Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Review Committee Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Former chair Jim Reardon urges committee to use conferees, public input as guide
Summary
Jim Reardon, who chaired Topeka’s 2014 government review committee, told the current review group that conferees, careful note-taking and targeted public hearings produced useful recommendations in 2014 and advised the new committee to follow a similar process.
Jim Reardon, former Topeka city councilman and chair of the 2014 government review committee, told the city’s current review committee that the 2014 panel produced useful recommendations by relying on expert conferees, deliberate note-taking and a narrow initial charge.
Reardon said the 2014 committee’s main assignment was legislative: to reconcile charter and ordinance language with how the city was actually operating. “We didn’t have many parameters to start out with,” Reardon said. “We set the agenda for the conferees, and then let the conferees help us determine what our direction was gonna be.”
He told members the earlier committee worked primarily by inviting a wide range of conferees — municipal lawyers, former managers and community leaders — to explain legal and operational options. Reardon credited staff support for recording conferee comments verbatim, saying that detailed notes allowed his panel to track themes and show the public that their concerns were heard.
The 2014 committee confronted a legal mismatch involving the mayor’s role. Reardon described a patchwork of ordinances and a charter ordinance that left uncertainty about whether the mayor counted as a voting member of the governing body. He said the attorney general’s interpretation effectively increased the vote threshold for charter changes and made clarifying legislation necessary. “All of that is why it had to be straightened out,” he said.
Reardon summarized recurring public issues his committee recorded: at‑large representation, district sizes, election scheduling, term limits, and council salaries. He said conferees and the League of Municipalities helped the committee parse which matters required ordinance or charter changes and which could be addressed administratively or by a policy manual.
He urged the new review committee to engage similar conferees (he named Spencer Duncan and Neil Dobler as examples), to secure visible staff support and to prioritize public outreach. Reardon noted the media environment has changed since 2014 and recommended the committee work with mayoral staff and city communications to publicize hearings and solicit input.
Reardon also flagged timing: his panel met weekly and finished recommendations that were presented to the governing body. The current committee has an earlier deadline: members were reminded they must present a report in June. Reardon said that schedule is workable if the committee focuses conferee invitations and preserves strong staff note-taking.
He closed by urging members to allow conferees to shape the committee’s agenda, to record public input verbatim, and to identify whether problems are structural (requiring ordinance or charter change) or administrative (addressable by policy or staffing).
The meeting record shows committee members thanked Reardon and moved on to a second guest speaker.
