Council votes to keep current form of government after heated debate

The City Council voted to retain the current form of government following a contentious discussion about whether to explore changing from a mayor–council model to a council–manager model. City staff framed the topic as a charter change that would require a public hearing and a 60-day waiting period if council chose to move forward. Staff said the review would mirror the process used when the council previously changed term lengths. One alderman moved to keep the current form of government and the motion was seconded. Several council members urged that the council hold a public hearing and solicit public comment before making a final decision; one alderman said, “I would just like to have an open meeting in a few weeks here to ask the public what they would like to do.” Another alderman pressed staff and colleagues to explain publicly why they opposed a review of the form of government. During the exchange, personal accusations about efforts to intervene with local law enforcement surfaced in the chamber and were raised by one alderman as a reason for concern about council discourse; the speaker urged use of the formal Police and Fire Commission complaint process for any unresolved police matters. On the roll call, Alderman Rees voted no; Aldermen Weinmeier and Gartner voted yes; Aldermen Volkert and Montello voted no; Alderman Kittle voted yes. The mayor broke the tie by voting yes, and the motion to keep the current form of government passed. Staff had earlier outlined three procedural options for council: take no action, postpone the issue for further discussion at a future meeting, or hold a public hearing to gather public input. The council's vote to retain the current form does not preclude future discussion or a subsequent motion to open a public hearing at a later date.