HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-21 CHC MIN
..
.
.
Charter Commission
Dec. 21, 1998
Present:
Tim Old, chairperson
Kathy Czar, Chuck Donnelly, Steve Keister, Nance Purcell and Mary Ruch
Others:
City Administrator Nile Kriesel (arrived at 7:30, left at 8:35);
City Attorney David Magnuson
Absent:
Robert Kimbrel, Howard Lieberman, and Don Valsvik
Mr. Old called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Donnelly, seconded by Mr. Keister, moved approval of the minutes of
Nov. 16, 1998. Ms. Ruch asked that the language regarding the possible dissolution of advisory
boards/commissions be clarified. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Keister withdrew their motion of
approval. Mr. Magnuson suggested that could be accomplished by changing the wording in the
third paragraph under the City Manager Project - Part II to read as follows: "Should the City
adopt the statutory city manager form of organization, all advisory boards/commissions would be
dissolved; however, he (Mr. Magnuson) noted that charter cities have complete flexibility in that
issue ..." Mr. Donnelly, seconded by Ms. Purcell, moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 16,
1998, as amended; all in favor. Mr. Old will look into whether minute are posted on the city's
web site before adopted by the Commission.
. City Manager Proiect - Part III
Ms. Ruch opened the discussion by noting that the City is operating like a council/manager form
of organization other than the authority to hire/fire. She also noted the Charter indicates the
mayor as the City's chief executive officer and that the Polices and Procedures Manual gives no
authority to the City Coordinator.
A copy ofthe city coordinator's job description was handed out. Considerable discussion ensued.
Ms. Czar pointed out some language that she suggested might create difficulties for future
manager/councils, for example in the description outlining the coordinator's primary objectives,
the language "as delegated" by the City Council doesn't specify what functions are delegated.
She said the relationship between the Council and coordinator isn't as clear as it could be and
suggested that the language ought to be cleared up to specify what functions are delegated and
whether the coordinator is being hired to be the City's chief administrator. She also questioned
the language in the third paragraph under the coordinator's essential function, "develops and
implements," suggesting that raises a question regarding accountability. Also, in the second
paragraph, the language "assists the City Council" raises a question regarding the relationship
between the Council and coordinator, she said.
.
Mr. Donnelly questioned the wording "all of the policies of the city" in the description of the
coordinator's essential functions. He suggested that perhaps some polices, for example
hiring/firing are Council policies only. Mr. Donnelly pointed out, however, that job descriptions
shouldn't necessarily be too specific; the more specific the description is, he said, the sooner it
..',
.
becomes obsolete. Ms. Ruch pointed out that the job description isn't part of the underlying
constitutional structure. Mr. Kriesel suggested that a job description isn't something the Charter
Commission should be involved in.
Mr. Keister drew that part of the discussion to a close by suggesting that the Commission should
clear up the present situation, i.e. the discrepancies in the language in the Charter and the
Policies and Procedures Manual and then consider whether to move to a more formal council-
manager role. Ms. Ruch said she agreed with that approach; she also noted that per previous
discussions, it was felt that the City Council should be responsible for appointing a city attorney.
Ms. Czar said she had research the relationship of advisory boards/commissions in other
manager-council cities and found that in all cases, advisory boards report to the city council. Mr.
Magnuson also suggesting redefining the mayor's function as currently stated in the Charter,
noting that would not take a whole lot of work to accomplish.
Ms. Ruch asked members what changes they would be willing to support, specifically whether
they would be willing to support changes/revisions to the Charter to codify the role of the
mayor/council/administrator. Mr. Old, Mr. Keister and Mr. Donnelly all responded in the
affirmative. Ms. Czar said she would support that if the changes result in a continuity so when
the "players" change there is no problem. Ms. Purcell said she thought the Commission should
first decide whether to go to the manager form of organization,
.
Ms. Ruch said she did not like the incremental approach; she said hiring/firing was a "huge
issue." Mr. Donnelly asked Mr. Kriesel whether he felt handicapped by not having the authority
to hire/fire. Mr. Kriesel said no; he pointed out that the Council is only involved in the hiring of
department heads, interviewing the final candidates. Mr. Donnelly then asked if it would be a
huge issue if that authority was taken away from the Council; Mr. Kriesel said he believed so.
Ms. Ruch said having the department heads work for the Council rather than the "manager" is a
"defective structure." Ms Czar said she was not stuck on the issue of hiring/firing, referring to
the role of unions.
Mr. Kriesel said at some point in the future as the city grows, a Council might not object to the
manager form of organization. However, he asked the Charter Commission not to tie the
Council's hands and to not give a manager more authority than the Council. The Council has to
be the policy-maker, he said; the Council is elected by the taxpayers to perform that function.
Ms Czar again asked, where do we go from here? She suggested working on the language in the
Charter to clarify the roles as discussed. Mr. Donnelly volunteered to go through the Charter,
Ms. Ruch and Ms. Czar's paper, and the city coordinator's job description and develop a
bulletized format reflecting the City's current organizational structure and possible language
changes needed to reflect that structure. Ms. Ruch and Ms. Czar volunteered to assist Mr.
Donnelly; a copy will be forwarded to Mr. Magnuson.
.
Old business
Ms. Czar asked if an implementation mechanism had been developed for the Conflict of Interest.
Mr. Magnuson said that is being worked on; it's possible a first reading of an ordinance will be
held in January.
,
t .',
.
.
.
Mr. Keister, seconded by Ms. Purcell, moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Ms. Ruch asked that the
minutes reflect the Commission's gratitude to Mr. Old for his years of service as chairperson.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary