Rutherford working as at-will employee

City aldermen could be voting to renew the contract of city administrator David Rutherford during one of the next two board meetings. However, his one-year contract ended in mid-April, meaning Rutherford’s currently an at-will employee.
According to the one-year contract, the agreement is not automatically renewed after one year. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen must vote to renew the contract after completing an evaluation. In the event the agreement is not renewed, Rutherford may serve as an at-will employee.
The one-year contract was signed in April 2007, and his first full day of work was April 30. Not voting to renew the contract until the end of June or beginning of July puts Rutherford two months outside his one-year contract.
According to Mayor Royce Davenport, discussing the evaluation and contract agreement between the city and Rutherford could be on the June 24 agenda. However, given the short notice, it may be the next meeting scheduled for July 8.
‘I just got the evaluation done and I’ve scheduled a meeting with him (Rutherford) for this evening,’ said Davenport on Wednesday. ‘I don’t know if we’ll have time to get everything set up for the next meeting. If not, it will be the next one.’
The evaluation form used allows officials to rate 31 criteria from a scale of 1 to 5 ‘ 1 being unsatisfactory, 2 being below expectations, 3 indicates meeting expectations, 4 indicates exceeding expectations, with 5 being commendable.
Among the criteria:
‘ Plans and organizes workloads and staff assignments
‘ Provides leadership to and evaluates assigned staff
‘ Keeps the board informed on the financial condition of the city
‘ Addresses problems as they occur
‘ Has positive overall attitude toward the job
‘ Provides professional advice to department heads
‘ Considers several alternatives before making a decision
‘ Deals with the public in professional manner
‘ Meets goals and objectives as directed by board
‘ Deals effectively with the media
All six alderman and Davenport have filled out evaluation forms, and Davenport has compiled the numbers. Before the board meets to vote on renewing the contract, Davenport wants a chance to discuss the good, bad or ugly scores with Rutherford, as well as any additional comments or specific observations made by the aldermen.
The forms Rutherford will be given are not signed and he will not know who gave him which scores and/or comments. Keeping the evaluation forms anonymous will eliminate future problems.