Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Governance Interim Manager topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates interim city manager authority after charter change; no appointment made
Summary
Councilors discussed the imminent need for an interim city manager and whether the amended charter vests appointment authority in the mayor. Staff said the mayor legally may appoint an interim but the council retains public vote options; councilors asked to use executive session for candidate discussion and no appointment was made.
Councilors discussed how to avoid a gap in city management as the current interim leaves and whether the amended municipal charter gives the mayor sole authority to appoint an interim city manager.
The discussion began during a motion to adopt the agenda. Council members raised concern about a potential May 1 gap and urged that an interim be appointed quickly. One councilor said, “Well, seeing as we're, what, 2 days away, shouldn't we appoint an interim for the time being till we get a more permanent interim?”
City Attorney Kevin (staff) advised council that under the amended charter “the mayor can appoint whoever she thinks is appropriate for whatever term she thinks is appropriate,” and that terms are subject to negotiation. Several council members noted that earlier they had been told who the intended appointment would be and that discussions about the contract typically take place in executive session.
Nut graf: The council debated options — asking the mayor to appoint an acting interim, holding a public vote, or using executive session to discuss candidates — but took no formal action to appoint a city manager. Councilors also raised whether the charter change (done via local legislation) could be reversed; staff said it could be changed only if the local delegation recommended it, because the change occurred at the state level.
Councilman Warmoth said he had informed staff and felt transparency meant council should be told who the prospective appointment was; other members suggested an “acting interim” could be appointed for a short term. Councilman McCoy asked whether a council vote could suffice to hire an interim; staff replied that “under our amended charter? Probably not.”
Councilors agreed that if they discuss specific candidates they should do so in executive session to protect personnel privacy. Councilman Mulvey asked for clarification; staff confirmed that interviews and discussions about individuals are typically handled in executive session while the public vote on a hire would be in open session.
No appointment motion was made; council later moved into executive session for personnel matters. Staff indicated they were continuing to pursue options and would work over the next one or two days to secure coverage.
Ending: The council left the item without adopting an interim appointment publicly and scheduled further personnel discussion in executive session. The legal effect of the charter amendment — and whether it could be reversed — was left for future action.
