2002_0107_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�. professional staff. Is this change offered so that any council member may propose a new ordinance without prior discussion amongst his/her colleagues? tf so, how does this improve local govemment? In what respect is the current rule inadequate? Rule 1 l. Acting Mayor. Current Rule I 8 is well thought out and well written. This proposal is iil-conceived and puts undue power, discretion and authority in the hands of a mayor. See also comments in Rule 4. Rule 12. Council Liaisons, etc. There is no proper reason for giving the mayor the power, discretion and authority to make liaison appointments to hoards, associations, etc. This should be done only by consensus amongst the council as a whole. Putting this power, discretion and authority in the hands of the mayor only allows for favoritism and for the imposition of punitive measures against those who incur the mayor's wrath. This will cause ill feelings and dissension on the council and subvert a spirit of council cohesiveness and cooperation. Rule 13. Allocation of Office Space. There is no legitimate public interest to be served by giving the mayor ultimate authority to allocate departmental office space. Allocating office space at city hall and in all city-owned facilities is the proper function and providence of the professional city manager. No council member, including the mayor, should interfere with the duties and obligations of the professional staff. This is a clear attempt to impose the mayor's will on the workings of city staff and is an outrageous abuse of statutory authority. Currently there is a very comfortable and functional council office/conference rooms at city hall. We do not believe that city government will be improved by the mayor dictating office space or by counci) members making nuisances of themselves at city hall. Any council member, including the mayor, who feels the need for additional office space shou(d make such arrangements on their own, at their own expense and away from city facilities. Rule 14. Official Spokesperson. This is a vague rule and, without background information as to why this proposal is an improvement to current rules, is difficult to comment on. Mayors have atways been the de facto spokesperson for a city and city councils. By granting the mayor status as the city's "official spokesperson" are other council members, city manager or staff denied the privilege of speaking for the city? Does the mayor become the sole voice of the city? Does Roseville not have a voice absent an utterance by the mayor? What if the mayor's position on a given matter is not in line with his colleagues or the city manager? Does his saying something make it so? In certain cases, emergencies for example, the citizens will want to hear directly from the city manager, the police or fire chief or other command officer having independent knowledge of events. Why would a mayor seek to be proclaimed as the "official spokesperson" for a city? It seems like an unnecessary concentration of control. Rule 15. Manager Spending Limits. This proposal seems to be a classic example of micro management by the mayor and council and a tremendous waste of everyone's time and effort. What possible reason is there for empowering the mayor to approve every expenditure and contract, no matter how small or insignificant? Budgets are set by the council and can only be amended by the council. Efficient management requires that spending within the budget constraints will go forward. Is the mayor are so distrustful of the city manager and city staff that he feels the need to exercise complete control over every dime spent? This is simply not rational. Rule 16. Employee Council Communication. On its face, this proposal sounds like a method to keep lines of communication open between the council and city employees. In reality it is a severe and unwarranted policy change that subverts the position and effectiveness of the city manger and every department head. In every functional organization there are clear lines of authority and communication channels which provide for accountability and order. Allowing direct communication, by policy, between council members and city employees will break down the system of professional management and control. This new system will a(low each council member, and any city employee with an axe to grind, to end-run the city manager and department heads so that their pet projects can get attended to to or, conversely, their pet pee-�e:> c�ari be ;addressed without interference. First year students in business school learn that management systems witl�out accountability and authority are doomed to failure. In only rare cases should council members be allowed to have direct substantive communication with city employees, and irrce versa, without the prior notification to and approval of the city manager. It would be ridiculous to suggest that council members and staff do not have casual and impromptu conversations bet�veen them from time to time and these