The City Council wants to change the way it does business. The story is an old one, told again in the
QC Times. I have to agree with Alderman Meyer on this one. I personally think it should stay as is. At first glance it doesn't sound like such a bad plan, but with a closer look, I smell a rat. If council memebers are too busy to allot 4 hours a week to city business, maybe some of them aren't qualified for the job. On the other hand, in an election year it would make for interesting blogging. You might want to get a second opinion from another legal department. Since your contracts with Malin might not be legal you do have other things to worry about.
On January 31, the Iowa Appeals court made an interesting ruling in the case of Bass vs. the city of Huxley, No. 06-0118. [6-918] If readers of this blog can download a pdf file its under Iowa Court of Appeals Recent Opinions. The court ruled that city managers are at will employees. Instead of trying to cut meetings at different hours, try doing what you were elected for, and govern. The crime rate is up again, your speed cameras aren't looking so promising. If anything you should add a meeting to your agenda.
And thanks to Jeremy Link, and Jim Fisher.
---------Addendum----------
I find it interesting kids that the Mayor, City Administrator, and City Legal have decided to hire outside counsel to advise the City Council on the effect the Bass decision has on Malin's contract. They are doing this to avoid conflict of interest. The day started out a little different with the city legal department saying this decision didn't effect Davenport.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The court ruled that the City of Huxley's ordinance made the city manager an at-will employer, not that all city managers are at-will employees. The Davenport ordinance does not make that distinction. See it at the city's website.
If the city council can hire or fire the city manager, or police chief, it is effected. That's why they are hiring an outside counsel. If the Iowa Supreme Court agrees, any at will employee will not have a contract. Looks like they ought to leave the meetings as is, or they'll be scheduling special meetings anyway.
I posted this comment on The Inside Dope as well:
Dave said...
I've seen the presentation and heard both sides of the argument but I don't really see a huge difference. I can see benefits either way. It looks like you have a strong opinion.
Can you explain what you'd like to see instead? It looks like there are many other cities in Iowa that are currently following this schedule. The one benefit I do see is that this schedule will enable more people the option of participating more often. The 5:30 start times will also allow others to run for Alderman that otherwise wouldn't even consider it.
Help me take a stance.
I like it the way it is. I feel that if they go to this change, it will actually decrease the public input. As it was, I haven't been to a meeting lately, the council practically ignored the speaker anyway. I quit going because they asked for input, and when you gave an intelligent reason why you were against something council members were joking with each other, or otherwise tuning you out. If someone really wants my opinion, the least they can do is listen. I also feel for these meetings to be productive as proposed, they would have to last longer. And yes I have spoken at council meetings, and even got quoted in the newspaper once, but still walked away with the feeling that it was all for nothing.
Need to do like some of the big cities and control our public comment portion of the meeting. Submit what you plan to talk about for review so we get a variety of opinions and speakers. As I have commented about before, if you view the replays as I do (faithfully), basically all we get are Susie Bell, Mary Bogner, Wally Skrvonski, that Stevens character, and a couple others. They use the public comments portion as their own public forum for off topic ramblings and babble. No wonder the council members are joking and not paying attention. It is the same old crap all of the time. No one cares what Susie was doing 40 years ago. No one cares about Mary's husband's ailments. Etc., etc., etc. It's not the place for this dribble! I would hate to see the public comment cut to 3 minutes, and yes I GET that the council is not considering it. But maybe we should. At least consider the submission of topic by the speaker. Get a control on this portion of the meeting!
The problem is who decides what's good and what's stupid... In theory I agree that much of what you see on TV doesn't accomplish anything, but I think its just the messy side of the democratic process.
That said, I don't think the proposed changes will change all that much. Who really goes to committee meetings? And the committees don't really take stands; anything controversial gets rubber stamped along with everything else so that the whole council can debate it later. Having meetings before 5pm on weekdays just seems dumb to me, and always has. Not just for the council members who insist on working other full time jobs, but for members of the public who'd like to attend. You end up with only people who aren't doing anything during the day.
The way to lobby for what you want is to go public and I don't mean at city hall only. The newspaper. People must stand up and gather and then speak up. Large crowds get things done. I.E. Pedcor, Cobblestone Terrace, the DOC, etc.
The way to lobby for what you want is to go public and I don't mean at city hall only. The newspaper. People must stand up and gather and then speak up. Large crowds get things done. I.E. Pedcor, Cobblestone Terrace, the DOC, etc.
Post a Comment