Laserfiche WebLink
hiring and firing decisions and the Commission was just addressing the referendum. He stated <br />this was a decision that should have probably been presented to the voters to begin with. He <br />noted this issue had been discussed many times at prior Charter Commission meetings. He did <br />not understand why this was not originally presented as a referendum vote. He supported the <br />premise that the people decide the issue and his concern was whether the public would <br />understand the question. He supported the ordinance as presented. Commissioner Shea believed <br />this should go to the people, but it became risky as to how it was worded. She stated it would be <br />up to the City to educate the voters. Commissioner Anderson agreed this was a question of <br />substance and should have been presented to the voters in the first place. Commissioner <br />Sherman stated the City Manager form of government helped moderate the "politics" entering <br />into the City's business and this was a big difference. Commissioner Anderson stated in reading <br />about this form of government, the Council was in charge of everything. City Attorney <br />Goodrich stated the Commission could say to the Council to stay with the City Manager form of <br />government, except that the City Council would be in charge of the hiring and firing, but he was <br />unsure that this would change much of anything. Commissioner Niska stated maybe the City <br />Manager could hire and fire lower level employees, but not higher-level employees. City <br />Attorney Goodrich stated the Commission could recommend going forward, but propose an <br />amendment to the Charter for the Manager not having authority to hire and fire department <br />heads. Commissioner Sherman asked if there should be a second question, "Should the charter <br />be amended to limit the duties of the City Manager." City Attorney Goodrich believed the <br />public would not be that interested if the City Manager could hire or fire department heads and <br />that issue could be dealt with by a Charter amendment. Commissioner Sherman believed this <br />was a matter of trust between the Council and the City Manager. Commissioner Field stated he <br />could see- the issue of trust being an element of this, but he looked at it as whether the City <br />Manager had the wherewithal to know he had to make employment changes and whether he or <br />she would follow through with it. He noted the City Council looked at it more broadly and <br />didn't have the personal relationships like the City Manager. Commissioner Niska stated the <br />Councilmembers were elected officials who were accountable to the public and voters and if they <br />were making decisions for wrong reasons, the voters could fire them. However,. the voters could <br />not fire City staff. He wanted to keep as much power in the City Council's hands as possible. <br />Commissioner Sherman stated she was a public employee and she had worked under both forms <br />of government. She stated everyone should be held accountable in their job, but what happened <br />when Council members were elected was that they had no experience in the running of a City <br />and that was why there was professional staff. She feared as Council changed, there are things <br />that happen in a growing community that not everyone supports and everything gets thrown out. <br />She believed they needed stability in the government through elimination of chaotic changes <br />when a Council changes. She stated that was why she wanted a City Manager form of business. <br />Temporary Chair Frederick called for the question. <br />ROLL CALL: <br />Chair Deemer -Absent <br />Commissioner Field -Nay <br />Commissioner Niska -Nay <br />Commissioner Anderson -Aye <br />Charter Commission/ May 5, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />