Council delays ordinance on council authority over staff positions after police chief raises operational concerns

The Wasilla City Council voted to postpone consideration of Ordinance Serial No. 25‑02 on Feb. 17 after council members said they needed more time to review a confidential attorney‑client memorandum and after the police chief raised questions about how the measure could affect department operations.

Council member Stu Graham moved to postpone consideration of the ordinance to the council’s next regular meeting on Feb. 24, citing the late delivery of the attorney memo. “For us to get the information 15 minutes before the council meeting kind of leaves no time to digest it,” Graham said. The motion carried without objection and the item was postponed.

Why it matters Ordinance 25‑02 would amend Wasilla Municipal Code, chapter 3.55, the salary administration plan, to grant the City Council authority to create, retitle or transfer positions. Council members and administration described potential budgetary and operational consequences, with particular concern about effects on bargaining‑unit employees and the city’s chain of command.

Chief of Police raises operational and labor concerns Bill Rapson, Chief of Police, spoke during the public‑participation period and asked for clarification on how the ordinance would affect day‑to‑day operations. Rapson described scenarios in which personnel might need rapid reassignment during a major incident and said he was “getting hung up” on language in the staff report stating that the council could retitle or transfer positions only after adoption of a resolution.

“If I have an emergency situation where we have a major crime and I need to reassign officers as they seem fit… how I read this… I have a lot of unanswered questions,” Rapson said. He warned that changes affecting an employee’s duties or working conditions could trigger collective‑bargaining processes under the city’s contract with its union.

Legal and procedural context provided by city attorney Holly, City Attorney, told council members the issue raised by the chief is primarily an administrative one but explained that a broad grant of authority to the council could trigger union discussions under the collective‑bargaining agreement. She noted the council has multiple options: adopt the ordinance as written, revise the language (for example, to limit transfers to inter‑department moves or budget‑affecting changes), or postpone and consider the broader Title 3 revisions the administration has submitted for review.

Confidential memo and council rationale for postponement Council members said they had received a confidential attorney‑client memorandum shortly before the meeting; Graham asked for time to digest that legal advice. The motion to postpone was presented as a means to allow council members to consult with the city attorney and for staff and administration to clarify operational impacts.

Next steps Council members signaled several paths forward: revise the ordinance language to narrow the council’s authority (for example, require council approval only when a change affects budget or moves a position between departments); coordinate with the administration on how the Title 3 revisions will handle position control; or return the item after counsel, staff and union representatives review the legal and operational impacts.

The council set Ordinance 25‑02 for consideration at its next regular meeting, Feb. 24.