HomeMy WebLinkAboutPam final final charterreport1
ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Final Report & Recommendations
July 1, 2005
Introduction and Background:
The Ashland City council initiated a charter review process in May 2004 with the
authorization of a 10-member ad hoc citizen Charter Review Committee. The newly
constituted committee was directed to conduct an independent assessment of the existing
charter (last reviewed in 1978) and, if necessary, to draft a new or amended document
suitable to “serve the community well into the future.” Appointed by Mayor Alan
DeBoer, the committee began work in July 2004. Our ranks included co-chairs John
Enders and Carole Wheeldon, and members Hal Cloer, Kate Culbertson, Laurie
1
MacGraw, Pam Marsh, Don Montgomery, Keith Massie, and Michael Riedeman.
The committee quickly realized that the task at hand would require more than a cursory
review, and we agreed to undertake a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the
charter. After a year of study, we are now forwarding our findings to the City council. In
order to be enacted, charter revisions will need to be placed on the ballot by the council
and approved by voters in a citywide election.
Our work was ably staffed by Ann Seltzer, who fielded a tremendous number of requests
from committee members and interested residents. City Attorney Mike Franell and
Assistant Attorney Mike Reeder provided legal guidance, and Nancy Slocum and April
Lucas provided us with minutes. In addition, the city engaged the services of Tom
Sponsler, a consultant with expertise in charter reviews and revisions and the author of
the Oregon Model Charter, who was contracted to assist the committee.
This report summarizes our recommendations and work schedule over the past year.
(See Appendix 1: Council Approved Documents Establishing the Charter Review
Committee)
Public Input Process
From the beginning the committee understood that public involvement and testimony
were critical to our mission, and we attempted to include the community beyond the
requirements of the law. Throughout our deliberations the committee adhered to the
Oregon Public Meetings laws, and, whenever possible, meetings were broadcast live on
1
Unfortunately, our tenth member, Roy Bashaw, resigned in December 2004.
1
RVTV (later available as streaming video on the city’s website). We scheduled a public
input session into each meeting agenda, and we planned a series of public forums and
other outreach efforts to solicit comment. These efforts included:
? Committee interviews with current and former elected and appointed officials.
? Presentations to the Lions Club, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, Green Party, and
League of Women Voters.
? Creation of an information brochure for distribution at public events
? Articles in City Source.
? Development of an employee survey designed to solicit input from city staff
? Solicitation of extensive coverage in the Daily Tidings and, to a lesser extent, the
Medford Mail Tribune.
? Submission of letters to the editor and op-ed articles explaining the charter
process.
? Development of research documents (white papers and, later, topic papers) that
investigated specific issues.
? Utilization of the city of Ashland web site. All committee documents have been
posted on the web in order to maximize public access and encourage input.
? Use of a Charter listserv to disseminate information and discussion.
? Appearances on RVTV. In addition to the regular broadcast of our meetings,
committee members participated in two interview shows focused on charter
review.
? Establishment of a public outreach subcommittee to plan and coordinate efforts.
Public forums included:
th
? A January 20 meeting at the SOU Rogue River Room attended by approximately
75 community members. This meeting was structured with small breakout groups
in order to provide and overview of charter review and to gather initial public
comment.
th
? An April 7 meeting, also at SOU, focused on structure of government attended
by approximately 30 people. Roundtable discussions invited residents to discuss
the qualities/elements that enable government to provide good public service.
? Issue forums. In addition, we scheduled a public input session on each specific
issue prior to committee debate.
Despite our best efforts, the committee was disappointed with the overall level of citizen
participation. We realize, however, that the City council has an opportunity to generate
significant public input during your review of our recommendations. A later section of
this report (“Next Steps) suggests possible courses of action.
(See Appendix II: Public Information Materials)
2
Structure of Recommendations
Preliminary study and expert testimony enabled the committee to sort potential charter
revisions into three areas of concern: 1) outdated charter language usurped by state law;
2) charter provisions that could be better legislated in the form of city ordinances; and, 3)
structural and political provisions that seemed to warrant evaluation. Analyses produced
by former city attorney Paul Nolte and by committee consultant Tom Sponsler
highlighted significant sections of the charter containing outdated or extraneous
language.
After extensive discussion, the committee decided to adopt the Oregon Model Charter
(developed by the League of Cities) as a template for the revised Ashland city charter.
Our intent was to produce a document that clearly identifies the authority and
accountability of local government and that reflects current state law. At the same time,
the new streamlined charter would need to reflect the specific history and character that
defines the Ashland community. Eliminating outdated language was easy; tackling
sensitive political questions posed a much bigger challenge.
As a result, the committee agreed to spend most of our time focused on a few key issues
critical to the conduct of local government:
? The mayor-manager/administrator relationship
? Mayoral veto/ability to vote on council issues
? Appointment of city commissions/committees
? Election of city council by positions
? Election of the city recorder
? Election of the municipal judge
? Election/powers of the Parks Commission and related issues re: the organization
of the Parks Department
? City Band
Later in our discussions we identified two additional issues that seemed to warrant
investigation: 1) council salaries; and, 2) periodic charter review.
Key Recommendations
1.The City of Ashland should be governed by a partnership between the
elected mayor (the political leader), a city manager (the administrative
leader), and the council (the legislative body). Elected officials are charged
with responsibility for developing policy; the city manager should implement
that policy. The manager’s administrative powers should be expanded to
include staff supervision (hiring, firing, and general accountability).
Background:
Article 4, Section 2 of the existing charter stipulates that the elected
mayor is the “executive officer of the municipal corporation.” Article 13 further
delineates the mayor’s powers, noting that s/he may “suspend and remove any appointive
3
officer at any time.” In effect, the charter empowers the mayor to assume a range of
administrative powers; in theory, the city administrator is responsible for implementing
policy, but his/her managerial authority can be overshadowed by the mayor’s broadly
defined powers.
Discussion
: Proponents of the existing language argue: 1) that the mayor’s position as an
elected official should empower him/her to serve as a hands-on administrator; and, 2) that
designation of a city manager could concentrate too much power in the hands of an
appointed official. Conversely, critics of the current system believe: 1) that the size and
complexity of city issues require professional management; and, 2) that policy is best
created and implemented via a respectful partnership forged between elected and
appointed officials.
Outcome:
Understanding and analyzing the appropriate roles and responsibilities that
should be assumed by elected and appointive officials consumed months of the
committee’s efforts and generated significant interest from elected and appointed officials
(current and retired) and from members of the public. In the end, the committee
approved this recommendation via unanimous vote.
In a subsequent motion (approved 7-1), the committee agreed that the council and mayor
together should be responsible for hiring and firing the manager.
Finally, the committee augmented the recommendation by unanimously voting to adopt
language in the model charter that clarifies that the council should “determine the rules
governing recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, demotion, suspension, layoff, and
dismissal of city employees” that will guide personnel decisions.
(See Appendix III: Structure of Government)
2.The Ashland mayor should vote on all issues before the council; at the same
time, the mayor’s veto power should be eliminated.
Background:
Article 4, Section 3 of the existing charter stipulates that the mayor of the
city is allowed to vote on issues before the council only in the case of a tie. At the same
or veto
time, the mayor is required to approve all measures within five days of passage.
The council is allowed to overturn a mayor’s veto via a two-thirds (4 of 6) vote.
Discussion
: Proponents of the existing framework argue: 1) that the mayor’s non-voting
status better equips him/her to facilitate meetings and provide political leadership; 2) that
the mayor’s veto power is an appropriate tool used to force the council to re-evaluate
hasty or ill-considered decisions. and, 3) that veto power conveys more political leverage
than the ability to vote.
Conversely, critics state: 1) the mayor’s non-voting status clouds the public’s
understanding of his/her position on the issues; 2) application of the veto produces
4
contention instead of consensus; and, 3) that the mayor’s ability to cast a vote is a
stronger investment of political power than is contained in the occasional veto.
Outcome:
The recommendation was endorsed by the committee on a 6-3 vote. A
subsequent motion that the veto be retained in addition to the mayor’s new voting power
failed, 7-2.
If approved, the mayoral vote will eliminate an anomaly in the existing charter. Under
current conditions, the council is allowed to meet if three members plus the mayor are
present. In this circumstance, as few as two council members can constitute a majority.
If the mayor becomes a voting member, at least three votes will be required to approve
any measure.
(See Appendix III: Structure of Government)
3.The mayor should continue to appoint members of city commissions and
committees, subject to council approval.
Background:
Under current practice, the mayor is responsible for appointing members
of city commissions and committee members, subject to council approval.
Discussion
: Proponents of the status quo argue that the mayor’s appointment powers
allow him/her to appropriately set the political tone and direction of the city. Conversely,
critics claim that this structure concentrates too much power in the hands of mayor; they
argue that the council should be allowed to nominate and approve candidates for
appointment.
Outcome
: The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the recommendation, effectively
retaining the status quo. A second motion that would have specifically allowed Planning
Commission members to be proposed and appointed by the mayor and council failed, 7-
1.
(See Appendix III: Structure of Government)
4.The current position system for selecting council members should be
eliminated in favor of citywide, at-large elections in which the top three vote
getters win the council seats at issue.
Background:
Article 8, Section 2 of the city charter delineates the existing system that
governs selection of city council members. Existing language requires council members
to be elected by position number (one through six); each candidate is required to
designate the number of the council seat to which he or she aspires. A candidate may run
for one position in any given election.
5
Discussion
: Proponents of the status quo argue: 1) that the existing system produces
richer debate and greater clarification of issues; 2) that the position system lends stability
to local government by protecting incumbents from political movements that might be
orchestrated to sweep sitting councilors from office; and, 3) that the position system may
allow less-well known candidates to achieve office. Conversely, critics believe: 1) that
the position system can be used to target specific minority candidates; 2) that it
unnecessarily complicates the voting process and stymies a citizen’s ability to support the
candidates of his/her choice; and, 3) that it can allow unchallenged incumbents to avoid
scrutiny.
Outcome
: This was among the committee’s more contentious recommendations,
approved in a 5-4 vote. Related issues that the committee discussed and dismissed for
lack of interest included changing the number of council members, imposing term limits,
and adopting a ward system for council election.
The committee also discussed the possible adoption of charter language that would
permit or enact an instant voter runoff system in city elections. In the end, the committee
decided not to recommend IRV, citing concerns regarding cost, legality, and insufficient
research. However, the committee did agree to forward to the council excellent
background material prepared on the subject by IRV advocate Pam Vavra and to note the
substantial public input we received endorsing IRV.
(See Appendix IV: Council Election Materials)
5.The city recorder should continue to be elected by the voters. However,
charter language that dictates compensation should be removed;
responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens’ Budget
Committee.
In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to
??
study the issues of the city recorder and municipal judge in additional
depth.
Background
: Article 3 of the current charter describes the recorder as an elected city
officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual
adjustments.
Discussion
: Proponents of the status quo argue that election by the voters ensures that
the recorder will remain independent and available to city residents; they note that the
recorder is the only fulltime city official elected by the citizens. Conversely, critics point
out 1) that most city recorders are now appointed and supervised by councils and
managers; and, 2) that election may not guarantee that the winning candidate has the
requisite skills to fulfill the duties of the office. Proponents of the task force argued that
the council should investigate whether the recorder should retain treasurer’s duties now
delegated to that office.
6
Speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the inclusion of compensation
language in the charter, citing the committee’s efforts to remove all specific funding
notations from the document.
Outcome
: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task
force endorsement was approved on a 5-4 vote.
(See Appendix V: Election of the City Recorder)
6.The municipal judge should continue to be elected by the voters. However,
charter language that dictates compensation should be removed;
responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens’ Budget
Committee.
In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to
??
study the issues of the city recorder and municipal judge in additional
depth.
Background:
Article 3 of the current charter describes the municipal judge as an elected
city officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual
adjustments.
Discussion
: Proponents of the status quo argue that the election process allows voters to
choose a municipal judge who will understand and incorporate local values in his/her
approach to the judiciary. Conversely, critics question whether the current system is cost
effective. Proponents of the task force suggested that the council investigate the level of
judicial salary, imposition of a residency requirement, and the general powers and duties
of the judge.
As with the recorder, speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the inclusion
of compensation language in the charter, citing the committee’s efforts to remove all
specific funding notations from the document.
Outcome
: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task
force endorsement was approved on a 5-4 vote.
(See Appendix VI: Election of the Municipal Judge)
7.Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission should continue to be
elected by city voters, and the Parks Department should continue to be
administered as an autonomous entity independent of the rest of city
government. However, existing charter language should be streamlined to
combine the Parks Commission and the Recreation Commission. Finally,
7
charter language that dictates the department’s formula should be removed
from the charter; the Parks and Recreation budget should be determined via
the annual city budget process.
Background
: Article 19 of the existing charter (part of the original 1908 document)
establishes the Parks Commission as an elected body of five residents invested with the
control and management of city parkland and accompanying funding. Section 3 grants
the commission independent taxing authority (not to exceed four and one half mills on
the dollar) necessary to support the parks program. Finally, Article 22 specifies that the
Park Commissioners also serve as members of the Recreation Commission.
Over the years, the Park Commission’s independent funding stream and elected status
enabled the establishment of an independent Parks and Recreation department within city
government. The Parks Commission hires and fires the department manager, establishes
internal policy and procedures, and reviews the annual budget.
Ballot Measure 50 (1997) effectively eliminated the department’s fiscal independence;
Parks and Recreation funding is now established through the Citizens’ Budget Committee
process. However, the Department continues to be administered as an independent arm
of city government.
Discussion
: Proponents of the existing system argue: 1) that election by the voters
provides powerful leverage and independence for the Commission; 2) that the
department’s autonomy has enabled it to creatively develop and maintain the expansive
system of city parks; and, 3) that the city’s park system is intrinsic to the aesthetic and
character of Ashland, and warrants special charter protections.
In turn, critics believe: 1) that the Parks Department is most appropriately administered
under the auspices of the city administrator/manager, which would be consistent with the
committee’s recommendations to place all administrative functions under the city
manager; 2) that the autonomy of the department creates inequities among city
employees; 3) that the elected Commission usurps decision making powers that rightfully
belong to the council; 4) that appointment, rather than election, might attract better
qualified candidates for the commission; and, 5) that the existence of an elected
commission no longer provides fiscal protections for the department, given the passage of
Measure 50.
Outcome
: The recommendation was approved by a vote of 8-1.
Our decision to remove moribund funding language from the charter was consistent with
our overall attempts to keep the charter free of budget figures. However, the committee
acknowledges that Parks funding is integral to its success; we recommend that the
council consider implementing an ordinance that would formalize Parks funding.
(See Appendix VII: Parks and Recreation)
8
8.The Ashland City Band should be retained in the charter; however, funding
language should be removed and budget issues delegated to the Citizens’
Budget Committee. The committee recommends that the Band be placed
under the authority of the city Parks and Recreation Department.
Background:
Article 21 of the current charter requires the council to include in the
annual budget an allocation not to exceed six-tenths (.6) mills on the dollar for the
purpose of a City Band. By tradition (though not function), the Band falls under the
auspices of the city finance director; as a result, the Band often operates quite
independently from city structure.
Discussion
: Proponents of the current charter language argue that the City Band will
survive and thrive through the specification of a funding formula embedded in the
charter. Conversely, critics suggest that the charter should never cite specific budget
numbers; instead, funding should be allocated through the annual budget process.
Speakers on both sides of the funding issue agree that the Parks and Recreation
Department is the most appropriate home base for the Band.
Outcome
: The recommendation was approved via unanimous vote. In addition, the
Charter Committee notes that preservation of the band’s funding is integral to its success;
we recommend that the council consider implementing an ordinance addressing the
band’s funding requirements.
(See Appendix VIII: Ashland City Band)
9.Charter language that requires voter approval of all increases in council
salaries should be eliminated; salary levels should be established via a city
ordinance.
Background
: Article 3, Section 3 of the current charter requires that changes to the level
of compensation received by elective officers (except for recorder and judge) be
submitted to a vote of the people. Right now, each city council member receives $350
per year and the mayor receives $500; these pay levels have been unchanged since at
least 1976. However, elected officials also receive full medical, vision and dental
benefits and a small life insurance policy that covers themselves and dependents.
Discussion
: Proponents argue that the existing system restrains the council from
enacting costly and/or inappropriate pay increases. Conversely, critics claim: 1) that
salary issues are best delegated via ordinance; and/or, 2) that council members deserve to
be paid for the work that they perform.
Outcome
: The committee endorsed the recommendation via a 7-1 vote, with one
member abstaining. Discussion that preceded the vote focused on the generous health
9
benefits package now extended to council members. The committee suggests that
council members consider assuming an insurance co-payment equivalent to that paid by
city employees.
(See Appendix IX: Council Salaries and Benefits)
10.The city council should convene a citizen-based Charter Review Committee
at least every ten years.
Background:
The current charter does not address the question of periodic review.
Discussion
: Proponents of periodic review argue that a mandatory review process
ensures that the charter remains relevant to the conduct of city affairs; critics question the
necessity for such a requirement.
Outcome
: The committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation.
Charter Housekeeping
As noted earlier, analyses produced by former city attorney Paul Nolte and by committee
consultant Tom Sponsler highlighted significant sections of the charter containing
outdated or extraneous language, or addressing issues better delegated to a city ordinance.
We have used that input to identify sections of the charter that should be eliminated from
inclusion in the new model charter; these recommendations are detailed in the following
chart.
(See Appendix X: Charter Mark-ups/Model Charters)
Finally, as one of our last actions, the committee unanimously approved the addition of
language to Article 16, Section 1 (Public Utilities: Water Works) stipulating that city
water can be sold to businesses residing within city limits, as long as the business does
not re-sell the water as a primary use. Our amendment is intended to simply clarify (not
amend) existing water policy.
(See Appendix XI: Suggested Language for Article 16, Section 1)
Next Steps
The conclusion of the Charter Review Committee’s work marks the end of the first phase
2
of charter review. We are now pleased to pass the torch on to the city council. We
2
See Appendix XII: Summary of Expenses
10
suggest that you consider incorporating the following next steps into your process of
review:
Voter Involvement:
As a first priority, the council should launch a voter awareness
campaign designed to provide residents with information on the proposed charter changes
and to establish opportunities for interaction and dialogue. Such a campaign might
include:
?
Media articles, interviews, television, radio.
?
Mini forum/public hearings, etc.
?
Informational events.
?
Talks to civic groups.
?
Flyers (such as in utility bills, etc.)
Ballot Language:
After preliminary review, the council should engage Tom Sponsler,
the city’s charter consultant, to prepare draft ballot language for the proposed charter
changes. This can be done either before or after council review of the committee
recommendations.
As part of this process, the council will need to decide if proposed charter revisions
should be presented to voters in one complex ballot measure, or, instead, structured as a
series of single-issue measures that allows voters to pick and choose among options.
Additional Research Committees:
Consider establishing task forces or committees to:
1) pursue additional investigation of specific issues, including the roles and
responsibilities of the city recorder and municipal judge; 2) develop city ordinances that
might replace charter language; and, 3) conduct legal review of the draft charter.
Timeline:
Develop a timeline for council actions leading to ballot measures, including
conceptual review of recommended changes, draft ballot language, public
forums/hearings, and the selection of an election date.
Finally, please feel free to engage any of us if you need background information,
clarification of our recommendations, or additional insight into our decision rationale.
11