Commission debates city manager appointment process, qualifications and mayor/manager roles

Stonecrest Charter Review Commission members spent substantial time reviewing Article 3 of the city charter, which defines the city manager’s appointment, qualifications and duties, and the relationship between the mayor, city council and city staff.

Commissioners recited current charter language that requires the mayor to nominate a city manager within 60 days of a vacancy, subject to council confirmation, allows a second mayoral nomination if the first fails, and then gives the mayor pro tem the authority to continue offering nominations until the council approves a candidate. Commissioners raised concerns about that sequence and suggested clarifying limits on the number of nominations and whether an acting city manager should be put to a vote if already serving in an acting capacity.

Members discussed how to operationalize qualifications and selection. Several commissioners recommended a human-resources-driven framework: HR would draft minimum qualifications and a scoring rubric; an executive search firm could be engaged to supply a candidate pool; the mayor would interview candidates from that pool and then present a nominee for council confirmation. A staff member summarized the practical steps: “HR sets the framework, then the search firm finds candidates, and the mayor selects a candidate from that pool to present to council.”

The commission identified a wording inconsistency in the charter text: one clause calls the city manager the “chief administrative officer,” while another calls the city manager the “chief executive officer.” Commissioners agreed the charter should use “chief administrative officer” for the city manager and reserve “chief executive officer” conceptually for the elected mayor in a council–manager system.

Members debated limits on elected-official contact with staff. The existing charter language prohibits the mayor and council members from giving orders directly to city employees and restricts public discussion of personnel matters, except when authorized by an inquiry or internal audit under section 3.12. Commissioners asked for clearer definitions of terms such as “deal with” and “investigation or inquiry,” and whether routine constituent requests should be allowed as long as the city manager is copied. One commissioner suggested rewriting the provision to require cooperation when a duly authorized investigation is underway rather than to make the absence of an audit the default permission to avoid contact.

Commissioners also discussed whether council members should be allowed to sit in on personnel or management meetings only “with consent of the city manager and approval by the city council,” noting the practical difficulty of requiring council approval for ad hoc appearances. Several members recommended simplifying that requirement to city-manager consent alone.

No charter amendments were adopted at the meeting. The commission directed staff to convert discussed options into redline language and to post draft revisions to a shared SharePoint site for collaborative editing ahead of a future vote.