Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Staffing Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council staffing ordinance proposed to give president hiring/firing authority; members seek clarity on "consultation" and LA-2 role
Summary
An ordinance (C-36,774) would let the council president hire or fire central staff without the current five-vote requirement and remove code sections identifying five central staff positions; council members asked for clearer definitions of "consultation" and sought to restore the LA-2 position by amendment.
Staff presented ordinance C-36,774 to the PIES Committee on Oct. 20, proposing changes to council staffing rules that would remove a current requirement for at least five concurring votes to discharge council central staff and give the council president authority to make hiring and firing decisions subject to consultation with council members.
"Under the current ordinance, the council central staff basically cannot be discharged without a vote of the council of at least 5 concurring votes," staff said. The ordinance removes sections that specifically identified five central staff positions in the code and would make the council-president's hiring/firing authority subject to consultation. The draft was written as an emergency ordinance because legal staff advised that the change should be in place before budget votes to provide the flexibility the ordinance envisions.
Council members pressed for specifics about what "consultation" means and whether all council members should be consulted about hiring or firing key staff. One council member said, "I think all council members should be consulted if we're hiring such important staff, members to the team or firing staff members." Staff and others noted Open Public Meetings Act constraints on how a multi-member discussion can be held and suggested consultation could include committee-level or rules-based processes.
Several members said the ordinance addresses an organizational rigidity that hinders flexibility to manage the council office. Two amendments (from Council members Dylan and Cathcart) were noted that would restore LA-2 language in the code while taking different approaches to the president's decision-making authority. Supporters said the change is intended to align council-staff hiring with typical HR practice and avoid voting on individual staff members from the dais; opponents urged stronger protections or clearer procedure definitions. The issue remains under committee consideration; staff said the item is queued for agenda placement with potential final action next week.
