Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Performance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler commissioners revise evaluation templates for county attorney and administrator
Summary
The board reviewed draft five‑point, 10‑question evaluation templates for the county attorney and county administrator, agreed on measurable goals and a timeline (self‑evaluation and an Oct. 31 evaluation window), and asked staff to refine question weighting.
At a workshop April 6, the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners reviewed proposed updates to performance-evaluation tools for the county attorney and the county administrator, emphasizing measurable goals and clearer weighting of priorities ahead of the next formal review cycle.
HR director Charlie Picano presented a condensed evaluation format used by peer counties: a five‑point rating scale with roughly 10 core questions and room for comments, intended to streamline the prior form. Picano said the draft pulls common performance measures from other counties and suggested condensing and weighting the most important elements.
County Attorney perspective: The county attorney (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Rodriguez) urged care in expecting the attorney to act as a public spokesperson. "My one client is you guys," he said, noting ethical limits where the attorney represents the board and may at times be adversarial to members of the public. Commissioners agreed evaluation items should be tied to the job description and include measurable timelines where feasible.
Key measures and timeline: Commissioners identified legal counsel competence, execution of goals and priorities, budget/financial management, project execution and communication/reporting as high‑priority evaluation criteria. The board agreed to an annual review window and to require a self‑evaluation from each subject 15 days before the commissioners’ evaluation period (the board discussed opening the evaluation on Sept. 1 and completing by Oct. 31, to allow merit adjustments at fiscal‑year boundaries).
Advisory‑board review and other goals: Commissioners asked the attorney and administration to review the county’s advisory boards for mission creep, Sunshine Law compliance and meeting minutes quality, and to develop onboarding material and trainings for board and commission members. Commissioners also asked for a practicable mechanism to ensure terminations receive legal review when appropriate.
Next steps: Staff will revise the templates to reflect the board’s weighting preferences, clarify language around "timely" responses and build measurable goals into the forms. The board expects to finalize weighting and procedures once a new administrator is in place so that goals and expectations align with that official’s onboarding.
