During a recent government meeting, the executive committee discussed a merit increase recommendation for the executive director, who addressed the board regarding their salary evaluation. The executive director reflected on the previous year, highlighting the challenges faced when the department was at risk of being abolished. They emphasized their commitment to ensuring that all staff received merit and cost-of-living adjustments, while they themselves opted not to pursue an evaluation or salary increase at that time.

The executive director proposed a 10% salary increase, suggesting that this was modest compared to the compensation of peers in similar positions. They noted that this request included a 5% adjustment for the previous year and another 5% for the current year.

However, the discussion took a contentious turn when the executive director criticized the evaluations received, describing them as biased and speculative, lacking relevant evidence. They expressed concern that the evaluations resembled a \"character assassination\" rather than a fair assessment of their performance. This statement underscores ongoing tensions within the committee regarding leadership evaluations and compensation, raising questions about the processes in place for assessing executive performance.