The commission’s deliberations over the city charter led to a vote to remove runoff elections, with the rationale that this could lead to substantial cost savings for the city and could potentially improve voter turnout by streamlining the election process.

Another issue was the appointment process for city officials. The commission voted in favor of amending the charter to allow for the city manager to be included in the same selection process as the city attorney and city clerk. This decision followed a debate on the need for consistency and clarity in the charter regarding the appointment of these key city positions. The commission’s attorney provided legal insight into the implications of such a change.

The meeting also featured a discussion on the possibility of moving the city vote off the general election cycle. The members agreed to set up a special meeting to further review the election cycle and its implications, highlighting the ongoing effort to refine the city’s electoral process.

In addition, the commission addressed the charter’s provision concerning the termination of department directors by the city manager. The debate centered on whether to amend the charter to allow for a simple majority vote by the council to disapprove of such terminations, rather than the current four-fifths majority requirement. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on city operations and legal issues that could arise from changing this voting requirement. After thorough consideration, the commission decided to maintain the status quo, citing the complexities involved in altering this process.

The potential removal of the requirement for a non-voting member on the commission sparked a debate on the merits of having a historical perspective present during charter revision discussions. Ideas were put forth on how to appoint this member if the requirement were to continue, with a rotation basis and authority granted to the mayor’s office being among the suggestions. The commission also contemplated the eligibility requirements for commission members, proposing that individuals should have at least two years of residency in the city before serving.

A notable topic of discussion was the appointment of previous Charter Commission members. The commission grappled with the challenge of ensuring the availability of previous members to continue the commission’s work. While various solutions were proposed, such as appointing an at-large member without voting rights or allowing a current sitting council member to participate in an ex-officio capacity, no consensus was reached. The City Attorney was tasked to research how other municipalities handle this issue and to return with potential language for the commission to consider.

The commission concluded the meeting by scheduling the next session to discuss compensation, the office of Charter enforcement, and charter composition, with the openness to adding more items as required. The need for additional meetings in February was acknowledged to ensure that all relevant topics receive the attention they deserve.