Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/06/2012CITY COUNCIL 6 September 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, 6 September 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: R Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; S. Stitzel, City Attorney 1. Agenda Review: Members agreed to change the order of the agenda to put the executive session first. 2. Executive Session: Ms. Mackenzie moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Following the executive session, Mr. Engels moved the Council exit executive session. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Regular Session: 3. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Second Public Hearing on City Clerk's Proposed City Charter Amendment: Ms. Greco opened the public hearing. Ms. Dooley said she has been reflecting on the City Clerk's statement on Tuesday that would modify the second part of the proposed amendment so that assistant clerks would be in the bargaining unit but supervised by the City Clerk. Ms. Dooley said she couldn't figure how that would work, so she e-mailed the City Attorney and asked how this would work if the Clerk terminated an assistant clerk. The assistant clerk would appeal to the City Council. Ms. Kinville said the process would be reviewed. But, Ms. Dooley noted, the Council could also look at the facts and could reach a different decision. If the Council found in favor of the assistant clerk and felt termination was not the right step, they could vote to reinstate the assistant clerk. The City Clerk, however, says this could not happen as the Council has no authority over the City Clerk. Mr. Stitzel said when he was replying to Ms. Dooley's e-mail, he was responding to the current language. Under that, if the Council reaches a different conclusion they can say the employee is reinstated. The proposed language would make termination of an assistant clerk not reviewable by the City Council. Ms. Greco said in the current language, the employee would have no redress to the City Council or to arbitration. Mr. Stitzel said that in Vermont, an "at will" employee can be terminated for any or no reason, but not for an "unlawful" reason (e.g., sexual discrimination). Under the concept of "progressive" discipline that is now in effect, if there is "just cause" for termination, that is reviewable in the Court. Mr. Stitzel also said that if the Legislature were to be clear that the word "clerk" is substitutes for "city manager" in making a decision regarding hiring, termination, etc., everything else would stay the same. He did not know how that would play out at the Statehouse. If the current language is approved by the voters and goes to the Legislature, the Legislature can amend the language or leave it as it is. Mr. Stitzel noted that the proposed language mirrors State law and is what would apply if the city had no charter. Mr. Engels asked if "operating the Clerk's office" means the Clerk could open the office only from 2-5, one day a week. Mr. Stitzel said with the language, he didn't see how the City Council could do anything about that. He noted that hours for Clerks' offices vary significantly around the state. There is no standard for operating a Clerk's office in Vermont. Ms. Greco asked if the office were open one day a week, would employees get the same salary as for 5 days. Mr. Miller said the City Council has the "power of the purse." Mr. Stitzel said if the assistant clerks are in the bargaining unit, they would have to look at the collective bargaining agreement to see if assistant clerks would continue to get full salary. Mr. Miller noted that any position other than a full time position is not in the collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Engels asked what the clerk would be responsible for with regard to the clerk's office. Mr. Stitzel said how the space is used would be within the discretion of the city clerk. Under current state law, the city can enter the clerk's office when the office is closed. The proposed amendment would deny that access unless the clerk agrees the space can be entered/used. Ms. Greco asked if the clerk could decide not to issue dog licenses, for example. Mr. Stitzel said yes, but the City Council could compel the clerk to do what the job requires. Public comment was then solicited. There was no comment forthcoming. Ms. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 4. Consider Approval of Special Warning for November 6, 2012, City Charter Amendments and order of publication: Mr. Stitzel said at this point the Council is not approving a special warning for the November election. They can include ballot items to be included so the state can print ballots, and they can approve articles to be on the ballot. There must be a separate meeting to approve the wording. Members agreed to have the Library amendment first, then the City Council's charter change amendment, then the City Clerk's charter change amendment. Ms. Dooley read the City Attorney's rewording of Article 1, Subsection 3. Members "wordsmithed" the phrasing, and Mr. Miller briefly left the meeting to secure a clean copy. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the language and ordering of the articles as presented. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.