Jul 14 2018
Council would hire, but could not fire.
Facing a strong Administrative staff proposal to diminish the Piedmont City Council’s authority and control, the Council appeared confused, lacking clarity or direction. Council members questioned issues as basic as whether the Council or the City Administrator should hire and fire the City’s top managers – Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, etc.
The City Council had paid little attention to the City Charter until there was a desire to accumulate ever greater amounts of revenue in reserve, without clear and specific purposes.
Overriding the unlimited reserve issue became the Administrative staff desire to change how Piedmont is governed.
The review and changes to the City Charter had been pushed by former and resigned mayor, Jeff Weiler, who wanted the City to not only have a permanent, potentially escalating parcel tax, but who wanted the City to garner and retain in the General Fund Reserves unlimited amounts of revenue.
The City Council asked the Administrative staff to look at the City Charter and propose changes. The Council was eager to allow the staff to construct their proposals independent of Council originated ideas. Individual Council members were to privately, outside of Council meetings, submit to the City Administrator Charter changes they wanted.
The Administrative staff came up with a monumental proposed change to Piedmont’s long-held system of governance. The Charter changes proposed will significantly reduce Piedmont’s City Council’s long-held authority and Council responsibility for City services.
City Administrator, Paul Benoit, proposed that the City Council should no longer appoint top Department Heads, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc., he, the City Administrator, should have complete hiring and firing authority.
The Council did not totally accept Benoit’s proposal and chose to continue their long-held practice of hiring key positions. The Council however, relented on Benoit’s proposal to allow him, the City Administrator, to be the sole individual authorized to fire key staff members hired by the Council.
The Council, in deference to Benoit, who is well liked by the Council, was also willing to forfeit their right as a Council to direct the Police Chief, Fire Chief, etc. The Charter revisions as proposed will require all Council direction to go through the City Administrator, even if the Administrator position is vacated or terminated. If there is a conflict with the City Administrator and a Council hire, the only choice the Council will have is to fire the City Administrator.
Mayor Bob McBain wanted to totally relinquish to the City Administrator the Council’s hiring and firing authority, but this was not supported by other Council members.
The City Administrator proposed governance is a form of governance traditionally found in cities with directly elected mayors who have more executive authority than Piedmont’s largely ceremonial Council-selected mayor, rotating among their members with limited powers as set out in the City Charter.
Council questions regarding Charter language stating the Council has authority “to direct” their appointees led to further Council confusion. Despite specific existing language in the City Charter stating Council members as individuals are not allowed to direct staff members, Benoit argued he did not want the Council as a whole to be able to direct staff members even during Council meetings or emergency situations.
Individual Council members have been known to direct staff without the knowledge of the Council as a whole perhaps encouraged by a City Administrator. It can be easier and faster for an administrator to gain direction from one person, a Council member, the mayor, than from a majority of the Council as required by the City Charter.
The City Council and the City Administration, including the City Attorney, in recent years have not been attentive to the intent or language in the City Charter. Since Piedmont’s long-term attorney retired, a great amount of knowledge on the City Charter has apparently been lost or ignored.
In considering proposals for changing Piedmont’s City Charter, the City Council has held a number of poorly attended, fragmented public meetings. No independent committee, as in previous years, was formed to carefully consider the complex and important City Charter despite a number of citizen requests. Because of various voids in the questionable proposals, it is obvious the entire Charter was not carefully considered nor discussed leaving many questioning the process and the proposals.
Significant current issues were never considered during the Council Charter review process.
Some examples are:
- requirement for voters to make zoning changes
- borrowing money for more than one year
- Council officer vacancies
- bid advertisements and notifications
The Council agenda for Monday night appears to acknowledge that the Council, City Administrator, and City Attorney have not upheld Piedmont’s City Charter.
The Council agenda items for the Monday, July 16, 2018 meeting rebuffs the City Charter when it states “Conform to Modern Practice.” No one would want the City Charter to perpetuate unlawful practices; however, “Modern Practices” infers and confirms non-compliance with Piedmont’s long successful and practical City Charter. Prime examples of ignoring the Charter are the usurpation of Council authority, borrowing money, and negation of voter approval for zoning changes.
The Council decided to separate the governance issue from the remainder of the Charter revision proposals after sensing the potential opposition to turning over long-held Council authority to the City Administrator. Piedmont voters will find little transparency in the attempt to change Piedmont governance as noted in the staff report below:
Amendments to the City Charter to Clarify the Reporting Structure for Officers of the City, Clarify the Departments Responsible for Maintenance of Park Lands and Recreational Facilities, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice
Council dropped notion of unlimited General Fund Reserves.
When Kathleen Quenneville, a local authority on civic governance, told the Council that the Charter proposal to eliminate the cap on General Fund Reserves would not be supported by voters, the Council promptly removed the proposal, as it is their desire to not initiate opposition to Council proposals since a prospective voter approved future facilities bond measure is being considered. Concern was expressed by Council members wanting to keep voters positive about Council actions and proposals, leading to the unlimited General Fund Reserves being dropped, and the separation of City Administration governance from other proposals.
This article does not describe the many other proposals suggested by the Council, however urgency does not appear to be present. Items continuing to be of concern are:
- Inconsistencies between the School Board and Council elections – School Board members could seek re-election after sitting out for 4 years, whereas City Council members must sit out for 8 years, unknown in other communities
- Extension of time to fill Council vacancies from 30 days to 60 days
The Charter change matter will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m., Monday, July 16, 2018 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.
Comments can be made to the City Council as below:
Below are the staff reports:
07/16/18 – Consideration of the Following Actions Related to the Possible Amendment of the City Charter
a. Approval of a Resolution and Measure Proposing Amendments to the City Charter to Modify Term Limits for the City Council, Modify the Procedures for Filling of Vacancies in Elected Offices, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice
b. Approval of a Resolution and Measure Proposing Amendments to the City Charter to Clarify the Reporting Structure for Officers of the City, Clarify the Departments Responsible for Maintenance of Park Lands and Recreational Facilities, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice
07/16/18 – Consideration of Options Regarding a Direct Argument and a Rebuttal Argument Regarding the Charter Amendment Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot
