Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments Terms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caldwell workshop: council reviews proposal to remove fixed terms for appointed officials
Summary
City staff proposed changing city code to let appointed officials serve until resignation or removal rather than for a set number of years. Council members expressed divided views on transparency, recruitment and mayoral influence; no decision was made.
Caldwell City Council members discussed a proposed ordinance to remove fixed term limits for appointed officials during a workshop, with staff saying the change would align the city with other Idaho municipalities and could improve recruitment.
City staff introduced the proposal as a revision to chapter 3 of the city code that would replace specified multi‑year terms with language stating appointed officers “shall hold their position until their resignation or removal.” Staff also said removal could be initiated by the mayor and confirmed by a majority of the full council, or by unanimous council action “as provided in Idaho Code 50-206.”
Supporters, including staff and representatives from municipal training organizations, said the change reduces the appearance that appointed department heads are partisan political appointees and could help retain candidates reluctant to accept short, renewable terms. “It is too easy to perceive the appointed officials as being political when they are reappointed on a partisan 2 or 4 year schedule alongside the elected officials,” a trainer from the Association of Idaho Cities said during the discussion.
Opponents on the council warned the proposal could reduce transparency and council accountability. “All you gotta do is be friends with the mayor and one council member, and you're never gonna be fired,” Councilor Algren said, arguing that a fixed term creates a regular public review and reappointment process the council can use to hold high‑level managers accountable. Several council members said they would support lengthening terms (for example, to four years) rather than eliminating fixed terms entirely.
Councilor Register said recruitment problems were a central motivation for the proposed change: several recent appointees raised questions about why the city maintained fixed terms when many other Idaho cities do not. Councilor Register said longer or open‑ended appointments could improve continuity and attract applicants for senior management roles.
Legal counsel and staff clarified that removing a fixed term would not create an employment contract or eliminate the city’s ability to terminate an appointment without cause. “An appointed official can still be fired without cause,” a staff attorney said during the workshop, and staff said proposed draft language would explicitly state removal “for any reason” to avoid creating an expectation of guaranteed employment.
Council members also raised practical concerns: exposure to liability and claim settlements handled through the city’s risk pool, the role of council in oversight when HR information is limited, and whether other Idaho cities had experienced problems after making the same change. City staff said they surveyed peer cities’ municipal HR offices and found many use open‑ended appointments; they did not produce a uniform history of litigation tied to that practice but said statewide associations (AIC and ICRMP) have recommended the approach.
No vote or formal action was taken at the workshop. Staff said the item was informational and would return to council later as an ordinance for formal consideration if the council wishes to proceed.
