 Call the Sheboygan Common Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of Wednesday, September 14th, 2011. To order, let's rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Order person Kittleson will be taking the minutes of tonight's meeting. Would you please call the rule? Corrin? Here. Carlson? Here. Decker? Here. Hammond? Here. Hammond? Here. Heidemann? Excuse. Hath? Here. Kittleson is here. Maddachek? Excuse. Rindfleisch? Here. Racler? Here. Samson? Here. Van Akron? Here. Vanderweal? Here. Versi? Here. 14 present. We have a quorum present. Thank you. Before we get started, we are on television tonight, so all our persons, please use your microphones. We are live tonight. For those who have friends that could not make it tonight, you can contact Kerry Kautzer at WSCSTV at 459-6663. That's 459-6663 for the dates that this meeting will be replayed. And Mr. Kautzer is available Monday through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM. So if you have friends or neighbors that couldn't attend and they want to watch the replay, that's who to contact. Thank you. Next, we have the public forum. And what I'm going to do tonight with the public forum is I'm going to divide it into two parts. The first part of the public forum is going to be pertaining to the items on the agenda number seven and eight pertaining to obtaining legal counsel. And then we'll hear all of those people who want to speak on that topic. And then part two of the public forum tonight is going to be to the items 12 through 17 pertaining the discussion about a city administrator. So what I'll do is I'll hear that we'll hear the people first that want to speak on agenda item seven and eight. And then when we get to items number 12 through 17 on the agenda, then we will proceed to hear those people who want to speak on the city administrator. So first I'd be interested in hearing anybody who wants to speak item seven and eight. Now also we have some communications from constituents. I believe those are items number nine, 10, and 11. I will call on those people specifically when we get to those agenda items. So with that said, is there anybody that wants to be heard on agenda items number seven and eight? Yes, sir. Step forward, please. Before we hear from you, Mr. Gillette, I need a motion to approve the minutes from August 25th. It's a little second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes from August 25th. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. For the record, sir, would you like to give your name and address? My name is Patrick Gillette. 915 North Avenue, City of Sheboygan. We will have three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this council and committee. I've stood before this committee several times before. I have introduced two valid citizens taxpayer complaints in accordance to municipal ordinance and state statutes. There is an established rule of law that an action lies in favor of the complainant. You've all taken an oath to see this process through. This complaint process is clearly spelled out, and so is your duty to follow it. Various members of this council, committee, arbitrarily, and capriciously have delayed this action. At this time, you're in a civil venue. There is another venue. State statutes also govern your actions. Do not let your opinions overshadow your responsibilities. This matter must be pursued by this entire council committee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gillette. Anybody else like to be heard? Yes, ma'am. Step forward. Have your name and address, please. Patricia A. Holm, 2602A, Camelot Boulevard. We'll have three minutes. Like the many citizens that need to have the investigative process conducted in order to remove Mayor Ryan from the helm, I urge you to vote tonight to hire Attorney Biskupic. Because the conduct of this mayor has destructively eroded the reputation of our city, we simply cannot condone his terrible behavior, and we will never be satisfied to have the complaints against him swept under the rug. We expect our older persons to step up to the plate to preserve the integrity of City Hall. The call for this quasi-judicial hearing has not been taken lightly. In fact, it's been debated, discussed, and questioned for at least six weeks. These are huge, reprehensible wrongdoings with far-reaching public relations and economic effects. The only precedent that would be set is if you do not go forward with the investigation and conceivably the quasi-judicial hearing. In spite of the many, many requests and opportunities for him to resign for the good of the city, Bob Ryan continues in his arrogant, cunning, and controlling ways to hold the city hostage by his threats and promises to make the taxpayers pay heavily if they try to remove him from office. Talk about bullying the older persons who are now required to devote all their time, energy, and effort on what is just a part-time job for them, while he smugly sits in his undeserved seat receiving over $104,000 a year in salary and benefits. If the Common Council does not vote to hire Attorney Biskupik and proceed with the investigation, it will set a precedent for allowing misconduct in public office in that anyone guilty of public drunkenness and defamation of the city's goodwill, integrity, honesty, and forthrightness in the future will know that nothing's going to happen to them because Mayor Ryan got away with it. You the older persons are the only ones who can stand up with courage to change the things going on and to demonstrate that this type of action on the part of this Mayor cannot and will not be tolerated. I realize this entire mess caused by the Mayor's self-centered actions has been a huge strain on you and you may be tempted to agree to anything just to make the whole thing go away, but please do not give in to Ryan's tactics. But continue this bold and courageous fight to remove this thorn from office. You will never get another chance at a pro bono offer like Attorney Biscubics to investigate, rectify, and resolve this contentious matter. Don't blow this opportunity to stand up and be counted for your courage. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to be heard? Ma'am, I'll call on you for the second. Thank you. By your name and address, please. Dulcey Johnson, 1306 North Third Street, Sheboygan. Briefly, I would just urge you to move forward and retain an attorney to investigate the citizen complaints that you have received about Mayor Ryan. I think it is your obligation, it is your responsibility. I think it is part of your job description. When all of this first began, it seemed that the council was calling for citizens to submit letters of complaints so that they could proceed. And several citizens have submitted letters in good faith, and I think you need to honor that. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to be heard? Yes, sir. Step forward to an address. Richard Sushoff, 15 North Point Drive, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. We'll have three minutes. I'm going to split this up and I'll reserve my other comments for later about the administrator. There's been a lot of character assassination in the past weeks, and I've been part of it, but it's all true. A person can disagree with our mayor's policies, but our mayor's image should be above reproach. Yes, the mayor's job is 24-7, and he lives in a fishbowl. I should know it was 12 years. Whether he likes it or not, he lives in a fishbowl. If not, get out of the kitchen. I will not reiterate my remarks of the past. You all have copies of my letters and emails, so I strongly urge you to continue the investigation for removal as well as a recall effort. Trust has been broken and will never be restored with this mayor. Therefore, tonight, you need to pass and recommend the council for suing ongoing investigation, utilizing the pro bono attorney services, and let's get on with this job tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Does anybody wish to be heard? For a third time, does anybody wish to be heard? Okay, we'll move on to agenda item number six, and that's the chairman's comments. Just to have a couple brief comments. At last Tuesday night's council meeting, we voted to proceed with the removal process. Tonight, item seven and eight pertain only to approval of hiring of legal attorneys for that process, and also the attorneys are here this evening to answer any of your questions, so let's move on, those are my comments. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are you gonna allow the public comments now on the city administrator, or are you gonna wait until that point in the agenda? At that point in the agenda. Items for discussion and possible recommendation of the common council start out with item number seven on the agenda, council document number 1061, I'm sorry. It's a typo, I'm sorry, 1161. A resolution authorizing the common council to engage the services of special outside council to represent the city of Sheboygan in the role of special prosecutor with regard to a quasi-judicial hearing. Attorney Stephen M. Biskupik of Michael Besten, Frederick LLP is in attendance and will be available to answer questions from the older persons. Alderman Versey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to motion to approve and send the positive recommendation to the full council, this document. Saget. We have a motion and a second. Thank you, Alderman Versey for that motion. Thank you for the second. Alderman Decker. And we have a motion and a second to send this to the council with a positive recommendation to go ahead and hire a council. And now I will open it up for discussion. Do any Alderman have any comments or questions that would like to address any questions? Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask that Attorney Biskupik be open to floor. Attorney Biskupik, please. Would you step forward, please? Attorney Biskupik, Alderman Hammond, if you don't mind, I just want to ask Attorney Biskupik something before you proceed. No, I just wanted to get him up here. All right. Before we open it up for questions, Attorney Biskupik, first of all, welcome and thanks for coming up to Sheboygan tonight. Did you have any prepared marks that you wanted to make before we get into questions from the other persons? I don't, other than to reiterate, I think what's implied in the proceedings and that is the position, as I see it, is totally under the statute, Wisconsin 1716, no more, no less. The power to, and the obligation to investigate and to have somebody serve in the role of prosecutor I think has been recognized by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But it doesn't necessarily have to go forward. It can be like any prosecutorial discretion or recommendation to the body not to go forward if the facts don't justify it or if the facts justify it to go forward. I tell you now, I really don't know all the facts in detail. I've looked at the complaints waiting for the council to act. I'd also say I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't know the mayor. I don't think I know any of you. We've offered our services. It's the type of work I'm experienced in. I enjoy doing it. We're willing to do it pro bono unless you want to pay us. But I'm not sure you can afford us. But anyway, I think the most important thing is to recognize that the power is solely within the statute, no more, no less. And one of those provisions in the statute is to move promptly. And that would be my intention if you approve this. Thank you. Are there any questions from the older persons? Alderman Sampson, you're first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney Busceva, can you just explain why you would be doing it pro bono in the process of what you're doing that? Well, my understanding is that someone in your city attorney's office contacted my partner in Manitowoc, Kathleen Reynolds, asked her if our law firm would be interested in working on this. She looked into it and said we would. She contacted me in Milwaukee, knew I was experienced in these type of things. We came up, we met with three members and we're interviewed and it's fairly obvious that if you start these endeavors, any kind of special prosecutor, you're looking at a big cost. And the idea that our firm would charge you tens of thousands of dollars, I think it would be a big detriment. So talked to my partners and agreed to offer to do it pro bono. I mean, again, if it's something where you think there's something not right about that offer, pay us. I mean, we do plenty of other pro bono work and it's not like we need to do it, but we're willing to do it. And again, it's an offer and if you wanna accept it, great if you don't, no harm taken. Thank you. Thank you for the question Alderman Samson, Alderman Riesler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A timeframe roughly that you think that this is gonna change? Well, the statute says move promptly and I think a lot of that is dictated by facts that are uncovered, how cooperative witnesses are and what you learn. If everything that's learned is everything that you know right now, then it'll move very quickly. If there's new information or other information comes forward or people are not cooperative, then it may drag on. But I mean, promptly as in, if this had started six weeks ago, I think it was my expectation we'd be done by now. So, but again, I don't wanna promise that it'll be done in six weeks if there are facts and circumstances. I will give it my attention, my immediate attention, subject to the other demands of my other clients. But just because you take something on pro bono, you don't give it second class treatment. I would make sure that we give this the attention it deserves right away. Just a couple questions. Go ahead. And then I'm just looking at cost for subpoena and witnesses, is that gonna be for by the city or is it a whole week? The statute provides that. And I guess again, it depends on where witnesses are coming from, whether their proceeding is necessary, how detailed it is. But those are considerations that are made by any city attorney, district attorney, state attorney every day. And... But there will be some cost to us with that. I assume on those witnesses, I mean, say $40 a day or a witness fee if that's what the statute is incorporated. So I think those are aspects. What the Wisconsin Supreme Court has I think instructed in these circumstances is that you have to have due process. And if due process means that somebody needs, you need a witness fee to get someone there, then you have to do it. If they appear voluntarily or willing to come, then you don't. So a lot of that is I think to be seen how far this goes and how long it takes. Again, I do not know. Sure. And there's two more things. And then the investigation costs as far as the investigators doing the investigation, the law firm is gonna pay for that? Or is there gonna be some? Well, it'd be my... Some of this is still to be determined, but it would my assumption that the investigative costs that are borne by some... Let me say this. In other instances where our law firm has been involved with other municipalities around the state, they have utilized the services of local law enforcement. That doesn't mean it's a criminal investigation. That means they're empowered to enforce Wisconsin statutes to the extent that conflicts of interest arise because say a police department is under the executive branch of the government, then you look elsewhere for assistance. I've started to analyze those issues and haven't fully gone down that path. And again, a lot depends on how cooperative people are and how much of a need there is for that type of assistance. So if there's an outside investigator required, that would be another fee that we would have. No, I would assume that that would be somebody who's employed by the public and would be doing that as part of their duties. You have a Wisconsin statute that sets forth the process. My assumption is that a law enforcement agency would assist. And then just the last thing I have, if you could just clarify, the statute requires that we make sure that the complaint is valid, correct? First step, that your city attorney has already done. There is nothing in it that specifically says that we have to investigate, correct? Well, on those procedural aspects, that's why my understanding is that you're gonna contemplate hiring Mr. Volkner is that he will serve as your city attorney and give you legal advice in terms of those procedures. My role would be investigate the facts, present them if warranted, and go from there. And if they're not, go home. Anything else, Alderman Racer? No, I'm fine, thanks. Thank you very much. Next we have Alderman Hammond. Thank you. First off, thank you, Attorney Biscoupic, for your generous offer and your willingness to come here tonight. Just a couple questions to kind of dovetail up. Can you outline the process of how this would go down? I understand you're comment earlier about Attorney Volkner being our city attorney, but the investigation, are the witnesses required? Do you have subpoena power at that point? Yes, the statute gives subpoena power. The statute says the witnesses can be compelled to appear, they won't appear voluntarily. So the first step is determine the facts. And you already have a framework that has been approved under the statute. Talk to the witnesses and then there has to be a document presented. Due process has to be presented to the mayor and his attorney in at least 10 days to consider that information to get to mount a defense. And then it's really the council to set a procedure going forward if they're gonna have a quasi-judicial hearing. And again, some of this I'll defer again to Attorney Volkner, but as I see the statute and our firm has worked on it in the past is you can have all kinds of allegations and you can assume that even if they're true you would not go forward and move to dismiss them. And that is one possibility. At the other end of the spectrum is you think they're really serious and you wanna go forward and then you have to give the mayor and his attorney and their witnesses due process. So which end of the spectrum where this is gonna fall? I can't answer that question right now. And I don't think anyone would at the beginning of an investigation. You all have an assumption of what facts are. But like we tell juries at the beginning of the case you gotta ignore those assumptions and rely upon only what facts are discovered. If I could. Go ahead. So if we go ahead as a body and hire you that would give you the subpoena power you would need. Give me the authority investigate. I'm not gonna go out and interview witnesses on behalf of the council without, you're passing the resolution without giving the authority under 17.16. That's how I see it. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Van Akron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess just to reconfirm, there's gonna be no cost then from your law firm to investigate and look into these matters as far as witness fees, subpoena fees. Those would all come at a later point once the hearing is called for, is that correct? That's my understanding. And I did say if there's something unforeseen some witness in Alaska or something will come back to the council and say, okay there's an expense to have to fly somewhere. Let's talk about how that, whether that's worth the time and the money. But to sort of guess ahead of time that we're gonna have this expense and it's not worth it or it is worth it I think is premature. I mean right now the lawyer fees are the things that would be the biggest cost and as I said we're gonna do it pro bono. So at this point there's no fee for you to look into this. It would come at a later time if at all. And then again you would reiterate it before that you would look into this and the timeline would play out at that point you would submit something to the mayor. I'm assuming something to the council. Yeah it has to be in writing. There's no doubt that it has to be a written something that spells out exactly what you can't just have this gray area. He's not a good mayor or he's a terrific mayor or whatever your opinion is. It has to be these are the actions that you think the witnesses can prove or excuse me that the testimony and the evidence will prove. And then it's as I read the Supreme Court Wisconsin decisions interpreting that statute. You have to give the mayor and his lawyer all the opportunity to challenge that within reason and within due process. And that means allowing them to confront witnesses and those witnesses won't come voluntarily that can be compelled under the statute. The statute provides that any witness who testifies gets immunity. And just so you know I think that's gonna mean the mayor too. So they can be removed from office but his words at a hearing under oath can't be used against him in some other proceeding. At least as I interpret the statute right now. So after the investigation would take place you would submit something to the mayor as well as I'm assuming to the city indicating your findings and whether you believe it would be appropriate to move forward with a type of hearing or something like that. And as I envision it again because the council is supposed to be the jury you know you set this process in motion and then you're supposed to set back and be impartial it's very very difficult and again the Wisconsin Supreme Court has dealt with that and said you have to take an oath to be impartial that attorney Volkner would serve as the contact the liaison and that I would communicate to you through him so there's not separate communication. I guess just one last question. If for some reason you find that there isn't suitable evidence that there isn't something substantial to move forward you wouldn't recommend that. Or even if you did find that there was something substantial you had indicated that this body could then also decide at that point to not go forward with the process. So we would have the option after the investigation is completed to say either there's no substance to the complaints or that at that point even if there is some substance we choose not to go forward. Yeah I mean look it let's say you had a complaint that the mayor J walked and witnesses 10 witnesses saw you know you could vote to say well even though you have this petition and even though you have 10 witnesses that say we don't think that rises to the level of removal we vote to stop at least as I understand it you always retain that right. At the other end of the spectrum if you think it's serious enough you get to go forward. So again I see the role that you're contemplating for me is the gathering and presenting of facts and then advocating whether to go forward or not but there's nothing in hiring myself for Mr. Volkner that abdicates any of your duties under the statute. I think the statute lays out a procedure and as I said before instill certain powers to do things no more no less. It's not gonna be the doesn't solve all the problems and it's just a framework to go forward. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the older persons? Alderman Hammond. Thank you I just clarification on a comment you just made. Sure. You mentioned that everybody gets immunity. Yeah. And so if you interview you know the mayor or department head or something like that going back to the mayor's comment if you interview him you can't use that in the next proceeding or the removal process or the quasi judicial that I understand it right or if not an attorney obviously. Immunity means that under as I understand it and again these are things why you need another attorney to advise the council almost on as your legal advisor as opposed to the advocate is that the statute provides under 1712 the witnesses can be compelled that there is subpoena power. However, the witnesses who testify at the hearing what they say cannot be used against them in some other proceeding. Okay, got it. Okay thank you. So someone wants to get on the stand and say they stole a bike when they were 12 and district attorney's out of luck. Okay. Thank you. Alderman Hammond. Are there any other questions? I see no lights. So all our person Kittleson would you please call the roll? We have a motion and a second to proceed and hiring outside legal services of attorney Stephen M. Biskupic of Michael Besson, Frederick LLP. I did have one more light go on. Alderman Erasler. I guess I'm just kind of looking through that I think we're done asking the questions of the attorney but I don't feel done with the discussion on this portion because I do have one other comment than not for the attorney. If I'm, may I be excused then? Yes. Okay thank you. Thank you. Thank you again. I do just have one other comment if I may. Go ahead. I did speak with a constituent this week who advised me that the local bar association had some displeasure in the fact that we did not look at any local attorney to hire. And I guess I would just concur with that that at least we should have opened up somehow to see if there was anyone interested. I understand there may be some conflicts of interest but we try to keep our contracting for some of the services, we try to go local and in this process we did not. So I guess I'm just stating that for my opinion and the opinion of some other people I've talked to. Thank you Alderman Erasler. Is there any other comments? All our person kills. So would you please call the roll? All right. Billed. Aye. Oren? Aye. Carlson? No. Decker? Aye. Hammond? No. Hammond? No. Heidemann? Is excused. Kittleson? Aye. Madicek? Is excused. Rindfleisch? Aye. Racler? No. Sampson? Aye. Van Akron? Aye. Vanderweel? No. Versey? Aye. Did I miss Julie? I'm so sorry. Calf is aye. I didn't miss anyone else, I hope. Thank you. One, two, three. We have nine ayes. One, two, three, four, five noes. Motion carries. Next we'll move on to agenda item number eight, which is council document number 1160, a resolution authorizing the common council to engage the legal services, a special outside legal council to represent the council with regard to a quasi-judicial hearing and authorizing payment for said services. And then attorney Joseph J. Bultner of Olsen, Cloak, Gunderson and Conway is in attendance and will be available to answer any questions from the other persons. Alderman Versey? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve and send a positive recommendation to the full council. Second. We have a motion and a second to send a positive recommendation to the council. I will now open it up for discussion. Let's see, I think Alderman Hammond was first. Again, I just asked Mr. Chair that we open the floor to attorney Bultner. Just step forward, attorney Bultner. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. You're welcome. Alderman Raystore, you will be first. I can see Mike, mine's a comment not necessarily for the attorney, someone just a comment when we're done with the questioning. You wanna wait later? Yes, please, okay. Alderman Hammond. Thank you. I think you've probably heard, first off, thank you very much for attending, but I think you heard the question earlier about our obligation under this process. And again, as we could perceive as the council's attorney, could you go through that and explain, statutory what our obligations are, those types of things? Sure, I'll address it upfront what the role of my representing the common council would be. My responsibility in the process, as I understand it, is to provide the parties, and Mayor Ryan and his council, as well as all the parties involved with due process of law. A holder of public office holds a property right. And that property right cannot be deprived in a such as a removal process, cannot be deprived from a person without due process of law. That is, as they're provided with ample and appropriate procedural aspects, including a hearing, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including the opportunity to have certain procedural safeguards included in that process to ensure that if removal is the ultimate finding of this body, that the mayor has had an opportunity to be heard as well as his council, as well as to mount an appropriate defense, and I think Attorney Biscoupic touched on some of those initial aspects of that particular proceeding. Follow up by me, sir? Go ahead. Our obligation as a council to go forward, again, Attorney Biscoupic kind of said that would be more in your realm. Are we obligated to take that to the investigation? Are we obligated to take it after that? What is this council's obligation when it comes to furthering the process? The complaints. Yours is an interest. Citizen complaints? Yeah. Sorry. He was clarifying for me. He was talking about the citizen's complaints. Right. With respect to the complaints in the matter, the statute is relatively unclear as to whether there's an obligation of the body to go forward. I would submit to you, in my opinion, that there does exist at least some responsibility to investigate the allegations of a citizen complaint as to whether the body, the adjudicative body, decides whether it wishes to go forward after hearing Attorney Biscoupic in his investigation having been completed. That's a function of this body to determine as to whether they choose to go forward. And as Attorney Biscoupic stated, it's a weight in credibility and a determination of this particular body to determine whether it believes it should go forward or may go forward or may make whatever choice determines with respect to those allegations and the, I guess what I'll call the end product of Mr. Biscoupic's investigation. So essentially at that point we become a DA determining whether we want to charge or not. I'm not sure that that's a fair analogy, but maybe it's similar, perhaps. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the attorney? Alderman Haman, I believe is first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you please stand? Sure. Thank you. If we were to go forward with this, then who would run the hearing? Well, that's a determination that it may be a bit premature. And the reason for that is there are a lot of options. It is my understanding based on the statute and the case law that Attorney Biscoupic referenced previously is that the president of the council has that responsibility at least outright. And that's because of his unique position as president. But there's nothing to say in the statute or the case law that suggests that some other person cannot be selected to do that. All right, so that is an option that this body has is to make a determination as to who it might wish if either Mr. Rindflash cannot or is unwilling or it's determined that the body believes that someone else should hear the matter. That is certainly appropriate as well. Okay. And then so we get to that point, is there a timeframe that we could be looking at for the length of the hearing? Is there a speculation on that? I don't want to speculate as to the amount of time it may take and that I hate to give answers that start with it depends, but it really does in this case. It depends on the nature of the allegations, what proof is out there, how many witnesses have to appear, what kinds of documentary evidence is out there. Obviously, as I referenced earlier, Mayor Ryan and his council have an opportunity to mount an appropriate defense based on those allegations. I'm not gonna speak for his attorneys as to how long they may take in doing that, or I'm not gonna speak for attorney Biscupic either and how long it may take him. It's really a matter of what he discovers and what evidence is presented and how long it may take to do that. I could not give you a fair timeframe. I do not know that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. I believe Alderman Venak when is next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney Valkner, if you can just touch on your role as far as the immediate, I guess the immediate proceeding that we're looking at being the investigation alone. Can you touch on what your role would be involved in the investigation and what of any cost would be absorbed through the city or would be charged to the city for your role in strictly the investigation portion of this? Well, I'll start by saying is that my role in the investigation is not to investigate. That is not my role in these proceedings. My role would be, and I think this is a good point to discuss this, is my role would be in the event that a quasi-judicial hearing is decided upon by this body. My role would be at that point, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure due process. Mr. Buscupic himself is going to be strictly responsible for the investigatory phase, I guess I'll call it of these proceedings. My role in that, as he touched on earlier and deferred to me on, was I would serve as a liaison for not only Mr. Buscupic, but for the mayor and his counsel to address issues concerning evidence, concerning witnesses, concerning the issuance of subpoenas and other matters. And I would certainly have involvement in that particular matter. In terms of fact-finding, in terms of interviewing witnesses, in terms of obtaining of documents, anything of the sort, Alderman, I would not be involved in that in any way. And I wanna clarify that point as well. I do not view my role in these proceedings as anything adversarial whatsoever. My responsibility is to preserve the integrity of the process, to make sure that Mayor Ryan and all the parties are provided with appropriate due process of law. And that is my role, and one I take very seriously, it's very important to the integrity of the process, but I do not have any opinion. I do not take any position with respect to any of the substantive merits of the case. That is simply not my role. My role is to advise the counsel as to how to proceed and how to provide the due process that I talked about previously. I hope that wasn't too long-winded, and I hope it answers your question. No, just to follow up then, excuse me, just to follow up, so as far as the investigation and going forward with an investigation, it sounds to me that your role would be then taken up after that investigation is completed and letters are submitted to the city as well as the mayor. So really to go forward with an investigation there would be little to no cost from your firm to the city? That's conceivable, and a lot depends again, and again, I hate to give answers that start with it, depends. However, again, it may be determined on the amount of witnesses that have to be interviewed or subpoenas that have to be issued. It could be any number of different factors. I quite frankly don't view my initial role in advising the council as a particularly involved process. My job is to simply help the parties move forward, both the mayor and attorney Baskupik and provide whatever assistance I can to everybody. That's how I view my role. Thank you, Alderman Van Ackwin. If I could just insert something here, attorney Volker, I believe the amount that you agreed on to represent the council was $185 an hour, is that correct? Yes, it is. Okay, thank you. I think that was part of Alderman Van Ackwin's question, but Alderman, President Rinflage. Thank you. Two questions. One, are you a member of the local bar? That is an issue that came up earlier. I'm making sure that we support local. Yes, I am a member of the Sheboygan County Bar, yes. So in some aspect at least, we are keeping things local if we go ahead and agree to hire you as council. Second is, if you would, because your role is unique in this position, in council to council and making sure that you process, I know having said on law licensing and gone through quasi-industrial hearings with you, but could you perhaps speak on your experience in that particular role that it's not something that's new to you? Sure. I have been involved in law and licensing issues with the city of Sheboygan, including I wouldn't have any ideas to the number of particular proceedings I've conducted and sat and presided over many quasi-judicial hearings, which include many different aspects, including things from liquor licenses to bartenders licenses to contractor licenses to any number of different property issues, whatever the city makes a determination that it's going to suspend, revoke those kinds of things. I've been involved in those proceedings and I've been doing so for approximately nine years. I've had many different, some of you I do know and have worked with before, some of you I do not, but in terms of my overall experience, I have been representing the city of Sheboygan in civil matters since my graduation from law school in 2001 and I've been involved in civil defense matters, including injury accents and other things for the city, but with respect to these proceedings, I've been doing them for the city for quite some time and I view this proceeding as very similar to others. Maybe the scope is different, some would argue, but we still have to apply the same due process, whether it be a bartender's license or whether it be an issue such as this as removal. We still have to do as a body and I still have to advise this body as to how to proceed and that is a duty that I take very seriously. I hope that's responsive to your question. Thank you, President Rinflish, Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair and again, thanks for the multiple opportunities to talk. Typically we don't get that many times to talk and again, appreciate you allowing us to ask questions. It's obviously a huge deal and we wanna make sure we have all the eyes not in the teeth cross, but you made a comment earlier that in this example, Alderman Rinflish could recuse himself and this body could decide somebody else or the body could decide, does it have to be somebody on this body or could we bring in somebody from the outside? You know, I haven't had an opportunity to review whether it would be appropriate that perhaps, I think what you're referring to, Alderman, is maybe a third party of some sort and outside perhaps a retired judge or something of that sort. Certainly I think it's a possibility. I certainly think that the statute and the case law, which is the DeLuca case that Attorney Biscoupic has been referring to, I think it does allow for some variance in determining who's going to be the person to preside. I certainly think there's a lot of latitude and flexibility there if the council wishes to consider it. Just one follow up. Go ahead. Just to clarify roles, if we were to go to that step and have the quasi-ditially, is it my understanding that Attorney Biscoupic would actually be the one questioning the witnesses doing the prosecution and then you would be basically our guiding light, if you will. Yeah, that would be correct. Attorney Biscoupic would be entrusted with providing the prosecution and presenting witnesses and evidence. My role in the event that there was a third party presiding would be to advise the council and that role wouldn't really change a great deal depending on who may be presiding. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman. Hammond, is there any other questions from the council members of Attorney Wilkner? I see no further questions. All our person, Kittleson, would you please call the roll? We have a motion and a second. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Alderman, Van Acker. I don't have any questions, but I certainly would like to add to the discussion. I don't have any questions from Mr. Wilkner, but I certainly would like to make a statement if that's... Would you want to do that after we take the vote or before? Before we would take the vote. Go ahead. Thank you again. I guess I would urge the committee to focus on what is directly in front of us, and that is the investigation. Do not get caught up in the, I guess, long term. We're strictly talking about going forward with an investigation, which Attorney Wilkner himself has said, he believes that we do have some responsibility to go forward with. Attorney Boscupic is willing to do that for free. Attorney Wilkner has stated that he doesn't believe there would be a great cost for his firm to at least go forward with the investigation. Again, if there is found to be no merit or no substance to these allegations and to the complaint, we'd have the option at that time to end this process. But I do think it's also important, as Attorney Wilkner stated, it is his role to ensure the integrity of this process, to ensure that we follow the letter of the law, even though there are some in this room that may not want to go forward with the process, I think everybody should feel that we, if we do go forward with the process, we're doing it in the correct fashion, we're doing it to the letter of the law, and we have the integrity of Mr. Wilkner's assistance to make sure that we are doing this the proper way. Again, I think we've passed resolutions, we've discussed this many times, I think we have an obligation to go forward, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure we're doing it the correct way, and I think at this point, we're doing it the most cost-effective way that we can. So I would urge the committee to retain Mr. Wilkner's services and that we move this process forward. Thank you, Alderman Van Ackren, Alderman Reisler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As from the start, I have obviously been the person who's been against some of this for the financial reasons as far as not wanting to get into offense, Attorney Wilkner, spending any money on the process, having obviously seen the vote on number seven, where we have moved forward to do the investigation, I guess I'm comforted by the fact that Attorney Wilkner is not going to be charging us anything until we get to the point where a decision at least needs to be made as to where we move forward. So I guess I'm kind of swaying on that financial thing as the fact of we're not gonna hopefully have a bill until we get up to the final result. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Reisler. Any other questions or comments? Any questions for Attorney Wilkner or any other comments before we take the vote? Again, we have a motion and a second, authorizing the Common Council to engage the services of Attorney Joseph J. Wilkner of Olson, Claude Gunderson, and Conway. All in person, Kittleson, would you please call the roll? Belt. Aye. Boran. Aye. Carlson. No. Decker. Aye. Hammond. No. Hammond. No. Heidemann. Koth. Aye. Kittleson is aye. Madicek is excused. Grinfleisch. Aye. Reisler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Akron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Versi. Aye. We have 11 ayes and three noes. Motion carries. I will. Mr. Chairman, can I be excused? Yes, thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for appearing. President Rinfleisch, did you still have a prior obligation tonight or are you able to stay? I do, I need to finish up my route. If that's acceptable. You are excused for the remainder of the meeting. Next we'll move on to item number nine on the agenda, which is Council document number 1036. And item number 1036 is submitting a communication from Miltsnorm expressing his displeasure with President Rinfleisch, the Chewigan Press, articles and some older persons asking the mayor to resign and asking that the Common Council rethink their reasoning and compassion before they make an ultimate decision on removal. I see Mr. Storm is in the audience tonight. Did you wish to speak, Mr. Storm? No question. Come right up. You're not on the public forum, Mr. Storm, so you will have greater latitude. But for the record, Mr. Storm, would you please give your full name and address? My name is Milton R. Storm. And I live at 1736 Marvin Court. Excuse me, Mr. Storm, Attorney McLean recommended that we have a motion to open the floor. Motion. Second. We have a motion and a second to open the floor. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Alderman Raceler, did you have something? That was what I was talking about. Thank you very much for that point of order. Proceed, Mr. Storm. Well, it's very difficult for me. I'm not prepared because this resolution I had was at least over a month and a half ago, I believe. And I'm sorry I did miss a couple of the counsel meeting because I was up in Sturgeon Bay and I have many obligations to do. But the reason that I do, I have been here in Sheboygan. Since 1961, when we first made the mayor's office a full-time position. I've known every the mayor's. I've known, starting with Amon Muse. I've known all the Joe Brown, Roger Schneider, Richard Schneider, Richard Shusha, who I have no respect for. I'm sorry, Richard. But when I hear some of the things that I was going and I'm out in the public, it is amazing how people are disgusted with this council. That you're supposed to be representing me. My representatives don't even represent me. I caution them on how to do, and they don't even listen to me. So what good is it for me even to speak? And for Alderman Reinflesch, he ought to talk to Anthony Bonet. I met him at the August Rock River when we do our fundraising for Neighbors Against Drugs for Johnsonville Sausage. And he works for Johnsonville Sausage. He says that Mr. Reinflesch was a greenhorn. And he's the one who came in with Mayor Perez. Mr. Storm, no personal attacks, please. This is truth. Well, I don't care for some of the like Pat Aho and some of the comments she made by snubbing in. And I've known her too. OK, well, I'll try to be more reasonable. But I've been attacked by even some of the older persons here and some of the things. And I'm sure they all know who I am. So if anybody's got any questions, why I put that thing in. And I have also a dispute with the Sheboygan press. They ought to apologize for me for some of the ways they have treated me. Mr. Storm? My suggestion is just to drop the whole thing and we're done. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Storm. Alderman Hammond, you're first. Thank you. I'd make a motion to file. I have a motion and a second to file. Document number 1036. Should we do a roll call or are all eyes OK on that? All in favor of filing the complaint? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. The document is filed. Next on the agenda, we have Council Document Number 1118 submitting a communication from Mike and Diane Werner, stating that they believe that the correct action for the council regarding the mayor is to allow the recall effort to continue and live by the results of that effort, which will be the will of the people. Is Mr. and Mrs. Werner in the audience tonight? I don't believe they are. I did contact. In fact, I contacted Mr. Storm and I did leave a message for the Werner's. I got their answering machine. Is there any discussion on this document or I will also entertain a motion? Alderman Hammond. Thank you. Motion to file. We have a motion and a second to file. Any further discussion? All in favor of filing? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Mr. Chair. Yes, Alderman Hammond. There's some problems with the button, at least mine. It's probably my rookie mistake in pushing it. It doesn't. Let me try this. Try it again. Oh, there you go. There you go. Did you want to make a comment? No. OK. Just to make sure it works. Next, we have item number 11, council document number 1151. Submitting a communication from Richard W. Sousha stating, he's upset with the press conference that attracted all the news media. Mr. Sousha, did you want to make any comments on your document? Alderman Hammond. Motion to file? Second. We have a motion and a second to file. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Document is filed. Now we have come to that portion of the agenda, where we're going to do part two of the public forum. So if anybody would like to speak on the rest of the agenda items 12 through 17 having to do with our discussion on the city administrator, amongst some other items, who would like to be heard? Start with you, ma'am. Some point I want to talk. Go ahead. All right, there you go. Thank you. Would you state your name again for the record, Dulcy? Dulcy Johnson, 1306 North Third Street, Sheboygan. Go ahead. I strongly support a city administrator and a part-time mayor. But you need to hire a qualified person, or you'll just create more problems. The draft study of the UW Whitewater showed that the department heads and managers and the employees of the city of Sheboygan support hiring a city administrator. The government structure committee in July 2010 endorsed a city administrator with broad-based training in municipal management to provide consistency through the implementation of common policies, procedures, and provide continuity. The responsibilities would include hiring of employees, planning and directing work, and consultation with the mayor, appraising performance, rewarding and disciplining department heads, addressing complaints, resolving problems. It would require an advanced degree, such as an MBA or an MPSA, at least 10 years of progressively responsible work experience in a municipal setting with a minimum of five years functioning in a leadership position, experience in human resources management, knowledge of performance measurement, knowledge of principles and practices of public administration, knowledge and significant experience in long-range planning of programs and services, considerable experience in team building, planning, organizing, and directing the work of others. Those are the criteria that were established by the government structure committee, which met for several months. Maybe it was even two years. I don't know. But it was a long time. And I hope that you will not throw out their good work when you decide on this issue. The city shares the county economic development coordinator to the tune of $100,000. I think that's money well invested. Adam Payne has saved the county millions of dollars. And I strongly support the city going with the city administrator. And also, you need to create a referendum on the February or April ballot to call for a part-time mayor position. The people can still vote for a mayor, but it would just be a part-time person. And you need to find a qualified, qualified city administrator to perform the day-to-day operations of the city. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to be heard? Mr. Lottie, you'll be next on the agenda item. This is still the public forum. Thank you. Anybody else want to be heard? Yes, sir. Step forward. State your name and address again for the record. Again, Richard Susha, 15 North Point Drive, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. I'm pulling this out of my previous comments. I commend your efforts to install a city administrator and to make this more revenue neutral. However, you're leaping into a major structural change by prematurely filling that position with a person who is only knowledgeable in finance, not public administration. And that's not just to get rid of Ryan, I hope. Don't exchange one mistake for another. I suggest this evening you amend the resolution to state interim or acting administrator immediately when taking up the agenda item. Therefore, tonight, I urge you to adopt the city administrator and temporarily fill that position on an interim basis only. And Dulce said it before, you'll need to set the groundwork for a spring election referendum to decide whether there is to be a full or part-time mayor. This is a gut-wrenching problem that you're all going through now. I don't envy your job. Thank you, Mr. Susha. Does anybody else from the audience wish to be heard? Step forward, sir. You stay here. Thank you and good evening. I'm Eldenburg. I reside at 406 Clemente Avenue in the great first district of the city of Sheboygan. And I'd like to speak specifically to document 1164 from the past city office holders. As a group, our tenure spans four decades at approximately 120 years of elected service. Although we've served in different times in political climates, we stand united in our concern for the city of Sheboygan and unanimously support your current move to establish a position that will provide professional day-to-day management of the people's business. As long as we're in a historical mode, I would be remiss if I didn't. I recall that for many years, the city was served by a position that served much like a city manager. That position was titled the Risk Management Officer and more recently the Mayor Administrative Officer. Mike Hots served three mayors and numerous councils researching policy issues, mediating between council, mayor, and staff. And about 10 years ago, then Alderman Bell Schultz presented a panel which included the Wisconsin League of Municipalities and the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance to specifically discuss the city administrator's position. The accompanying resolution was filed with the consensus that the Mayoral Administrative Officer was currently providing many of the functions of an administrator. And as councils tend to be conservative over the years, the thought was if we were to call them an administrator, we'd like to have to pay them more money. So that was the reason for filing. Thus, in an earlier time, the city had been served with a very similar position that did not compromise either the role of the mayor or council. You know, although historical information may be helpful in providing context and background, this is clearly not about the past. Your action on this matter and the other matters on the agenda tonight offer a rare opportunity to create your history for our future. I thank you for your service. You have a long night ahead. And I can assure you that the chairs you occupy were not specifically designed to be comfortable. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berg. I'd like to thank you for, if you had a chance to check your email the last day or so, he sent, Eldon sent out a number of articles or actually a report from the government structure committee. And also there was a document. I don't know if you had time to email that I requested it. Eldon, the working with a municipal administrator, what should the governing body and staff and the administrator expect? Were you able to find that one, Eldon? Oh, well, I dug it out of my heirlooms and it was very good. If you could find it, or maybe I can see that it's email, but it's very good because as I said, it kind of sets everybody's expectations. It's very well done. Thanks again. Does anybody else want, from the audience want to speak on in the public forum yet tonight? Going twice, three times. Thank you for everybody that took the time to speak at the public forum tonight. Just before I go into the next agenda, item since Mr. Berg referenced item number 141164, I'd entertain a motion on that document. Alderman Hammond. Motion to file. We have a motion and a second to file document number 1164, item number 14. Any discussion? Alderman Hammond. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to take a moment. I know from Alderman Berg and many on that government structure, committee spent 2009 and 2010 going through that and put a lot of hours into that and for the city's benefit. I'd just like to thank him for that. And the Alderman that came forth with the letter, and sorry, the past mayor as well, that came forward with the letter recommending that. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Any other comments? We have a motion to file document number 1164. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Now we'll go back up to item number 12 on the agenda and that is Alderman Ron Lottie of the city of Plymouth is in attendance and will give a presentation on the process the city of Plymouth used to hire their director of city services administrator. Mr. Lottie, would you like to step forward please? We need a motion to open the floor. Motion. We have a motion and a second to open the floor. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Just for the record, Mr. Lottie, would you like, would you please give your address? Yes, my address is 32 South Park Place in Plymouth and number fourth district Alderman served the city of Plymouth for 22 years. We went through the process of looking for a city administrator many years ago and I went to a referendum, was voted down. And over that time, I think we didn't have the continuity we needed in operating our city. We were wasting money, wasting time. Each department head wound up with nine bosses. We got eight Alderman and a mayor. So every time one Alderman would say something the department head, then they'd dispute with another Alderman or the mayor and we weren't getting continuity. In January of 2009, we convinced the mayor that council convinced the mayor that we should form a committee to study an administrator position. Well, it took Intel, in January, he appointed two other persons to that committee and we didn't appoint a citizen to that committee until March. Then we kind of floundered around for about two months. We didn't know where to go or exactly what to do and we hired a consulting firm. We went back to the council and convinced them to give us about, I think the number was $15,000 for a consulting firm to come in and lead us in the right direction. Well, we went out and did and we hired Voorhees and company on Dear Lake Road in the sweet Deerfield, Illinois. And I can tell you, they came in and did a phenomenal job. Excuse me, Mr. Lottie, what was the name of that firm? Would you sell it? Voorhees. Would you sell it please? In fact, I can give you there. It's just so that she can get that in the minutes. Thank you. Continue. And they came in and did a fantastic job. We didn't know how we were gonna proceed first but they came in and they sat down individually with each other and each department head and the mayor and we told them what we thought we needed. And then they came back to us and said, okay, now they knew what we were looking for. They could take all our comments and put them together and they knew the committee did not want to interview 30 or 40 people. We didn't want to go through that process. They put out the brochure of our further position. They picked, I think, eight people. They interviewed the whole group first, 30 or 40 people. Out of that group, they picked about eight because they knew what we were looking for. Out of that eight, they brought to the committee. We interviewed those eight people and narrowed it down to six and then those six of those people we took to the council or the department, we took it to the council, they narrowed it down to four, came back to the committee, we looked at it again, took that four back to the council and we wound up selecting one out of that four. And it was about a good year's process we went through because we didn't get our administrator on board and tell I think it was September of 2010. We started this in January 2009 and I can tell you people the city should have done it 20 years ago when I first got on the city council. The continuity we got now is just fantastic. And I can also say almost to the letter every department head was opposed. They were just opposed because now they're gonna have someone supervising them, they couldn't have nine bosses. And to this day, there's now one department head would do it out this person. They just love them, they made their job half as hard and it also made the council's job easier because now we got one person to deal with instead of every council member going to every department and trying to get something done, we go to one person and then we set up the structure, how it worked out and I tell you it's just great. We should have done it a long time ago and I would urge this council to seriously look at that. I can also say that when we talked about administrator first and it was defeated in the referendum when we started the process again later on and we looked at administrator, we kind of got the feeling if we put the word administrator out it's gonna get defeated. So we kind of changed it to director of city services slash administrator and it went, it's just great. I don't think the city of Plymouth would be without him and if you go, the route of hiring him I hope you don't try to pull our guy away from us because we need him. He's a 28 year old person and he comes originally from Boston, Wisconsin and just fantastic and he saved us in one year. He's been on our employee in one year. He's in the first year he saved us over three to four million dollars. The city of Plymouth, our tax payers and our utility rate payers because we own our utility. He saved us over four million dollars. We don't expect to get that every year. But right now for the salary we're paying him he's paid for the salary for 20 years. In the last one year, I urge you seriously really get a lot of consideration. Thank you. Are there any questions from the council for Mr. Lottie? Alderman Kittleson. Thank you, not for Mr. Lottie but thank you but Voorhees, if Alderman have checked their email we just this afternoon received information from them regarding a city administrator. So I know I didn't try calling the number. I didn't get an answer but just so you know that the information was all sent to all of us. So thank you. If I may, I would just say that Voorhees, when they came, there was some administrative work that was done by our local people or our clerk's office and stuff. They helped them out with some administrative work but other than that these people were fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Oh, appreciate it. Thank you. Next we have item number 13 on the agenda. A discussion by the older persons on the future of the position of mayor for the city of Chewagan to take effect after the April 13th election. A discussion on the merits of a full-time versus part-time mayor and a possible referendum on the issue before I open it up for discussion. I believe Attorney McLean mentioned to us and a few months ago or maybe it was even last year that in order to set the salary for a new mayor after April 13th, the salary would need to be determined by February of 2012. Is that correct? Attorney McLean, you're on that neighborhood. The current ordinances talk about setting salaries for the elected officials. I think at least 13 months before the term is to begin. Council can, that's what you've established as your policy and your ordinances. So whenever that is 13 months before April of February 13. And then also, Attorney McLean, I believe you mentioned to me recently that if we were going to change from a full-time to a part-time mayor, just to make the change to say nothing about a referendum on the issue, but that would mean a charter ordinance also would have to be done 13 months in advance to change this from a full-time to a part-time mayor. I understood you correctly when I talked to you about it. The timing wouldn't necessarily be 13 months in advance, but the timing would be governed by, I believe currently a charter ordinance in place that says the mayor would be full-time. So in order to change a charter ordinance, you can only do that through another charter ordinance. Charter ordinance is an ordinance, but it's different from just a general ordinance in that requires two thirds vote. And there's provision in a charter ordinance that if there's a request for a referendum filed within 90 days of the charter ordinance that the ordinance doesn't take effect until you have the referendum election. So there would not necessarily have to be a referendum election, but if a sufficient number of citizens petition for a referendum would be required, wouldn't mean to say that you could not, in any event, the council could decide to have a referendum on the question, but you wouldn't have to unless the appropriate number of citizens filed a request. Turn to McLean, would that be binding referendum or advisory? Would that be our decision? If the council chose to have a referendum just at the council's request, you could do it either way. If the petition for a referendum were filed by the citizens and a sufficient number of votes, sufficient number of signatures were obtained on that petition, that referendum would be a binding referendum on whether or not the charter ordinance was effective or not. So that would be binding. Thank you. Alderman Hammond. I've got the gremlin in my light. Just a couple of quick follow-up questions to turn to McLean. A number of petitioners, how many? I'm assuming it's a percentage of something. And then while you're thinking of that, the 13 months is that prior to the election or prior to the term beginning of the mayor? The salaries are 13 months prior to the beginning of the term. The term prior begins when the council's born in mid-April of 2013, so it'd be 13 months prior to that date, not prior to the election. And as far as the number required for a referendum on a charter ordinance, I'd have to double check. I don't know off the top of my head. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Did you have anything else? No, it's off now. All right, good. Alderman Rasler. Thank you, the chair, just for clarification. And for me, who's not knowledgeable, could we have the referendum on the February primary? What would it have to be on during a regular April election? It would depend on the timing. Again, if you're talking about a sort of a voluntary referendum that the council decided that you want to put this to a vote to the people, you could get it on the February election primary I believe, assuming that the timing met the statutory criteria for getting something on a ballot. And I believe you'd be able to do it by February. You wouldn't be able to get it on the November general election, but I think you would be able to by February. Thank you. I would like to hear some discussion from the older persons on what your thoughts are of maintaining a full-time mayor or going to a part-time mayor. Any advantages or disadvantages that you see in that process? Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Myself, and I've said this to just about everybody before, that if we do move forward with the city administrator position, that I don't think we can go with a full-time mayor at it. You're winding up with dual control. I've described this several times. It's not DUAL, it's D-U-E-L. And you'd have to eliminate that problem there with the city administrator, the full-time mayor, where you're carrying those kinds of salaries at that point in time. And I guess the question that I have, we'll go into this. I'd well like the idea, but if we're going to get this referendum going, and there's some legwork that's got to be done with this, can we have all the legwork done before we put this referendum? So if it does hit, we know exactly what we're getting into, and then I guess then the question I have, maybe this is for the attorney, can it be implemented as such? New to the council and the workings on that one. I'm not exactly sure all that it works. I know when the referendums go forward, you have to know why in the House. But is it something that we can have all the legwork done, black and white, and the referendum to present to the people and can be implemented right after the fact? I apologize, Alderman Hammond. I'm not sure if I understand your question. I'm Hammond. Don't worry about it. I got it. It's a lot. I didn't say any D in my head. Anyway, I'm not sure what your question is. The referendum on or in the charter ordinance on making the mayor's term part time as opposed to full time is really a separate issue from whether or not to have a city administrator. OK, and that is forward with the city administrator position at any time. OK, well, I guess I guess I'll start with Mr. Chairman. I think at that point in time that we're back to that two salary thing. I like the idea. I really like the idea. I think I fall on the same boat as Alderman Bourne and Alderman Heidemann. I leave Dermal ridges on pennies. And I just don't see Karen with two salaries. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. I believe Alderman Hammond is next. Must be my bad hearing in a term of a clean. I thought you said Hammond. Just a couple of quick things on the discussion. Again, the city administrator conversation in part time, full time mayor, I think, is, as a term of a clean mentioned, are mutually exclusive events. I do feel very strongly, though, that the mayoral decision should be a referendum decision. We shouldn't even bother with the 2-3 charter ordinance vote, just write to referendum and go that route. That is a big decision. And the citizen should make that decision. If they decide to keep a full time mayor, again, if it's a good full time mayor, I don't have a problem with paying two salaries. Because, again, the mayor can provide vision and direction just like this council should, but also can be an economic development cheerleader for us, too. If that mayor can go out and bring in 200, 300 new jobs, you're going to pay for themselves many times over from an economic development standpoint. So again, I don't have as much of an issue with the full time versus part time, other than I think it should be a referendum on that particular issue. Because, again, it's an elected position, and the electorate should decide whether they want a full time or part time. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Van Ackren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree that if we were going to make that change, it should be done through an election, through a loss on the word at the moment. But before I live into it. Correct. It should be done through that process if we're going to make that change. I guess my question would be in reference to the salary of the mayor, whether we keep a full time mayor or not, what is the protocol, and how could we, if we saw fit, to change the salary of a mayor due to the fact that if we implement a chief administrative officer, obviously there's going to be some duties that are going to be shifted from the mayor's office to that role. Is there a protocol or a process that we could then change the salary of the mayor? If we would keep a full time mayor in the future, going forward, would that have to be after the election? Is there a 13 month window to do that, and so on, if you could, I guess, touch on that? The council cannot change the mayor's salary during its current term. So you can't, well, you can't reduce it. So you can't say for the last year or so that we're going to drop you from where we are now down to 20,000 on the basis that you got less duties. Any change in the compensation for the mayor would be, can only be made effective for the next mayoral term. So, if you put in place a city administrator in the next six months, you still have a mayor by charter ordinance, just full time, and his salary is set for the balance of his four year term. OK, and if we wanted to change that coming the election, whether or not there's, whether he's full time or part time or so on, would that require the same 13 month notice to change the salary and compensation package of the mayor's position? The ordinance calls for setting the salary of an elected official for the following term, 13 months prior to when they take office, yeah. And the intent of that is to give those desiring to run for the elected office some idea of what they can look forward to in salary. It's not really fair to get people to run, and then all of a sudden they get in and you say, well, we're only going to pay you $10,000. I can certainly understand that, and I would agree that that's certainly how we should go about it. As former Mayor Susha pointed out, there has been someone in this role previously or somewhat of this role. I think it does work having two people in a role similar to this. I think we should go about looking at a referendum. But if either way, with the duties of the mayor's office changing, we certainly should look at the changes in his compensation if this goes forward. Thank you. Alderman Van Ackerman. Go ahead, Alderman. Thank you, Alderman Warren. At the municipal attorneys conference up to noon today, I talked to a city attorney from Wauwatosa a little bit on city administrator and mayors. They've got a full-time city administrator. Their mayor, it isn't designated whether he's full-time or part-time, but they only pay him based on part-time salary. But you've got to look at what we currently have in our charter ordinance calls for the mayor to be full-time. So you could not change the charter ordinance. You could say you've got to be full-time, but only pay him $10,000 a year. You could do that. I mean, whether somebody would run for that position might be another question. Alderman Racer, thank you. Alderman Van Ackerman. Just a point of clarification for the city attorney. I know like in elected officials for like the sheriff and other ones, they only actually have to report to work for one day throughout the year. Would that be the same for the mayor statutorily that even if he was full-time, we paid him $10,000, he really would be able to function as a? Yeah, they need to perform their duties, but there's nothing that says that they've got to punch the clock. Although we do have an ordinance as far as full-time elected officials cannot engage in private business during normal work hours. So I couldn't go into private practice sort of on a part-time basis during the work hour and still function as an elected city attorney for the balance of the term. Thank you, Alderman Racer. Just I want to make a couple of points. Before I make my points, we'll call on Alderman Belt. Thank you, sir. I just have a quick question. If we consider this the mayor, a part-time mayor, would we have to basically schedule his hours as to what he would be working, what he would be required to work? I mean, I guess there'd be a minimum that he'd have to work. Wouldn't there be? Not necessarily. I think you say not going to be full-time and you're not going to compensate him based on a full-time. You could set a salary for the mayor and they could put in as much time as they wanted, I suppose. But all you're going to pay him for is so much money. The reason I ask that is if this is going to be a part-time mayor and we're not allowing him to do other work and other jobs, we're kind of going to shoot ourselves in the foot as to who we're going to get to do this. You're right. Now the restriction is based on full-time elected officials. Part-time would have the same restriction. And you would want to change that. Yeah, we would have to change that restriction. Sure. Thank you, Alderman Belt. Alderman Coth. Thank you, Chairman. Of course, I'm in favor of full-time city administrator and also a full-time mayor. But you're throwing around that $10,000 if our mayor at this time has full-time and with the benefits and the wage is over $100,000, even at a full-time mayor with part-time wages, even at a $50,000 a year, that's still a very good wage. So full-time mayor without a referendum, part-time wage. And we still have time for that. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Coth. My impression was that right now we're paying the mayor about total all-in with salary and benefits about $90,000. But I could be wrong on that. It could be $100,000 with benefits. One other thing I want to mention, as far as talking about a part-time mayor, recently with the governor's budget passing, previously what we called our Schedule X employees, where we did not have to pay health insurance or into the Wisconsin Retirement Fund, was not over 600 hours a year. With the governor's new budget, that's been increased to $1,200. And if you multiply that by 52 weeks, we could have a part-time mayor for 20 or 21 hours a week and hypothetically have a salary of $20 or $25,000. And as long as they stay under $1,200, you would not have to pay health insurance or into the Wisconsin Retirement Fund. Now, I would say that a salary of $20 or $25,000 for a retired teacher, a retired Alderman, a retired businessman that would go out and represent the city would be a nice little job for a retired person at that salary. And that person, in all likelihood, if they are retired, maybe wouldn't need health insurance or wouldn't need a retirement fund. So that's a possible option. I guess I personally favor the city administrator but I do have a problem in maintaining a full-time mayor. I believe when the city was looking at this a year ago, for a city the size of Sheboygan, I heard different stories of salary and benefits of up to $140,000 or $50,000 for a city administrator. That remains to be seen what it would be. But if we would go to a part-time mayor with like a Schedule X employee, that alone if we would use the $20,000 figure for that part-time mayor would give us approximately $70,000 or $80,000 towards that salary of a very qualified city administrator. I believe Alderman Carlson is first. Thank you, Chairman. I guess I would be very much against that because once again I think we'd be narrowing the pool of qualified applicants even though it is a part-time mayor that persons should still be qualified. So I would go along the lines of keeping a full-time administrator and a full-time mayor because it's been proven over time that administrator will find efficiencies and save money that could pay for that job and a full-time mayor. But I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the salary for the full-time mayor because once again, $50,000, $60,000, that's still a great deal of money. Thank you. Alderman Reisler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we make an elected official a Schedule X employee? Could we make an elected official a Schedule X employee? No, I don't believe so, so that's a good philosophy, but I don't think that's something we can legally do. He's a public official as opposed to an employee. Is that, what if that was just a follow-up to Alderman Reisler, what if that was the criteria and it was known ahead of time that that's what the job was gonna pay and there were gonna be no benefits? Well, I think you can establish a position of mayor that would be set to salary and say there's not gonna be any benefits, but I wouldn't call my schedule X employee, okay? And therefore, it wouldn't matter how many hours he worked. He only has to work one hour if he wants to. Right, that's where we get back to the... But if you were gonna set up the position, perhaps you'd wanna have a minimum of 20 hours a week or 25 hours a week, whatever. Those are discussions that we'd have to have. I believe Alderman Hammond is next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I echo Alderman Carlson's. If we're going to take this road, I don't wanna gear it towards a specific group of people. Maybe that wasn't your intent in your comments and I apologize if it wasn't, but we need to be able to draw from the largest talent pool possible and just trying to focus a position on retirees doesn't really make any sense to me. The second point I'll make is regarding number of hours work. The taxpayers will keep the mayor accountable for how many hours he or she works. So if that individual is elected and decides to work the one hour, four years later we'll have a new mayor. So I think what goes on in City Hall will be number of hours worked, if you will. Some of it's statutory. If I'm not mistaken, Attorney McLean, they've got to preside over meetings, those types of things. So I think whether, you know, putting an hour's commitment on it, again, it may not be a real prudent thing either. Set the salary and the taxpayer to decide whether or not they're doing an effective job inside of City Hall. Alderman Versey, thank you, Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, quick piggyback off of that is you're setting a salary, you've also set his job description. He asked, like right now, if a mayor has to preside over council meetings, present us with a budget. You can do the same thing with a full-time mayor reducing his salary. It's saying he has to go to this meeting, whatever committee he's part of, he has to chair that committee that's putting his hours in. So you set his job description up, you don't have to do anything with hours. It's, he has to go to these meetings, he has to present the budget, he has to do whatever his duties would be. So I mean, keeping a full-time mayor reducing it to less than 50,000, four-year, 50-year still getting a qualified person to come in here and be the cheerleader of our city. So that's what we would do is just set that job description up. Thank you, Alderman Versey. I thought somebody was gonna ask this question, but they didn't, so I'll ask it. Attorney McLean, is it specified that a mayor has to be a four-year term or could it be changed to a two-year term? You could set the term anyway you want. I think again, who would require a charter ordinance to do that, but you could make it a two-year term, you could make it a one-year term, you could, it's really within the discretion of the city as long as you do it by a charter ordinance to establish the term. Any other discussion on item number 13? I've got one, I've got just one question. What would be the process, Attorney McLean, for the council to decide after the April 13th, April 2013 election, whether we want to consider going to a part-time mayor or keeping the full-time mayor? Would one of the Alderman have to bring in a resolution for perhaps saying, bringing in a resolution saying that we wanna go to a part-time mayor and have an up or down road on that, and that would kind of finalize it? Would that be the right procedure? Well, one way to do it would be for an Alderman or a multiple Alderman to sponsor a charter ordinance to do whatever you want to say in the charter ordinance, make the term, or make the position a part-time position, change the term, whatever you'd want to propose. Okay. But I think that- Then again, we'd have to deal with the idea of the referendum also. That would be necessary because, again, there's a charter ordinance in place that says the mayor is a full-time position. Just having a voluntary referendum would not change the charter ordinance. You'd have to, unless you made the referendum question, a question that would change the charter of the city, and that gets a little more complicated, but I think that could be done. The easiest way would be to bring in a charter ordinance, establishing what you wanna do, vote that up or down, and that's then, if that really leaves it up to the electorate, then if they don't want to do that, they've got a file petition for a referendum on it, but if they were in support of it and didn't wanna change that, there would be no need for a referendum election. Okay, thank you. Alderman Carlson's next. Thank you, Chairman. So if I'm hearing correctly, if we did a voluntary referendum and it did pass, or if it failed, and we went through with the charter ordinance, the residents could still ask for another referendum, because the first one would not be- could do a non-binding sort of advisory referendum this February on the question of should we have a part-time mayor. If, depending on the outcome of that vote, again, that would be non-binding, you could then, the council could take the results of that and decide to bring in a charter ordinance then that's in keeping with the outcome of that vote. If you did that, then that would be a charter ordinance that would do, let's say the electorate favored a part-time mayor. So he brought in a charter ordinance to create a part-time mayor position. That would be subject to a referendum if sufficient number of signatures were submitted within 90 days of the date of that adoption of that ordinance. If the electorate were satisfied with the outcome of that and with the charter ordinance, then you wouldn't need to have a separate another referendum election. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Carlson. Alderman Van Ackman is next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess just to confirm some of Attorney McLean's comments, if we went forward with just keeping a full-time mayor but changing the compensation package that wouldn't require a charter ordinance change, that would just be changing the compensation 13 months ahead of an elected official, it obviously doesn't require a... Wouldn't call for a referendum, that's not a charter ordinance, that's a general ordinance just to establish a salary. But if the public and the citizens were disapproved of that action, they could still come forward with the petitions to have a part-time mayor if that's what they felt was appropriate, correct? They could submit the petitions to do that, but in order to do that, it requires a change of the charter. The current charter says it's full-time position. Just submitting a general petition for a referendum doesn't change through your charter. So it would give some sentiment to the council though, and maybe the majority of the council would want to do that is then adopt a charter ordinance to change to a part-time position. Okay, I think that answers my questions. I guess I would urge the council to, if we go forward with this Chief Administrative Office position, to then consider the compensation package of a full-time mayor, consider again the change in duties that are going to be involved. We can look at lowering that compensation package, but at the same time, considering again, keeping open the largest pool to gather from, I think that will require a fairly well-paying wage, not as high as it is now. I think it does require health insurance and those type of things. Again, because you're asking for someone to give up four years of their life into this position as a full-time position, I think we need to then pay that person adequately. Again, is the mayor's office gonna be losing some duties to the Chief Administrative Officer? Absolutely. So I'm okay with looking at varying the compensation, but I would certainly caution against going to the point of $25,000, $30,000, and no insurance and those type of things. I think we really restrict the pool of applicants at that point. Thank you, Alderman Van Akron. I believe Alderman Carlson is next. Is he? I did. You did. This is the last time I'll speak. Just to piggyback up, Alderman Van Akron, I think it's just important to keep the integrity of the mayor's office, so I just would like to echo. I fully support just cutting the pay down a little bit, but like I said, keeping the integrity of the office will I think appease the general public, but cutting it down to part time lessens the office. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Carlson. I guess the only comment I would have to that is that if you're part time mayor is going to be almost entirely ceremonial and then probably would have some responsibility for running meetings, but mainly ceremonial as far as going to grand openings, ribbon cuttings and all that kind of stuff, the ceremonial stuff, I don't think it has to be that elaborate of a salary for those kinds of duties, but I think then if we stay with a full time mayor and we do go to the city administrator, I guess I would agree with Alderman Van Akron is we'd have to look at the duties that the mayor is giving up that the city administrator is going to be doing and setting the salary accordingly, but I still would have problems with paying a full time mayor $70,000 and it's obviously going to be more than that as the track we're on right now with paying the mayor at least $70,000 and the mayor is going to have reduced responsibilities when we go to the city administrator. I think we have to take a serious look at what that salary is going to be. Thanks. Alderman Samson, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess some folks feel like I just woke up, but I guess in my off base here by saying that it's potential that this does not go to a referendum, if the decision here for referendum is only if we decide or between a full time and a part time mayor, if we discuss keeping a full time mayor position and just change the pay or decrease the pay, that does not have to go to a referendum, right? So it is entirely possible that we're going to maintain a full time mayor, make a decision to decrease that person's pay at the beginning of their term and then add a full time administrative position without having to take this to the people in a referendum. It can be entirely possible if that's how it can be done. Is that what I'm hearing? That would theoretically be possible, yes. But then again, you have to weigh what sort of candidates you're going to get. If you reduce the salary significantly and you're requiring it to be a full time position, you're asking a lot because you do have an ordinance that says you can't really engage in other employment while you're full time with the city. So if I can add to that. I guess my point is that we can make this whole decision right here without actually getting any public input. We can decrease the pay to a reasonable referendum, whatever, public input. I mean, the public is going to vote on something like that. So I mean, we could just say, well, we'll make 50,000s reasonable, that's fair. And then just this whole decision can be made right here. Thank you, Alderman Samson. I believe Alderman Hammond is next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I would agree with you if it was purely a ceremonial position, go with a part time mayor, I don't look at this position as a ceremonial position. Again, I think the taxpayers will ultimately decide, but I think having a mayor, and I kind of echo some of the comments made earlier, having a full time mayor, we can talk about the play that's focused on economic development, it's focused on the bigger picture, the vision, the direction of the city on a day to day basis, all of us have what I like to call real jobs, can't be here all the time, but having somebody who's sole day to day mission is the bigger picture. I don't see that as a ceremonial kind of position. I think candidly something that's needed. City administrator, whatever the position you want to call it is really designed to do the day to day functions in city hall, something that candidly elected officials are horrible at primarily because they're trying to make everybody happy. And it's very difficult to do that as an elected official or as somebody's boss. That city administrator's really the day to day operations, the mayor at that point, and of course this body is responsible for the vision, direction, and economic development efforts of the city. And I think that's more in a ceremonial position in my mind. Thank you. Thank you Alderman Hammond. Is there any further discussion on item number 13? Okay, thank you for the discussion. We've already dealt with item number 14, item number 15 is council document number 1163 in ordinance amending section 29-75 of the 1975 Sheboygan Municipal Code as to add, delete positions in the mayor's office and the finance department table of organization. Mr. Chairman. Alderman Van Ackron, I believe you're first. Can I just ask for a short five minute break before we go into these next to, I'm assuming these two are gonna be pretty in depth since we've been at this for nearly two hours. Sure, thank you. Let's see, we've got, let's reconvene at nine o'clock. Municipal code. So as to add, delete positions in the mayor's office and the finance department table of organization. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First off, I would ask if we could take 15, 16 and 17 together, they're basically all revolving around the same thing, 15 is changing table organization, 16 is the position and 17 is the resolution that we passed just establishing the position. I'd like to have the discussion, I'd like to have some discussion on each one individually because I've got some, if other Alderman don't come through with some of the things that I had an 1163 I'd like to make some comments, but I want to have the Alderman discuss it first before me. Any discussion on 1163? Alderman Versey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now with 1163, what you have attached here is also the job description, which I have some severe issues with. If you wanna try and put this through and attorney McLean, maybe you can add to this as well. Even whatever goes through here still has to go through salary and grievance for the job description of this, correct? Yes, I believe it was referred to both committees. Okay, so as in light of everyone being here, if you guys wanna turn right here, the job description of the Chief Administrative Officer, the number one, two, five, six, all of these anywhere that you would see like the first one, development and implement of annual budget under the direction of the mayor and common council, I would strike out the mayor and put strategic fiscal planning, which is all the chairman of all five committees. And the next one is the same thing, under the direction of the mayor, no. Strategic fiscal planning and common council. That's right, the problem with all the direction yet and all the input from the mayor and all these other statements in here with all the direction from the mayor yet from this city administrator. Before I call on Alderman Hammond, Alderman Versey, did you wanna make that in a form of a motion to delete what you said to delete and put in what you said to put in? If I could. There's a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. And I believe what Alderman Versey said is that on the first page where we have the city of Sheboygan Chief Administrative Officer, grade 16 underneath there, it says reports to mayor that the city chief administrator, our officer would report to the mayor. Alderman Versey is proposing that that would read that reports to Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee of the common council. Or did you also wanna leave common council in there Alderman Versey or just- I want common council in there as well. All right, so would it- Basically anywhere that it says mayor. Wherever it says mayor in the document, take out the word mayor and change that to Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee and the common council. Yeah, I'm under discussion. Under discussion. Just wanna clarify a few things and I apologize, I'm gonna take a little bit of time with this, but I think it's helpful in the discussion because as I spent the time formulating this, I considered a lot of these things. First off, there are certain things that right now is Alderman Hiddleston, we were talking during the break and Steve, please jump in if I'm incorrect. But there are certain things that the mayor is still statutory required to do in presenting the budget as one of them. So the mayor, and again, we need to focus on this position as bigger than what's going on right now in the city. You know, even a full-time, part-time mayor still gonna have to work with this position. And so things like the budget, they're gonna have to consult together. Now whether you wanna change the wording under the direction and change consult with, I don't have a problem with that, but they are still gonna get again looking fast this issue we're going through now. That position is still gonna have to work with the mayor. There's no way around it. We're here part-time, right now the mayor is full-time. And as long as part of the mayor's responsibility is budgeting, they obviously have to work together because it's the mayor's responsibility to present the budget to the council. As far as the strategic fiscal planning, I thought of that. If you're trying to take that control away from the mayor, well the mayor points to the committee heads and the committee heads make up the strategic fiscal planning committee. So if you wanted to go that way, then it should be the common council in general and no strategic fiscal planning. In the document, you'll notice that as far as reporting, it's the common council president and there's input from the mayor in the performance evaluation. So but it's the common council president hiring was the common council president, vice president can be the whole and the mayor involved in that as well. Again, taking current personalities out of this, this individual, whoever he or she may be sitting in that chair behind us, has to work with this individual. So again, on the hiring process, you've got three from the council, one from the mayor's office, and again, they're just making a recommendation to the council. So the diversity, a lot of those things that kind of work through knowing that, again, that position has to work with the city administrator. Couple things with regarding the structure, should we just, because there's other things I wanted to chat or go through on this or do you just want to cover this part for now? Up to the comments you made so far, I just want to make one comment if I could before you go on. When we were talking about this a couple of years ago, a department head who's now retired, who shall remain anonymous, said to me that Alderman Boren, I'm all for going to a city administrator as a department head. However, I want to know where the buck stops. Is it with the city administrator or is it ultimately that I report to the mayor? And I think that's very, very important. If we're going to go with the city administrator, as far as I'm concerned, that's where the buck should stop. And I don't want department heads getting instructions from the city administrator. And if it's this mayor or any mayor, because then we're going back to what we had before when we had Anthony Bonet and Mike Hutts. The mayor was still in the picture. Where did the buck stop? I think it's very important for the department heads to know where the buck stops. And that's why I would support Alderman Versey's motion in some form that the department heads know when we go into this that if we're going to have a city administrator, that's where the buck stops. And the city administrator is not going to be second guest because the mayor is going to be, is also going to have the city administrator's ear on making ultimate decisions. And that's from a department head two years ago when we were discussing this. And I think he was speaking for other department heads that ultimately they want to know where the buck stops. And that's why I think if we're going with the city administrator, I think we have to be very careful how we set this up. Now, if you want to continue, Alderman Hammond, fine. Thank you. If I can address that. If you, again, through the document, I think it documents well that the department heads would report directly to the city administrator. If we want to argue that the city administrator performance review is done strictly by the council, I don't have a problem with that. If we want to argue that the city administrator reports strictly to the council, I don't have a problem with that either. But the document well illustrates that the department heads would report to this new position. So the buck for them would stop there where the buck doesn't stop is for that city administrator. That is, they would report or that individual should say would report to this body. And again, I'm looking at the bigger picture that the mayor should at least have some input in that performance evaluation. I'm not saying it should be the one conducting it. And the termination of said position would be done by this body as well. So again, there's not a whole lot of authority that the mayor has in the city administrator position other than input. They have no authority, if you will, to fire higher or reprimand a city administrator. Let me give you, I guess, kind of through this structure. There's been many questions that have come through on positions and so on and so forth. So I'll give you some food for fodder. As I was thinking through this, you'll notice one of the resolutions is to eliminate or one of the ordinances to eliminate the finance director. The vision of this is director Modyo is now on a four year contract or four years left of his appointment. So my mind logically, at least for the next several years, he would become the whatever the position we call it, city administrator for lack of a better way. At that point, certainly we, at that point we would have the ability as this body to either reappoint or go out and do the search that we'd need to do. If we decided not to do that way and create a city administrator, leave the director of Modyo in his current position, of course, that would be an extra item on the table of organization and an additional cost of about a buck 50 all in. So my rationale for putting him into that position was that he's here, he's doing a great job. Certainly qualified based off of his past experience to do the position and we wouldn't have to create a separate position on a table of organization to do that. So whether we call him acting or what have you, if we decide to eliminate his position and go out in national search, we still have to pay out his contract with the city because he can only be terminated for cause and of course we have no cause. So that was the rationale for creating it that way. It allows for us to get a city administrator reporting to the council, puts a very qualified individual. I've had the privilege of working with him for the last year. He saved the city tons of money already through what he's been doing in the budget process. But again, the key here is it's relatively cost neutral because we're not creating a whole new position. So I just wanted to give everybody kind of my rationale through this. It wasn't cronyism. It wasn't designed to as a favor. It was looking at how our table of organization works now and being able to fill. Cause you also notice the ordinance changes that we changed the title of the deputy finance director to strictly treasurer. Part of the idea, again, is to bring more of a business acumen and business atmosphere to city hall. So taking away the deputy director's titles and moving them to treasurer development, which is where Chad is now and then eventually changing the titles, hopefully will foster more of an environment of business in city hall. So that's kind of the rationale behind the structure of what I proposed. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderperson Kittelsen. Thanks, sir. You just changing the deputy director, then you're changing that just to the title of treasurer, correct? Her title currently is deputy director slash treasurer. We're just dropping the deputy director title. But nothing else will change. It's just the title changes, thank you. Thank you, Alderperson Kittelsen, Alderman Versey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was along with that most of the step of the way on that. I still think, as far as putting out the national search, you can have the finance director moving into there, which is a very smart financial move for the city, obviously, because if he does leave within his four years, we have to pay him out. But as an interim administrator, whatever you wanna call that title, it takes time to get that search out. Maybe we'd only end up paying a year and a half or two years out if that of his salary. And also the second part of that is, which you said earlier on, the mayoral or duties, police and fire shouldn't be separated. They should also, they are department heads, which should also go to the city administrator, because they are also departments. Thank you, Alderman Versey, Alderman Hammond. Thank you, and I apologize for buttoning in. Attorney McLean, please correct me, but it's my understanding under city statute or ordinance at this point. I believe it's a charter ordinance or maybe a general police and fire report directly to the mayor. So we would have to change that. That's the reason I didn't put them in there. That would require a two-thirds vote to do that. That's statutory that the mayor is sort of the commander and chief for the police and fire. It was part of the reason, Alderman Bourne had asked me that question and part of the reason why I was talking to the city attorney of Wauwatosa, because they have a city administrator. And they did not do a charter ordinance changing that statutory responsibility of the mayor, but I was advised that as a practical matter, the police chief and fire chief basically report to the city administrator there. And if the mayor were to issue some order to the police chief, they'd be bound to follow it, but in practice, they currently report to the city administrator. I just follow up on that Alderman Hammond, the attorney. So what you're saying, attorney McLean, if the mayor wouldn't voluntarily relinquish the responsibility of being that the fire chief and police chief report to the mayor, if he wouldn't voluntarily give that up, then we would have to do a charter ordinance to accomplish that. No, the statute doesn't talk about reporting to it, it says, I don't have the statute with me, but basically the police chief, so sure it says the same thing about the fire chief, I don't think it does, but police chief that is under the command of, or under the direction of the mayor from the standpoint, if the mayor issues an order, the chief has to follow that. But it doesn't say that the chief necessarily reports directly to the mayor, doesn't talk about reporting, but it's the mayor can command the police chief to obey an order. And I don't necessarily think, at least from what I heard from this other city, it doesn't appear that it's really necessary to change that statutory responsibility and get the results you're looking for. So you wouldn't advise putting something in the, excuse me, the job description, specifying that indeed the police chief and fire chief would report to the city administrator on administrative items. You can put that in there, sure. Alderman Hammond. And again, as we were going through this, I had thought about that as well. And attorney McLean is absolutely right for things like, I guess, emergency orders, all that stuff, the police chief would take direction from the mayor. But from, again, we all know where the buck stops when it comes to money, and that's the budget guy. And all those processes would still go through the city administrator. And so, I guess you can put in for administrative, because if you look again at part of the change, would also be things like, from an administrative standpoint, the assessor's office would report there. Of course, the assessor has to remain independent for his other functions, but the clerical type duties would report there. HR would report, IT would report, DPW, the whole gamut, would report for administrative functions and those other positions, as I mentioned, for also reporting and performance review. But the fire chief and the police chief would report more from an administrative function because of the budget requirements and that type of control what the mayor would still have the obligation or the duty for emergency purposes. I guess my concern would be, let's say, for example, the city administrator said to the police chief, I want innovation done in this particular part of your department to save money and you gotta have it done in 90 days. What I need clarified is that if the city administrator makes that directed to the police chief to get this done in 90 days, I don't want the mayor chiming in and say, well, no, you don't have to do that. Again, keep in mind that, again, the city administrator is a representative of this body. So if the police chief decides, I'm not gonna do that, the city administrator could very well come back to this body, say, we're recommending we do this and this body can say, police chief, go forth and do that because, again, ultimately, the police chief and any department director can be terminated by the vote of this body. No? Police and fire chiefs are... Oh, hold on, yeah, yeah, yeah. Are hired by the police and fire commission and fired by the police. I stand corrected, but, again, the city administrator could ask this body to, again, go forth. Just before I call you on your Alderman Samson, I just wanna get back to what Alderman Versi was talking about and that is, I still have a problem under this chief administrative officer reports to the mayor. Still have a problem with that. Now, if we wanna change that that the chief, that the mayor can advise or however we wanna word it, I'm uncomfortable with the chief administrative officer reporting to the mayor because with the reasons I stated before in past history that we've had here in Cheboygan when we've had that person below the mayor that maybe wasn't called a chief administrator officer or a city administrator, but was kinda charged with running the day to day, but yet at the end of the day, the buck didn't stop with that person, it stopped with, in many cases, the mayor, and I wanna avoid that. That's my concern. Alderman Samson, sorry to keep you waiting. No problem, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick, are we losing any positions here? Because right now what we're doing is right now Jim Amodio is finance director, so he would, in this scenario, move to human resources director, whatever we wanna call it, but we're still looking at hiring human resources manager, right? If I could, Alderman Bourne? I'm sorry. We would be losing the human resources, a city administrator, sorry. We would be losing the director of finance position. That would go away under this new table of organization and the research, and again, having chaired that position now for a better part of 18 months, we feel pretty strongly that with the budgeting, being part of the city administrator's role, that the finance department could continue to function quite well without a director, and again, you have the treasurer, who in most organizations, again, is going to be the head person in finance, so we would get rid of the deputy or the director of finance have a treasurer position, which would essentially lead the finance department, and again, in some of the other positions, for example, we don't have a director of development. It's on the TO, but hasn't been funded in a couple of years, eventually cleaning some of those things up, but in this ordinance here that we're talking about now, we'd eliminate the director of finance position. So, if I can follow up on the position that we approved then for human resources manager since Tom Rice is... That would continue on. So, we would still hire another individual for human resource. We would have to do that anyways. Okay. As the director Rice leaves, we'd have to have somebody in HR no matter what, whether we had a city administrator or not. I thought at one point we were gonna say that since HR was going under the umbrella, so to speak, of finance, that that was all going to be kind of just operated under Jim Amorio's position. It was, but that HR person would still be a position and HR manager position would still be there. It's just now, instead of reporting through that channel, it would report to the city administrator. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Sampson. All right, Mr. Kittleson. Thank you, Chairman. So then, just my understanding then, the finance director will slide into city administrator. Treasurer then becomes head of the finance department. Well, again. Or what slides into that position. Her title just changes. I mean, right now she's deputy director of treasurer. Her title would change. The title change, but then that person is in charge of the finance department. Is that what you're saying to, ultimately? I guess you could say ultimately. She would be the lead person in this case, if anybody knows Nancy Boss, would be the lead person in that area, yeah. Okay, thank you. Alderman Hammond. Before I call on Alderman Cotth, I just want to play devil's advocate here. What would be the possibility of keeping the finance director the way it is right now and keeping Nancy Boss in the position she's in right now, and just giving Mr. Imodio the interim job of chief administrative officer, interim, and then later do our search for a city administrator, and then when that happens, potentially we've lowered the mayor's salary if we decide to do that, and do our search for a city administrator, and then at that time we hire a city administrator, Mr. Imodio just goes back to being finance director. Again, the cost. Now you're funding two positions, you're funding a finance director, and if you look at the job description, yes, there's some administrative things, and again keeping the personalities out of this for a minute, there's some administrative issues, directors reporting to the city administrator, but largely a lot of that position is budgeting, budgeting and financial. So again, you could do what you're presenting, Alderman Born, but again now you're creating a new position and an extra level of cost that I just, I personally don't think you need when I've looked at again what these guys are doing now, and again I've had 18 months to watch this, watch this play out, what they're doing now, what the role of a city administrator is, I think you could easily eliminate that position and save the taxpayers the hassle of having two positions with duplication, because the finance director, and again the great people on the government structure committee in the packets that they handed out from 2009 and 2010 indicated and all city administrators do this is part of the responsibility of budgeting. So now you've got a city administrator responsible for budgeting and a deputy or a director of finance responsible for budgeting. I think there's too many overlaps that wouldn't make any sense to have both positions. But you, to make them an acting, if we want to call them that, I don't have a problem with that, I just, then we have to address what happens when the acting title's gone and how much do we want to pay out of his salary to him to finish out his four year commitment, because again he's got a four year appointment, can only be removed with cause. So if we terminate him before the remaining portion of his four years, we have to pay him out. Thank you, I don't want to keep all the person caught waiting any longer. Go ahead. All right, thank you Chairman. So the way this document is drafted at this time, if we move the finance director into the city administrator, he's there for four years, right? Either way he's here for four years. Either way, but we will not be actively looking for a city administrator for at least three years. Actually we won't have one for another four years. So all this talk of city administrators actually for nothing. No, that's not correct over in the clock. Jim, or Alderman Jim, too many Jims. Director Amodio would move into that position, but he would assume this new responsibility. He would report to the council, all of the things in the job description would happen. So he would go from being director of finance to city administrator with all the powers, responsibilities and duties of that new position. So yes, we would have a city administrator with his body in it, effective whenever this body decides to do that. So the finance director position would go away. We would have a city administrator. We wouldn't have done a national search for a city administrator, but all the responsibilities, the reporting, all of that would be that of a city administrator. Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to follow up Alderman Koff? Thanks, absolutely no sense to me. So all this work again, city administrator, but we're not really going to actively search for a city administrator the way this is drafted. For another four years, we won't have them. I guess I don't understand why you say we wouldn't have a city administrator because we didn't do a search, then the person's not a city administrator. It's like saying, I can't even come up with an analogy. I mean, the individual would be a city administrator. He's got all the duties, responsibilities and reporting of a city administrator. He is the city administrator. He's not even like it. The difference is we didn't go out and do a national search. And to that standpoint, when you look at the job qualifications, the current director of finance fulfills all of them. He's got an MBA. He's got experience managing people. He's got experience with finances. Obviously he was a CFO of a large multi-organization, I guess. So from a qualification standpoint, he qualifies. We just didn't do the national search. And again, my vision of that was because I didn't want to fund two positions at the same time. Now if this body decides to change that, that's fine. I'm just trying to make it cost-neutral for the taxpayers. Thank you, Alderman Cah. Thank you, Alderman Hamman. Alderman Van Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess from my understanding of the discussion and the resolution is that this really is the only way to keep it cost-effective and keep it cost-neutral. If we keep the finance director in his position and add a city administrator, we are now adding a six-figure plus salary and compensation package. For me anyways, it's looking at the long-term picture, not just the next four years, but the next 40 years. It's about adding this position to our structure. If four years from now we want to do that search, so be it. For right now, it's really changing the way we do business for the long-term, not who's in the mayor's seat and not who's going to fill this position. It's about making it cost-effective now so that I can really support this. I can't support adding a six-figure salary to our budget under our current conditions. We're talking about getting rid of firemen and talking about not filling vacant police positions and we're gonna add a six-figure salary. I certainly can't support that. I support this resolution as it's drafted because again, this is the only way to make it cost-effective at this time. The savings we talk about with a city administrator position, a lot of them are potential savings. We're talking about actual savings off the table of organization. Right now, it's cost-effective and possibly looking at doing the same thing in the other departments further down the line if I'm not correct. So we're talking about making actual savings, not the potential of what a city administrator can do philosophy-wise. We're talking actual off-the-teal type savings. I'm okay with that. I am not all right with adding a six-figure salary to our current table of organization. Again, I think we need to consider not who's in the mayor's seat, not who would be taking this position. I think he is qualified. I think down the line a nationwide search for a city administrator would be justified but to make it cost-effective and to make it work now to make this change, I think this is the only way that it can be done. Thank you, Alderman Van Akron. I just want to make a comment as far as doing a nationwide search for a city administrator. In my opinion, a nationwide search for a city administrator with a master's degree in public administration and many years of progressive experience and demonstrated success and leadership in their current position and previous positions. In my opinion, we need a city administrator to come to Sheboygan with no preconceptions and no allegiances with a fresh approach and perspective. And that's what I think you'll get if you do a national search for a city administrator. I've also worked with Director Amodio for, since he's been here, been on the finance committee and I have no problems with Director Amodio being the finance director. However, he only has one year of experience in city government. Don't get me wrong, he's done an excellent, excellent job as the finance director, but I have a real problem just handing him another four-year appointment without a probationary period. If we get a city administrator in here, if we do a nationwide search, like we do with any other department head, I would assume that that's gonna be a six-month probationary period. I strongly feel that we need somebody with a degree in public administration and as I said, demonstrated success in the position that they have right now in that municipality and previous municipalities and come in here and be able to show us demonstrated savings in the community where they've been working. I think that's very, very important. So I would have no problem making a Director Amodio a temporary chief financial law, chief administrative officer or whatever you wanna call him and yes, it may not be cost effective for the next 15 or 16 months, but this is a long, long-term decision and I believe if I remember correctly when this committee studied this for the city, I think they did recommend some autonomy between the city administrator position and the finance director. I think it's a good check and balance that you have there. If you still have a finance director, you have the city administrator. You've got that person with a strong financial background and Mr. Amodio, you've got the administrative experience. It's a very good check and balance, but I am uncomfortable in giving this position to Mr. Amodio, especially with a guaranteed four-year appointment. I have no problem doing it on a temporary basis until we can do a nationwide search and again, we're thinking about cost effectiveness not for the next 15, 16, 17, 18 months. This is a long-term decision and even if it's not revenue neutral for a few months, I guess I can live with that, but for the reasons I just stated. Next we have Alderman Versi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talking about length of time, is it standard or maybe I'm missing it on here? Is there some kind of a standard with department heads we do five-year appointments? Is it am I missing it on here? Is there no appointment, no years appointed for city administrator minus filling out his thing and let me follow up with that. I don't think there should be any length of time that they're appointed. If we set up a set of metrics that the council wants to see, you don't need to have a four, five, two, any year appointment for an administrator to come in. If he's doing his job, there's no reason for us to look elsewhere. It's as long as he's meeting his metrics, we never have to look, so he doesn't need to worry about an appointment. If we do get someone that comes in, we give him a four-year appointment, he's God awful, we're stuck. Now we're gonna pay out another couple of years for his appointment, unless it's a very big due cause. And there again was with the metrics if he's not meeting it, so if I... Thank you, Alderman Versi. I got Alderman Carlson. Could I call on Alderman Hammond? Thank you, Alderman Hammond. I've got some other comments based off of yours, but I'll hold those to go in line, but to answer your question, it was intentionally written. If you look at the ordinance, again, because Director Amodio has got four years left on his appointment, we're not giving him a four-year appointment. He still has four years left on his original appointment, and it can only be removed by cause by that. That's why you see that in there. After that, it's an at-will employee can be removed at the will of the council, was how we drafted that. So your point's well taken. If city administrator comes in, it's his council's discretion based off the metrics. If we wanna keep them our goal, there's no time period. It is truly at the will of the council. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Carlson. Thank you, Chairman. Two questions. First one, in regards to Director Finance, what would be cause? Maybe that's a question for the city attorney. It's the same language as removal for the mayor. Inefficiency, neglect of duty, misconduct, and office. So I would like to try to just- My three quarters vote, that's called for in the ordinance of the finance director right now for department head. Thank you. Obviously we've gone past the point of keeping personalities out of this, but I support this ordinance as it stands for a couple of reasons. We've talked about the cost effectiveness, the redundancy of having the chief administrative officer and a director of finance. So suppose we move forward with this and we move director Omodio into that position. He's there for four years, but if he's not meeting our metrics, he's not doing his job as set forth in this job description. Wouldn't that be cause for removal? Because he wouldn't be ineffective if he'd be ineffective as the city administrator. So keeping the personalities out of this, move this person into that job, and if he's not doing his job for the next four years, we could remove him. Thank you. Alderman Carlson. Alderman Hammond, your lace is flashing again. This thing is goofy. But I got the gremlin and you can hit the button to turn it off now. The, a couple of comments. First off, like Alderman Venakryan, it would be very difficult for me to support us. And I'm a big advocate of a city administrator, but if we're gonna create a new position, it doesn't make any sense to me to do that. And as far as demonstrated success, I mean, again, and this is no disrespect to anybody, but I kinda welcome having somebody from outside of government looking at what's going on inside of government. If you look at the last, just going through the budget now, he's already been able to cut 960 thumbs, thousand dollars out of our current situation. That to me is demonstrated success. He's had demonstrated success as CFO of other places. Again, I think municipal experience is great, but there's also something to be said for real world experience. And I am looking towards the future on this and more than just the next year, two, three, as you can demonstrate by the way the document was written. It's an at-will employee of the council. There's no contract other than the one we're fulfilling out that we're obligated to fulfill out for Director Amodio. And again, extremely qualified. If you look at many city administrators, an MPA is not the only requirement. MBAs fulfill city administrator duties throughout the country. There's nothing that says an MBA is not as qualified as an MPA other than they don't have the public sector stuff. So again, I would encourage this body to take a look at what we're getting. I think we're getting a highly qualified individual and again, trying to keep relatively, keep the personalities out of it. We're getting a city administrator that I believe is qualified and after the term is over, it's up to this body to go out to whatever search. We may look at this four years from now and say, we're gonna keep you, but now you're an at-will employee. I think we might be prejudging this a little bit. So again, I think he's already accomplished a lot of the things that we would look for in a city administrator if this was a blind search. So thank you. Thank you Alderman Hammond. Alderman Cotth. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to mention that Alderman Ron Lade from the City of Plymouth spoke to us tonight. The City of Plymouth spent $15,000 and the first year that they had their city administrator save the city of Plymouth $3 to $4 million the first year. Also the study that was done by the government structure committee they're saying that in most communities an administrator is an at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the council. So even if we did a nationwide search, put in a city administrator, they don't have a contract. There isn't a five year contract for them. We put our finance director in that position. He's stuck there for four years and not an at-will. Thank you Alderman Cotth. Alderman Belt. Thank you, sir. I'd have to agree with Alderman Carlson that if we move director Amorio into this position that if he doesn't perform, we always have that opportunity to remove him for cause. I mean, if he's not doing his job is we're gonna make the job description out. If he's not doing his job, he's not performing and we can move him out. And that is cause, that is just cause. At that point then we'll go out on a nationwide search and find somebody. But I do believe cost effectiveness, this is the way to go. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Belt. Just a comment, comment is that I think I would tend to agree with Alderman Cotth and that if this is an at-will employee, I think we're gonna have in the person is not performing, we're gonna have a much easier time getting rid of that employee if it's an at-will employee. If it's a contract employee, you're getting into, you're opening up a can of worms if you wanna try to get rid of that person. Let's say for example, they have two years left. Are we gonna have to pay that person out the last two years? Is it a part of an agreement to get rid of that person and then hire another person? That's the only problem I have with this being a contract position is that if it's at-will and believe me, if that person is an at-will employee, they know their feet is to the fire. They have to perform because if they don't, they're gone. You got somebody with a contract and I'm not just referring to Director Amodio on this, I'm talking to anybody with a contract. After that six month probation, basically you're on Easy Street for the next four and a half years and to get rid of somebody once they're off probation is very, very difficult. It's a whole different standard in my opinion than an at-will employee. Let's see, we've got Alderman Samson. I'd like to yield that over to Alderman Van Akron. Thank you. Apparently my work is not working either, Mr. Chairman. I guess just reiterating, I think the only way to make this cost effective is to do it the way it's proposed. I think we need to consider the long-term effects. It's about getting this position on our table of organization. If I'm understanding correctly, at the end of this four years, it would be an at-will position at that point. As Alderman Carlson brought up, if he's not meeting the requirements of this job description, we could remove him for due cause at that point. But either way, at this point, Director Imodio, which I agree is doing a good job, is here for the next four years in some capacity. And I guess I'd refer to City Attorney McLean just to confirm that. We have a contract with him for the next four years if we would delete his position or I guess that's really the only way I foresee it going, we would then owe him the rest of the money for the rest of his contract, is that correct? Yeah, it doesn't have a contract. He's got a term, he's got a five-year term and there's four years left on the term. And just to say, as far as removal for cause, for, it's basically what you're doing with the mayor. I mean, that would require a quasi-industrial hearing, all that. It's different than at-will employee. The council could just vote by a majority vote to remove the individual without a lot of due process stuff. So there is a difference there. Correct, and I understand, and I'm not trying to say that this is the best case scenario, but this is the scenario we're in. We either make it cost-effective and we go ahead with adding this position, or in my view, I can't support going ahead with this position and I think there's others that have indicated that same problem. It's either cost-effective and we add this position and we deal with the situation we're in, or I guess in my view we don't go ahead with the position. I, for one, would rather see us go ahead with the long-term plan of adding this position under the current circumstances to make it cost-effective if in four years, whether it be for cause or if at the end of four years, we decide not to renew a term and put Director Amodio in as an at-will employee or he decides he doesn't want it or for whatever reason, we just want to do a nationwide church and he can reapply. I think that's the best way to go. To get this position activated, to get this on our table of organization, to reorganize, to redo how we do government here and to get this started, again, I think this is the situation we have to deal with and we need to move ahead with it. Thanks, Alderman Van Ackren. Alderman Hammond, you're flashing. I don't know what this thing's been doing. Now it's green again. I've got the Van Ackren, but you're gonna have to hit it again Alderman Born. Go ahead. Let's go. Again, there's only a broken record here to reiterate Alderman Van Ackren's comments again. I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. We're gonna create this long-term position. I don't want to split hairs about a four-year term. When we hired Amod, and this body was the one that did it because we had to approve it, as a finance director, I think very few people can argue, at least I've worked with Amod on a regular basis, that he hasn't done a fantastic job and if you look at his job description relative to what the city administrator's position is, a lot of those things he's already doing in an unofficial capacity inside City Hall already. Department heads are already going to him as the go-to guy. So again, I don't want us to get so short-sighted on this individual that we, as Alderman Van Ackren indicated, missed the big picture on this one. Putting the city administrator in is the goal here. We have the opportunity to do it on a cost-effective basis. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, you might have to slide somebody else into this position in a temporary basis, who by the way, can do it and do it very well, in my opinion. So again, I would ask that you step back a little bit and again, to coin a phrase, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. No solution is ever gonna be perfect and I think this is a pretty good one, so. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Alderman Carlson is next. I've got, it's been said by, thank you Chairman, it's been said by, Alderman Hammond here and Van Ackren, so thank you. Thank you, Alderman Carlson, Alderman Bursi is next. I call a question. Yes. Second. Actually, do we ever get a motion on this? Yeah, we did have a, we originally had a motion by Alderman Bursi, do you have a motion? No, we didn't have a motion. I made a motion to bring those three documents together and then you made a motion to change. Oh, that's right. We never made a motion. Let's go back three hours ago. We had a motion by Alderman Bursi and a second by Alderman Belt. That was to amend it. We never had an original motion on the document, though. The motion by Hans Bursi and Belt Hammond to clarify. You stood up to clarify. Right, but we never had an emotion on the original document. We had a motion on the amendment that he wanted to make. We move forward after we vote on the amendment. I mean, we can still do the amendment and then go forward with whatever document we have, whether it's amended or not, is that correct? Well, if I may real quick with that, you explained everything down below, but it didn't report two. That still didn't get resolved. We were gonna change it to consult with the input from. Input there. He won it all, sorry. We're only on 1163. Yeah, we're only on 1163. Right, but we don't have a motion on that on the floor yet. We have his amendment, but we don't have a motion. And the term of the claim, do we need a motion before we're gonna have an amendment? Correct? A motion? Yeah, it was my understanding the way it was working was Alderman Hammond wanted to act on all three at once. Chair suggested just starting with the first one. And I don't know if there was a formal motion to put that on for passage or not, but then there was an amendment. It's true that you really can't amend something that hasn't been put on the floor to begin with. I just wanted to handle all of these individually because I think there's gonna be discussion on all three of them. I can remember that. I'd be perfectly happy for you to make a motion that you put this 1163 upon its passage and then under discussion we can do the amendment. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to put 1163 upon its passage by Alderman Hammond who seconded? Alderman Rasler. And now we've already have a first and a second on the amendment and I believe the amendment was to take the reports to any reference to the mayor starting reports to take the mayor out and change that, if I'm remembering your motion correctly, Alderman Bursi, reports to Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee and the Common Council. And then down below any part of the document that references the mayor, change that to Strategic Fiscal Planning and the Common Council. Am I getting that right? You did, but I think I can I don't know if I can retract that amendment from all the below. And we did discuss the reports too which was the biggest sticking point for me because going forward with the mayor he does need some input on these. So I'm okay with now the full explanation on this and where it's going, just the top portion on the reporting too. However, that's gonna be reworded. Okay, so you wanna make your motion then just the reports to that the Chief Administrative Officer reports to the Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee and the Common Council. Yes. Would you be all right with that, Alderman Bursi? Yes, sir. With input? Is there any further discussion on that amendment? Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our service. Please. It's gonna be a long night. That was probably the wrong taboo, wasn't it? Sorry, Alderman Born. I guess the only comment I would have about having the reports to the Strategic Fiscal Planning and the council, you know, I think I would just leave it the council, this body with input from the mayor if I could make that friendly amendment. I think we've got points down further in the document that, you know, talk about the hiring, the firing, all of those kinds of processes that, you know, again bring that back within the council. Again, looking long term, keeping the current situation out of it. As I reiterated before my challenge when I thought about the Strategic Fiscal versus the Executive Committee of the council was that Strategic Fiscal is still appointed by the mayor by the committee heads that they appoint. So again, you could make that a somewhat political kind of position where the president and vice president committee the whole are all elected by this body to be our leadership. So I would think that would be a more accurate representation of this body. So I would just ask for a friendly amendment to change that to common council with input from the mayor. Well I'm just looking, I'm just looking by me at number five under there where essential duties and responsibilities where if we leave consults with the mayor on emergent matters requiring policy decisions, there again, I don't know if I'm comfortable with that. Baldwin-Hammond? Again, I would reiterate this individual still has to work with the mayor and consults does that mean take direction from? It just means get input from. It's impossible and I think very short-sighted to think that we're gonna be able to cut the mayor out of this process entirely. Still an elected official of the city of Sheboygan and should have some input in what goes on in the day-to-day basis. So again, the consults or input from gives the mayor the ability to still function in city government. And I don't think there's anything wrong with a city administrator who again represents this body also consulting with the mayor on policy matters that affect the city overall. I would agree with you if it said American direct but consulting does not in any way, shape or form provide a direct line of authority. Thank you. Gene, what is the, I just wanna ask one more question of the council is the council comfortable with going ahead with appointing director and modio to this position for years or do we want to make him or the other alternative that I suggested before is why not keep the finance director and just make him acting chief administrative officer reporting to us all the diversity suggested the council. I think the only issue I would have with that is the finance director's current job description is that it reports to the mayor. So now you've got him doing a position that reports to the mayor and a position that reports to the council. And again, to me, it just doesn't make any sense. He's gonna fill out the rest of his appointment and we can continue to move forward from there. I think that creates even a bigger mess because again, he's now a master of two puppets and that just isn't efficient at all. Can't we have the finance director report to the chief administrator officer only? He's gonna report to himself? And the council, well, yeah, okay, I got you. Who's, I got a flashing light here. I got Alderman Van Ackron again. I guess I would just like to once again call the question on the amendment and the passage. First, I believe first, we'd have to vote on the amendment that would make the chief administrative officer report to the common council. With input from the mayor. Input from the mayor. Second. Second. We've already got a second over here. Second. Any further discussion? Please call the roll. Belt. Aye. Oren. Aye. Carlson. Aye. Decker. Aye. Common. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Koff. Aye. Kittleson. Says aye. Grin. Reisler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Ackron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Anniversary. Aye. It's Corby here. We have 13. I am. 13 ayes. Motion carries. Motion carries. Now we have to vote on the document. We're just voting on the amendment, so now we're gonna be voting on 1163. We have a motion and a second to pass as amended. Please call the roll. Belt. Aye. Oren. Aye. Carlson. Aye. Decker. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Koff. No. Kittleson. Says aye. Reisler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Ackron. Aye. Vanderweel. Bursi. Aye. 12 ayes. Motion passes or document passes. Next we move on to document numbers, our item number 16, council document number 1162. An ordinance creating division five of article three of chapter two of the missile code relating to the position of chief administrative officer. Alderman Hammond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the ordinance to be put upon its passage. Second. We have a motion and a second to put the general ordinance upon its passage. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll. Belt. Aye. Oren. Aye. Carlson. Aye. Decker. Aye. Hammond. Aye. Kath. No. Kittleson says aye. Racler. Aye. Samson. Aye. Van Ackron. Aye. Vanderweel. Aye. Bursi. Aye. And again, we have 12 ayes, one no. General ordinance passes. Next we have item number 17, and that is council document number 1158, which passed the council on 9-6-11, a resolution establishing the position of chief administrative officer for the city of Sheboygan. And I just put a note on here because I knew we were gonna have a lot of discussion on this tonight, and that was a discussion on the comfort level of the older persons regarding the effective date of 12, I'm sorry, 10-111 after our discussions this evening. So the reason I put that on there before I open it up for discussion is I figured we were gonna have a lot of discussion on this, and what were we gonna do, and did we feel comfortable on moving ahead on 10-1? I guess my opinion anyway, before we open it up for discussion, these passed pretty convincingly, and we've had a discussion, so I guess my comfort level would be to move ahead with it December 1st, but that's my opinion. I've only got one vote. Is there any other discussion? Fix my light. Alderman Hammond. You meant October 1st, right? October 1st. Yeah, October 1st, it's getting late. Yes it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, the reason for the October 1st, again, because we already had the position in-house, or the person in-house, it allows us to get to that position much more quickly and get that individual operating in that position a lot more quickly. As we're going through budget time, again, the fewer distractions, the better. So again, that was the reason for the 10-1 starting date. There won't be any salary change for this position for the rest of the year. So we're just sliding him into that position. So it's for this year. Make a motion. It's already passed. It's a resolution. It's a resolution. Oh, it's a discussion too. I'm just clarifying. Okay. So then shut up. Thank you, Alderman Hammond. Yes, I just put it out. I know I mentioned that it did pass at the last council meeting, but I wanted to revisit it. It's to revisit it because of the further discussion we were having tonight. So there's no action on that. It's already passed. It's just for discussion. So where are we on the agenda here? We're number 20 to set the next meeting date and that's already posted for tonight, tomorrow night. Thursday, September 15th at 7.30 or immediately following the Festival Foods Open House. There are any other city committee meeting, city of Sheboygan committee meeting. There's a separate, Alderman, I mean, attorney, what's your name? I have a motion there, almost. Just clarify, during the recess, I checked the statutes on what vote it would require or what the number of electors it would require for a referendum and 7% of the votes cast at the last gubernatorial election. I think for the recall, it's 25% of the votes cast, so it's a lot smaller number. I also double-checked you can adopt a charter ordinance and have that before it takes effect, submit it to a referendum of the electorate and if the electorate approves it, then it becomes effective, so that that might be what you want it to consider doing. Thank you. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Let's get them around to it.