Melbourne Beach commissioners hold performance review for town manager amid mixed public comments

Melbourne Beach — The Town Commission met in a special session June 2 to conduct the annual performance evaluation of Town Manager Elizabeth Mascaro, with commissioners submitting written evaluations, offering direction on reporting and priorities, and hearing contrasting public comments that ranged from praise to allegations about public-records handling and staff turnover.

Mascaro, who briefed commissioners on the scope of her duties during the session, described the role as broad and hands-on: “So my primary responsibility is to execute the wishes of the town commission. I'm the liaison between town commission and the employees, the town commission and the residents. I'm the administrator all the time.” She told commissioners that recent years have brought increased record requests and lawsuits that have added to staff workload and stress.

Several commissioners recommended management changes in process and communication rather than an immediate personnel action. One commissioner urged the commission and staff to create a three-year strategic plan to clarify priorities and timelines and recommended a system to prioritize requests from commissioners and the mayor. The same commissioner asked that the town manager serve as the “sole gatekeeper for all requests, all meetings,” and proposed a regular weekly activity report covering completed work and next-week priorities; the speaker suggested the short-term rental program be a standing subsection of that report.

Public comment was divided. Resident Steve Walters, of 416 Sixth Avenue, said trust is central to the manager’s role and that a lack of trust “creates havoc, chaos a little bit.” By contrast, Sherry Boring, of 701 Pine Street, urged the commission to renew Mascaro’s contract and said Mascaro has “definite knowledge of our finances, infrastructure, emergency management, FEMA, all aspects of the town.” Boring also said she had not heard current employees complain about Mascaro’s performance.

Other public commenters accused the town of mishandling records and cited employee resignations and grievances. One commenter alleged destruction of original records related to police key-fob access and said criminal reports had been filed; the commission did not take any formal disciplinary action at the meeting, and Mascaro and the town attorney were present for discussion. The transcript records calls from several speakers for clearer evaluation criteria; one public speaker said no published performance metrics had been provided to guide the review.

Commissioners shared numeric ratings privately; one commissioner said their compiled score for Mascaro was 2.1 on the scale the commission used and listed areas for improvement such as timeliness in implementing commission policy and responsiveness to public inquiries. Commissioners did not take a formal vote to extend or terminate Mascaro’s contract at the meeting.

Meeting procedures produced several small formal actions: the commission closed general public comment at the start of the session, approved short extensions of speaking time for commissioners and members of the public by voice votes, and recessed the meeting for five minutes at adjournment. No ordinance, resolution, contract award or appointment was considered or decided during this special meeting.

The discussion produced several clear directions commissioners may act on going forward: develop a multi-year strategic plan, institute a regular weekly activity report from the town manager, centralize requests through the town manager’s office, and clarify evaluation metrics for future reviews. Commissioners and staff indicated willingness to review written evaluation details in a face-to-face follow-up rather than airing all specifics publicly.

The town manager’s review drew both sustained public engagement and private commissioner feedback; the commission did not announce any immediate personnel decisions at the end of the session.