1/2/2024 Meeting Recap

Tuesday’s meeting had a very robust agenda as we had not met as a body since November 6, 2023 due to lack of quorum. For your information, state law requires our city clerk to post the action items from the meeting within two business days of the adjournment of a meeting. O.C.G.A. 50-14-1(e)(2)(a). Action items are the issues upon which the Council has decided to take some sort of action via a vote.

A list of the action items from Tuesday’s meeting can be found here. You can see the recording of the meeting here.

When the Action Items document says a motion was made by a councilmember, seconded by another and “the motion carried” without additional reference to how the other council members voted, the vote was unanimous.

While you can see the documentation all of the action items via the above link, I wanted to highlight and discuss in detail some of the motions that passed.

We also had a special called meeting on January 5, 2023. I’ll be sharing my thoughts about that meeting shortly.

19. Councilman Carn moved to the Administrative guidelines, seconded by Councilman Gay and motion carried.

You can see the Administrative Guidelines here.

Hard copies of the Administrative Guidelines were distributed by the city attorney immediately preceding the meeting. This item was a last-minute addition to the agenda. The city manager and I did not have an opportunity to review these guidelines prior to the meeting. They were voted on all at once and the community had no opportunity to see or comment upon these items before their passage.

There are a number of these motions that are of concern to me, but Motion 11 is, in my opinion, a change to the form of our government. Our Charter gives our city manager the power and duty to do a number of things, including:

“To exercise administrative control over all regular departments and divisions of the City of College Park, including the appointment, removal and disciplining of department heads….

…

To appoint, as required, department heads for departments authorized by the mayor and council. Department heads with the approval of the city manager shall appoint and remove all subordinate officers and employees in their respective offices and departments; provided however, they shall be guided in their actions by the City of College Park civil service laws and regulations.” (City of College Park Charter, Section 4-7.)

Motion 11 of the Administrative Guidelines that Council unanimously passed is a dramatic proposed change from our current Charter. Instead of the city manager being in charge of hiring and firing department heads and department heads being responsible for the staff within their departments, the City Council would have the authority to terminate all department heads and city employees by majority vote. While the Motion notes the city manager would have concurrent authority to do the same, any department head terminated by the city manager could appeal their firing to the Council.

This brings up a number of concerns. First, it cripples the authority of the city manager to run the day-to-day operations of the city. Every department head would essentially have at least five bosses: the city manager and the four city council members. If direction differed from those individuals, it could mean an employee could lose their job.

Imagine a scenario if a police officer who gave someone a citation for speeding received instruction from a councilmember to get rid of the ticket. That, most of us would agree, would be wrong. However, it is not outside of the realm of possibility. With this proposed charter amendment, that same councilmember could have the power with two of their colleagues to terminate that officer for doing their job.

As a general practice, elected officials being involved in the day-to-day operations of the city is not the most effective use of anyone’s time. We have subject matter experts in each of our departments to run the affairs of College Park.

I believe, and employees have expressed to me since Tuesday’s meeting, that this will have a chilling effect on our current workforce and deeply hamper our ability to recruit and retain top talent moving forward. It is not in the city’s best interest to have a staff that feels that they have to submit to the whims of individual councilmembers for fear of losing their employment.

As I said earlier, I believe this is a change to the form of our government which would require action via the state legislature. It is my understanding our city attorney has advised this is a change that can be completed via ordinance. The Georgia Municipal Association has a good explanation of how charter amendments work. Nevertheless, this change has not occurred - yet. You can voice your opinion about it to your councilmember below, or send an e-mail to all of the elected officials, including myself, here.

E-mail Councilmember McKenzie (Ward 1)

E-mail Councilmember Carn (Ward 2)

E-mail Councilmember Arnold (Ward 3)

E-mail Councilmember Gay (Ward 4)

22. Councilwoman Arnold moved to deny the Citywide Certification Incentive Pay Policy for all full-time employees, seconded by Councilman Carn and motion carried.

This would have given employees salary increases for various certifications and educational attainment. Eligible individuals would have been entitled to the incentive compensation associated with their eligible position upon presenting to the Director of Human Resources definitive proof of attainment of the approved certifications and licenses.

Professional Certifications: 5%

Professional Licensure: 5%

Associate’s Degree: 2%

Bachelor’s Degree: 3%

Master’s Degree: 4%

Doctorate Degree: 5%

Military Veteran: 5%

I am deeply concerned the denial of this policy makes us less competitive in the marketplace. It is common practice in many organizations to compensate people when they achieve greater skills and knowledge. Municipal governments across the country are struggling to fill positions. Competition is robust. Since there was little discussion on the matter, I cannot share any insight as to why the council was unanimously opposed to this proposal. I am hopeful we can revisit this issue at a later date.