Ratings: 1. Unacceptable – Unsatisfactory performance. 2. Conditional – Requires Improvement 3 Satisfactory – Meets Council Expectations 4. Exceptional – Generally exceeds Council’s expectations 5. Outstanding – Substantially exceeds Council’s expectations.
Supervision: Rating: 1
Does the Town Manager maintain a standard of respect for department head’s ability and encourage their initiative? Does he challenge them to perform at their highest level?
Town Manager does not respect Department heads, discourages their initiatives and dictates their performance objectives rather than challenging them to perform at their highest level.
Leadership Rating: 1
Does the town manager inspire others to succeed? Does he actively promote efficiency in operations? Does he demonstrate a high regard for personal ethics.
Town Manager does not inspire staff to succeed nor promotes efficiency in operations. Demonstrated disdain for personal ethics by willfully making false statements and reports under oath.
Execution of Policy: Rating: 1
Does he understand the laws and ordinances of the town and cause them to be fairly enforced?
Ms Tebo demonstrates willful disregard for the Town Charter and Ordinances. Permits unfair enforcement of utility ordinance, violates Charter Sections 5.02, 5.04, 5.06, 5.07, 5.09, 6.02 (a), (b), 6.07, 6.09 (b), 3.02 (j).
Community Relations: Rating: 1
Does the town manager work well with citizens and properly handle their complaints?
Ms. Tebo’s standard operating procedure is to NOT meet with citizens regarding their complaints and to have the WSPD remove citizens from Town Hall if she does not want to discuss their complaints or have staff discuss the complaints with citizens.
Administrative Duties: Rating: 1
Does the town manager properly handle his administrative duties?
Ms. Tebo violates Section 3.02 (d), (f), (j) of the Town Charter.
Economic Development Rating: 1
Does the town manager work well with developers while protecting the town’s interest? Does he work to increase the city’s tax base through economic development?
Ms. Tebo has stifled the volunteer efforts of the Town’s Economic Development Advisory Group by not allowing the volunteers to meet. Ms..Tebo’s actions have resulted in the destruction of the Town’s Volunteer Fire Rescue Department.
Intergovernmental Relations: Rating: 1
Does the town manager cooperate cordially with neighboring communities and citizens while looking after the interests of White Springs?
Ms. Tebo’s opposition to the County’s Fire Rescue performance contract is causing discord and puts the interests of White Springs Citizens in harm’s way.
Town Council Relations: Rating: 1
Does the town manager work well with the city council in making sure there is adequate information available prior to meetings? Is he willing to meet with council members to deal with individual problems and issues.
Ms. Tebo provides information to the Town Council at the “last minute” and relies on “ambush” tactics to avoid balanced and fair discussions. Ms. Tebo has refused to meet with me to deal with individual problems and issues.
Planning Rating: 1
Does the town manager involve himself in the planning process to the correct degree? Does he review the process and look for better ways to handle development activities?
Ms. Tebo’s performance lacks professionalism. She is self centered and autocratic. She accepts input from Bullard, Brown and Lofton but disrespects input from me.
Financial Management/Budget Rating: 1
Does the Town manger ensure the budget is prepared and executed in the manner approved by the town council? Does he ensure the city’s monies are managed properly?
Ms. Tebo refuses to seek knowledgeable legal interpretation of the State Statute regarding LOFT revenue restrictions and has failed to direct separate accounting for LOFT revenues.
Ms. Tebo continues to violate the terms of her employment contract; demonstrates contempt for citizens by refusing to meet with them; has destroyed the viability of the Town’s Volunteer Fire Rescue Department, Neutered the White Springs Police Department and violates State Statute by Misspending LOFT revenues.