03/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----------- this time should be the one that would be best for--the-city and its employes during the time until a new manag~r ~as appointed. He was not uncomfortable with the language of the resolution. e Councilwoman Shrey wa~ not too much in favor of the proposed proces~. She suggested that this should be taken into account during the current Charter revision. Councilman Bradley said he was not so concerned that the Council should decide who does the hiring and firing as he was with the standards and guidelines by which the Council would delegate its powers to the staff. It was more of a policy issue - which item's are delegable and do not require charter amendment? Councilwoman Beal felt anyone fired or not hired during the period when authority for appointment was delegated might Ilave good basis for a law suit, yet she felt there should be some way to manage without have the Council review individual cases. She suggested holding action until something more sensible was \'lorked out. Assistant Manager stated his intent not to be argumentative and said that starf ~ould carry out the Council's wishes. But.h~ thought the Council should consider with s~me deliberateness who its attorney was. If there was no confidence in the city attorney then that in itself would be an issue to be dealt with and the city manager's office, he said, was prepared to do that if it should occur. He said the written memo could be prepared or the Council could adopt this resolution and allow it to function for 30 days. In any event, it was important that the organization be clearly defined so that the city could function without a cloud on its actions. -- Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt Resolution 2381 for 30 days and in the meantime ask staff and the attorney's office to prepare materials for consideration of extension of the resolution. Councilman Keller was against the provision for 30-day operation only. He could' see nothing wrong with giving the same authority to a pro tem manager as that given a permanent manager. The delegation for running the city would be exactly the same, he said - the same guidelines, same rules, same regulations, and he didn't see why anyone would be uncomfortable with that, it was a normal function. Councilman Murray said the reason for including the 30-days was to give the oppor- tunity to provide for more explanatory materials because it seemed important to distinguish between the political, legal, and legislative functions and how to de- cide which power to delegate. He thought action should be taken, but if materials could be provided they might allow better understanding and a more comfortable feel- ing. .If not, the action could be changed if it was felt necessary. Councilman Williams did not favor a 30-day grant for any purpose. If the authority was going to be given at all, he said, it should be given. To delegate authority with the idea it would be reviewed in 30 days would be the same as "looking over his shoulder," and he thought it could lead to "all sorts of political games" and would be begging problems. If after staff memo was received the Council wanted to rescind the delegation that could be done, he said, but to give authority with strings attached would be a grave error. . Councilman Bradley said his opinion was not directed as a legal opInIon, it was only raising the policy issue involved, and he hoped the Council would look at the issue as a policy matter - whether to delegate to the staff powers vested in the Council. lS\ 3/24/75 - 21