Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Councilmember Howell stated that when she and Councilmember Musgrove requested this case, <br />there were reasons for it and the frustrations were genuine. But when City Administrator Ulrich <br />put on Councilmember authority as one of the documents for discussions of duties and <br />responsibilities of the City Administrator, it encapsulated the frustration. She suggested if he <br />wanted to make a case on the Council regarding Councilmember duties and responsibilities, but <br />that was a case in point about frustration, about not having direction, it is a bit cheeky. She <br />suggested City Administrator Ulrich say if he needs more time for things instead of delaying. She <br />stated that in other cities these kinds of things are dealt with publicly to get them to stop and that <br />was the point of having this discussion. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was to send questions to both Deputy City Administrator/ <br />Community Dev. Director Hagen and City Administrator Ulrich who will find answers from <br />appropriate Staff and send to the entire Council. <br /> <br />7.10: Discuss Ordinance Governing Commission Member Appointment Process <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated this is also a case added by Councilmembers Musgrove and <br />Howell. He stated this has already been discussed and he didn’t know if there was more to add. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that they are missing the incumbent reapplication process <br />and combining it into one process. She stated the Council revised a policy earlier in the year that <br />they never saw but went on comments by Administrative Services Director Lasher. She stated she <br />didn’t think that was a way for the Council to address issues and make informed discussions. She <br />suggested going back to redo discussions now that they have the policy so they are better informed <br />about what the policy was to begin with because there were good ideas and structure that isn’t <br />being followed. She stated she understood this was Administrative Services Director Lasher’s <br />first time through this but didn’t feel they understood the policy. She asked where the policy <br />changes they made went and if there were incorporated into the old policy. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied they have a policy document book so the question is to bring the <br />incumbent reapplication policy back including the base policy and schedule that for a Work <br />Session. He stated there is a list of policies and everyone knows what the policy is but after a <br />while when changes happen or new Councilmembers come on board, it can get lost in translation. <br />He stated they can schedule that for a Work Session. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked where they are at with the timeline because they have interviews <br />coming up and the advertisement for openings. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied they are following the current policy as amended regarding the <br />incumbents as the Council asked. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove challenged that the Council didn’t ask, it was presented to them in a <br />case and they were directed that way because they didn’t have the original policy on how <br />incumbents were done before. <br /> <br />City Council /March 8, 2022 <br />Page 36 of 38 <br /> <br />