2009-09-21 City Admin Email to Commission Chair re Section 7.05

Home Browse Search

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Ordinance vs Resolution Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:30:55 -0500 From: Jim Ericson <JimE@ci.mounds-view.mn.us> To: 'JThomas' <jthomas@usinternet.com> The issue regarding Charter Section 7.05 is pretty straightforward; legal interpretation is unnecessary, in my opinion. The Charter itself provides the relevant guidance in Sect 3.05: --> The general administrative business of the Council shall be conducted by Resolution. Legislation shall be done by ordinance. <-- Legislation refers to the creation of law, not the administration thereof. Adopting a budget, setting a levy, approving a ten-year comprehensive plan, etc., are all administrative actions of the Council. Adopting a five-year financial plan is really no different. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Charter Commission Meeting Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:43:24 -0500 From: Jim Ericson <JimE@ci.mounds-view.mn.us> To: 'JThomas' <jthomas@usinternet.com> Hi Jonathan. I watched the 9/9/09 Charter Commission meeting. I'm amazed how much time you all are spending on the issue of what you call the clerk administrator. The Charter already defines a set of responsibilities for the position of clerk administrator, and aside from the fact that some of these duties have been delegated and assigned to other positions the City Council has deemed appropriate, I'm not sure there exists any issues in need of correction. Brian mentioned that the Charter states that the department heads are supervised by the Council, not the administrator. Not true. The Charter states that the department heads shall appear before the Council and residents on a quarterly basis. Our department heads typically attend ALL council meetings, which more than satisfies that charter requirement. The Charter states that the administrator shall supervise ALL employees. It does not say, all employees EXCEPT department heads. It is my strong opinion that the Charter NOT determine who does what--clerk or otherwise. Duties may also be assigned based on individual skill sets which may change from year to year. If Desaree, for example, has sufficient experience to manage an election, I see no reason why she could or should not, recognizing that I oversee her performance as the elections coordinator. Regardless of her actions, I am still responsible for many of the activities associated with an election. As an aside, we are both certified through the state as election coordinators, although Desaree has had more first hand experience managing and coordinating local elections. Barbara pointed out a couple times that it really doesn't matter what you call the position. True, but I am NOT in favor of "Chief Executive Officer" or "Executive", nor do I think the Council would support such a moniker. The Council supports "City Administrator" as do I. It is the most widely utilized title to distinguish from a "City Manager". Brian is OK with the City Administrator title, apparently, but he'd like to "clean up" the duties. I'm still not seeing what needs to be cleaned up. The City Code mirrors almost exactly what the Charter says. Do we need to simply add a line of text to both the Charter and Code which acknowledges that the Council may by resolution provide for the designation, delegation and/or assignment of duties as may be needed or appropriate? The issue of codification should not be the driving force on this issue. Changing the title can be done as a stand alone action or in tandem with a more involved revision. It doesn't matter.