Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Charter Committee - 01/26/2023AGENDA 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-01-26-2023 You can also dial in using your phone: +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 152-605-261 Thursday January 26, 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 December 14, 2022, Charter Committee meeting 5.School Board Communications 6.*** Discuss and finalize the pros and cons of different models to present to the community 7.Discuss and possibly finalize the Committee’s community outreach process 8.*** Discuss timeline and any adjustments needed 9.Other Business 10. Adjourn CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 14 DECEMBER 2022 The South Burlington City Charter Committee held a meeting on Wednesday, 14 December 2022, at 4:00 p.m., in Conference Room 201, City Hall, 180 Market Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Taylor, Chair; Dr. T. Childs, A. Lalonde, C. P. Engels, D. Kinville, C. Hafter, C. Higgins ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager, C. McNeill, City Attorney; H. Riehle, E. Fitzgerald, A. Henry, M. Emery 1. Welcome and Introductions: Mr. Taylor welcomed members and guests. 2. Agenda Review Mr. Taylor asked to add to other business a discussion on the next meeting date. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Approve Minutes from the 9 November 2022 meeting: It was noted that on p. 3, paragraph 4, Dr. Chilld should read Dr. Childs. It was also noted that in the last paragraph on p. 2, Ms. Alaire should read Mr. Alaire. Ms. Kinville moved to approve the Minutes of 9 November 2022 as amended. Mr. Hafter seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 5. Discussion of the Council Chair role with Council Chair Helen Riehle: Ms. Riehle said she would be opposed to having a mayor as it becomes too political and adds another layer of administrative work. She would support adding 2 more members to the City Council. She was comfortable with the City Council and with help from city committees to craft the city’s policy. Ms. Riehle said she did not choose to be “in charge” or to push particular agendas but rather to be a manager instead of “running things.” She felt it was more helpful to get to consensus. She acknowledged that not every issue results in a 5-0 vote. She also stressed the importance of CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 14 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 The public hearing from all Council members as to how they will vote on an issue and why. Mr. Hafter asked whether having 7 members would enable having subcommittees. Ms. Riehle said it would, but she didn’t want to have everything done in subcommittees. Regarding wards or districts, Ms. Riehle said she had mixed feelings. She acknowledged that it could be seen as unfortunate that Ms. Emery is the only Council members who doesn’t live in the Southeast Quadrant, and she appreciated Ms. Emery’s understanding of Airport issues; however, she didn’t thing that Ms. Emery was blind to issues in other areas of the city. She felt it was better to have people who are interested rather than beating the bushes to find someone who has both the time and interest. Mr. Engels said he felt it would be easier to find people willing to serve if they didn’t have the pressure and expense of a city-wide campaign. Mr. Taylor asked how many hours Ms. Riehle puts into the job of Chair. Ms. Riehle said possibly 10 hours a week. She was glad she did not have a full-time job in addition to her role as Chair, but she noted she is the only Council person who is retired. Ms. Riehle also agreed that the expense of running for the Council seats is a challenge, but she felt that running city-wide, just as State Legislators do, makes you look more broadly at issues. Mr. Hafter said the challenge is that as the city gets bigger, a Council can’t get to know everyone. Ms. Emery acknowledged that running for the Council has become more expensive in recent years and she’s had to “up the game.” She now raises over $5000, has a website, social media, etc., and has people who help her. She said she tries to go to different neighborhoods every time she runs. One issue is not being able to get into apartment buildings to speak with residents. Mr. Taylor asked if Ms. Emery would be open to having wards or districts. Ms. Emery said she was open to seeing the benefit, but she didn’t think the city had been ill-served by having at large voting. She stressed that the need to be equitable throughout the city hasn’t fallen on deaf ears. Dr. Childs asked why there are not Councilors who “look like me.” Ms. Emery said it takes gumption. CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 14 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 3 Ms. Lalonde said it sounds like what Ms. Riehle does is a lot like a Policy Mayor. She asked if Ms. Riehle gets a lot of constituent calls. Ms. Riehle said she gets lot of emails. Sometimes those emails go to the entire Council. She didn’t feel it was overwhelming and said if she doesn’t know the answer to a particular question, she asks Ms. Baker or someone with that knowledge. Ms. Riehle noted that it is often the “same faces” who attend Council meetings, and there are not usually a lot of people attending unless it is a big issue. Mr. Engels said he is a “Helen Riehle fan” as he favors “bottom up democracy.” Mr. Hafter said one benefit of having a City Council Chair is that the term is only one year, and if the person elected doesn’t do a good job, he or she won’t be re-elected. Mr. Kinville said she has heard it said that a mayor would be the “face of the city.” Ms. Riehle said she has served in that capacity (e.g., at ribbon cutting ceremonies). She also said that Kevin Dorn and Jessie Baker have been excellent spokespersons for the city. She was not certain that an extra layer of government would deliver any more service than the public now receives. Ms. Emery agreed and felt the city was not yet at the tipping point for a mayor. Regarding subcommittees, Ms. Emery said she didn’t imagine spending more time than she does now. Mr. Engels said he didn’t think subcommittees would happen and noted it does not happen on the 7-member Planning Commission. Ms. Riehle noted that all Council members now serve as liaisons to all city committees, more than one per member. With 7 Council members, this chore would be more distributed. Mr. Hafter asked about the possibility of 5 districts and 2 at large Council members. Ms. Riehle urged not to make it too complicated. 6. Discussion of School Board composition: Ms. Baker said she had watched the School Board discussion on this topic and felt there was some misunderstanding as to what the Charter Committee is looking for. She stressed that the Committee is not yet making decisions; they are looking for models to present to the community for feedback. She also noted it was very intentional to have School Board representatives on this committee. Mr. Taylor added that there could be different models for the City Council and the School Board. CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 14 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 4 Dr. Childs said the School Board needs to discuss this at its next meeting (4 January), and it would need full Board approval. Mr. Taylor said if they get consensus, fine; if not, the Committee would like to hear the pros and cons. Mr. Taylor also noted receipt of a letter from Ms. Fitzgerald and other former School Board members. Ms. Fitzgerald said they didn’t want the conversation shut down and were willing to distribute the letter. She noted that the letter recommends 7 School Board members. Subcommittees are a regular feature of the School Board. They also looked at the complexities of State interfacing on local and broader issues. A 7-member board could spread that work around. Ms. Fitzgerald said that re-districting would be a very different discussion. Mr. Taylor asked if it is expensive to run for the School Board. Ms. Fitzgerald said it is not. Ms. Lalonde asked if a larger board would result in more work. Ms. Fitzgerald said under the current operating model, subcommittees work with school personnel, then come to the full board. Mr. Henry said he didn’t think it would add more work but could result in getting more of the work done. Under the present system, there now have to be 2 people on each subcommittee. Mr. Henry also noted that there are now 2 people who are recused from voting on the next contract, so the contract will be voted on by only 3 members. He also felt there is a good pool of capable people to serve. Mr. Taylor said that 7 members could provide more flexibility to communicate for both boards. He added that after the School Board discussion, members are welcome to come to the City Charter Committee meeting. He stressed that all ideas are welcome and the Committee’s intent is to get ideas to the public. He also said that if the School Board wishes, one or more Charter Committees members could attend the School Board meeting. Dr. Childs said that would be a good idea and suggested 7:25 as a good time. 7. Outline Pros and Cons of different models to present to the community: Mr. Taylor read from some of his thoughts as to how to look at this. Ms. Lalonde suggested adding to the list the difficulty of finding people to run for offices and the confusion of voting logistics for the public. Ms. Kinville said change is always confusing and suggested sticking with legislative boundaries. CITY CHARTER COMMITTEE 14 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 5 Ms. Baker said if the intention is to go to 7 or more in order to have subcommittees, it would have a staff impact and also more dollars. Ms. Emery said that when thinking about wards, diversity is a “pro.” She also noted there could be less competition with people running unopposed. Mr. Hafter stressed that with very complex issues, it is good to have one or two voices that have information. Mr. Hafter suggested a spread sheet with pros and cons for each item. Mr. Taylor asked members to email him with any other points they wish included as the next meeting will focus on pros and cons. Ms. Baker said she would be happy to put together a spread sheet after the holidays. 8. Update on Council Climate Charter Change Discussion: Ms. Emery reported that the vote in the Council failed. The concern was putting it on the ballot before a public hearing. One member also wanted a policy in place before it went to the public. 9. Next meeting: Due to schedule conflicts, members agreed to hold the next City Charter Committee meeting on 26 January from 4-6 p.m. 10. Other business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Committee, Ms. Kinville moved to adjourn. Mr. Hafter seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Charter Committee Updated: 1/19/23  Key Questions? Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages Chief Executive?  Strong/ Administrative Mayor  Clear political head of City  Sets policy vision for City (though Mayor Allaire said that this depends on who is on the council/board of aldermen, they may have different priorities)  More “head counting” on priorities?  A clear point of contact for constituents  Elected by the people  City resident  Can hire own staff  Clear and visible authority   Recognized leader of the city  Better “lobbying” in Montpelier and DC.  Easier for residents to understand system     Executive chosen from residents – not necessarily professional qualifications  Potential for governance to be seen as more “Political” / partisan  Full‐time job so it needs to be a career move, could be a barrier to entry  We would lose our current excellent City Manager (I assume City wouldn’t have both strong mayor and City Manager)  Would need endorsement by the unions  Will be political.  Party politics: Democrats, Progressives and Republicans.  Very expensive citywide campaign  Campaign donations with expected pay back in policy  Can become entrenched  Open possibilities of favoritism and nepotism in return for contributions  Veto power can cause issues City Manager  Selected based on professional qualifications, expertise, experience  Continuity  Efficiency  Elected officials can focus on policy matters  Professional administrator   Serves at the pleasure of the City Council  Hires and fires professional staff  Non‐political position.  Can be removed for poor performance  Adds protection for Dept Heads and other employees from political influence  Stays current on managerial and financial issues  Continues education and professional organizations.   Potentially not connected to community  Can be very good or very bad  City Council power over manager is tenuous  Has very real unelected power  Charts the direction of the city  Knows how to manipulate the City Council  Can be very controlling  May not fit in with organization and can be expensive to remove from office.  Lack of citizen understanding of CM system.   Frequent conflict with long‐term employees  May form favorites on the Council  Jealousy of manager “powers” by Council  Charter Committee Updated: 1/19/23  Key Questions? Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages  Always available for citizen concerns.  Ability to make decisions on a neutral basis  Manager can speak for divers and marginalized members of the community  Political Leader? “Weak”/Policy Mayor  Nonpartisan  Residents know they can communicate with this person, one point of contact for residents  Elected by entire city for that position  Visible recognizable leader  City resident  Active chair of City Council   Residents understand “mayor”  Can be the spokesperson or ceremonial head for the City.  Can help bring consensus to Council.    City manager may have less authority  Council may not support the policy mayor  Nature of the position possibly confusing to voters  Has little statutory power  Expensive citywide election  Can become political  Can involve party politics  Difficult concept:  requires understanding of roles of mayor, council by residents.   Mayor may not accept limited role and try to act as an Administrative Mayor.  Potential for Mayor/Council conflicts.   Council Chair  Works to build consensus and hear from all councilors  More of a team spirit than having a separate mayor?  Nonpartisan  Residents know they can communicate with this person, one point of contact for residents  Can be replaced every year by other members  Forces collaboration  Can remove “politics” from decisions  Can provide support and guidance for manager/organization      Elected by council, which may be overly political (one of our witnesses suggested this)  Citizen confusion over role  Who speaks for the City?   Potential for Chair/Manager conflict  May not have political influence to get maximum lobbying/grants/etc.  Charter Committee Updated: 1/19/23  Key Questions? Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages Councilor Composition? 5 Councilors  Less expensive for City  Voting logistics simpler – one per ward  Compact group.   Competent councilors  Effective and efficient  Easier to community with 5  Easier to arrange meetings   Too much work for each Councilor  Maybe less diverse  Elected citywide in expensive elections   For people with money or access to money  Has become unrepresentative of all the city  Has SEQ perspective   Only takes 3 to dismiss manager  Majority of Council from same area of town     7 Councilors  More voices at the table  More people to do work/extra activities  Broader diversity of perspective  More Councilors able to vote if others need to recuse themselves  Not much different than five Councilors  Legislative duties could get clogged up with more voices at the table (although more such voices could be a pro, too)  Sub‐committee possible.  Greater expertise among members, specialization  Allows members to miss meetings for family or emergencies  Depending on political districts can guarantee diversity   More expensive, Cost per additional Councilor including staff support  More difficult to reach consensus  Difficult to find more people to run?   Subcommittees take more of Councilors’ time and create additional staff work  Does not address the problem of expensive citywide campaigns  Does not address the problem of equal representation in all areas of the city  Will be even tougher to find people to run to fill seven seats.  Legislative duties could get clogged up with more voices at the table (although more such voices could be a pro, too)  there could be trouble procuring enough candidates to run.   More voices….more conflict  Easier to form “cliques”  Longer meetings if everyone speaks   Charter Committee Updated: 1/19/23  Key Questions? Options Pros/Advantages Cons/Disadvantages Geographic Representation?  Elected at large  All have a city‐wide perspective (though I believe this would be true even if they were elected by ward)  None  More points of contact for residents  Simpler voting system   Expensive to run for at‐large election  It is tough to find people to run for a five seat Council at large.  How exactly can someone not have a “citywide perspective”? This is not Texas. There are two main roads, an airport and a nice park on the lake.  Impossible to represent all residents so loudest voices often prevail  Time to campaign   Elected by ward  More affordable to run   Residents more engaged with Councilors  There are five legislative districts. If we elect two from each district there will be four councilors from the SEQ and two from each of the three other districts. An even number is not a problem. A tie is a no vote.  Councilors will be elected from a small group of neighborhoods with whom they will have direct contact with neighbors.  Hopefully district elections will not require postcards, yard signs and full page ads in the other paper.  Your neighbor is on the Council  Councilors know localized issues  May be difficult to find candidates to run in every ward  Less competition, more candidates running unopposed  Potential to lose city‐wide perspective   If House Districts are used three current Councilors could not serve – four live in same House district  If 7 councilors, confusing to voters to have one per ward plus two at‐large  There is already difficulty in finding two, three or four people every year to run for election to the Council. Perhaps having election by district will make running for the Council easier and more attractive but perhaps it won’t. It is a big chance to take.  To be reelected may have to prioritize your own ward.        Charter Committee Updated: 1/19/23  Other thoughts  Can we please stop misusing the word diverse? The common understanding of the word diversity refers to including black and brown people. Somehow we have come to use it to refer to a diversity of professions or occupations or “perspectives”. This is nonsense and insulting particularly from a city that has never had a black or brown person elected to the council.   I think we should forget about having a mayor. We do not have much of a problem with having a professional City Manager answering to an elected City Council. We do have a problem with the cost of citywide elections and the lack of equal representation from all areas of the city. This is what we need to deal with as the Charter Committee. Expanding to seven members does nothing to address these two problems. In fact, we’d only make it worse with five or six Counselors from the SEQ all spending tens of thousands of dollars to get elected.  Finally, I hope you will share each of our thoughts written here with each of the Charter Committee members. We seem to have little contact with each other and little debate or discussion in meetings. We should go around in the meeting at this point and each share our vision of what we should do.   South Burlington Charter CommitteeProposed TimelineUpdated: 1/19/23Charge:*conducting a comprehensive public process to solicit feedback from South Burlington residents on governance models.  *consider increasing the size of the Planning Commission for Town Meeting Day 2023Meeting Date Proposed new timeline Task/Outcome Speakers9/14/2022*Consider and approve a timeline*Review data from other communities*Introduce Planning Commission charge10/12/2022 *Discussion on PC composition and legal options*Panel #1 ‐ Speakers on governance models*Start drafting pros/cons to key questions*"Weak Mayor" ‐ Kristine Lott, Winooski*Council‐Manager ‐ Bill Fraser, Montpelier  11/9/2022 *Panel #2 ‐ Speakers on governance models*Continue drafting pros/cons to key questions*Discussion on Council's action on Planning Commission composition*"Policy" Mayor ‐ Anne Watson, Montpelier (unavailable)*"Executive" Mayor ‐ David Allaire, Rutland12/14/2022 *Finalize pros/cons and set public engagement efforts *Helen Riehle, Council Chair1/11/2023 1/26/2023 *Finalize pros/cons of different models*Discuss public engagement strategy 2/9/2023 *Finalize public engagement strategy2/8/2023 March and April *Public engagement events3/8/2023 May (5/10/23) *Review data received*Provide direction to Legal to start drafting4/12/2023 6/14/2023 *Review draft *Formulate set of recommendations5/10/2023 7/12/2023 *Further discussion and finalize recommendations for public hearing6/14/2023 8/9/2023 *Public hearing*Finalize recommendation to Council7/12/2023 *Finalize recommendation to Council7/17/2023 8/21/2023 *Present recommendations to CouncilPotential questions for speakers and committee:*consider governance models, language updates, engage in a community feedback process, and  *Should we move to a ward system and how many?*Should we consider a strong or weak Mayor*How many City Councilors and School Board members shall we have?*Are there other changes to 13‐305 "Meetings" you'd like to consider?*Are there other governance changes in the Charter you'd like to consider?