Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Manager topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter panel debates city manager qualifications, residency and annual evaluation requirement
Summary
Palm Coast's charter review committee debated adding a recommended baseline for city manager qualifications (education or comparable experience), a 50‑mile residency preference to expand the applicant pool, and putting an annual evaluation requirement into the charter to guarantee public review.
The Palm Coast Charter Review Committee spent multiple hours discussing how specific the charter should be about who can serve as city manager, with members cautioning that overly strict wording could exclude experienced candidates.
Committee members said the draft language would direct that the city manager be selected “on the basis of expertise, education, and management expertise as it pertains to running municipal government of a similar size to Palm Coast,” and debated whether to define "similar size" by budget or population. Several members urged allowing either formal education or demonstrable municipal experience so a strong candidate who lacked an MPA would not be disqualified.
Dr. Dumont and other committee members emphasized preserving flexibility. A committee member summarized the tradeoff: broad criteria increase the applicant pool, while prescriptive requirements can tie future councils’ hands. "If you put too much detail in the charter," one member said, "you start narrowing strong candidates out of hand." (Transcript: committee discussion.)
Residency was a recurring concern. The committee tentatively supported a 50‑mile residency preference rather than a strict city‑only requirement, arguing the wider radius would attract more qualified applicants while still encouraging local engagement. Members noted that a residency requirement written into the charter cannot be easily bypassed and could deter candidates from applying.
On accountability, the committee agreed to include an annual evaluation requirement for charter officers so the public can comment on city manager performance in a public forum. The group discussed placing only a short, mandatory sentence in the charter — for example, that charter officers receive an annual evaluation — while reserving detailed evaluation procedures to contracts or ordinances.
Public commenters raised concerns about vetting and background checks. Jeannie Dwarte asked whether credit or background screening should be required; committee members said those checks generally belong in the hiring process or contract search steps, not in the charter text.
What happens next: the committee will carry agreed guidance into a redline version of the charter text for review at upcoming meetings, keeping the core requirement flexible while adding a clear, charter‑level statement that charter officers receive an annual evaluation.
