Here’s the tip that led to arrests of Superintendent Runcie and attorney Myrick

Legal troubles for Broward Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie and top lawyer Barbara Myrick began weeks before their arrests. In March, both called the same school district employee for help with a statewide grand jury investigation, new documents show.

Neither administrator was apparently aware that Mary Coker, the district’s high-profile and at times controversial purchasing director, was in regular contact with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, having first served as a source in a bid rigging case involving former school district administrator Tony Hunter.

Now Coker, 48, is a key witness in the investigations that led to the arrests and ultimate resignations of Runcie and Myrick. Runcie was indicted on a felony perjury charge and will step down Aug. 10. Myrick, who was indicted on a felony charge of illegally disclosing information from a grand jury, left the district June 30. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Their cases are part of a statewide grand jury probe that was initially commissioned by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2019 to review safety and security matters after the Parkland school shooting.

Coker, in a brief interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel, said that she didn’t set out to get Runcie or Myrick in trouble but that law enforcement had asked her to report any calls she got from them.

“When the Florida Department of Law Enforcement reaches out to you with questions and requests for information, you don’t just neglect your duties and ignore them,” Coker said. “You respond, and that’s what I did. I responded truthfully.”

Coker is well-known in the district, frequently answering School Board members’ questions at meetings about purchasing contracts. She’s received stellar evaluations most years, and School Board members have credited her with helping the district fix a purchasing department that was riddled with problems when she arrived in 2016.

But she nearly lost her job in 2019 after she showed up at an office Halloween party dressed as a flasher. Runcie recommended that she be demoted with a $44,000 pay cut. The School Board decided instead to suspend her for seven days, saying it was a one-time lapse of judgment in her otherwise successful tenure with the district.

Coker’s first involvement with the grand jury probe came in 2020 during the investigation of Hunter, the district’s former chief information officer who was indicted on bid-rigging and bribery charges in January. He has pleaded not guilty to both.

After an investigation by the Sun Sentinel, state officials concluded that the district bought about $17 million in Recordex interactive classroom TV’s from Hunter’s friend, using questionable bidding practices.

These practices included the use of “piggybacks,” an arrangement in which a governmental agency latches on to another government-approved contract rather than seeking its own competitive bids. Also questioned were “post-board memos,” through which the superintendent could notify School Board members about contracts under $500,000 by memo rather than getting their approval.

Records show the district used an obscure contract in Minnesota for a piggyback bid and split a nearly $1 million contract into two just under $500,000. The two purchases had completely different names on them in the memos, despite being the same product.

Both Runcie and Myrick contacted Coker about those issues in late March, according to text messages between Coker and Chris Vastine, a special agent with the law enforcement department. The messages are included in newly released documents that prosecutors provided to the defense, including a report from the FDLE.

Coker told Vastine that Runcie’s March 29 questions came a day before Coker learned her boss at the time, Chief Strategy and Operations Officer Maurice Woods, was testifying.

“Hello. Something dawned on me,” Coker texted Vastine about 1:40 p.m. March 30. “I understand my boss was testifying today he told me. Last night Mr. Runcie called asking me so many questions about piggy back.”

She later wrote: “It’s just that I figured out why Runcie called me. He was prepping Woods on what to say about piggy backs based on what I told him last night.”

Coker told Runcie when piggyback bids were proper, citing three specific examples used by the district.

The report doesn’t mention whether investigators believe Runcie gave this information to Woods, who couldn’t be reached for comment.

Runcie began his two-day testimony on March 31. At 9:49 p.m., Coker texted Vastine that she had received a call from Myrick that night asking the same questions about piggybacks and post-board memos that Runcie had asked.

“I’m not supposed to tell you this, but Superintendent Runcie is testifying for the grand jury,” Coker quoted Myrick as saying, according to the FDLE report. Myrick told Coker she was assisting Runcie’s attorney to prepare for his grand jury testimony, according to an investigative report.

State law makes it illegal for any person to disclose what was discussed during a grand jury proceeding or who is testifying.

Myrick’s lawyer, David Bogenschutz, would not comment about the specific allegations.

“I’m sure it’s going to all come out in the wash what may have really happened and whether what she may have said constitutes a crime, at least one that’s prosecutable by a statewide grand jury,” Bogenschutz said.

On April 1, the day after the conversation between Myrick and Coker, Runcie was asked in the grand jury about piggyback bids, according to testimony released by prosecutors. He discussed them using the same examples Coker had provided to him, the investigation says.

When asked several times if he had been prepped by anyone, Runcie denied it, according to the grand jury testimony released.

“No. I haven’t done no prep on that, other than having a copy of the audit report,” Runcie testified.

“Phone calls? E-mails? Text messages? Smoke signals?” a prosecutor asked.

" No, not that — I am trying — no. No, I haven’t talked to anyone specifically about that.”

Neither Runcie nor his lawyers could be reached for comment Thursday.

On April 12, Myrick testified before the grand jury and was asked if she had contacted Coker to help prepare Runcie. After initially denying it, she admitted that she had called Coker about the purchasing practices and provided that information to Runcie’s lawyer, Jeremy Kroll.

On April 14, Myrick, whose office received all grand jury subpoenas, emailed a subpoena to Coker. The next day, Coker met with officials from the law enforcement department, the investigation said.

“After receiving the email, Coker stated that she contacted Myrick via cellular telephone. Coker asked Myrick why she had to testify and what did the [statewide grand jury] want with her,” the investigation states. “Myrick told Coker ‘I’m not supposed to tell you this’ but that she (Myrick) had testified, and she was questioned about a phone call between Myrick and Coker which occurred during Mr. Runcie’s testimony.”

The investigation reveals that at many times Coker expressed discomfort about being an informant and appeared to believe her name would be kept confidential.

“I don’t want them to know I told you they called me,” Coker texted Vastine on March 31.

“We are trying to make sense of this situation,” Vastine responded. “I’m sorry I can’t go into detail with you, but you know about secrecy provisions with the grand jury.”

“Nothing in secret in Broward,” Coker texted. “Everyone knows who testified. ... So please don’t use me for this because I will not trust and give you my comments. I’m trying to help, but not by sacrificing myself.”