Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Manager Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sanford commissioners question communication and process during city manager evaluation
Summary
Commissioners focused their review on items rated low in the city manager’s annual evaluation, raising recurring concerns about communication (Porchfest and wastewater plant timing), the evaluation process after one commissioner withheld a new rating, and plans to finalize an averaged score later in the meeting.
Sanford City Commission members spent the bulk of their Dec. 8 work session reviewing the city manager’s annual performance evaluation, concentrating discussion on areas several commissioners marked as needing improvement and debating how to treat a commissioner’s decision not to submit a new rating.
The meeting opened with Speaker 1 explaining a pared-down spreadsheet that lists only items marked with a 2, saying that approach would let commissioners focus on lower-scoring areas. Commissioner Thomas (referenced in the discussion) and multiple colleagues questioned whether some responsibilities—such as policy reviews—should be scored on the actions of the manager personally or on staff work supervised by the manager.
Commissioners raised specific concerns about public communication. Speaker 3 said the city should have better informed commissioners and the public about the cancellation of Porchfest, noting staff interactions as early as May that did not reach the full commission. The same speaker highlighted timeliness and transparency problems during an incident at the North Wastewater Treatment Plant, noting that staff have since committed to stocking a crucial replacement part to prevent repeat outages.
A written statement from Commissioner Britton, read into the record by Speaker 1, explained that Britton declined to submit a new evaluation this year because she considers the process “neither meaningful nor effective.” The letter also asserts that "the recent use of artificial intelligence by our city manager to create a public facing message" was among factors that undermined confidence in the process. Commissioner Britton’s letter asks Human Resources to use her prior-year evaluation as her standing position.
Human Resources (Speaker 6) responded that, under the city’s agreed process, each evaluation must be completed for the current year; HR said referring retroactively to a prior-year evaluation is contrary to the evaluation procedure and would not be appropriate for averaging this year’s ratings.
Commissioners also discussed fiscal management and capital planning. Speaker 3 called for clearer trend analysis and a concise public-facing summary of the capital improvement plan so citizens can see planned projects and timelines. Several commissioners said they supported consolidating the long list of annual goals and finalizing a smaller, more practical set in January so the city manager has clear priorities.
No formal evaluation motion was taken during the discussion; Speaker 1 said the commission would bring the item back later in the meeting for a motion and vote. Several commissioners asked the city manager to meet individually with them and suggested quarterly check-ins to improve communication between the manager and the commission.
The commission closed the evaluation portion acknowledging personal hardships affecting performance reviews — one commissioner asked colleagues to consider the manager’s recent family loss while still evaluating performance on its merits. The discussion concluded with a plan to return the item for a formal vote later in the meeting.
