Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> At Mr. Williams' suggestion, it was Council consensus that wording in <br /> Section 23 should read that an office of councilor "may be declared vacant" <br /> rather than "becorres" vacant. It was also council consensus that "may be <br />e declared vacant" be inserted as applies to any other elective city office. <br /> Chapter 4, City Manager, was reviewed. It was noted that, as revised, the <br /> manager pro tem may appoint or dismiss a department head only with the <br /> approval of the council. Mr. Williams wondered if that approval would be <br /> blanket authority or granted individually. City Attorney's office said that <br /> it could be either. <br /> Mr. Williams raised a question on Section 16 (1) (e) which states that a <br /> councilor and/or mayor may not influence the manager in appointing or dismissing <br /> city personnel. Assistant City Attorney Stan Long clarified that it is <br /> allowable for a councilor or mayor to make a report about an incident but <br /> that suggesting action to be taken is not proper. Mr. Williams stated that <br /> he did not see anything wrong with "attempting to influence", that coercion <br /> or force would of course be disallowed. Mr. Long responded that there is a <br /> difference between a "report", to which the manager may respond in a number of <br /> ways, and suggesting to him that he should take a certain action. Because <br /> Council hires the manager, he said, a suggestion from a councilor may be regarded <br /> as a direction. <br /> In Section 16(1)(e), Mr. Bradley wondered if the wording "any appointment to <br /> any city office or employment" included corrmission and board appointments. <br /> Since those appointrrents are not made by the city manager, Assistant City Attorney <br /> Etter suggested the sentence read, " any appointment by the manager." <br /> . . . <br /> Discussion was held on Section 16(3) which states that manager and department <br />e heads may be selected from out of city candidates but that during their tenure <br /> all persons hereafter appointed shall reside in the city. The section also <br /> states that employees appointed by the manager shall reside in the city when <br /> appointed to and during their tenure, except as the Council authorizes the <br /> Manager to the contrary. This latter provision reflects the wording, in essence, <br /> of the past charter except that the Council authorizes the Manager to make <br /> exceptions rather than the Council authorizing such directly as in the current <br /> charter. <br /> It was noted that the only really substantial change in this section stipulates <br /> that future department heads must reside in the city. <br /> Mayor Anderson feels all employees should reside in the city, without exception. <br /> It is a matter of practicality and sound economics. He suggested striking the <br /> words "appointed by the manager" from Section 16 (3) to read that "all employiJes <br /> shall reside in the city". It was understood that that suggestion would be <br /> looked at only as regards future appointments and present understandings and <br /> agreements would be maintained. <br /> Mr. Bradley disagreed that all city employees should live in the city. He feels <br /> it is depriving a person of his/her choice of where to reside. Mayor Anderson <br /> responded that it would be a condition of employment - he/she can choose not to <br /> be employed by the city. <br /> Mr. Williams is troubled by any requirement that anyone be required to live any <br /> certain place at any time. <br />. At Manager's suggestion, the words "when appointed to" were removed from the <br /> sentence in Section 16(3) reading, "All employees appointed by the Manager shall <br /> reside in the ci ty during their tenure of posi tion. " <br /> . . . . . <br /> 7/12/76 - 9 <br /> 3Slf <br />