After four meetings to review the city’s charter, the Charter Review Committee is ready to present its recommendations to the public.
Many changes to the charter include basic housekeeping in the form of how things are worded, but some of the more interesting notes of change center around election of a mayor, habitual absenteeism and quorum rules.
Changes for an elected mayoral system
After citizens voted in May to have an elected mayor, the committee was faced with the question of what should happen if an active councilor wants to run for mayor before their term is up – should they resign their seat in order to run?
Committee member Gary Jarvis believes it’s fair enough that a councilor should not have to resign if they run for mayor. Committee member and City Councilor Josh Thorstad pointed out that if three active councilors wanted to run for mayor, then that would be three seats on the council lost and, ultimately, lack of a quorum.
The committee passed a motion 4-0 (committee member Jeff Parker was absent) to change Chapter II, Section 3, such that if a councilor runs for mayor and wins the election, then their seat becomes available to be filled by the former election’s candidate who did not fill a seat yet.
They also considered whether the mayor should be allowed to make motions and vote, or just be a tie-breaker.
The City of Sweet Home currently operates as a council-manager form of government, City Attorney Blair Larsen told the committee. Here, the city manager is the executive hired by the legislative branch.
In cities where the mayor has more power, they usually follow a “strong mayor” system where the mayor is elected and is the executive who hires a city administrator. Sweet Home can change its system, Larsen said, “but it’s a bigger shift.”
Committee member Mike Reynolds was okay with the mayor being able to vote, but not make motions. Thorstad said the neighboring cities’ mayors are directors of the meetings and only vote in a tie – a system he thinks is right. Jarvis initially indicated he was fine with that set up.
This topic was later addressed, as noted later in this story.
Absenteeism
Addressing the topic of absenteeism, the committee considered how many meetings councilors are expected to attend every year – an average of two meetings per month, plus work and executive sessions.
Reynolds said he believes 10 unexcused absences is generous and should result in the removal of a councilor from their seat – a policy the State of Oregon follows – adding that if someone’s not going to most of the meetings, then it’s “obvious” they don’t want to do the job.
Thorstad added he likes the notion of holding elected officials accountable. Absences addressed at council meetings, however, have always been excused by vote.
Jarvis was more hesitant to punish habitual absenteeism, stating “If we were to do something like that, I think we are entering dangerous territory because people are elected to office and, once again, elections have consequences.”
Jarvis told the committee he’d prefer the rule, if any, to address the matter only when a councilor acquires unexcused absences of a minimum of 50% of the meetings. However, if they do add this to the charter, he said, it should come with precise rules and redress. Or, he said, perhaps put the councilor’s actions in the hands of the citizens through some sort of public trial.
The committee ultimately voted 4-0 to add that if a councilor has 10 or more unexcused absences from regular council meetings in a calendar year, then they cannot run for reelection.
Reynolds also addressed a concern about what should happen, if anything, if a councilor “runs their mouth” against the will of council.
“This is, I would say, one of the weaknesses of our charter, is that there’s not necessarily a lot of recourse for breaking the council rules,” City Attorney Blair Larsen said.
He added that the city has to be careful not to violate anyone’s right to free speech. Thorstad added that the discussion was starting to tread into council rules, not rules related to the city charter.
Quorums
The committee held considerable discussion on Chapter III, Section 18, concerning a quorum’s ability to vote on any matter.
Reynolds wanted a quorum to be a specified number rather than a general quorum of the council. He was concerned that if four councilors showed up to a meeting, thus forming a quorum, then it would take only three councilors to have the power to pass business. The idea of three people being able to make big decisions that would affect the city bothered him, and Reynolds suggested that it take a minimum of four councilors to approve a motion.
Jarvis initially agreed with the idea, but reconsidered his stance after giving it further thought. At a prior meeting, his motion to allow the mayor the power to vote only in a tie had passed, but he readdressed the matter when the committee was re-reviewing this section.
Jarvis said he realized that having a four majority for all matters would set the stage requiring a supermajority for anything to pass. With the mayor excluded from being able to vote, only six councilors would be able to vote, making the requirement that it would take at least four to pass anything.
“I’m not sure we want to hamstring our city council to that,” he said. “I fear that what we passed (mayor only votes to break a tie) may well be destroying what works as we seek some version of perfection. As we continue to discuss minimum thresholds to pass motions or business, we actually may have created the situation that would hamstring city council from getting work done at all. We sought to keep the mayor above the fray of day to day politics by doing what we did at the last meeting, but may have created a situation where politics could more easily be played and exercised.”
Deputy City Manager Cecily Pretty agreed that – with the mayor not being able to vote and the requirement of at least four to pass anything – it may become impossible to pass any business, particularly if a councilor is absent.
As such, the committee rescinded their decision limiting the mayor’s ability to vote. After further discussion, they determined the four-majority vote should only be relevant to specific matters of business such as the hiring or firing of a city manager, judge or attorney; rate hikes; land use decisions; city code changes; the filling of council seat vacancies when it’s past the term’s half-point; approval of ordinances with emergency clauses; or “anything that happens to the people.”
The committee also passed a motion 4-0 on Chapter V, Section 15, that if three seats were to become vacant, then the majority of remaining seats becomes a quorum for the purposes of filling vacancies.
The committee directed staff to research more about quorum rules for, say, if a councilor “plays games” by not showing up at a meeting in order to deny a quorum when a vote is at hand.
Other items
Other modifications of interest include:
- Chapter IV, Section 13 – If a seat becomes vacant in the first half a councilor’s term, then it will be offered to the former candidates who ran for that seat. If the former top two candidates decline, then the City Council will fill the seat. Passed 3-2.
- Chapter V, Section 17 – Change the “outdated and clunky” term of President Pro Tem to Council President; passed 5-0
- Chapter VI, Section 20(e) – A manager pro tem can hold the position for six months with up to two renewals, as decided by council action with a four majority vote; passed 4-0.
- Chapter VII, Section 24 – New ordinances can be read by title only; passed 4-0.
Additionally, Jarvis asked that something be written up along the veins of allowing citizens for petition and redress. He asked that the council allow five minutes per person for public comment. The motion for this recommendation passed 5-0.
Public meetings will be held from 5-7 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, and 9-11 a.m. on Saturday, July 26, for citizens to comment on the recommendations before anything is brought to the City Council for their review and consideration.