Tisbury Grants Administrator a Raise, but the Search for Successor
Has Begun

By ALEXIS TONTI

After months of delay, denials and appeals, the Tisbury personnel
board this week granted the town administrator a four per cent salary
increase. But the news was bittersweet for town administrator Dennis
Luttrell: Just the week before, the selectmen agreed to form a search
committee to seek his successor.

Mr. Luttrell this week expressed frustration at the mixed signals
sent by his supervisors and the unprofessional way he learned they were
launching the search for his replacement.

"It was added to the agenda [for last Tuesday] while I was
away, and I never heard about it until the meeting," said Mr.
Luttrell in an interview Wednesday.

He added: "I believed I met the letter and the spirit of my
contract when it came to renewal. I didn't start looking for a new
job until after the meeting. Until then, I thought we might be able to
work it out."

Mr. Luttrell has submitted to the personnel board a draft of
suggested revisions to the job description. In that draft, he recommends
they change the job title to that of executive secretary.

"The authority that I have by right of the job has been
undermined, and I've been micromanaged," he said. "I
have the best interests of the town in mind, and if they want someone
who will just say yes, the description and the salary should reflect
that."

In May the selectmen deadlocked over whether to renew Mr.
Luttrell's contract, which expires Jan. 31. Board chairman Tristan
Israel opposed renewal, selectman Ray LaPorte supported it and selectman
Tom Pachico abstained, citing conflict of interest. Because Mr. Pachico
is employed by the town as a board of health agent, Mr. Luttrell has
involvement with union negotiations regarding his contract.

It remains unclear whether the failure to renew results in passive
termination of Mr. Luttrell or if he would continue his employment
without a contract.

Mr. Luttrell's annual evaluation and merit increase has proved
a separate source of friction. The board of selectmen divided along
similar lines when a motion made by Mr. LaPorte to grant the increase
went unseconded, effectively denying the raise.

Mr. Luttrell then appealed both the evaluation and the denial. The
selectmen took no action on either appeal, sending both to the town
personnel board.

After deliberating over two meetings, the personnel board let the
review stand with no changes to the individual ratings. On Wednesday,
however, board members noted that in most areas, Mr. Luttrell was listed
as meeting expectations in all of 10 categories with only three
exceptions: one exceeding expectations and two below.

"Having read the evaluation, I would have real difficulty
saying a merit increase is unwarranted," said chairman Williams
Cini.

The board granted his raise, which brings Mr. Luttrell's
annual salary from $81,222 to $84,490. The change will be retroactive to
July 1.

"I don't think I was treated fairly and the same as the
other managerial and professional employees, and the comments the
personnel board made speak to that," said Mr. Luttrell.

Mr. Luttrell said that all other reviews of managerial and
professional employees were completed by June 30, in keeping with a
recently implemented but informal town policy. As personnel director,
Mr. Luttrell is in charge of those reviews. He said they usually include
a face-to-face interview that lasts roughly an hour and a half. In his
case, there was no interview.

"I don't know what I'm to think. I want to use the
evaluation as a learning tool, to better serve the town, but I'm
still scratching my head. What message are the selectmen trying to
convey? Half my duties are not even addressed by one selectman, and
there are conflicting opinions."

Mr. Luttrell has declined to release the evaluation.

As chairman of the board of selectmen, Mr. Israel was in charge of
the review. He explained to the personnel board, however, that because
he had already voted against renewal of the town administrator's
contract, he thought it was not in Mr. Luttrell's best interests
for him to do the review.

Consequently, Mr. Pachico wrote the evaluation, and Mr. Israel
supplemented with written comments regarding areas of concern. Mr.
LaPorte did not weigh in on the evaluation, although yesterday he said:
"I think he absolutely deserved this raise. He's worked hard
and deserves this acknowledgment of a job well done. There has been no
evidence that his work was subpar."