Last night, the city council held public hearings and then
voted on an approach to handling an initiative a) to require the city manager
and department heads to reside in the city and b) to give the council an "advice
and consent" ratification role in the city manager's department-head
hiring.
Thank you to everyone who came to the hearing to testify,
sent in an opinion, or participated in discussions. Community involvement and guidance
were helpful.
The decision was to amend the charter a) to allow residency
requirements or preferences to be enacted, for the city manager and for
department heads, by ordinance, and b) to have the city manager consult the
council in the course of department-head hiring, which eliminates the
"consent" part of "advice and consent." I support (b) but
not (a), and since I can't vote Yes & No, I chose to abstain, a luxury I
allowed myself since all other votes were cast in favor.
This was a first-reading vote of a charter change that will
require a second vote, and we should expect that vote to uphold the first vote without
significant alterations to the text. (One gap or grey area did occur to me, on my walk
home from the council meeting. The current text does not cover
"advice" regarding Acting and Interim appointments like that of Interim
Police Chief Drew Tracy, whom the city manager hired to lead the department,
when former Chief Ron Ricucci retired, until a new chief could come on board.)
And there will be an ordinance regarding city-manager and
department-head residency. Support for a department-head residency requirement
has weakened, and I don't expect one to be enacted. Whether city-manager residency,
or a preference for city residency, will be enacted, I can't say. One
interesting possibility was raised: Requiring that a city manager who relocates
from outside the area live here, but not requiring someone who lives in the
area to move to Takoma Park.
The outcome was a compromise, involving a less substantive
charter change than other outcomes. In particular, residency requirements that
are set by ordinance can be undone by ordinance. And allowing the city council
only an "advice" role in department-head hiring is a smaller departure
from current practice than a "consent" role would represent.
Again, thanks to all of you who have watched and
participated in the issues discussion of the past few months.

No comments:
Post a Comment