29:12The central topic of the meeting was the scrutiny of the mayor’s veto authority. The current charter allows the mayor to veto ordinances and resolutions, though this can be overridden by the council. This raised questions about the balance of power between the mayor and the council. Members expressed concern over the potential for either a “rogue mayor” or a “rogue council,” emphasizing the need for a system where both entities can effectively counterbalance each other. A motion was discussed to amend the charter language to require a unanimous council decision, rather than a four-fifths majority, to override a mayoral veto. A member stated, “I trust the collective four or five more than I would leaving the power in a single person,” advocating for a governance structure that prevents unilateral decisions by the mayor.

There was a suggestion to consolidate relevant sections into a single reference to eliminate ambiguity. The dialogue also acknowledged that most cities in the state do not operate under a charter, and in those cases, the mayor serves as a voting member of the council without veto power. The conversation highlighted the potential historical impact of mayoral vetoes, with some members recalling instances where significant projects were halted by such actions.

1:03:43Another major discussion point was the process for appointing the chief of police. Currently, the city manager appoints the chief with input from the police commission, but without council consultation. This process contrasts with the appointment of the fire chief, which requires council approval. Members debated whether the council should have similar authority over the police chief’s appointment as it does for the fire chief. A historical reference was made to a situation where the mayor, previously a police officer, appointed a different individual than the one recommended by the police commission, raising transparency concerns.

Further deliberations focused on the size and functionality of the library board. A proposal was made to reduce the board from nine to seven members due to difficulties finding interested members and the observation that nine members may be excessive given the council’s size. State statute allows boards to consist of five, seven, or nine members, prompting a suggestion to seek input from the library board on this potential change.

The council also addressed issues related to public nuisances, specifically dilapidated and vacant properties causing neighborhood concerns. A participant expressed a desire to expand the city’s authority to deal with these properties more effectively.

Lastly, the council examined the governance of the public utilities commission (PUC), particularly the appointment and removal of employees. There was a call for clearer definitions of department head roles within the PUC and whether the city manager’s authority aligns with that of other city departments. The council acknowledged the historical independence of the PUC while noting the city manager’s involvement in meetings and oversight.