Springfield voters will be asked several questions on the Nov. 3 ballot related to proposed changes to the City Charter that aim to make the city's operations more efficient. Springfield City Council sent the four proposed charter amendments to the November ballot with a vote on Monday, Aug. 10.
The City Charter acts as the city's constitution and can only be changed with voter approval. Council has adopted several priorities, among which was operational excellence. As part of this priority, a committee of city staff leaders convened to review the charter for clarity and efficiency improvements.
All four questions going to the voters in November pertain to the city's personnel-related and finance operations. Here's what they will entail.
Delegation, personnel changes
The first
question will ask voters to amend the charter to explicitly allow the city manager to delegate duties assigned to the city manager by the charter to assistant city managers; delegate ability to appoint and remove employees to assistant city managers and department directors; and authorize department directors to assign their duties to a subordinate officer or employee within that department. In all three scenarios, the city manager or department director would still remain accountable for the actions.
City Attorney Jordan Paul said the charter currently lacks explicit allowing duties to be delegated, which means each scenario is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, leading to inconsistent application over time.
The second question would adjust the merit rule adoption process. Merit rules are the section of the charter that pertains to city employee policies and procedures. Currently, the process includes three steps, with the personnel board reviewing merit rules that do not have a financial impact. If approved by voters, the charter would be amended to remove the personnel board from the process and authorize the human resources director to approve application forms in lieu of the personnel board.
The personnel board also reviews city employee disciplinary actions. This chief function of the body would not change with the charter amendments. While Paul noted that city staff could not recall the last time the board had reviewed application forms or merit rules and actually made changes, Kevin Mueller, the only resident to address council Monday, said the charter changes should be looked at more critically.
"The city tells us the personnel board rarely rejects or modifies a merit rule. That does not convince me that the safeguard should disappear," Mueller said. "A safeguard does not become unnecessary simply because it is rarely used ... Independent review has value precisely because people know that review exists. If the personnel board serves no meaningful purpose, then explain exactly why it was placed in the charter to begin with."
Purchasing process subject to changes
The third question would pertain to the city's purchasing process, which staff have said currently provides little flexibility. According to a city news release, the charter currently calls for centralized purchasing through the Finance Department, which can be challenging if the purchasing division is understaffed or overwhelmed. Paul noted that the current process set out in the charter is far too ambiguous and has led to disagreements in the past.
The charter amendment proposed would authorize council to fully establish the purchasing via ordinance, including the organizational structure, thresholds and types. The amendment would also apply the existing competitive bidding requirement to additional purchasing methods and designate the city manager as the default signatory for contracts within limits established by council, a blanket provision that the current version of the charter does not include.
"This amendment would create one clear and consistent path for purchasing, specifically it would be the city's purchasing policy," Paul said. "What would not change is the key policy underpinning this framework, which is the requirement for competitive purchasing."
Mueller noted that deferring the purchasing process to council for an ordinance directly took away from the citizens' ability to have their say. Unlike the charter, ordinances can be amended or replaced by council at any time, although they do require a public hearing.
"Voters are not merely being asked to modernize purchasing procedures; they are being asked to move some authority out of the document controlled by the people and into ordinances controlled by you, government officials," he said.
Finally, the fourth question posed to voters in November will be asking generally whether the charter's language should be changed to replace gendered pronouns and references with gender-neutral equivalents.
While these are the only charter amendments going to voters in November, Paul noted the committee of department heads is continuing to review other sections of the charter for possible adjustments in the future. He said staff are only reviewing portions pertaining to management operations, not policy questions.
The proposed amendments were first presented to council during a workshop meeting in late April. They appeared on the Monday agenda for official consideration for the first time and were voted on at the same meeting with the bill declared an emergency. The vote to send the questions to the ballot was unanimous with Councilman Craig Hosmer absent.
Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Have feedback, tips or story ideas? Contact her at mmieze@news-leader.com.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Springfield council sends several charter amendments to Nov. 3 ballot
