In a recent city council meeting, tensions flared over a proposal to eliminate the independent elected city clerk position, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from council members and community members alike. Mayor Barnes and Alderman Nicholas are advocating for the position's removal, suggesting that the salary be redistributed among the mayor and three aldermen if the proposal passes in the April 2025 elections. Critics likened the proposal to \"vultures circling overhead,\" expressing concerns about the implications of such a significant change in governance.

The council is set to discuss placing a referendum on the November ballot regarding the city clerk's position, a measure that has previously failed twice by a substantial margin of 75% to 25%. The proposal has raised eyebrows, particularly due to the suggestion that the city could fund cost-of-living salary increases for elected officials by eliminating the city clerk's salary if the referendum does not pass.

During the meeting, the city manager's justification for the zero-funding approach was met with skepticism. He claimed it would deter unqualified candidates for the city clerk role, referencing a controversial past incident involving a former city clerk. However, this assertion was challenged as misleading, with claims that the former clerk was removed not for abandonment of duties but for failing to file a mandated economic interest statement.

Further criticism was directed at the council's decision to maintain their own salaries while proposing to eliminate the city clerk's pay, raising questions about the council's commitment to public service. The meeting also featured public participation, where community members voiced frustrations over local business losses attributed to inadequate parking and a perceived decline in downtown vitality.

As discussions continue, the fate of the city clerk position and the broader implications for local governance remain at the forefront of community concerns.