He stated that receiving such low ratings without prior communication created what he described as a toxic working environment between the Board and the General Manager. He emphasized that the Board is his sole employer and that the working environment established by the Board directly affects his ability to perform his duties. He further stated that he would not leave the position because of the workload or responsibilities associated with the job, but rather because of the work environment created by the Board if it became untenable.
The General Manager also expressed concern that the evaluations are public records and become part of his permanent professional record. He stated that ratings of 25 and 0, without supporting discussions or documented performance issues, could negatively impact his professional reputation and future employment opportunities. He requested that Board members provide specific, timely, and constructive feedback when concerns arise so that he has an opportunity to improve and respond appropriately.
The General Manager acknowledged and appreciated constructive comments and discussions he had received from other supervisors during the year, stating that those conversations had been beneficial in improving his performance. He distinguished those discussions from evaluations that contained very low scores without prior communication and stated that he believed employees should be given the opportunity to address concerns before such ratings are issued.
During the discussion Supervisor Gilpin commented that the General manager “Sounded like a disgruntled employee”. Following the remark, several audience members voiced objections and called for the supervisor’s resignation.
Following the General Manager’s remarks, the Board began discussion of the evaluation results and potential contract adjustments.
President Norton stated that the two lowest evaluation scores suggested that the General Manager would be considered the worst General Manager the District had ever employed, a conclusion with which he strongly disagreed. Supervisor Caramanna stated that he had given the General Manager a score of 100, describing him as an exceptional General Manager whose leadership had resulted in significant improvements throughout the community. Supervisor Caramanna cited the District’s accomplishments during the General Manager’s tenure and stated that he did not agree with the two supervisors who submitted substantially lower evaluations.
President Norton further stated that if a Board member intends to issue either an exceptionally high or exceptionally low evaluation, the employee should receive ongoing communication and notice of performance concerns throughout the year rather than learning of those concerns only during the annual evaluation process.
Before opening public comment, President Norton reminded those in attendance to remain respectful and requested that speakers avoid repeating identical comments so that differing viewpoints could be heard.
- Public Comment
- Debbie Turner, 4560 Myrtle Beach Drive, addressed the Board regarding the General Manager’s performance evaluation. She noted that four evaluators, including the Board President Norton, Vice President Phillips, Supervisor Caramanna, and former Supervisor Herrick, rated the General Manager between 93 and 100, while Supervisors McLaughlin and Supervisor Gilpin assigned scores of 25 and 0, respectively. She questioned whether the