Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Administrator Proposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates but rejects requiring mayor to appoint a council‑confirmed chief administrative officer
Summary
A proposal to amend Everett's charter to require the mayor to appoint a professionally qualified, council‑confirmed chief administrative officer — including language limiting removal without council approval — drew extended debate and failed after members rejected the amended motion.
A proposal to amend Everett’s charter to require the mayor to appoint a professionally qualified chief administrative officer subject to mandatory council confirmation failed after extended debate at the April 9 charter review committee meeting.
The mover asked the committee to strengthen sections 1.6 and 4.2 of the charter so the mayor would appoint a chief administrative officer who “shall” be selected on professional municipal administrative qualifications and whose removal would require council approval. Supporters said the change would add a professional “third leg” to a two‑legged structure and create clearer job accountability; opponents said it risked weakening the authority and accountability of an elected mayor.
Proponents argued the charter already names a chief administrative assistant position but that it has been left unfilled, and that clearer, mandatory language would ensure the role existed and was defined. “It’s meant to be an executive check‑balance on the legislative,” the mover said while outlining the motion. Several members sought sharper job descriptions and asked for clarity about how the position would interact with existing senior executive directors and deputy mayors.
Opponents raised legal and practical concerns about restricting a mayor’s firing authority and warned that imposing removal‑approval by council could create administrative friction between administrations. One member said such a rule could tie the hands of a newly elected mayor and complicate transitions: “The voters have said this person is supposed to change this … and they are hamstrung by a council that may also disagree,” a committee member said.
An amendment to the motion that struck the language requiring council approval for removal passed, but the main motion — as amended — failed on a final vote. The committee did not adopt the charter change.
The committee chair said staff will reflect the discussion and the failed motion in the draft report to the city council; the committee moved on to later agenda items.
