Annapolis councilors debate timing and scope of O‑34 job‑classification ordinance

Ordinance O‑34‑24, which would revise exempt‑service listings and job classifications in the city code, drew detailed questions from Annapolis City Council members at a March 20 work session about timing, legal effect and the practical difference between positions placed in the municipal code and those controlled by resolution.

Council members asked whether the ordinance can be enacted while a related charter amendment remains in the 54‑day waiting period required by state code and pressed staff on why some positions appear in the code as “exempt service” while other position titles and pay schedules are handled by resolution.

The question about the waiting period arose after a council member asked whether the council should refrain from acting on the ordinance until the charter amendment becomes final. The city attorney replied that the city “could vote on it and it could catch up with the 54‑day waiting period,” and that the effect of passage could be written to take effect upon completion of the charter process.

Tricia Hopkins, the city’s human resources manager, told the council that exempt positions are specifically listed in the code and therefore require a code amendment, while civil service position titles and pay schedules are typically adopted via resolution. “The mechanism would reasonably be a resolution in order to adopt a position summary, which is our practical administrative guidance for creating those titles, as well as adopting the pay schedules,” Hopkins said.

City Manager Michael Malinoff and councilors also discussed the ordinance’s practical effect. Malinoff said creating department status for information technology and human resources reflects market comparators used in the city’s classification and compensation study; those comparators listed HR and IT as departments, and the consultant recommended aligning Annapolis’s organization with peers.

Council members sought clarification about other offices, including the Office of Community Services (OCS), and whether making an office a department would change staff protections. Hopkins explained that protections depend on whether a position is in exempt service or civil service: civil service positions have statutory protections set out in the code, while exempt positions do not. Hopkins said OCS includes at least two civil service posts (a social worker and an office manager), while many other OCS roles are temporary or part‑time and lack the same civil‑service protections.

Multiple councilors asked for a future review of which city units should be departments and which should remain offices. Several speakers said the classification and compensation study did not recommend OCS as a standalone department; others urged periodic organizational reviews so the city’s structure remains aligned with market practice.

The council did not take a formal vote on O‑34‑24 at the work session. The ordinance remained on the agenda to be introduced at the full council meeting; staff and committee amendments recommended during Rules will be shared with the full council ahead of Monday’s meeting, and council members signaled they expect to consider those amendments before any final action.

The work session record shows the council focused on procedural clarity (how the 54‑day waiting period interacts with code amendments), the code vs. resolution distinction for exempt and civil service roles, and future organizational alignment for offices and departments.