Mr. Suhoski received a poor rating, the second lowest possible rating, in the categories of budgetary/financial administration, supervision/leadership, staff development, public relations, employee and labor relations, interaction with the board, and intergovernmental. He also received an unacceptable rating, the lowest possible, in the categories of policy execution and goal/performance attainment.
“The members of the board, without exception, indicated that there was a sense on their part that hopefully Shaun would recognize some of the issues that were raised here and there would be a concerted effort on his part to make every possible effort to perform in a manner that was more consistent with, who I happen to believe, personally, Shaun is as an individual,” Thomas R. Creamer, chairman of selectmen, said. “I think the board feels there’s a great deal of potential in Shaun but that potential has not been realized in a manner that one would hope.”
Some of the comments in the four-page evaluation include “…fails to provide detailed information relative to actual/anticipated costs for consideration of projects and/or policy,” “…has demonstrated a tendency towards delay relative to committee appointments despite repeated inquiries from the board,” “…frequently tardy for work and meetings, thus demonstrating a lack of consideration for the time of others,” “…was non-participatory for much of…(the move and transition back into the Town Hall and Center Office Building) process” “…his frequent lack of availability,” “…demonstrates a reactive, rather than proactive approach to dealing/working with other entities” and “…thus far failed to demonstrate a sincere desire to fulfill his responsibilities and that has led to acrimony both internally and externally for the organization.”
“I won’t say that I agree that I did a poor job in every one of those things. I don’t necessarily agree with all that,” Mr. Suhoski said. “I do agree that I have not met the expectations of your board or the community to this point and I am going, as embarrassing as it is, to accept that. I appreciate the feedback. You need objective perspectives sometimes to see what your own weaknesses are. So I am going to accept it in that vein and I appreciate you sharing it with me in a professional manner, to share your observations, and I am going to try respond in kind.”
Prior to his position in Sturbridge, Mr. Suhoski had been Ayer town administrator since 2006. In a 5-0 vote in Sturbridge, Mr. Suhoski succeeded James J. Malloy, who left the town administrator post after 14 years to become Westboro town manager. His best ratings, acceptable to poor, came in the category of personnel administration, followed by his second best rating, poor to unacceptable, in effectiveness/productivity. He did not receive any ratings characterized as excellent, good or acceptable.
I'm almost speechless. I attended a meeting with parties involved with the Rte 15 sewer at town hall last week. Again, the recommendation will be to put this project on hold, to kick the can down the road for some other B.O.S. Why? if all the surveys that have been done say this is an area townspeople want developed....why? I agree, lack of leadership. Fear of the D.E.P. rather than sitting down with them and putting them on record. Merry Christmas everybody. We've all received coal in our stockings!ReplyDelete
We spend too much time here keeping up appearances and promoting ourselves as something we never were! It's time to get real! It's time our tax money goes to useful, helpful, important things things, and to people who actually do their jobs.ReplyDelete
Things are piling up so deep in this town, it's no wonder they're telling the townsfolk that they'll have to start shoveling!ReplyDelete