The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Debates for evaluation process stall reviews
EAST HAMPTON >> The Town Council sat down last week to conduct a performance review of Town Manager Michael Maniscalco.
But almost immediately, the meeting swerved off course and degenerated into an extended debate over “process” and whether “discussions” are understood to follow a proposal even if the proposal does not say so specifically.
Speaking via telephone from outside the state, Councilor Ted Hintz Jr. took the lead in those discussions. Hintz complained that a motion made by Councilor Melissa Engel did not specifically say it included “discussion.” Hintz then took issue with Engel’s efforts to amend her motion to include the word “discussion.”
However, in a July 11 email to her colleagues, Council Chairwoman Patience R. Anderson had promised they would have “a collective and joint discussion and final evaluation.”
The evening ended with Maniscalco gathering up the council’s individual and collective performance ratings to take them home to review and craft a response.
Meanwhile, Anderson said she was heading home to take a hot shower, in an effort to relieve some of the tension generated by the meeting. Among the reasons for built-up — or builtin — tension: by charter, the manager is required to be present during every council meeting. That meant Maniscalco was present as council members proposed discussing their individual assessments of his performance.
Hintz had challenged that requirement and demanded Maniscalco get an attorney’s opinion on the issue. Attorney Kyle A. McClain, from the firm of Siegel O’Connor O’Donnell & Beck, concluded that, yes, the manager was required by charter to be present at all council meetings.
As the subject of the evaluation meeting, Maniscalco also had the option of having the meeting held behind closed doors or open to the public — and the media. He chose to have an open meeting. However, councilors from both political parties quickly agreed they needed — and wanted — to change the rule requiring the manager to be present while the council discusses their evaluations before they present them to the manager.
Fortunately for them, the town is in the midst of charter revision and the commission chairwoman is Councilor Engel, who promised she would ask the commission to address the question of allowing the council to meet without the manager being present to discuss his job performance.
Under the provisions of Maniscalco’s contract, the council is required to conduct an annual evaluation of the manager’s performance on five categories: fiscal management, communications, services, personnel and professionalism. The council grades the manager on a scale from “superior” to “above average” to “average” to “needs improvement.” Members prepare a consensus form that includes the aggregate scores from all seven councilors, who also include their individual assessments.
The manager has 30 days in which to respond to the councilor’s assessments.
Last year, the previous council decided the oncea-year evaluation wasn’t enough and pressed to have four evaluations a year, one each quarter. Further adding to the undercurrent of tension during the meeting: the council was intent upon establishing “goals and objectives,” which would then be used to evaluate the manager.
Which was all fine and good, except after the meeting adjourned, Maniscalco revealed he had routinely been given “goals and objectives” by the two previous councils. Those councilors were controlled first by The Chatham Party and then the most recent council, which Democrats controlled.
Republicans currently control the council.