Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Office Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor withdraws ordinance after debate over council office roles and staff concerns
Summary
Miss Ellis introduced BL 20261355 to clarify the Metropolitan Council office chain of command. A substitute from Miss Dooms would have kept the status quo while the executive committee continued rulemaking; after extended debate about reporting lines, staff conditions and an alleged age-based remark in an executive-committee discussion, Miss Ellis withdrew the ordinance.
Miss Ellis sponsored BL 20261355, an ordinance amending section 2.04 0.03 of the Metropolitan Code of Laws to clarify the command structure of the Metropolitan Council office. She framed the ordinance as addressing the question of what check exists when "any individual elected official acts outside of the authority the metro charter gives them."
Miss Dooms moved a substitute that she said preserved the core protections in the original draft while allowing the executive committee to continue work on a longer-term structure. Miss Dooms described the substitute as maintaining the status quo by clarifying that the director and special counsel could be separate roles or the same person, and by protecting office employees while the executive committee determines the final model.
Committee members pressed on who the director would report to and the role of the vice mayor. Several members favored separating office management from legal services; a model discussed by the executive committee reportedly envisions a director or chief of staff and a special counsel on equal terms, both reporting to the vice mayor and the council. Chair Toomes cited charter Section 8.607, reading language about the council's authority to authorize the vice mayor to employ special counsel, and observed that prior practice has the special counsel reporting to the vice mayor.
Miss Ellis voiced strong opposition to the substitute and to the status quo, saying "the current status quo is not working for the office staff" and describing staff working conditions as poor. She also said that during an executive committee discussion a "claim was made as to the age of the person, that should be hired in the information role," and that such a claim would amount to discrimination. Citing staff feedback and that dispute, Miss Ellis said she was withdrawing her bill; the chair confirmed that the substitute was therefore not before the committee.
A committee member noted consultant deliverables from Accenture had been posted to a shared folder earlier that day by the vice mayor. The chair adjourned the meeting after confirming no further business.
The withdrawal leaves the executive committee's work on organizational language and reporting lines ongoing; members said the executive committee will continue discussing contract and structural options before bringing final language to the full council.
