Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport: Mayoral Powers Charter Review Committee Report regarding Mayoral Powers (Draft 1: June 15, 2005, by Michael Riedeman) Issue 1: Should the mayor have a vote on council? Issue 2: Should the mayor have veto power? Issue 3: Should the mayor have appointment power of all commission and committee members? A) History The first two issues arose as a result of reviewing trends cited in the model charter and through discussions with Tom Sponsler, the charter review consultant. The third issue arose in committee discussions. B) Research Interviews were conducted with numerous individuals that have been directly and indirectly involved in City government. C) Summary of public input Discussions held at the Public Forum at SOU on January 20, 2005, (an estimated seventy citizen attended) yielded the following results: 1. [I found no summary of the public input gathered on this issues from the January 20, 2005, public forum.] 2. [I found no summary of the public input gathered on this issues from the January 20, 2005, public forum.] 3. A large majority of participants expressed a preference for councilors, in addition to the mayor, being allowed to propose Planning Commission members. A roundtable public forum including citizens and committee members on April 21, 2005 (with an estimated ten citizens present) yielded the following results: Issues: Mayor Vote / Veto / Override This option was briefly explained to clarify that we could choose that the mayor can either vote or not vote, have veto power or no veto power, and if the mayor were granted veto power, we’d decide how many council votes would over-ride a veto. Comments made during the roundtable discussion included: • The Mayor should be allowed to vote and have no veto power. • The current system works well and should not be changed. • Because the Mayor doesn't currently vote, it is difficult for the public to know where he or she stands on the issues. • The Mayor doesn't have to vote for the public to know where he or she stands; usually you can tell by the way he or she conducts the meeting. • Not voting allows the Mayor to be a better facilitator. • If Ashland switches to a manager form of government this would be taking powers away from the Mayor. If we move to this form the Mayor should be allowed to vote. • I support the super-majority option, which is the original number of votes plus one. At the conclusion of the input session, the audience voted on the alternatives. Should the Mayor be allowed to vote? 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Should the Mayor have veto power? 5 in favor. 2 opposed. If the Mayor does have veto power, should it be over-ridden by: --a super-majority: 2 in favor. --a 2/3 majority: 4 in favor. Issue: Appointment of Commission and Committee members The 4 alternatives for this issue were explained as follow: 1. The Mayor proposes and appoints members of the committees and commissions with Council confirmation, 2. Council and Mayor together propose and appoint members of committees and commissions, 3. Mayor proposes and appoints members of committees and commission, except the Planning Commission, with Council confirmation. Council and Mayor together propose and appoint members of the Planning Commission, 4. Council proposes and appoints all commission and committee members. Some of the comments made during the roundtable discussion included: • The Mayor and the Council together should make the appointments. • It would be helpful if the Council could have a role in selecting the candidates and then have the Mayor make his appointments. • The Council does not have the knowledge or depth of experience of what the goals are needed to make the appointments. • I support option 3 because it separates out the Planning Commission appointments. • Why pull out the Planning Commission? We are just reacting to headlines and it is not appropriate to single out one group just because that is the hot topic of the day. • The appeals to the Planning Commission decisions should be made to a hearings officer, not the Council. At the conclusion of the input session, the audience voted on the alternatives: Alternative # 1 - 0 votes. Alternative # 2 - 9 votes. Alternative # 3 - 1 vote. Alternative # 4 - 0 votes. D) Summary of Charter Review Committee deliberations On May 12, 2005, several motions were made on these three issues following committee deliberations. The Committee discussed whether the Mayor should vote or have the power to veto. Comment was made that because more power would be placed in the City Manager position, the political power of the Mayor should be adjusted as well. Committee expressed their thoughts on whether the veto right or voting option placed more power with the Mayor. Opinion was expressed that removing the veto could reduce contention amongst the Council and statement was made that the Mayor would still be able to facilitate the meeting fairly evenly if he or she was a voting member of the Council. Comment was made that if the Mayor votes, his or her vote would only be one of seven and the majority of the power would lie with the Council. Several Committee members expressed their support for the super-majority option, which could over-ride a veto by the Mayor. After several motions and votes, the committee voted that the Mayor should be given a vote as a member of the Council, the Mayor's power to veto should not be retained in the Charter, and the Mayor should continue to propose and appoint members of committees and commissions with Council's approval. E) Recommendations from the Charter Review Committee (a recommended change) 1. The mayor should have a vote on council. (a recommended change) 2. The mayor’s power to veto should be removed. 3. Retain the mayor’s power to propose and appoint all members of commissions and committees.