Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN MAY 6, 2019 SPECIAL MEETING held Monday, May 6, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall Mayor Palmeri presided. PRESENT: Council Members Deb Allison-Aasby, Steven Herman, Jake Krause, Matt Mugerauer, and Mayor Lori Palmeri EXCUSED: Council Member Bob Poeschl ALSO PRESENT: Mark Rohloff, City Manager; Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk; and Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBER Mr. Rohloff explained Ms. Lorenson had prepared a memo, providing Council with a general background of the process for selecting a new Council Member, which included soliciting applications, forwarding applications to Council in the agenda packet and applicant presentations to Council. He stated the introduction of a request to allow video presentations had resulted in multiple questions as it did not follow the normal process. He indicated the City Clerk had requested input in regards to the questions to be provided to the individual completing a video presentation, and Mayor Palmeri had responded with two questions. He explained City staff wanted to ensure they were following Council's collective direction. Mayor Palmeri stated the two questions she had submitted came from the recent revisions to the applications for boards and commissions. She explained they included whether there were conflicts of interest and what boards and commissions, in the public and private sector, the individual may be part of. She requested an explanation of the timeline that had been prepared. Ms. Ubrig explained on May 1st she had provided Council with the names of the individuals who had requested video presentations and May 3rd was the deadline to provide questions. She stated she had received two questions from Mayor Palmeri. She PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 explained the deadline for applications was May 91h at 10:00 a.m. and the names would be released at that time. She stated on May 101h the applications would be provided to Council. She explained the deadline for submitting video presentations was May 131h by 4:30 p.m. Council Member Allison-Aasby stated when an individual took out nomination papers for Council or Mayor, it became public record prior to the deadline of turning in the signatures. She explained she had questioned why Council was not able to know the names of those who applied as they came in. She stated she had a conversation with Ms. Ubrig who explained the reasoning behind the process. She explained she believed Council should know the applicant information prior to the public, and Ms. Ubrig had provided an insightful answer to that thought as well. She requested a recap of the conversation. Ms. Ubrig explained her perspective was that when individuals took out nomination papers in December, signatures were gathered and submitted in January, and those names then appeared on a ballot for the citizens to select an individual to serve on the Council. She stated in this process, she viewed the applicants as finalists until the deadline, at which time Council, as the panel, would make a selection. Ms. Lorenson stated providing the applications to Council would result in them being provided to the public. She explained it could give an applicant an advantage if they waited to submit their application and viewed the information that other applicants had provided. She stated there had already been one applicant who withdrew their name from consideration. Council Member Allison-Aasby explained she had questioned why the information was not public record if it was submitted to City Hall. Ms. Ubrig indicated there was a procedural process and a policy process. She stated she viewed the applicant selection process as procedure, as it did not meet the threshold to become a public record until the deadline of 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 91h Council Member Allison-Aasby stated Ms. Ubrig had explained if media called, she would respond in the same manner, and the information would not be released until May 91h at 10:01 a.m. Ms. Ubrig agreed. Council Member Allison-Aasby explained two of the applicants had been revealed via 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 social media and stated she did not know how such a concern could be fixed. She stated there had been recent discussion about holding a special election as opposed to an appointment process. She explained that would result in a much longer process. She stated she had experienced Council appointments twice in her time on Council and this time seemed different. She explained she appreciated the meeting to clarify the process for Council and the public. Mr. Rohloff stated City staff had recognized the benefit of holding a special meeting to discuss the process due to the amount of questions surrounding the topic. He explained this way Council would be prepared for the upcoming Council meeting and candidate selection. Council Member Mugerauer stated he had a similar conversation with Ms. Ubrig regarding the release of the applicant names. He explained it was his opinion that the moment an application was submitted, it was public record. He stated he appreciated Ms. Ubrig's responsiveness, although he disagreed with the conclusion. He explained he had been under the assumption that the names would be released prior to the deadline. He stated shortly after the new Council Member was appointed, he would like to see the topic listed on an agenda as direction to City staff so the process could be tweaked. He questioned at what point the presentations and appointment would occur during the Council meeting on May 141h and if the applicants would be prepared for the agenda that would follow if the appointment occurred in the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Rohloff stated each applicant would be provided a copy of the agenda to be prepared in the event that they were appointed to Council. Ms. Ubrig explained the presentations and appointment occurred early in the agenda. She stated once the selection was made, the individual would be sworn in and take their seat at the dais as a Council Member. Council Member Krause explained he was disappointed in the process and would have liked to have been given the names as they were submitted. He stated he believed releasing the names may encourage other people to apply if they disagreed with an applicant. He explained he believed it would result in the best applicant pool. He stated he hoped in the future names would be provided ahead of time. Council Member Herman explained this would be his fourth experience with a vacant seat appointment and he believed allowing the video presentation had disrupted the process. He stated he believed the process had become more complicated, with reference to a cover letter and applicants providing additional information. He explained he was 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 uncertain where that was coming from as he did not believe it was in the policy. Ms. Lorenson stated it was included in the ordinance, however, prior Councils had accepted just applications. Council Member Herman explained it was his understanding they would not receive the applications until the Council packets were prepared on Friday, May 101h, however, the names would be released earlier. Ms. Ubrig stated the names would be released at 10:01 a.m. on May 91h Council Member Herman questioned why Council could not receive the applications at that time to allow them as much time as possible to review the information. Mr. Rohloff stated they could be electronically forwarded at that time. Council Member Herman stated he believed it was another situation in which Council was not provided information until Friday and City staff wanted a decision on Tuesday. He explained Council Members often had obligations during the weekend and providing the materials sooner would allow for a more thorough review of the applications. He stated he would appreciate information sooner on other important decisions as well. Mr. Rohloff explained with technological capabilities, the applications would be able to be provided electronically on May 91h Council Member Herman stated the media may have more information than Council if the applications were not provided to Council upon the release of the names. Mr. Rohloff agreed. He explained some individuals had already posted on social media that they had applied. Council Member Herman stated Council may receive phone calls from the public indicating a preference for a candidate, and Council would not be aware of who had applied. Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned if applicants were provided any sort of guidelines when they received the application. Mr. Rohloff stated no; he explained City staff used a press release and advertisement to solicit applications. He stated some individuals provided a resume while others did not. 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 He explained City staff had not used that to exclude anyone. He stated the City used specific guidelines during the application process for City jobs,however, that criteria was not used in this instance. He explained whatever was submitted would be forwarded to Council. Council Member Allison-Aasby stated she agreed that after the appointment the process should be reviewed, due to the prominence of social media and improvement of technology. She explained Council could plan for various scenarios and would then be better prepared when unique situations came up. She stated while Council could not tell an individual not to post to social media about their application, it could be recommended that they avoid doing so to prevent any kind of advantage or disadvantage. Council Member Krause explained anyone could post to Facebook or Twitter, therefore applicants still had a level playing field. He questioned how many applications had been submitted so far. Ms. Ubrig stated approximately seven. Mr. Rohloff explained an individual had already withdrawn their application, which was one of the reasons City staff preferred to wait until the deadline to release the names. Mayor Palmeri reviewed the memo from Ms.Lorenson to provide Council and the public with an expectation of what would happen during the Council meeting on May 141n Council Member Krause questioned if all of the applicants would present prior to Council asking questions, or if it would immediately follow each individual's presentation. Ms. Lorenson stated in the past, questions had been asked immediately after each individual's presentation. Council Member Krause questioned how the order of applicants was determined. Ms. Ubrig stated a drawing of names would occur, similar to how names were drawn for ballot placement. Council Member Krause questioned if more than two nominations could occur at the same time, resulting in the top two from the vote being the finalists. Ms. Lorenson stated that was the way it had been proposed based on what had happened 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 in the past. Council Member Krause stated it was his understanding if a Council Member had an individual they were interested in appointing, it would be important to nominate them in the first round, otherwise they would be eliminated. Mr. Rohloff stated that was possible. Council Member Krause explained he wanted to make sure everyone had their opportunity to nominate the candidate who stood out in their opinion. Mr. Rohloff reviewed various scenarios and how Council would be able to eliminate candidates. Council Member Krause questioned if there was a 3:3 vote in the first round, if nominations could continue or if another vote would occur. Mayor Palmeri stated the nomination process could be re-started if necessary. Council Member Krause explained he was hopeful there would be more than two good candidates. Mr. Rohloff stated it had been indicated in the memo that in the event of a tie, or other failure to obtain a majority, Council had the ability to re-vote or re-start the nomination process. Council Member Allison-Aasby questioned if a Council Member had the ability to nominate more than one candidate. Council Member Herman stated it was his understanding that each Council Member had an opportunity to nominate one candidate, and once each Council Member had a turn, additional candidates could be nominated. Ms. Lorenson explained if Council would like to add that to the rules it should be done ahead of time so expectations were clear going into the process. Council Member Herman stated he had reviewed Robert's Rules of Order which indicated Council Members were able to nominate one individual and once each Council Member had their opportunity they could nominate an additional person. 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL—MAY 6, 2019 Mayor Palmeri questioned if that would mean there would be a second round of calling for nominations. Council Member Herman stated there would be the potential for that to occur. Ms. Lorenson explained it was an item that Council could decide; Council would need to provide direction to City staff for any rules they wished to include. Council Member Herman clarified that a Council Member could not nominate two individuals at the same time. Mr. Rohloff stated Council did not formally recognize Robert's Rules of Order therefore if that was how Council would like to proceed, they would need to provide direction to City staff. Council Member Herman explained he believed that process would be fair. Mayor Palmeri questioned if Council was in agreement to provide that direction to City staff. Mr. Rohloff stated it was his understanding that each Council Member would be allowed to make one nomination; if a Council Member wished to make more than one nomination, they would need to wait until each Council Member had an opportunity to nominate a candidate. Council Member Krause questioned if the nominations would require a second. Mr. Rohloff stated he believed City staff had anticipated a second not being required, similar to the selection of the Deputy Mayor. MOTION: ADJOURN (Allison-Aasby; second, Herman) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 5:26 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 7