LIVE OAK, Fla. — For the first time since being hired as Live Oak’s city manager, Ron Williams’ job performance will be formally evaluated by the city council.

The council, by a 4-1 vote at the March 12 meeting, approved utilizing the same evaluation form the city uses for other staff evaluations, to conduct one on Williams. Councilman Mark Stewart voted against using that form, citing a desire to see an area for the councilors to express goals and objectives for Williams to reach.

“We can begin with that, but I just think we need some goals,” Stewart said. “What we want to do with public housing, what we want to do with streets, what we want to do with different areas of the city, different functions and that gives us something tangible. ‘He met that one. He didn’t meet that one.’”

Councilman David Burch, who was appointed as a “committee of 1” by President Bennie Thomas to devise the evaluation form, said if Stewart didn’t like the current form, the city should then look at revising it for use on all city employees. He added that he felt like those goals would be addressed when council members met with Williams to perform the evaluation.

“We let him know what are the expectations, what we’re happy with, what we think he needs to work on,” Burch said. “That’s what an evaluation is.”

Police Chief Buddy Williams said while there is no perfect evaluation form, he felt the one the city began using last year is a good one and does a thorough job of promoting employee growth.

“There needs to be goals listed for everybody, and I get that, but I think it lists it out and you have the opportunity to express that in each of those lined areas,” Williams said, adding he felt like once someone goes through the evaluation process with the form, it makes more sense. “You have to push the boat from the bank to get moving, I know that.

“The evaluation provides a well-rounded aspect of every portion of any jobs that any of us are doing.”

Stewart also said he’d prefer the board meet collectively to set goals and objectives, not do it in individual 1-on-1 meetings with the manager.

With the approval of the form despite Stewart’s objection, the councilors can now complete individual evaluations of Williams for City Attorney Fred Koberlein to then tabulate. The scores Williams receives in the specific areas of his job performance — knowledge of the job, quality of work, quantity of work, attendance, judgment and decision-making, initiative/professional development, attitude, teamwork, public contact, management/supervisory skills and fiscal management skills — will then determine if and how much of a merit pay increase he receives.

According to the city’s managerial employees evaluation form, a score of 42-55 (each of the 11 areas can be awarded 1-5 points) would net a 1.5 percent increase, a 34-41 score would be a 1 percent increase, a score of 16-33 would equal a 0.5 percent increase and a score below 16 would not garner an increase.

Williams’ contract, though, calls for raises to be negotiated.

The council did not address whether it would follow the grading scale to determine any potential raises or if it would negotiate those possible salary increases.

Williams’ contract also calls for the annual evaluations, although the city council has yet to perform one. The council also unanimously approved conducting the evaluation itself, as the contract states, and updating the city’s personnel policy manual which called for the mayor to evaluate the city manager as resident Dick Calvitt pointed out.

Burch admitted in February that the council “dropped the ball” in that regard.

Calvitt, though, said Williams was also to blame. Citing the contract, Calvitt said the evaluation process had to be mutually agreed upon, so Williams also was aware that the evaluations weren’t being conducted.

Calvitt again, as he has at past meetings since Williams was approved a 1.5 percent raise as well as a cost of living adjustment in October (which was effective Oct. 1), wondered how the council could approve raises for Williams without an evaluation when other city employees had their merit increases based on evaluations.

Anita Williams, another resident, also questioned those raises.

“What is the legality of giving raises to the city manager without doing annual evaluations?” Anita Williams asked. “Do you claw those raises back? Do you look at what you did those three years that nobody followed the contract?”

Ron Williams, though, has not yet received that 1.5 percent merit increase, even though it was approved in October.

Joanne Luther, the city’s finance director, said merit raises for city employees go into effect on the employee’s anniversary date pending the completion of the evaluation. So the city manager couldn’t receive that raise until April and when an evaluation was completed.