Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Working group examines charter ordinance to create city administrator, flags high removal threshold
Summary
La Crosse working group reviewed a proposed charter ordinance to create a city administrator and raised statutory questions about removal powers, the mayor’s role and separation of powers. City attorney Stefan said the state requires a three‑fourths vote for removal, a standard the group found consequential for oversight and hiring strategy.
The La Crosse city administrator working group met Dec. 3 to review a proposed charter ordinance that would create a city administrator position and reassign some duties currently described in state statute.
Chair opened the session and invited legal counsel to answer questions about statutory requirements and the ordinance’s effects. Stefan, the city attorney, told the group that state law requires an affirmative three‑fourths vote of the council to remove an official treated as an officer under chapter 17 and related provisions. “The practical reality of it means that it’s … extremely difficult to remove somebody,” Stefan said, describing cases where investigations and substantiated allegations still failed to produce the supermajority needed for removal.
Members asked whether that threshold is fixed by statute and whether the proposed language reflects current chapters; Stefan cited chapter 17 (including 17.12) and chapter 62 when explaining mayoral duties and officer definitions. He advised the group to be explicit about which duties would move from the mayor to the administrator and warned that removing mayoral executive authority through a charter ordinance has separation‑of‑powers implications that must be carefully drafted.
The working group discussed two broad approaches: (1) create an administrator who reports operationally to the mayor (the statutory default) and thus avoids transferring mayoral executive authority, or (2) adopt a charter ordinance that strips specified powers from the mayor and vests them in an administrator — a move that can require clearer statutory changes and exposes the council to the three‑fourths removal rule for officers.
Stefan also described removal mechanics and due‑process options: department heads deemed officers face formal charges and a public council trial; non‑officer employees may be entitled to an independent hearing examiner procedure. The group noted the charter ordinance carries a 60‑day effective delay during which opponents can petition for a referendum; Stefan recommended the working group avoid spending recruitment funds until that window closes to reduce financial risk.
The working group agreed to produce a concise comparison of mayoral duties before and after the proposed ordinance for council members and to circulate the ordinance text and frequently asked questions ahead of next week’s council briefing. The meeting closed with the Chair confirming that the working group would present findings and answer council member questions at the upcoming meeting.
What happens next: the working group will finalize a short duties comparison and share the ordinance text and FAQs with the full council ahead of the Thursday briefing. Stefan and HR staff are expected to be present for Q&A at that session.
