County commissioners debate annual, public review process
On Aug. 25, the Sarasota County commissioners debated whether to continue public evaluations of County Administrator Jonathan Lewis and County Attorney Joshua Moye, as well as a potential change in how they approved raises for the men, who officially are the board’s only employees.
On Sept. 8, after a former county commissioner criticized them in an op-ed article in the Sarasota Observer, they voted unanimously to direct Chair Ron Cutsinger to work with Lewis and Moye on a revised evaluation form that would be implemented no earlier than 2027. The motion also referenced the board’s discussion that day, indicating the possibility that future raises for the county administrator and county attorney might be linked to the changes in the board’s pay.
The Aug. 25 focus on the issues was launched by Cutsinger. Not only was it the first regular meeting day for the board members since they took their five-week summer break, it also came with October looming as the traditional month for the evaluations to take place.
During the evaluations on Oct. 21, 2025, Commissioner Tom Knight talked of the fact that addressing an employee’s compensation in public “is a little uncomfortable.” Many of the board members’ comments that day regarded the form they use for the written evaluations.
That form dates to 2012, when then-County Administrator Randall Reid won agreement of the board members seated at that time to undertake an annual review of his work.
Moreover, Knight pointed out last year, “Typically, performance reviews are not done in public.” Any member of the board who had a concern about actions taken by Lewis and Moye could discuss it with them at any time, Knight added.
Knight also suggested the potential of raising the salaries for the county administrator and county attorney by the same percentage applied to the commissioners’ salaries, in accord with Florida Statute 145. (The board members’ salaries generally are adjusted biennially.)
“Commissioner Knight, I thought, had a great idea,” Cutsinger told his colleagues on Aug. 25. “Rather than kind of an open-ended thing … we decided that [Lewis and Moye] would receive the same raise that we, as outlined by the state, receive …” He clarified that he was talking about the same percentage of increase.
“I’ve spoken to both of them,” Cutsinger added of Lewis and Moye, “and they’re good with that.”
Therefore, Cutsinger continued, he was asking for the board to formally authorize him, as chair, “to negotiate that with them,” so their contracts could be amended accordingly.
Nonetheless, Cutsinger pointed out, “They would still be submitting their annual review [materials], as they have done in the past.”
He also encouraged each of the commissioners to bring up any concerns with Lewis and Moye during the one-on-one meetings that the board members routinely have with them.
Commissioner Knight was the first board member to agree with the proposal for the negotiations, saying he thought that would be fair to Lewis and Moye.
Then Knight made the motion to formally “authorize the board chair to communicate with the county administrator and the county attorney,” to modify their contracts so their salaries would rise every two years at the same percentage as the commissioners’ pay. The motion included language calling for final board review of the amended contracts.
Commissioner Mast seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0.
‘We weren’t sneaking this in’
Two weeks later, during their regular meeting on Sept. 8, Cutsinger again brought up the topic of the annual reviews of Lewis and Moye.
He reminded his colleagues that when they addressed those reviews last year, “One of the things that came out of that discussion was a lot of discomfort with the process, and … what might be a better way to do it.”
Cutsinger then noted that the commissioners had discussed aligning Lewis’ and Moye’s annual salary increases with the raises the commissioners receive on a biennual basis, in accord with a state law.
“Certainly,” he stressed, the suggestion was not made in an effort “to hide anything.”
“I actually thought we had kind of memorialized [that decision],” he said, “but we had not.”
Curtsinger also pointed out that he said, at that time, that the board would discuss the issue further, “which we’re doing.”
“We weren’t sneaking this in,” he added and then referred to “the accusations that have been made which are kind of silly.”
In a Sept. 2 opinion piece in the Sarasota Observer, former Commissioner Christine Robinson, who is CEO of the Argus Foundation in Sarasota, first criticized the commissioners for their Aug. 25 discussion of the evaluations without having provided public notice of that plan to do so. Cutsinger, she wrote, “had the chance to put this on the agenda and let residents weigh in before the vote. He chose not to.”
She also wrote, “[N]obody’s pay should go up automatically, without anyone reviewing whether the job is being done well. Even County Commissioners get a public review every four years with elections in their district.”
Further, she contended that the evaluations should continue to be handled in public, because the county administrator and county attorney “control enormous authority, and, even more, public money.”
‘Does this make sense?’
On Sept. 8, Cutsinger asked his colleagues whether they did indeed want to proceed with the salary increases for Lewis and Moye based on the same percentage that the state gives the board members.
He pointed out that Manatee County Government has a provision for the county attorney to receive the same increase as the county commissioners, “so it’s not … unusual.”
In fact, he continued, referring to the boards on which he serves on behalf of Sarasota County Government, “There’s an automatic cost-of-living increase” for the executives of those organizations.
Again, Cutsinger stressed the fact that he and his colleagues were not trying to hide anything. However, “Somehow, other things got carried into this,” he acknowledged.
Cutsinger then emphasized that the board has its strategic retreat each December, during which “We set the policy; we set the priorities for our county, going forward.”
Further, he pointed out, “Probably a lot of folks don’t understand this, but every month, we get a written update on where staff is on each one of those strategic priorities … And every quarter, we have a public meeting,” during which county administrative staff provides updates on the status of each priority.
Moreover, Cutsinger said, every two weeks, each commissioner meets with both Lewis and Moye “for at least an hour, one-on-one.” During those sessions, he emphasized, the board members “have an opportunity to discuss all things.”
Finally, Cutsinger asked again, “Does this make sense, to simply align their annual increase with what the state statutorily gives to [the] commissioners?”
“Both Jonathan and Josh are fine” regardless of whether the board wants to make that change or continue to handle the evaluations as it has in the past, he told his colleagues.
Commissioner Knight was the first to respond: “I don’t think there’s anything nefarious,” he said, “about us talking about things that we want to accomplish as a board.”
When he handled performance reviews during his prior public service — referring to his years with the Florida Highway Patrol and then his three, four-year terms as county sheriff — those evaluations normally were done in private.
He and Lewis have disagreed on issues, he added, but those conversations have taken place in private. “And we live in a world now where everybody wants to take our conversations and make it viral, and I’m very sensitive to the fact that people who work in this organization have families, and they shouldn’t be susceptible to some of the things that we have to listen to as elected officials.”
Then Knight said he had read the portion of the Sarasota County Charter that calls for annual reviews of the county administrator and county attorney. However, he pointed out, that section does not specifically call for a written review.
“I prefer to do it in writing,” Knight said. Anyone who wants to see what he has written can request a copy of the document, he noted, but “it doesn’t become a viral product that goes on YouTube.”
Further, Knight talked about what he described as “the awkwardness of the conversation” in regard to salary adjustments being handled in public.
He also called the annual review process, as it has been handled, “very cumbersome … not real professional. It looks more like a political hack job …”
Some of the questions do not appear appropriate for the board members to consider, he continued. For example, Knight said, “I don’t know all the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.” Therefore, he added, he believes the form the commissioners have been using could be condensed. “I just don’t think it’s a good product.”
Moreover, Knight said he did not believe the board members had agreed to automatic salary increases for Lewis and Moye.
Cutsinger told Knight, “I think that’s a great suggestion … to review the actual performance review product.”
Cutsinger also stressed, “I don’t think anybody was ever saying … we’re not gonna have a performance review. In fact, we indicated they would continue to do [their annual reports].”
County Administrator Lewis told the commissioners that he does find value in an annual evaluation. However, he said, “Maybe what we do [is] a little unusual, compared to what I’ve done in the past.” (He was the city manager of North Port before he joined the county staff.)
If the commissioners wanted to revise the evaluation form, Lewis continued, they could choose someone to work with both him and Moye on the changes, which would come back to the full board for final consideration.
A potential change to the County Charter
At that point, Commissioner Mark Smith, referring to the County Charter, suggested that the board members continue to undertake a written, annual evaluation of both the county administrator and county attorney.
He passed out to his colleagues a copy of his proposal for amending the Charter to call for the board members to consider adjustments to the base salary and/or benefits of the county administrator at the time of the annual review, with the base pay subject to increase on Oct. 1 every two years.
Smith proposed the following, additional language: “The administrator may also be awarded an additional increase in compensation on an annual basis by vote of the board in recognition of [meritorious performance of his duties].”
“I don’t have any problem with that,” Cutsinger responded.
Commissioner Teresa Mast pointed out, “Just to clarify: Sometimes it’s not a ‘his’ duties.”
“Oops,” Smith replied.
Mast added that she has “the incredible privilege — and I do mean the incredible privilege — of meeting with [Lewis or Moye] at any time. They are always available to me. If I have something that I am concerned about, I assure you they are aware of it.”
If any of the board members believe “there’s a need for an adjustment” in the work of either the county administrator or county attorney, Mast continued, she feels sure that the board members have made that clear prior to the annual, public evaluations.
Nonetheless, Mast said, “I do think having the annual review in a public fashion, to say if we’re pleased with what’s going on, is very appropriate.”
She added that she was in favor of the language Smith had proposed, except for what she called the “clerical error,” as she smiled at Smith.
Cutsinger also suggested that Smith’s wording of that section be modified to ensure annual reviews of both the county administrator and county attorney.
At that point, Commissioner Knight proposed that the board members continue to use the same form for the evaluations this year. However, Knight again talked of revising the form for the future.
“I do think evaluation tools should be re-examined periodically,” Lewis responded. He did ask, though, that he and the county attorney be allowed to approve any changes before they were implemented.
When Knight asked what Lewis would recommend as the best way to pursue modifications of the form, Lewis proposed that the commissioners appoint a member of the board to work with him and County Attorney Moye on those changes. Afterward, Lewis said, it would come back to the commission for final approval.
He did point out, however, that that was a separate issue from any change to his contract, in regard to pay increases.
Lewis further noted that, because the traditional timeframe for the reviews has been early October, and the board has only one set of meetings this October, it would be difficult to complete any changes in the form before the evaluations needed to take place.
Cutsinger agreed with Lewis about the timeline, “since there’s gonna be a bit of research here …”
Cutsinger told his colleagues he would be happy to begin the necessary research on the evaluation process, including gathering information about best practices of other organizations.
He ended up making the motion that gave him the authority to work on the issues that the board members had discussed that day.
Commissioner Knight seconded the motion, and it passed 4-0, with Commissioner Joe Neunder absent.