Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee leans toward reverting charter language so mayoral picks are confirmed, not merely 'nominated'
Summary
Members debated whether the 2023 change from an appoint/confirm process to a nomination model should be reversed; concerns focused on recruitment, legal appointment power, and whether appointees begin work before council confirmation.
The Charter Review Committee discussed reinstating pre‑2023 wording that would make the mayor's selection an "appointment" subject to council confirmation rather than a nomination that becomes effective pending a 15‑day council action.
Why it matters: Advocates for reverting the language said the prior process gave candidates more certainty to accept city positions (relocate, resign, begin work) and helped attract higher‑caliber applicants. Opponents pointed out the change had been considered in recent years and voters or council majorities had moved it into place; members said any change should respect recent public decisions.
Legal effect: Committee legal counsel explained the practical difference turns on who holds appointment power. Under the current wording, the council acts in a confirmatory timeframe after the mayor nominates; legal counsel said switching the wording shifts the legal locus of appointing authority and could alter when a person is considered "in office." That distinction matters for payroll, authority to act and for applicants weighing relocation.
Motion and outcome: A member moved to substitute the word "nominate" with "appoint" (and related derivatives) and replace instances of "appoint" with "confirm" in section 3.6 of the charter. Members debated a friendly amendment (that appointees not be paid or exercise full authority until confirmation); the group did not adopt a binding charter change at the meeting but a majority indicated support to draft recommended language to present at a future meeting.
Next steps: Committee staff will draft specific wording and a motion for formal consideration; members requested examples of how the 15‑day window has worked in practice and whether appointment should be tied to pay or effective authority.
