Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Charter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City policy analyst outlines 2025 charter changes on orders, confirmations and administrative code
Summary
Brendan Salisbury briefed the council on new charter responsibilities including the formal separation of orders and resolutions, timelines and standards for confirming appointees, and the administrative code process; councilors raised questions about notice periods and legal risk when rejecting appointments.
Brendan Salisbury, the council's legislative and policy analyst, presented a briefing on the 2025 city charter at the Jan. 22 meeting, outlining how the charter changes council procedures for orders and resolutions, confirmation timelines, access to information, group petitions and the requirement to adopt an administrative code.
Salisbury told the council the charter clarifies that orders are the vehicle for binding directives the council may legally compel, while resolutions remain the appropriate instrument for requests. "The issuance of binding directives to city staff has never been within the authority of the city council," Salisbury said, adding that the change is intended to reduce confusion about whether a request is legally binding.
He described confirmation timelines required by the charter: 30 days for department heads, the city attorney and chief administrative officer (with a two-thirds vote required to reject those appointments), and 60 days for appointments to multiple-member bodies. Salisbury said rejection of certain appointments must be accompanied by a written reason; councilors asked whether that written statement could create legal exposure. He recommended consulting the city attorney on litigation risk and noted past practice that written explanations have been used when necessary.
Councilors pressed for clarification on the charter's 14-day notice rule tied to orders and whether that notice is calendar-based or linked to the mayor's submission; Salisbury answered that the 14-day clock begins when the order is distributed to the mayor rather than the public agenda. Councillors also discussed practical effects on recruiting and confirmation processes, with some stressing the need for clearer internal procedures and coordination with the law department.
Salisbury said an administrative code is mandatory under the charter and will reorganize city ordinances; adoption requires a 60-day review period and a public hearing, and the council can approve or reject but not amend an administrative code proposed by the administration.
The presentation concluded with councilors accepting the briefing and agreeing to use staff resources and the city attorney for follow-up on legal and procedural questions.
Provenance: Salisbury's presentation and the subsequent question-and-answer appear beginning at SEG 918 and the discussion continues through SEG 1579.
