Turner gives Nadalini poor evaluation

Commissioner Terry Turner submitted a charter performance evaluation for City Auditor and Clerk Pamela Nadalini last month that gave her “Below Expectations” marks in six different categories, making for a combined “Below Expectations” evaluation rating.

The evaluation was submitted less than a month after it was revealed Turner is supporting a November charter amendment that would take more responsibility away from Nadalini to give the city manager’s office more power.

Nadalini refused to sign the evaluation that listed her management skills as “Below Expectations,” choosing, instead, to write a two-page letter to Turner dated Monday, July 2, detailing her concerns with the low marks she received.

Human Resources Director Kurt Hoverter told the Sarasota Observer Tuesday that Turner had previously told staff he didn’t plan on performing charter evaluations for the previous fiscal year, which were due in January. The decision put the charter evaluations in limbo.

When Turner submitted his evaluations June 18 for both Nadalini and city attorney Robert Fournier, though, a charter official evaluation discussion item was added to Monday’s regular meeting under the unfinished business category, which meant the evaluations could not be discussed by members of the public.

Nadalini did not return a phone call seeking comment for this story, and it’s also unclear why the individual commissioner evaluations were not listed in the backup material for Monday’s agenda.

The rest of the commission turned in evaluations earlier this year.

Mayor Suzanne Atwell, Vice Mayor Willie Shaw and Commissioner Paul Caragiulo all gave Nadalini and city attorney Robert Fournier a combined average “Meets Expectations” mark, with Commissioner Shannon Snyder giving them both an “Exceeds Expectations” combined average mark.

In Turner’s evaluation, he noted that Nadalini was “Below Expectations” in the following categories:
• Recommend or audit comments concerning records of governmental and proprietary functions of the city and all departments and divisions;

• Serve as pension administrator of general employees pension plan;

• Leadership;

• Management (works effectively with others in the city to accomplish organizational goals);

• Personal effectiveness (demonstrates appropriate values, personality traits, regard for health and perspective of job and life);

• Team approach (uses appropriate interpersonal styles and methods to develop team spirit and intra-team cooperation).

Turner declined to discuss his evaluation of Nadalini; it was the only one of five commissioner evaluations that gave her a subpar combined rating.

When asked why Turner changed his mind and agreed to submit charter evaluations, he said, “I read the charter and saw that I was required to.”

In her two-page letter, Nadalini said she was surprised to receive an evaluation from Turner because he had previously expressed he wasn’t going to do one.

“Nonetheless and, as anticipated, you chose to document my performance as less than stellar in many areas,” Nadalini wrote. “We are in disagreement on many of these areas.”

Nadalini also wrote that Turner failed to provide her with specific details or reasoning behind his poor marks when they met June 22.

“The lack of constructive feedback makes it difficult for me to determine where you perceive there to be opportunities for improvement,” Nadalini wrote. “I believe my performance reflects a higher standard of quality than you have acknowledged.”

Nadalini outlined the areas where Turner gave her poor markings, explaining that an internal audit that launched a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development investigation into the spending of city grant dollars “should not be confused with performing at a low level.”

Nadalini also noted her pension administrator duties should not be confused with that of a policy maker or an investment manager and that she’s only responsible for implementing policy decisions made by the city’s pension boards.

Nadalini also explained to Turner that he is unable to assess her leadership or management skills because he rarely visits her office or sees her in action, other than at commission meetings.

“I enjoy my job and take my responsibilities very seriously,” Nadalini wrote. “It is my hope that you will be able to evaluate my performance objectively in the coming year.”

When the new city manager is selected, that charter official position will also receive annual performance evaluations.