Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel Reorg topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

La Crosse committee blocks proposed operations director position amid process and budget concerns

La Crosse Finance and Personnel Committee
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Finance and Personnel Committee voted 4–2 to reject a resolution to reorganize mayoral department positions and create an operations director role, citing limited public input, budget uncertainty and overlap with mayoral duties.

The La Crosse Finance and Personnel Committee voted 4–2 to block a proposed reorganization that would have replaced an existing communications director role with an operations director and adjusted the table of positions in the Department of the Mayor.

Council Member Sleznicko moved “to not adopt” the resolution, arguing that the committee had not seen adequate public outreach during a prior 30-day referral and that the position “is not the way to go” if the city is considering other management options. Several colleagues raised budgetary and process concerns, including whether the pay and funding sources were finalized.

Council Member Jansen criticized the timing and said the proposal “does not seem well thought out,” warning that adding a new director-level position risks duplicating duties and expanding costs at a time of fiscal uncertainty. Council Member Northwood said more information and options were needed before changing the city’s staffing structure.

Mayor Washington Spivey presented the measure as an alternative to a charter-based city administrator model and said he had identified a funding approach that would split the position’s cost between the general fund and enterprise revenues. "I figured out how to pay for it," the mayor said, framing the proposal as an option that would not change the city charter but would introduce professional management capacity.

The committee’s vote on the motion to "not adopt" carried 4–2, effectively keeping the current staffing and deferring the question of a city administrator or alternative management structures. No formal referral or next-step timeline was recorded in the discussion.

The committee moved on to new business after the vote.