Richm0nd City Charter Review Commission

RICHM0ND CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Meeting Minutes, March 5, 2009

Members Present: Ms. Jeannie Baliles; Mr. Orran Brown, Esq; John Douglass, Esq; Ms. Jacqueline Epps, Esq; Robert Holsworth, Mr. Frederick Marsh, Esq; John Moeser, PhD.; Mr. John Thompson, Esq.

Staff Present: Daisy Weaver, Council Office; David Hicks, Office of the Mayor; Haskell Brown III, City Attorney Office; Angela D. Montgomery, Council Office; Tabrica Rentz, City Attorney Office; Norman Sales, City Attorney Office; Debora Shaw, Council Office; Steve Skinner, Council Office.

Other: Rachel Dean, Law Student, University of Richmond

Opening Remarks: Chairman Douglass attended a Council Meeting and informed Council that the Commission will identify prominent issues from the survey responses and make recommendations to Council.

Approval of Minutes: The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the February 5, 2009, meeting summary.

ACTION ITEMS

Update on Mayor’s Announcement Re-Pending Lawsuits

 Chairman Douglass stated that the Mayor’s dismissal of pending lawsuits displays confidence in the work of the Commission.

Reports from Subgroups

Chief Administrative Officer Subgroup - The subgroup reviewed how it will operate and identified the prominent issues related to the Chief Administrative Officer Position.

 First Issue: The subgroup reviewed the issues mentioned in the lawsuits between the Mayor’s Office and City Council regarding the authority of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to hire and fire:

o Authority to hire and fire Council Staff; o Authority over the Mayor’s Press Office; o Composition of the separate branches of City Government and definition of the separation of powers;

o Delineating the branches of City Government and departments reporting to the CAO and whom she/he could hire or fire.

1  Second Issue: The subgroup discussed establishing a process to select a CAO in the event that Council rejected the Mayor’s CAO nominee:

o Agreed not to change the selection process;

o Establish a deadline for City Council to approve the nominee to avoid gridlock;

o Discussed if the Circuit Court should make an appointment or whether City Council should make an interim appointment.

o Research will be conducted regarding the City of Norfolk’s appointment process in the event that City Council rejects the Mayor’s selection.

 The Subgroup will make recommendations after soliciting comments from persons who previously worked as CAO, and Acting/Interim CAO.

Appointment and Removal Subgroup - The subgroup reviewed issues regarding the appointment and removal authority of the CAO.

 First Issue: Legislative and Administrative Classifications

o The subgroup recommended specifying in the Charter separation between legislative and administrative personnel which Judge Spencer recognized in her November 29, 2007 opinion.

o The Mayor and CAO should appoint and remove all administrative department heads, officers and employees.

o City Council should appoint and remove all legislative department heads, officers and employees.

o Authorizing the administrative and legislative branches to appoint and remove its staff facilitates the autonomy of each branch and promotes efficient operation.

 Second Issue: The appointment and removal power over certain positions: Support Staff; Liaisons; Auditor’s Staff; Assessor’s Staff and City Attorney’s Staff. The subgroup recommended the following:

o Distinguish in the Charter between staff appointed by Council or the Mayor.

o Exclude City Council Support Staff and Liaisons from the control of the CAO and unequivocally state this in the Charter. 2 o The subgroup requested that Chairman Douglass ask the University of Richmond Law School Research Team to contact the National League of Cities regarding the reporting relationship of the City Assessor and the City Auditor in other cities.

 Third Issue: CAO removal powers: Should the power of the CAO over administrative positions be subject to a vote by City Council?

o The subgroup did not recommend changing the Charter to require that the removal powers of the CAO be subject to a vote by City Council.

City Attorney Subgroup - The subgroup reviewed the following regarding the City Attorney: The authority of the Mayor and Council to appoint or remove the City Attorney; the authority to assign duties and functions; and the role of the City Attorney in resolving disputes between the Mayor and Council over their respective powers.

 First Issue: The authority to appoint or remove the City Attorney: Should the Charter give the Mayor an official role in appointing or removing the City Attorney? The subgroup recommended the following:

o Joint appointment and removal of the City Attorney by City Council and the Mayor because the City Attorney represents the City as an entity and not solely City Council or the Mayor.

o Maintain the current indefinite term of office to provide continuity and eliminate making the City Attorney’s position a “focus of political patronage”.

o Reject recommendations from the survey comments to create a separate office of Legal Counsel to the City Council. Creating a separate office of Legal Counsel may increase conflict.

o Continue reviewing the practice in other cities.

 Second Issue: Pursuant to Section 4.17 of the Richmond City Charter, the City Attorney “shall perform particular duties and functions as assigned by the Council.” Should the Mayor have a similar power to assign duties and functions to the City Attorney. Recommendations of the subgroup are as follows:

o Amend the sentence as follows: The City Attorney shall perform particular duties and functions as assigned by Council or the Mayor.

o Revising Section 4.17 as proposed will reflect how work is currently assigned to the City Attorney and support the recommendation to balance the power of Council and the Mayor to appoint and remove the City Attorney. 3  Third Issue: The City Attorney’s role in resolving disputes between the Mayor and Council over their respective powers. Recommendations of the subgroup are as follows:

o Consider amending the final sentence of Section 4.17 of the City Charter to authorize Council or the Mayor to retain special counsel in cases of conflict of interest.

o Consider standing to sue, prerequisites to suit and other dispute resolution mechanisms.

o Maintain the neutrality of the City Attorney by disallowing the position authority to issue formal and binding opinions on any dispute concerning the respective powers of Council and the Mayor.

o Foster informal dispute resolution by balancing the appointment and removal authority. Amend Section 4.17 of the Charter to provide both the Mayor and Council the option to obtain special counsel when a conflict of interest arises for the City Attorney in representing the Mayor or Council.

o Research additional dispute resolution avenues.

Identification of Issues for Further Study and Assignment to Subgroups

 Appointments and Removal Subgroup - Establish and vet through the Office of the City Attorney a process for developing legal issues and recommendations.

 Chief Administrative Officer Subgroup - Research issues appointing issues regarding the CAO/Acting CAO position.

 City Attorney Subgroup - Examine standing, dispute resolution and term issues.

Next Steps

 Subgroup reports will be placed on the Commission website and a Commission icon will be placed the City website.

 Subgroups and Commissioners will refer the media to Chairman Douglass.

Next Meeting Agenda Items

 Review investigation and subpoena powers.  Review subgroup reports.  Develop benchmarks for the Commission’s work plan.