Kiffi Summa , LWV Observer
All members were present.
The Agenda was amended by having item #9 pulled from the Consent agenda and placed on the Regular agenda for discussion. This item dealt with the final issues of the Woodley Street redesign/construction project.
There were four major items of interest on this night’s agenda : Consent #8, “Authorize ad for bid for new fire apparatus truck”; Regular #9, “Approve Woodley St. final plans and specifications and order advertisement for bid”; #11, “Items related to Culver’s restaurant,” … etc.( land swap and related isssues); and #12, “Approve fee for Outdoor Dining and Drinking Permit . Items 8,9,11,and 12 were all approved by the council , noting that the alternate resolution for #12 was approved, so that there will be NO fees for outdoor dining during the initial trial period of one year.
With regular agenda item #14, “Approve Appointments to EDA and Rental Board”, the rather smoothly running meeting fell apart.
NOTE: In considering how to write this specific report, I consulted with two long-term experienced LWV public process Observers. The first suggested that the major agenda items be reported, and the process issue (related to item#14) be presented as a matter of concern to LWV members. The second Observer agreed.
The council approval of the Mayor’s appointments to boards and commissions has been a basis of conflict between the Council and the Mayor for six months. Section 3.2 of the Northfield City Charter states: “The Mayor shall appoint the members of the advisory boards and commissions subject to majority vote of a majority of the council”. ( charter-with-ord-739-744-780-781-782-801-863-864-changes )
That accepted process has been in place for many years, through several recent mayoral/council terms, and has not publicly caused objection or conflict. If there has been a level of conflict, it has not been sufficient to cause a council to suggest a change to the controlling document, the City Charter.
Since early this year, this issue has been a constant and disruptive point of contention, with the Council insisting upon more and more rationale from the Mayor, to support each choice, even to the extent of suggesting that he make public explanation to the Council of why he had NOT chosen a specific volunteer candidate; or why he had not accepted a specific recommendation of a single person from a particular board.
Councilperson Vohs gave a long statement on why a “process” was needed (although the Charter clearly puts a process in place). Councilperson Davis agreed, when asked by the Mayor, that the Mayor had provided all the applications, written a full rationale of his (Mayor) selection for the EDA vacancy, etc., etc., i.e. Davis agreed the Mayor had done what was asked of him. Councilperson Pokorney asked the mayor if he had interviewed all the candidates for equal amounts of time; the Mayor replied that he had spent less time interviewing those with whom he had frequent interactions. Councilperson Denison told the Mayor it appeared that he was “fishing” for candidates.
The Mayor’s applicants were voted down.
All in all, having watched this “process” several times over the last months, and understanding the requirements of the Charter, I can only conclude that this struggle is not specifically about the applicants, but is between the Council and the Mayor, and should be understood as such, given the Charter’s clear direction.
If the Council has a policy difference with the Charter’s direction, they should suggest a Charter amendment. To continue this disruptive and time consuming conflict, which has the potential of discouraging applicants for these important volunteer positions, is not in the public’s interest.
The League of Women Voters’ desire to encourage public participation, and the volunteering of time dedicated to the interests of the community, is not well served by such an ongoing conflict which does not reflect positive local government practice.