Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummaries of Charter Review Pub Summaries of Charter Review Public Forum Number of Council Members, Maximum Terms, Appointment of Planning Commission, Elections Should the number of city councilors remain six or should it change to another number? Somewhat of a majority (maybe 2-to-1, including two entire groups) of participants voiced a preference for retaining six councilors because they feel: more councilors would be unwieldy in discussions, majorities are clear with the mayor breaking a tie, more members would require more detail work, and it’s already hard to fill councilor positions. Over a dozen participants spoke in favor of more councilors because they feel: six seems too few and they want more ideas brought to the table, more would bring a greater diversity of opinions, and an odd number would be better so councilors could break ties. A number of participants said they specifically prefer seven councilors with the mayor voting as an eighth along with councilors. Several participants prefer eight councilors to handle the workload, diminish the trouble of absent councilors, and create less conflict of interest. Nobody spoke in favor of fewer councilors. Should the Mayor and City Councilors have a maximum number of terms that they can serve? The vast majority of participants spoke in opposition to term limits, including five entire groups, because they feel: voting is a term limit, term limits create single-subject representatives, it is easy in Ashland to vote out an incumbent, an incumbent’s historical knowledge and experience is important to retain, term limits are an artificial limitation and would impede the power of the people. One entire group did prefer term limits, and most of those people specified two terms. Another group found a twelve-year term limit popular, with a two-year layoff before a former councilor could run again. Comments in favor of term limits included that long-term incumbency makes an incumbent jaded and term limits would bring more fresh ideas to government. Should the appointment of Planning Commission members be proposed by city council members in addition to the mayor? A large majority of participants expressed a preference for councilors, in addition to the mayor, being allowed to propose Planning Commission members (three entire groups favored the change along with most speakers from of another three groups while one entire group opposed the change). Reasons given for allowing councilors to propose Planning Commission members included: all councilors should be allowed official selection, this would utilize councilor expertise, any one selector has a specific agenda so there needs to be more than one person to choose candidates, selection should beby consensus, this would increase the chance of council approval of PC members, if the council disapproves a mayor’s choice then a month is lost, this open up the selection process more publicly and allow the whole public to know the members better, this would spread out and diversify power, this would more likely bring in a larger pool of candidates where there’s a lack of them, this would increase accountability, having one appointer allows cronyism, it should not be left to the mayor alone, one mayor’s point of view can be too narrow, a mayor having sole power just does not make sense, and why not allow councilors to select? Those who voiced a preference for the mayor alone proposing Planning Commission members said the council can give input now and this simplifies the process, it creates more accountability, and it makes sense. Should City Councilors be elected by wards? Should Councilors be elected at-large, or by specific position? A small majority (including two entire groups) expressed a preference for at-large elections over wards or mixed systems. However, two additional ideas were quite popular: top three vote-getters among council candidates win (one entire group preferred this), and instant run-off elections. The arguments given in favor of at-large elections included: a number said that Ashland is too small to divide into wards, a number said wards would cause factionalism and divisiveness, others said we’d get the strongest candidates from an at-large system, candidates shouldn’t be restricted as in wards, it’ s good for councilors to campaign to the whole city, wards would limits the pool of candidates, wards would allow fewer people to support candidates, the overall city welfare is more important than a ward's, two very appealing candidates could be from the same ward causing a conflict of selection, boundaries would be hard to draw, and if students wanted to vote they should already vote (we don't need to create a ward for them). Those who favor wards like idea because: wards would bring councilors closer to the people, local neighborhood representation is a good thing, councilors would be more representative of the population, representation would be more evenly spread among neighborhoods, wards would allow smaller segments to select councilors and create less of a popularity contest, wards would bring constituents together and cause less negative campaigning, wards make candidates more issue-focused, ward systems would gain greater input from different neighborhoods, the amount of money spent on at-large elections is too influential, ward elections would be less expensive, and concern was expressed that that above-the-boulevard sectors are over-represented now. One group had several participants favoring 4 at-large candidates and 2 ward candidates. A number of tables held discussions entertaining the idea of electing councilors by determining the top three vote-getters as the winners of the election, regardless of councilor seat number. One entire group favored this idea. A concerned was expressed that election of the top three vote winners may make it too easy for incumbents to win. Two tables also discussed instant run-off elections with interest, proponents stating that instant run-off elections would foster candidate allegiances and result in less negative campaigns. Several alternative ideas were introduced regarding elections as well. Two suggested that councilors should be paid to allow greater representation of all financial sectors, especially lower income citizens, which would improve the selection of available candidates; others seemed supportive or indifferent to this. One participant suggested the mayor be elected by councilors; this idea raised opposition from another group member. One participant suggested establishing wards by ideology: such as by political party affiliation; this idea also raised opposition from another group member. One participant suggested holding partisan elections; two other group members spoke against this. Vision This wasn’t my topic, but… One participant suggested the city incorporate sustainability into the vision statement, an idea that has been suggested to me separately by another citizen prior to this forum. Other Issues Table (Hal) Review of Suggested Authorizations Topics raised more than once were provisions for: (1) an ombudsman, (2) ethics provisions (one a suggestion that committee review those in Portland’s charter)--a code of ethics for all public officials, specifically for planning commissioners and officials dealing with land use, other areas of possible conflicts of interest, (3) a separate city agency for visioning and long-range planning, (4) periodic charter review, (5) instant run-off elections (It would have been helpful to have reviewed the “primer sheet” of possible charter provisions; I recall these last two items came up more than once, but I don’t recall other items from that sheet, and we didn’t duplicate “primer items” on our tabulation sheets). Public participation in city governance activities came up in several proposals: (1) a comprehensive citizen participation plan, (2) re-activate the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, (3) Devise public participation incentives. There were suggestions regarding the mayor and councilors: (1) elect councilors at large, selecting the most popular, (2) elect 7 councilors at large, with the council selecting the mayor from the council, (3) pay councilors sufficiently to enable low-income candidates to serve. Provisions suggested by individuals: Have parks commission oversee the watershed Provision utilizing local artisans in public projects Criteria for borrowing; criteria for voter approval re capital expenditures Protect citizen soverignty Municipal judge’s salary set by council City Recorder, Municipal Judge (John) City Recorder * There was no consensus on this issue. * Some felt recorder position requires expertise, thus should be recruited and hired because of risk of electing unqualified people. If appointed, who would do so, mayor or council or both? * Others felt strongly they wanted recorder free of political pressures. * The idea of specifying qualifications in the charter was raised; or at least requiring training after election * Why does the recorder handle finances? Is that wise? * How does the city get a balance between hired expertise and elected independence? * Would there be differences in cost to the city if appointed? Municipal Judge * No consensus on this issue * What are the benefits to the city of having an elected and/or an appointed judge? Are there any? * New issue: How much revenue does the judge generate for the city? If not local, how would that change? * What are the costs of having a city judge, and of getting rid of one? A cost analysis was called for. * One resident asked us to look into the “modified Missouri system.” * What do other jurisdictions do? * Someone suggested giving the council the power to appoint the judge. * Community standards are important. * Issue: Current judge’s salary. Some see it as exhorbitant. How busy is the judge? Annexations *A majority of comments favored NOT putting annexations to a vote. Landuse planning is complex and needs full-time attention. * A minority strongly felt that annexations should be voted on, to slow or stop growth, and because current planning system opens the door to inappropriate influence by developers and conflicts of interest. * New issue: If annexations are put to a vote, how would people inside the annexed area be effected? Would they be forced to annex if a majority wanted? * How many annexations occur? How many are likely to occur in coming years? * Perhaps annexations above a certain acreage size could be voted on, and smaller ones dealt with as is. * Would there be conflicts with state law? * What are the impacts, if any, of Measure 37? * Is there correlations between land prices and annexations? Separate Police and Fire (Kate) POLICE/FIRE: Summary of comments Two different types of people involved, two different cultures. Is there a cost saving? If not, why change. What has happened in other cities? More research would be needed. Would there be confusion between authorities? Effectiveness is the most important aspect. It wouldn't work. Not a charter issue, but a management issue. But if in the Charter, police and fire should be equally represented. Keep separate - I would say that this was the majority opinion. BAND: Summary of comments (Kate) A unique resource, and should be protected by the Charter. It's Tradition. It's a part of Ashland values. It makes us happy. It's "archaic". The band is an "investment" in tourism and culture. We should trust the Council to keep the Band. Band should not have to compete for $$. It would be at higher risk by not being in the charter. Should be in the Charter to provide historic continuity. Suggestions: We should promote arts in the city in general; simplify and encourage arts competition. There should be more diversity in music and cultural activities in the city, and more access to the bandshell. There should be a Cultural Arts Commission. Charter should promote arts in general, then have the council decide which ones are to be budgeted. Could possibly be a Department, or part of a Department. Finally: Need to keep the Band in the Charter vs. Not a charter issue, and -Put it in under Parks and Recreation. Then a reminder that change almost always brings unintended consequences. . Parks (Laurie) General approach/question from public: Is there a problem with the present system?? Specific issues: I. Elected Commission: Many participants support an elected commission as reflected in the following statements: a. It's good to have access to a board that is focused on parks. b. P and R is "special"; the commission keeps it like that. c. An elected commission represents a conscious choice to maintain our quality of life through parks. We are unique. d. As city density increases, parks become more important. e. The City Council doesn't have time to deal with or focus on all the park and rec. issues. f. An elected commission keeps the power with the people. g. Appointed commissioners are not as free to speak up for the "people". A few participants voiced that an appointed commission would better serve the city: a. It is difficult to get qualified people to run for an elected position. Running for office is intimidating. b. Elected commissioners are not professional employers. c. Appointed commissioners would serve the community just as well as elected, but wouldn't have the power to spend our money. II. Parks as an autonomous department vs. a division in the City. a. P and R should be a regular department just like the street department; there should be no difference. b. Keep it the way it is!! Don't change a thing. It works well. c. There would be more financial accountability if parks was a city division. There could be no "run-ins". d. The present system is unique and makes Ashland special. e. The budget is controlled by the city anyway. It would be more efficient to make parks a city division. f. Parks are "magic"; like the City Band! g. "Don't mess with good Mojo." Personal impression: I was impressed with the interest in the P and R issues, yet I didn't get the sense that Parks is an extremely controversial issue. The majority of the citizens seemed to be very dedicated to our Parks and want the present system remain as is. A few people, at least one at every table, promoted simplifying government by pulling P and R under the City. L. MacGraw Governance Table (Pam) Input at the governance values table varied a lot from group to group. Still, a few themes emerged from discussion: 1. Citizens wonder if there is a disconnect between staff and the vision/values of the city. Is this information adequately communicated/emphasized to staff? 2. At the same time, citizens seems to have a high degree of respect for staff, and some participants suggested that the council intervenes too much. "Let staff be professionals," was a typical comment. Negative staff comments seemed to be solely focused on the planning department. 3. The council's job is to set policy/direction/vision. To that end, the council should delegate detail day to day operations to staff and focus on the big picture. (This comment came up frequently among the groups.) 4. The vision should be clearly communicated in all documents and codified in city structure. 5. Participants expressed a high degree of confidence in the city council. Most citizens seem to feel that they can contact elected officials whenever they need to. Other comments addressed the need for an ethics policy, the need for transparency in all city business, incorporation of green values and respect for diversity, and the need for the city council to protect the value of land produced by the community.r staff, and some participants suggested that the council intervenes too much. "Let staff be professionals," was a typical comment. Negative staff comments seemed to be solely focused on the planning department. 3. The council's job is to set policy/direction/vision. To that end, the council should delegate detail day to day operations to staff and focus on the big picture. (This comment came up frequently among the groups.) 4. The vision should be clearly communicated in all documents and codified in city structure. 5. Participants expressed a high degree of confidence in Structure of Government (Don) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, MAYORAL VOTE & MAYORAL VETO. Preface: These three issues, particularly the government structure, required considerable explanation as to the nature of the issue, and why/how it was being considered by the committee. For each group, approximately one third to one half of the available time was spent addressing these points along with answering specific questions. As a consequence, insufficient time was available to obtain any kind of a real consensus, although general feelings on some points were possible. With so much time devoted to facilitating each group, not enough attention was paid to the quality control of the recorded comments. City Government Structure ? The majority of the participants were in favor of establishing a city manager with authority to hire and dismiss department heads. Present structure suitable for smaller (than Ashland) cities. ? Approximately half of the participants favored the mayor supervising a city manager but not the department heads-"difficult for department heads to have two bosses". City staff need clean lines of authority at all levels. ? Two participants favored the present structure - one was adamant "I've lived here for 40 years and I like it the way it is-don't change it!" ? Approximately half of the participants favored having a city manager manage the city operations along the lines of a corporate business, particularly as the city continues to grow. ? Maybe one-fourth of the participants viewed the city as a government function which should be managed differently from a corporate model - none could articulate how the government was different except that the mayor (chief executive)is an elected official, not appointed. ? Several participants favored the concept of a mayor/manager team with shared power. ? Several participants felt that the mayor, as a part-time official, couldn't effectively supervise the city officials and department heads. ? A majority of the participants felt that the mayor should be readily accessible to the citizens. ? Most participants felt that the duties/responsibilities of both the mayor and city administrator/manager should be delineated in the charter. ? Many participants felt that the mayor should be in a position to hire and dismiss the city administrator/manager. Comment: Considerably more time is required to educate the voters on this complex issue so that there is an understanding of the present government structure and possible new alternatives. Some form of in-depth discussion group(s) is needed. Mayoral Vote ? Most participants asked the question "why doesn't the mayor vote with the council?" ? Several participants felt that the citizens should rely on the council for decisions on city matters, and that a mayoral vote was not necessary, except in the case of tie decisions. ? A few participants felt that the mayor should vote with the council, but, in that case, wouldn't have veto authority. Mayoral Veto ? Several participants posed the question "what are the pro's and con's of a mayoral veto?" ? A few of the participants felt that a veto power by the mayor was not necessary - provides too much power for the mayor. Comment: Because so much time was spent on the issue of city government structure, little (in some cases, none) time was available to address the vote and veto issues. Again, more time and voter education is needed to obtain valid citizen views on these two issues. DRM