Commission Chairman Kerry Smith is having difficulty seeing his own behavior, yet he has no trouble identifying and condemning others. He claims to speak his mind, unapologetically calling things as he sees them. He even acknowledges that when he gets “fired up,” controlling his words and tone becomes difficult. And yet, for all his self-awareness in admitting that flaw, he seems utterly blind to how his behavior affects those around him.
From his elevated position on the dais, Smith has frequently called people out—us included. He has publicly referred to those who routinely speak during public forums as “frequent flyers,” as if participating in the democratic process is something to be mocked. He has berated individuals from his seat of authority, chastising them, dismissing their concerns, and, at times, outright yelling at members of the audience. Citizens have repeatedly voiced their discontent, telling him that his aggressive style of communication is inappropriate and unwelcome. And yet, nothing changes.
Smith’s latest power play unfolded at Monday’s meeting, where he unilaterally added an item to Thursday’s agenda: a motion to remove Gene Sullivan from the zoning board. Sullivan is Commissioner Ray Eddington’s pick for the board. Eddington opposed the move, pointing out that the entire justification for Smith’s push to remove Sullivan was based on hearsay and a single email from an applicant.
According to Smith, Sullivan attended a special zoning meeting and spoke to commissioners about a project that the zoning board had denied. His goal was to ensure the commissioners understood why the project had been rejected, encouraging them to vote in alignment with that denial. However, rather than taking that expertise into account, the commissioners approved the project—directly contradicting the zoning board’s recommendation.
Following the vote, the applicant’s realtor sent an email to Smith alleging that Sullivan and another man had verbally accosted her right after the meeting. Instead of seeking more context or investigating thoroughly, Smith forwarded the email to administrative staff, who then circulated it to all commissioners.
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: If Sullivan did, in fact, verbally accost the realtor, was his behavior out of line? Absolutely. Conduct unbecoming of a public servant—volunteer or not—should never be condoned. But should he be removed from his position? No. There simply isn’t enough evidence to support such an action. Sullivan vehemently denies making the alleged comments, instead stating that the other individual present was the one responsible. Without audio proof or corroborating witnesses who were not part of the applicant’s team, removing Sullivan over an unverified complaint would be unjust and arbitrary.
One citizen who spoke during Monday’s meeting said this to Smith, “From someone who was bullied mercilessly when I was in school – your behavior this morning was as much like a bully as anything I’ve ever seen.”
Another citizen, Jerry Couey, said to Smith, “When you suggested you wanted to run (for office), I loaned you my name and reputation and tie to get you elected. So far, I don’t appreciate the direction you are going in, and the way you talk to people. It was my mistake, but it is not an error I cannot rectify.”
In moments like these, it becomes painfully obvious how subjective Smith’s standards truly are. He has routinely engaged in verbal attacks, intimidation, and public chastisements, yet remains in his leadership position without consequence. His behavior is excused, brushed off, or defended under the guise of “speaking his mind.” When the tables are turned, however, he is quick to wield his authority in an attempt to punish others. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.