Were the Other Three Any Different?

Will a quick scan of the other three measures proposed reveal a better process?

Item 2: The Mayor's Role
This is a change to Article II, Section 6. Mayor

Existing language: The council at, at its first regular meeting following a regular city election and after all newly-elected members have been duly qualified shall elect one of its members mayor for a term of two years. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, the council shall elect one of its members to serve until the time fixed herein for the regular election of mayor. The mayor shall preside at meetings of council, shall have a vote on all matters but no veto power, shall be the ceremonial head of the city, shall sign ordinances and resolutions on their final passage, shall sign deeds, bonds and contracts when authorized by the council to do so, shall be the officer to accept process against the city, shall not have any regular administrative duties, and shall perform only such duties as shall be specifically conferred.

Proposed Change: Again we don't know exactly since the minutes are not posted yet, but the description from the Oak Ridger article seems to point to Commissioner Postma's proposal.

Once again there were three proposals for changes in this section.

The first was proposed by Commissioner Pat Postma and identified several new duties to be assigned to the Mayor. These include appointing the citizen representatives to the city's boards and commissions, assigning agenda items to those commissions, being "the non-partisan political and policy leader of the city", and giving an annual State of the City Address which will include the Mayor's personal priorities for the city.

The second was proposed by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm who thought that the first sentence specifying the election of the Mayor by the Council from it membership be deleted pending further proposals on that matter.

The third was proposed by Don Hurtubise who proposed a State of the City Address.

Item 3: Powers to Subpoena
This is a change to Article II, Section 9. Powers to Subpoena

Existing Language: The council may by resolution subpoena and examine witnesses, and order the production of books and papers. Its presiding officer may administer oaths to witnesses.

Proposed Change: The only proposed change was by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm so we can only presume that this is what passed pending minutes being published. It says:

The council may by resolution make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office, board, commission, committee, or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence. Failure or refusal to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of these powers by council shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be established by ordinance.

The Commission voted to remove that final sentence.

Item 4: Public Council Meetings
This is a change to Article II, Section 3. Council meetings to be public

Existing language: All council meetings shall be open to the public and citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The council shall exercise its powers only at public meetings.

Proposed change: There was only one proposed change so we must assume that that is the language adopted pending the minutes of the meeting. It was proposed by Tom Burns, Commissioner Pat Fain, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm. It changed the phrase "All council meetings" to "All council meetings and work sessions".

OK... The answer to the question of whether there was a better process for these approved changes appears to be, "No!" No external inputs were sought besides the people proposing changes and the Commissioners themselves. No MTAS input to reveal how other Home Rule Charters handle these issues. No MTAS or City Attorney input even on a satisfactory interpretation of the existing language. No identification of real problems needing to solved nor even whether they were already solved by the City Council, for example. And finally, no public hearings on these items as they were being considered by the Commission.

I know that we can do better than that.