La Crosse council votes down mayor’s proposed operations director amid budget and governance concerns

The La Crosse City Council on Oct. 9 voted to reject a proposed director of operations position the mayor described as “essentially a city administrator.” The motion to not adopt the reorganization, moved by Council member Padesky and seconded by Council member Slesnakeau, prevailed after more than an hour of debate over cost, authority and public engagement.

Mayor Washington Spivey, who introduced the proposal as an alternative to changing the city charter, said the role was meant to provide professional management and keep the mayor’s office intact. “It is essentially a city administrator,” Spivey said, describing the position as one way to address operational gaps while avoiding a charter change.

Opponents argued the timing and fiscal mechanics were wrong. “An administrator should not be under the control of the mayor,” Council member Padesky said, urging colleagues to let the broader city-administrator process play out and to avoid creating a high-paid position while departmental cuts are under consideration. Council member Janssen said capital and personnel choices belong in the CIP and budget process, and that the council should not use operating funds for a capital-style hire.

Council members also pressed for wider public engagement and asked whether declining the measure would bar future consideration. Attorney Matty told the council there is no prohibition on reintroducing similar legislation in the future and that the body could revisit the topic under different timelines or draft language.

Council members who favored the measure said the proposal represented a compromise that reassigned an existing communications position toward the operations role and relied in part on enterprise funds for cost-sharing. Supporters said the position would strengthen day-to-day management and improve interdepartmental coordination.

The council voted on a motion to not adopt the ordinance as presented; the motion passed and the reorganization did not move forward. Council members discussed referral options earlier in the meeting, including a proposed 30-day referral that failed, and members said the city-administrator conversation will continue with public outreach and a separate ordinance under consideration in February.

Next steps: council members said discussion would continue through the administrator working group and planned public sessions; formal proposals could return to the council in a future meeting.