Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stayton council debates city manager appointment, duties and limits in charter review
Summary
Councilors spent the meeting’s main discussion on Section 34 of the city charter, weighing whether the mayor or the full council should appoint the city manager, whether the manager’s duties should sit in charter or ordinance, and how to define the charter’s prohibition on council coercion of personnel decisions.
The Stayton City Council spent the evening focused on Section 34 of the city charter, which establishes the city manager position and sets how the role is appointed, what duties it performs and limits on council influence.
City attorney Ross (presenting remotely) led the discussion, describing three primary policy choices: whether the mayor or the full council should appoint the manager; whether the manager’s duties should be written in the charter (voter-level change) or in ordinance (council-level change); and whether the council should have additional checks on administrative authority. "The charter creates the position," Ross said, "and then it tells us how to fill that position." He explained the difference between charter-level duties, which only voters can change, and ordinance-level duties, which the council can amend.
Ross noted the charter currently gives the mayor appointment power with council consent. The League of Oregon Cities model charter uses a council-driven appointment. "One is mayor-driven, the other is council-driven," Ross said. Councilors debated which approach fits Stayton’s preferences and local practice.
Councilor O'Rourke and others raised questions about subsection d—the provision that prohibits coercing the city manager on hiring and firing. O'Rourke asked whether the clause had been interpreted too broadly in the past and whether the council might add a definition of "coercion" to reduce uncertainty. Ross said coercion is a "high bar" intended to prevent back‑room pressure on personnel decisions while allowing public discussion at council meetings. "You can tell Julia that, 'We disagree with some personnel decisions,' in a public meeting—that is not coercion," he said.
Councilors also discussed residency requirements for the city manager. Ross said residency requirements are legal and sometimes placed in either the charter or the manager’s employment contract; several councilors favored keeping such specifics in the manager’s contract rather than the charter to preserve flexibility.
The group considered whether the council should reclaim any authority over department‑head hiring. Ross said the council can amend ordinances now to require council approval for specific hires, but if the duties were elevated into the charter, reclaiming that authority would be much harder because only voters could change charter text.
Councilors offered initial preferences but took no formal vote. Councilor Patty said she prefers leaving manager duties in ordinance so the council retains flexibility; others favored keeping the mayor’s appointment authority. The council asked Ross to return in March with a summary of the policy questions and options for ballot language if the council wishes to refer changes to voters.
Councilors and staff noted the practical implications: making duties charter‑level can insulate the manager from political pressure but reduces council flexibility; making duties ordinance‑level preserves council control but could invite more frequent revision.
The council did not adopt any charter amendments at this meeting. Ross will prepare a packet summarizing policy choices and possible text changes for the council’s next review in March.
