Committee members revisited a charter provision stating that the council should not interfere with administrative services and debated whether the language should be broader and whether the city should codify consequences for council members who attempt to direct staff.

Colleen and the city attorney explained the charter provision establishes the council-manager form of government and preserves managers’ operational authority. Staff said the provision is meant to prevent individual council members from directing staff actions outside council consensus.

Members raised the question of enforceability and whether the charter should reference a public censure mechanism or other remedial steps. The city attorney said council has standards-of-conduct and protocols and that public censure has been used in the past as a nonpunitive remedy; staff cautioned that while the charter can reference standards, many specifics (and any enforceable disciplinary steps) are typically adopted by council policy.

The committee requested staff prepare options showing how the charter could address interference and whether a high-level reference to censure or enforcement should remain in the charter or be handled by council policy. No formal action was taken.