Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Charter Committee - 04/12/2023AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CHARTER COMMITTEE South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street – Library Board Room – 2nd Floor – Room #201 Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-charter-04-12-2023 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (646) 749-3122 Access Code: 522-851-757 Wednesday April 12,2023 4:00 P.M. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2.Agenda Review and Approval 3.Public comment on items not on the agenda 4. ***Approve minutes from the March 8, 2023 Charter Committee meeting 5.*** Discuss one possible item to consider for addition to advantages and disadvantages 6.*** Discuss and finalize the Committee’s community outreach and engagement process a.Events between April 12 and May 10 (or beyond)b.Key stakeholder groupsc.Forums with a facilitator and a note taker (April 24 and 27) d. Approve website and survey 7.Other Business 8. Adjourn CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 The South Burlington City Charter Committee held a meeting on Wednesday, 8 March 2023, at 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room 201, City Hall, 180 Market Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Taylor, Chair; A. Lalonde, D. Kinville, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager, C. McNeil, City Attorney; M. Emery 1. Welcome and Introductions: Mr. Taylor welcomed members. 2. Agenda Review No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Approve Minutes from the 8 February 2023 meeting: Ms. Lalonde moved to approve the Minutes of 8 February 2023 as written. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 5. Discuss and Finalize the Advantages and Disadvantages of different models to present to the community: Ms. Lalonde said she had put the Committee’s lists into a form so that people would know what each bullet point means. She also combined some items but left nothing out. Members discussed each item and agreed on the following document: Advantages Disadvantages Strong/Administrative .Clear leader with recognized .Candidates would be limited Mayor (no City authority sets the City policy to City residents & may not Manager) vision & moves policy forward not have professional . Clear point of contact for qualifications constituent concerns . City Manager position . City resident elected by would be eliminated CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 2 City’s voters .Governance could be seen . Spokesperson for the City as partisan or overly political Including representing its . Veto power could cause Interests in Montpelier conflicts with Council or and with the Federal override Council’s decisions delegation . Fulltime job could be a . Ceremonial head of City barrier to entry for potential . Hires own staff which candidates encourages innovation . Citywide campaign could be . Mayoral system easy for expensive, another barrier citizens to understand for candidates . Campaign donations may raise suspicion of favoritism in later policy decisions . Campaign could encourage or allow endorsement by City employee groups, which could conflict with City policy . Hires own staff, which could be done for reasons other than professional ability . Could become entrenched as an incumbent, difficult to vote out City Manager (no . Selected based on . Potentially not connected Mayor) professional qualifications, to community Appointed such as expertise, . Has unelected authority and Professional experience may not respect Council’s .Neutral, non-political role as policymaker or decision maker implement the Council’s .Provides continuity to City policies operations . May use the position to try . Runs the day-to-day to manipulate and control operations of City so the Council and may form elected officials can focus on “favorites” with Councilors policy matters . City Manager system CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 3 . Stays current on managerial difficult for citizens to & financial issues through understand continual education and . Council’s ability to remove professional development manager cold incur expense . Hires & fires professional due to employment contract Staff & protects them from political influence . Available for citizens’ concerns . Council can remove manager for poor performance Weak/Policy . Clear recognized leader of City . Potential for conflicts Mayor (with . Clear point of contact for between Policy Mayor and City Manager constituent concerns Council; Council may not . City resident elected by City’s support Policy Mayor Elected voters . Position has little statutory . Spokesperson and ceremonial power head of City . Mayor may not accept . Can help bring consensus to limited role & may try to act Council as active Chair as Administrative Mayor . Supported by a professional . Citywide campaign could be City Manager & can provide expensive; barrier for many Support & guidance to Manager candidates . Can be a point in time position . City Manager may have less So more potential candidates may authority to act for City be able and willing to run . May not always be available . Mayoral position easy for for citizen concerns if part- citizens to understand time position . Nature of position may be confusing to citizens Council Chair . Works to build consensus, . Not elected as Chair by (with City Manager) encourages collaboration, and City residents Elected as Councilor, listens to all Councilors . Unclear who is spokes- Chosen by fellow . May be more of a “team person for the City Councilors to be Chair spirit” than a system with a . Less of a clear point of CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 4 separate Mayor contact for residents than . City resident elected by City than with a Mayor voters . Nature of the roll may be . Can be replaced every year by confusing to voters other Councilors . Chair may lack sufficient . Provides many of the same political influence in services as a Policy Mayor lobbying, obtaining grants, . Supported by a professional etc. City Manager . Potential for Chair conflict . Can provide support and with City Manager guidance to Manager Council Composition 5 City Councilors: . Easier to find candidates to serve . May represent fewer . Easier to hold more efficient perspectives meetings, have cooperation & . Too much work for each team building Councilor . Easier to arrange meetings . More difficult to get a that all Councilors can attend quorum . Easier communication with . Takes only 3 Councilors with City Manager & residents to dismiss City Manager . If ward-based, voting logistics are simpler if just one Councilor per ward . Less expense for City to pay fewer stipends More than 5 . More perspectives will be . More difficult to reach Councilors represented consensus; more voices . May mean greater expertise, could lead to more conflict different skill sets in Council or factions CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 5 . Spreads out the work of the . Deliberations could get Council to more people and may bogged down with more allow for extra activities such as Councilors, possibly leading sub-committees to less efficient meetings . Councilors will be able to . Difficult to find more miss meetings or recuse candidates to run themselves when necessary, and . Adding subcommittees there will still be a quorum could take up more of Councilors’ time & create additional staff work . More expensive for City to pay more stipends and increase staff support and time commitment Elected at Large . All Councilors have a Citywide . May not be representative perspective of the entire City due to . Residents from any ward inequitable geographic can reach out to any Councilor representation for assistance . Difficult for Councilors to . Voting logistics for at-large represent all residents of the (Citywide) elections are simpler City rather than just those in for residents and City Clerk’s their ward Office . Running for City-wide office may be expensive and time- consuming Elected by Ward . Residents more engaged with . Potential to lose City-wide their Councilor at a neighborhood perspective, and to be re- level elected, Councilors may have . Wards could correspond to to prioritize their own ward existing legislative districts with . May be difficult to find a simpler voting logistics, if only 5 a candidate in each ward Councilors . Smaller candidate pool may . Familiar with localized issues lead to more candidates CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 6 . More affordable & less time- . running unopposed, so consuming for candidates to possibly less voter choice campaign in their ward . Some potential candidates . Smaller candidate pool may (including current Councilors encourage more candidates may not be able to serve . Confusing to voters to have one Councilor per ward and more at large, if over 5 Councilors . If Legislative boundaries determine wards, the Legislature (not the City) determines the wards; redistricting every 10 years could cause confusion South Burlington School Board . Easier to find 5 candidates to . May represent fewer 5 Directors serve perspectives . Easier to hold more efficient . Members often work on meetings, have cooperation & multiple committees and team building bargaining groups which . Easier to arrange meetings with creates a high work load that all Directors can attend . More difficult to get a . Easier to communicate with the quorum Superintendent and residents . Takes on 3 Directors to . If ward-based, voting logistics dismiss the Superintendent are simpler if just one Director per ward . Less expensive for City to pay fewer stipends School Board More than 5 . More perspectives will be . More difficult to reach Directors represented consensus; more voices . May mean greater expertise, could lead to more conflict CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 7 different sets on School Board or factions . Spreads out the work of the . Deliberations could get Directors to more people and bogged down with more may allow for extra activities such Directors, possibly leading as more subcommittees to less efficient meetings . Directors will be able to miss . Difficult to find more meetings or recuse themselves candidates to run when necessary and there will . More subcommittees could still be a quorum take up more to Directors’ . More contacts for the public & time and create additional more outreach to the community staff work. . More expensive for School District to pay more stipends and increase staff support & time commitment Mr. Engels moved to accept the listing of advantage and disadvantages of each of the categories as discussed. Ms. Kinville seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Discuss and finalize the Committee’s community outreach process: Ms. Baker provided some suggestions for public engagement. She asked if members wanted to have a quick public survey and whether they wanted the Committee as a whole to do the public engagement. Mr. Taylor suggested 3 meetings with the Committee in 3 different locations, one of which could be with the School Board. Ms. Baker said the City has found it beneficial to have a survey running during the public meeting process. Mr. Taylor suggested having the outreach in April. He also would like to see the “advantages/disadvantages chart in The Other Paper. Mr. Taylor and Ms. Baker will be meeting with The Other Paper this week. Mr. Taylor agreed to meet with the new School Board Chair. Ms. Baker said it is important to have someone ask for time on a School Board agenda. She and Mr. Taylor will go when invited. CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 8 MARCH 2023 PAGE 8 Suggestions for meetings with public groups included the Rotary, PTO SBBA and Policy Committee Chairs. Mr. Taylor would like a returned survey to be signed or at least have a street of residence so they can be certain responders are city residents. Members agreed to a survey and asked that it include the question: “Have you reviewed the Pros and Cons document.” 7. Other Business: Ms. Baker said she cannot be present at the next scheduled Committee meeting (12 April). Members agreed to leave it on the schedule for now. As there was no further business to come before the Committee, Ms. Lalonde moved to adjourn. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m. Charter Committee Updated: 3/8/23  Key Questions Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages Chief Executive?  Strong/ Administrative Mayor (no City Manager)   Elected  Clear leader with recognized authority who sets the City’s policy vision and moves policy forward  Clear point of contact for constituent concerns  City resident elected by the City’s voters  Spokesperson for the City, including representing its interests in Montpelier and with the VT Federal delegation  Ceremonial head of the City  Hires own staff, which encourages innovation  Mayoral system easy for citizens to understand       Candidates would be limited to City residents and may not have professional qualifications  City Manager position would be eliminated  Governance could be seen as partisan or overly political  Veto power could cause conflicts with council or override council’s decisions  Full‐time job could be a barrier to entry for potential candidates  Citywide campaign could be expensive, another barrier for candidates  Campaign donations may raise suspicion of favoritism in later policy decisions  Campaign could encourage or allow endorsement by City employees or employee groups, which could conflict with City policy  Hires own staff, which could be done for reasons other than professional ability  Could become entrenched as an incumbent, difficult to vote out City Manager (no Mayor)   Appointed   Selected based on professional qualifications, such as expertise, professional experience   Neutral, non‐political decisionmaker  Provides continuity to City operations  Runs day‐to‐day operation of City so elected officials can focus on policy matters  Stays current on managerial and financial issues through continual education and professional development  Hires and fires professional staff and protects them from political influence  Available for citizen concerns  Council can remove manager for poor performance  Potentially not connected to community  Has unelected authority and may not respect Council’s role as policymaker or implement the Council’s policies  May use the position to try to manipulate and control the Council and may form ‘favorites’ with Councilors  City Manager system difficult for citizens to understand  Council’s ability to remove manager could incur expense due to employment contract  Charter Committee Updated: 3/8/23  Key Questions Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages Political Leader? “Weak”/Policy Mayor (with City Manager)   Elected  Clear, recognizable leader of the City  Clear point of contact for constituent concerns  City resident elected by the City’s voters  Spokesperson and ceremonial head for the City  Can help bring consensus to Council as active chair  Supported by a professional City Manager and can provide support and guidance to Manager   Can be a part‐time position so more potential candidates may be able and willing to run  Mayoral system easy for citizens to understand  Potential for conflicts between Policy Mayor and Council; Council may not support Policy Mayor  Position has little statutory power  Mayor may not accept limited role and may try to act as an Administrative Mayor  Citywide campaign could be expensive, a barrier for many candidates  City Manager may have less authority to act for the City  May not always be available for citizen concerns if part‐time position  Nature of position may be confusing to citizens Council Chair (with City Manager)  Elected as Councilor; chosen by fellow Councilors to be chair  Works to build consensus, encourages collaboration, and listens to all councilors  May be more of a “team spirit” than a system with a separate mayor  City resident elected by the City’s voters  Can be replaced every year by other Councilors  Provides many of the same services as a Policy Mayor  Supported by a professional City Manager and can provide support and guidance to Manager   Not elected as Chair by City residents   Unclear who is the spokesperson for the City  Less of a clear point of contact for residents than with a Mayor  Nature of the role may be confusing to voters  Chair may lack sufficient political influence in lobbying, obtaining grants, etc.  Potential for Chair conflict with Manager Council Composition? 5 Councilors  Easier to find candidates to serve  Easier to hold more efficient meetings, have cooperation and team building  Easier to arrange meetings that all Councilors can attend  Easier communication with the City Manager and the residents  If ward‐based, voting logistics are simpler if just one Councilor per ward  Less expensive for City to pay fewer stipends  May represent fewer perspectives  Too much work for each Councilor  More difficult to get a quorum  Only takes three Councilors to dismiss the city Manager      More than 5 Councilors  More perspectives will be represented  More difficult to reach consensus; more voices could lead to more conflict or factions  Charter Committee Updated: 3/8/23  Key Questions Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages  May mean greater expertise, different skill sets in council  Spreads out the work of the council to more people and may allow for extra activities such as subcommittees  Councilors will be able to miss meetings or recuse themselves when necessary and there will still be a quorum  Deliberations could get bogged down with more Councilors, possibly leading to less efficient meetings  Difficult to find more candidates to run  Adding subcommittees could take up more of Councilors’ time and create additional staff work  More expensive for City to pay more stipends and increase staff support and time commitment  Geographic Representation?  For School Board and City Council  Elected at large  All councilors have a city‐wide perspective  More people will be eligible to run for a council seat  Residents from any ward can reach out to any councilor for assistance  Voting logistics for at‐large (city‐wide) election are simpler for residents and the Clerk’s office  May be unrepresentative of the entire City due to inequitable geographic representation  Difficult for councilors to represent all residents of the City rather than just those in their ward  Running for city‐wide office may be expensive and time‐consuming Elected by ward  Residents more engaged with their Councilor at a neighborhood level   Wards could correspond to existing legislative districts with simpler voting logistics, if only 5 Councilors  Familiarity with localized issues  More affordable and less time consuming for candidates to campaign in their ward  Smaller candidate pool may encourage more candidates   Potential to lose city‐wide perspective and, to be reelected, Councilors may have to prioritize their own ward  May be difficult to find a candidate to run in each ward  Smaller candidate pool may lead to more candidates running unopposed, so possibly less voter choice  Some potential candidates (including current councilors) may not be able to serve   Confusing to voters to have one Councilor per ward plus more at‐large, if over 5 Councilors  If legislative boundaries determine wards, the Legislature (not the City) determines the wards; redistricting every 10 years could cause confusion         Charter Committee Updated: 3/8/23     Key Questions Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages  South Burlington Board of School Directors Composition? 5 Directors  Easier to find candidates to serve  Easier to hold more efficient meetings, have cooperation and team building  Easier to arrange meetings that all Directors can attend  Easier communication with the Superintendent and the residents  If ward‐based, voting logistics are simpler if just one Director per ward  Less expensive for City to pay fewer stipends  May represent fewer perspectives  Members often work on multiple committees and bargaining groups which creates a high workload  More difficult to get a quorum  Only takes three Directors to dismiss the Superintendent  More than 5 Directors  More perspectives will be represented  May mean greater expertise, different skill sets in School Board  Spreads out the work of the Directors to more people and may allow for extra activities such as more subcommittees  Directors will be able to miss meetings or recuse themselves when necessary and there will still be a quorum  More contacts for the public and more outreach to the community   More difficult to reach consensus; more voices could lead to more conflict or factions  Deliberations could get bogged down with more Directors, possibly leading to less efficient meetings  Difficult to find more candidates to run  More subcommittees could take up more of Directors’ time and create additional staff work  More expensive for School to pay more stipends and increase staff support and time commitment   Draft Charter Survey – For Consideration  Updated: 4/6/23    1. Executive Leadership – Do you prefer:    A City Manager (current structure)   An Administrative or Executive Mayor such as in the City of Burlington (acts as CEO of  the City)   A Policy Mayor such as in the City of Rutland or Winooski (serves as Chair of City  Council), along with a City Manager  2. Executive Leadership – Why did you make this selection? (open ended response)  3. City Council Composition – Do you prefer:   A Council with five members (current structure)   A Council with more than five members   4. City Council Districts – Do you prefer:    A Council with members elected at large (current structure)   A Council with members elected from legislative districts/wards and others elected at  large  5. City Council ‐ Why did you make these selections? (open ended response)  6. School Board Composition – Do you prefer:   A School Board with five members (current structure)    A School Board with more than five members   7. School Board – Do you prefer:    A School Board with members elected at large (current structure)   A School Board with members elected from legislative districts/wards and others  elected at large  8. School Board – Why did you make these selections? (open ended response)  9. Do you do any of the following in South Burlington?  a. Live  b. Work  c. Play  d. Shop  10. We are trying to get representation from across the city.  To that end, please share the  voting district you live in.  a. CHI‐8  b. CHI‐9  c. CHI‐10  d. CHI‐11  e. CHI‐12  11. Did you attend a community meeting?   12. Have you reviewed the spreadsheet?  Link to it. Yes/No