Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop …. Come One …. Come All ….

September 15, 2009 by Barbara


Dear Readers …well, here we are, after all this time we may just get the first annual Town Manager Performance Review in LBTS….This writer posted the performance review requirement in the Town Manager’s contract way back in February after reading online that Deerfield was requesting it for their Town Manager…I had to request the Town Manager’s contract to find out if it was included in her contract…and we all know what the fallout has been from that one PRR…The performance review…The Manager’s one year severance package and additions that total approx. $250,000 if she is fired…The fact that the contract is not the same as her predecessor…and the fact (according to another PRR last  month) that the “2-Hats” did indeed have the current Town Manager contract in the backup when they voted for it in May 2007…leaving them either complicit with the Town Manager in what she added in it or derelict in their duties for not knowing …No wonder the woman is zoned in on this “blogger”!…

The Commission held a round table discussion at 5 pm on September 10, 2009 where they discussed how to proceed with the review…It was disconnected and futile at best….The seating said it all…”Gang of 3″ on one side Mayor Minnet and Commissioner Dodd on the other…Commissioner Clottey spoke about the Florida League of Cities and presented what they sent her…While the sound inside the hall was awful…with the table in the back of the room…and hearing the Commissioners was hit or miss at best…what we did hear from her was that she received a packet with a evaluation of the Town Manager in Lauderhill with an accompanied “cover story”…She referred to the “cover story” about “bias” in evaluating the Manager…especially after Commissioner Dodd read from his detailed notes about his issues with the Manager and what he was looking for in a review… However upon looking at the “cover story” …”How to Conduct A Performance Appraisal”, it is not about evaluating Town Managers…it is about Town Managers evaluating their employees!…The publication begins with this …”It’s that dreaded time again: time to do employee appraisals and reviews. You just know it’s going to eat up all your time and energy. You feel stressed out just  thinking about it, don’t you? Well, you certainly aren’t alone. Judging from city and county managers I spoke with at the Florida City and County Management Association meetings last year, managers throughout the country echo these feelings.”…It was written in April 2002…The “fly -by- the- seat of their pants Broom- Boys”…made the usual remarks that called into play their ignorance about the RFPs..the Town Manager contract …what was required per her contract and even the dates of the upcoming meetings this month…The Mayor and Commissioner Dodd tried to add some substance and were met at the table the same as when they are on the dais…with no support…The link is below to the Town website and the video of the meeting….

What the Commissioners will be filling out…..

The Evaluation of City Manager Lauderhill, Florida……(insert LBTS for Lauderhill)

It begins with a scale from 1 to 5 … 1 = Does not meet expectations….3= Meets expectations…..5= Exceeds expectations…



1. Keep the Commission informed in an appropriate  and timely manner about matters critical to the Commission’s policy making role?

2. Provide information on an equal basis basis to all Commission members?

3. Anticipate and follow up promptly on Commission requests for information or action without having to be reminded?

4. Available to the Commission on official business either personally or through designated subordinates?

5. Report departmental and staff activities to the Commission in an appropriate and timely manner?

6. Advise the Commission of relevant legislation and developments in the area  of public policy affecting  the City of Lauderhill?

7. Developed or is in the process of developing  comprehensive  understanding  of the problems and issues existing in Lauderhill?

8. Consider all available alternatives before making recommendations to the Commission?

9. Anticipate, plan and prioritize future needs and programs recognizing the potential problems confronting the City?




1. Develop and administer a process of budget preparation and review which meets the requirement of the City Charter, and expectations of the Commission in its decision making role?

2. Control operational and capital costs through adequate budgetary controls and the judicious / economical utilization of manpower, material and equipment?

3. Provide the Commission with timely and sufficient reports on financial status of the City government in accordance with the Charter and requirements of the Commission?



1. Effectuate sound personnel selection and placement policies?

2. Motivate personnel through leadership and training so that they are increasingly effective in the performance of their duties, in achieving common goals and objectives and in maturing an attitude of courtesy, helpfulness and sensitivity to the public?

3. Take disciplinary action when appropriate?

4. Promote and support the “public service role” for city employees and emphasizing exemplary performance?

5. Treat all city personnel in a fair and equitable manner?



1. Execute the policies adopted by the Commission in a timely and appropriate fashion?

2. Plan and execute organizational priorities in a manner reflective of the city’s stated mission and goals, and satisfactory to the Commission?

3. Analyze organizational problems or issues and identify causes, reasons, implications, and solutions employing all available technologies, systems and methods?

4. Execute the short and long- term goals and objectives aet forth inb the City’s Mission Statement in a timely and effective manner?

5. Communicate effective, clearly, easily and to the point?

6. Demonstrate sensitivity to the opinions and concerns of others in and outside the organization?

7. Emphasize the importance of teamwork and leadership in his (her) relationship with the organization, and provide a role model for personnel?

8. Accept new idea and suggestions for change?

9. Adapt to and deal effectively with unanticipated conditions and situations?



1. Handle disputes or complaints involving citizens in an effective, equitable, and timely manner?

2. Make himself (herself) available and visible to the citizens of Lauderhill in an appropriate manner?

3. Present Commission policies and positions on issues to the citizens and city organization accurately, equitably, and effectively?

4. Direct sufficient public credit to the Commission in its role as a Governing Body?



1. Deal effectively with other governmental agencies at all levels in representing the City of Lauderhill?

2. Develop and administer an effective program of grantsmanship?


List Goals, achievements, objectives

Overall Rating (consider all items above)

signature (Commissioner)/ Date

The Commission decided to add commentary on the Town’s contracted vendors…such as the BSO/VFD/AMR …They were to fill out the evaluation forms and turn them into the Town and then the Town would make copies and distribute them to each Commissioner…The Commissioners decided to call for a workshop at 5:30 on Sept. 22nd before the 7 pm Regular Commission meeting …A motion was to be made at the continuation meeting that took place after this round table…except…that motion was never made!…The motion that was made was for a 5 pm workshop to discuss the promissory notes instead…At Monday night’s budget hearing the Commissioners  (Comm. Clottey was absent) voted  4-0 to payoff those notes…but no discussion followed about that scheduled workshop either!…This writer sent a request for information on the status of either to the Town yesterday to PIO D’Oliveira…asking for clarification…and will post upon receipt…

In conclusion… Readers should fill in the blanks themselves for this evaluation of Town Manager Colon…This writer has chosen to leave them blank because I believe I evaluate her performance on this site ….and it should come as no surprise where she would fall on the evaluation scale in my opinion….in other words there would be plenty to discuss…per the Vice Mayor’s suggestion of 3 or below would require discussion to correct the “problem” ….

While I found much of Commissioner Clottey’s comments at the round table discussion lacking in her criteria of what should NOT be addressed in the Manager’s evaluation and thought it showed how truly out of touch she has become with her constituents and the reality of past events due to decisions made by the Town Manager, her choice of this  evaluation ( were others sent as well?) was really quite comprehensive in its content… I’m not quite sure the “Gang of 3” fully previewed the evaluation handed out shortly before signing onto its use for this years evaluation because it will definitely give the voters as much of an evaluation of the Commissioners filling it out as it does in providing them with the evaluation results of the Town Manager!…

What to look forward to when and if this really comes to fruition on the 22nd?….If there is “reasonable”notice and we start at 5:30 pm with the Performance Review workshop…look for CIC vs UOT coming to the podium with their commentary on the Town Manager…Then let’s see if  the “Gang of 3” will inflate their votes and manage to skew the numbers (3 to 2) so there is nothing below a 3 (meets expectations) …and the threshold needed (per the Vice Mayor at the Round Table meeting) for the Commissioners to have any discussion on how to correct the “problem”…That’s the kind of  “whitewash” that will certainly provide voters with plenty to think about when deciding who to vote for in March….

Open seating….Open Mike….Come One…Come All….

more to come…..

Post Division