Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton commissioners debate city administrator job description and statutory limits
Summary
Commissioners spent an extended portion of the meeting debating a proposed city administrator job description, statutory limits on finance officer duties and whether the city should consider changing its form of government or add 'as provided by state law' language; the motion to approve the job description lacked a second and did not pass.
A prolonged discussion at the Canton City Commission meeting focused on revisions to a proposed city administrator job description and how state statutes constrain local assignment of certain duties, particularly those of the municipal finance officer.
Commissioner proposals included adding supervisory authority over 'all officers, departments, department heads, and employees' (option B), requiring residency within city limits within one year, and preferring a master’s degree in public administration. Several commissioners argued the administrator should have broad supervisory and grant‑writing responsibilities; others warned that some finance duties are statutorily prescribed and cannot be delegated.
City attorney Larry Nelson reviewed state law repeatedly cited during the hearing, identifying Title 9 provisions (including statute references in the 9‑series) that list mandatory finance officer responsibilities and limit what the governing body may reassign. He advised that the job description could use phrasing such as 'as provided by state law' to remain legally safe while still permitting an administrator to assist with non‑statutory tasks. “My job has always been to tell you what the law is,” Nelson said while answering commissioners’ questions.
Commissioners debated whether hiring a city administrator with finance oversight would effectively create a city manager form of government and whether the city should instead pursue a home‑rule charter or a different form of government. Some commissioners urged careful wording to avoid conflicting with statutory duties of the finance officer; others said they wanted an administrator who could coordinate daily operations and provide quicker access to information for elected officials.
A motion to approve the amended job description (option B with the suggested statutory caveat) was moved but ultimately lacked a second on the floor and therefore did not pass. The commission discussed next steps, including further edits and legal review before any final approval or a public vote on form‑of‑government changes.
What happens next: staff and counsel will further refine the language to clarify which duties the administrator may perform 'as provided by state law' and to address commissioners’ concerns before bringing the item back for consideration.
