Despite being on extended medical leave and the board’s appointment of an interim executive director, questions have surfaced as to what, if any role the Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s chief administrator Clarissa E. McAdoo had in firing the agency’s administrative and finance operations manager last month.

According to Patricia Scott, around 11 a.m. on Dec. 26, interim executive director Tracey Snipes entered her office and stated that she agreed with McAdoo’s previous evaluation, which placed her on extended probation due to failing to meet job expectations.

&uot;She (Snipes) said nothing had changed and she handed me the termination letter while I was sitting at my desk,&uot; recalled Scott.

&uot;No one asked to see any portion of my work. No one reviewed anything,&uot; she said, and added that she’s convinced that her firing is directly linked to her filing a complaint with the board of commissioners in October with regard to McAdoo’s treatment of her.

&uot;I filed a complaint concerning McAdoo’s behavior,&uot; explained Scott. &uot;I feel this is retaliation simply because no one talked to me about it. It wasn’t your normal evaluation process where someone sits down and says this is what you didn’t do, what you did, nothing. It was none of that. This is what I stated in my letter to the board. The appearance of all of this is unsettling.&uot;

On Oct. 29, Scott submitted a grievance to the board of commissioners asking for a reversal of McAdoo’s decision on Oct. 7 to extend her probationary period instead of giving her permanent employee status. Because Scott was not, in fact, a permanent employee, SRHA Board Chairman Mary V. Richardson explained that the board could not entertain her grievance. As for Scott’s subsequent firing, Richardson would only state that she understands that it was McAdoo’s call, not Snipes.

&uot;I was told that she was terminated by McAdoo,&uot; said Richardson. The chairman would not elaborate as to whether she’s concerned that the executive director appears to have made an official decision during her absence, particularly considering that an interim was appointed.

&uot;It is not appropriate for us to interfere with what McAdoo has done,&uot; said Richardson. &uot;But if we have a problem with her, then we should go to her. We have only one employee and that is McAdoo. If we have a problem with Mrs. McAdoo, then we have to deal directly with Mrs. McAdoo.&uot;

Commissioner Linda Brown said she was told that McAdoo didn’t fire Scott; however, &uot;She (Scott) should not have been fired until Mrs. McAdoo came back to work. Snipes did not give Scott 90 days probation., McAdoo did. Scott should be back to work and should be paid for everyday she’s been out. If McAdoo did tell Snipes to do that (fire Scott), then she’s wrong.&uot;

Snipes did not return a message left by the News-Herald Friday afternoon.

SRHA Board Vice Chairman Charles W. Carey II said he doesn’t know what the situation is about, and he doesn’t have any comment because it’s a personnel issue.

Also under the impression that McAdoo issued the directive for Scott’s firing, Commissioner Daniel Forbes said he plans to ask the board’s legal counsel if there’s a conflict with the action taken, considering their appointment of an interim executive director.

&uot;Snipes was the interim executive director,&uot; said Forbes. &uot;I tend to think that McAdoo should have stayed out of that. I think the board will be discussing this.&uot;

Resident-at-large board member Thelma Hinton commented, &uot;I have heard of this situation and I want to get to the board to hear all of the facts because it is a personnel issue. But we are going to deal with this situation.&uot;

On a document labeled coaching form dated Oct. 2, McAdoo wrote that Scott’s weak points were communication with supervisor; follow-through on requests and projects; job knowledge, composure in stressful situations; determination of urgency; and judgment. In a separate column for strong points, McAdoo had nothing to list.

But on Sept. 12 in response to an e-mail submitted by Scott to McAdoo providing detailed updates of her progress on six different assigned tasks, the executive director responded, &uot;Thanks for the informative report. Great job!!&uot;

Scott told the board in her letter on Oct. 29 that the &uot;evaluation given to me on Oct. 7, 2002 is unreasonable and unfair. The evaluation does not reflect my true job performance during the initial 90-day probationary period. Therefore, I am requesting a reversal of the decision that the executive director made to extend my probationary period 90 additional days.

&uot;I am also requesting that I be given permanent employment status as the Administrative and Finance Operations Director and that my personnel record would be changed to reflect the removal of this extended probationary period.&uot;

In a Nov. 5 memorandum just one day before McAdoo’s medical leave, which ends this Monday, the executive director acknowledged receipt of the grievance form on Nov. 1. McAdoo informed Scott in this letter that she did not meet eligibility requirements to initiate the process.

McAdoo added, &uot;It is extremely obvious from this grievance attempt that you remain in disagreement with my decision of Oct. 2, 2002 to extend your probationary period. The other option I had at my discretion was to terminate you for not performing at the expected level at the conclusion of your 90-day probationary period…I maintain that my decision to extend your probationary period for an additional 90 days was equitable and represents an effort toward a win-win situation.&uot;

McAdoo referenced extenuating circumstances that catered to her decision to extend her probationary period, instead of dismissing her, including four fires, major computer issues, telephone system problems, and &uot;ultimate complaints from staff that arose as a result of the aforementioned issues.&uot;

In a four-page report to the board, Scott provides several instances of completing job functions and attempting to increase her job knowledge, which was not noted in her review.

Scott also referenced being ordered out of McAdoo’s office on at least two occasions.

For right now, Scott said she just wants &uot;somebody to talk to me, sit down and find out what the problem was. I had no idea I was going to be fired from my job. I was doing my job. I don’t understand. That was my reason for coming to the board. I honestly believe that somebody needs to look into this. No employee whether full-time, part-time, or on probation should have to fear retaliation (if they file a complaint).

The SRHA Board meeting is at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 28.