Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Allegations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Former facilities director alleges retaliation; residents question hires and pay during Flagler Beach public comment
Summary
At the city's public-comment period a former facilities director said he was terminated despite a high performance score and alleged the City Engineer discouraged staff from reporting problems; other residents raised concerns about high salaries and a hire whose resume was questioned.
During the public-comment portion of the Flagler Beach City Commission meeting, former Facilities Director Brian Mazzo said he was dismissed despite receiving a 96 on his performance evaluation and alleged he was terminated for "not following the chain of command" even though HR told him the city has no chain-of-command policy. "I received a 96 on my performance valuation ... yet on the very last page of my positive evaluation, I was given a termination letter," Mazzo said.
Mazzo went on to describe what he called unprofessional conduct by the City Engineer and said the engineer warned him to "be careful about what I say to commissioners" and repeatedly told him his job was to protect the City Manager, not to report problems. He characterized that pattern as an effort "to silence me and prevent commission from hearing the truth" and said employees who report problems can be removed.
Resident Mark Amhoof raised separate concerns about pay and hiring practices, citing a new salary chart that lists a top salary of $171,000 for a town of roughly 5,000 people and noting one employee hired for approximately $160,000 on 06/03/2024 who received a 4.3% raise during probation. Amhoof also said he checked the new city engineer's claimed previous title and found no record that the person served as Chief Engineer of Capital Improvements for St. Johns County, suggesting possible resume misrepresentation.
City Attorney (on the dais) responded to the termination allegations by explaining that the employee referenced was "released under the terms of the personnel policy during his probationary period" and that "no cause is needed" for such a release under the policy. Commissioners discussed the potential legal risk if cause had been recorded incorrectly and noted that a “name-clearing” process could be offered for individuals who dispute a termination reason.
No formal personnel action or vote occurred in public session; the commissioners suggested follow-up by staff and a private HR process for any contested personnel matters.
