Title
Discussion on the standards for selection of the City Manager, and possible legislative actions
Body
SUMMARY:
After reviewing the text of the advertisement and the applications received, some concerns were self-evident.
To insure the appointment of the Chief Administrative Officer of the City certain due diligence stands out. While each member of the Council has his or her ideas of desired attributes for the job, the City Charter is clear. Since all members of the Council swore an oath to obey the Charter, I would like to bring to everyone's attention certain requirements of the Charter. If the Council fails to follow the Charter, an argument may be brought before the new Council that the previous Council failed to follow the Charter.
This, arguably, is not a desirable alternative for the stability of the City and the fiscal cost to the taxpayers.
Article VIII, Section 2, paragraph (1) of the Charter states that the City Council may remove a City Manager. That being said, while the current City Council may appoint a City Manager for 3 years, the next Council at their discretion can remove him or her.
Section (1) of Article VIII states that "The manager shall be appointed solely on the basis of their executive and administrative qualifications." It goes on to state he need not be a resident of the City or State.
So what are we doing appointing a manager that can be removed at the discretion of the Council before the year is out? Is this not asking the City for more possible chaos and disruption for the City employees?
What are executive qualifications? By definition, executive qualifications are: the execution of laws, ability to appoint positions, diplomatic representation of public affairs, administrative and management control, all of which we have not had since the removal of the last chief administrative officer.
A review of the resumes received for the City Manager position woefully, with one exception, fail to show execut...
Click here for full text