Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates next steps after voters changed treasurer post; competing orders sent to HR and to Charter & Rules
Summary
Councilors disagreed over whether to immediately post and fill a qualified treasurer position required by the charter or to refer procedural questions to Charter & Rules and the Law Department; a motion to reconsider and send the posting to HR failed to secure the votes needed to reconsider the council's prior referral.
A contentious portion of the April 7 council meeting centered on the treasurer position and whether the council should immediately follow the charter provision to appoint a qualified treasurer following a 2025 voter-driven change.
One order asked the council to appoint a qualified treasurer and direct the HR director to post the position, noting the 60-day temporary appointment window had expired and urging the body to implement the change voters approved. Another order sought a legal opinion from the Law Department about the mayor's authority to make temporary appointments and whether temporary appointments beyond 60 days comply with the charter.
Councilors expressed sharply different views about process and timing. Supporters of an immediate posting argued the council was obligated to implement the charter and that an appointed treasurer could be serving by now if the position had been posted earlier. Other councilors said the parties are in the middle of a reorganization (treasurer/tax collector consolidation) and that sending the matters to Charter & Rules and legal staff would help avoid wasted effort if the structure changes in months.
Late in the meeting Councilor Sullivan moved to reconsider a prior referral and send the posting to HR; the roll-call to reconsider failed because it did not reach the nine votes required to reopen a final action. The matter remains under committee consideration.
