HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0217 Charter Review MIN
Charter Review Committee
February 17, 2005
Regular Meeting Minutes
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER: Carole Wheeldon called the Ashland Charter Review Committee meeting to
order at 7:03 p.m. on February 17,2005 in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon.
Members Present:
Hal Cloer, Pam Marsh, Keith Massie, Donald Montgomery, Michael Riedeman
and Carole Wheeldon.
Members Absent:
John Enders, Kate Culbertson and Laurie MacGraw.
Staff Present:
Mike Franell, City Attorney
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst/Staff Liaison
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
Cloer I Marsh mls to approve the minutes of February 3, 2005 as submitted. Motion passed
unanimously.
II. PUBLIC FORUM
Art Bullock/791 Glendower/Provided results from the citizen survey that he and his constituents have
been conducting. Some of the questions and results included:
1) Should a City Councilor be fired for recommending termination? Majority said No.
2) Should the City Administrator's annual performance review be done behind closed doors? Majority
said No.
3) Should there be a public summary of the performance review? Majority said Yes.
4) Who should decide the Planning Commissioners? Majority said the voters should decide.
5) Who should decide the Parks Commissioners? Majority said the voters should decide.
Mr. Bullock provided a timeline for when each issue should be discussed and explained why some of the
issues should be grouped together. He also noted that he is currently preparing a written report for the
Committee.
The Committee requested that Mr. Bullock submit his materials in writing and suggested that they
schedule his presentation on a future agenda(s) so that he can have adequate time to present his
information. The Committee also asked that Mr. Bullock inform his surveyors to verbally indicate while
they are interviewing people that they are not a representative of the Charter Review Committee.
Hal Cloer noted that the issues regarding the Charter revision were much more complicated than a broad
'yes' or 'no' question. Michael Riedeman added that the questions relate to very complicated subjects and
suggested that the individuals who contribute to the survey need to be better informed before
participating. He also noted his background statistical analysis and explained why he does not believe this
is a balanced survey.
Mr. Bullock stated that he believes he is conducting a valid survey and stated that most of the issues were
not difficult for people to understand.
The Committee clarified that the option for voters to decide the Planning Commissioners was not possible
under Oregon State Law.
In order to have adequate time for the scheduled guest speaker, the Committee asked that Mr. Bullock's
presentation be continued at a future meeting.
III. GUEST SPEAKER BILL MANSFIELD (GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE)
Bill Mansfield was introduced to the Charter Review Committee. He noted his 25 years experience as an
attorney and stated that was previously employed as the City Attorney of Medford. Mr. Mansfield has
also worked for the majority of the jurisdictions in the surrounding area and was a Medford City Council
for a number of years.
Mr. Mansfield noted the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial.
He stated that the City Council is the legislative power and the primary issue facing this Committee was
whether Ashland should have the executive power with the Mayor, a City Manager or some kind of
hybrid. In his opinion, the City Manager is the best person to hold the executive power. Mr. Mansfield
explained that he supports the this form of government because it allows for a clear division between the
legislative and executive branches. The City Manager would not set policy, and would do nothing more
than follow the direction of the Council. Mr. Mansfield stated that he believed the City Council, not the
Mayor, should be responsible for making the appointments to the various commissions and committees.
He also explained that a major reason why cities should appoint a City Manager is because City business
can be very complex and there is too much at risk by not having an qualified Mayor in charge. He also
related running for office to a popularity contest and stated that voters are not as knowledgeable as the
Council on choosing the most qualified person.
Ms. Mansfield stated that he was opposed to the Mayor having veto power and does not think that the
Mayor should have the authority to dismiss a City Manager. He also suggested that cities avoid long
term contracts with their City Managers and recommended that the contracts be terminable on either a 30
or 60-day notice. Mr. Mansfield clarified for the committee, that in this form of government, the City
Manager is responsible for the hiring and firing of department heads and clarified that the City Council
could terminate a City Manager during a public meting.
In response to "if it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality, Mr. Mansfield stated that even though Ashland's
current system is still working, it is not the best possible system.
Mr. Mansfield stated that he believes the City Recorder and Municipal Judge should be appointed for
the reason that these candidates are often elected based on their popularity and not their qualifications.
He added that this issue would likely face opposition by the Ashland voters.
Mr. Mansfield suggested that the Committee have a good local reporter follow the issues to increase
public participation. He also clarified that with the City Manager form of government, the Mayor
position would still be an important one, as he or she would be the spokesperson for the City and would
preside over the City Council.
In closing, Mr. Mansfield thanked the Committee for asking him to come and share his thoughts on these
Issues.
IV. PUBLIC INFORMA nON
Ms. Wheeldon spoke regarding the email submitted to the committee, which outlined longer and more
frequent meetings. Ms. Wheeldon also proposed that the Committee develop a template for discussions
in order to ensure that each topic has adequate discussion time and that they are reviewing the same
points for each. She asked for input on what the Committee would like to include in the template.
Suggestion was made to elaborate on the pros and cons for making a change. Other suggestions included:
budget implications, organizational implications, whether an issue should be addressed in the Charter or
as an ordinance, modernizing existing language, the values of local government, and cost and
consequences.
Michael Riedeman I Keith Massie mls to charge the Public Outreach Committee to create a
template based on the Committee's discussion and provide it to the Committee for consideration.
Motion passed unanimously.
Suggestion was made for the Committee to try out their template on the City Band issue.
City Attorney Mike Franell informed the Committee that the City's hired consultant Tom Sponsler was
waiting for them to provide him with direction. Mr. Franell noted that the next step would be
for Mr. Sponsler to create a draft Charter for the City, but given the need for further discussion on the
issues, Mr. Franell recommended that the Committee wait on creating the draft Charter.
Reviewing Timeline
Ms. Wheeldon noted that the Committee would be providing an update to the City Council on March 1 st
and it was suggested that the Committee present their information over several meetings.
The Committee discussed and agreed on extending their meeting time to 7 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. The
Committee also discussed holding four additional meetings and a study session between
now and the beginning of June. The Committee discussed whether it was possible to complete their work
in time to make the November election. It was noted that the City Council would need a minimum of two
meetings to review the proposed Charter. Staff Liaison Ann Seltzer clarified that if the Committee
completed their work by June 21 S\ that would give the Council July and August to deliberate and take
public input. Ms. Wheeldon asked that each member determine how much time they could personally
commit to this process.
The Committee discussed the list of new issues and received clarification on how the list was compiled. It
was noted that the Vision Statement was missing from the list. Suggestion was made for the Committee
to address these issues a few at a time during any excess time at future meetings. Comment was that
regardless of when the Committee decides to hear these new issues, someone would need to prepare the
information before a discussion can take place. Suggestion was made for the Committee to schedule 30
minutes on the next meeting agenda to discuss a few of the new issues.
Mr. Franell stated that he would provide feedback to the Council regarding the issues, and stated that
there were several that he could eliminate right away.
Ms. Wheeldon clarified that each Committee member needed to review the list of new issues,
conduct their research, and be ready to address these new issues at the next meeting.
V. ADJOURNED Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder