5.3. SR 03-08-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The city council has total authority over, and total accountability for, the business of the city, However, the city council is required, in some instances, by state statute and prudently decides, in others, to employ staff to carry out its' authority and to fulfill mast of its' accountability, And since the actual running of the city is substantially in the hands of management, then it is important to the council that management is successful. The city council has through its' organizational structure set up a single point of delegation, the city administrator, and holds this position accountable far meeting all the council's expectations far performance of the city's business, The council has delegated to this position all the authority that such extensive accountability deserves, Through the city administrator the council expresses its expectations for the entire organization, All the accountability of the city staff to meet the council's expectations is charged personally to the city administrator, The city council creates the city administrator, the city administrator does not create the council, The council is accountable for what the city administrator's j ob is and that the city administrator do the job well. The city administrator is neither accountable for what the council's job is nor that the council does it's job well, rn keeping with the "one voice" authority, the city council can allow no structures or practices in which the mayor or council members individually exercise authority over staff, any function of staff, or any department of staff. Such interference, even when well-intended, undermines the council's abilityto hold the city administrator accountable, since the city administrator can argue that his or her actions were taken in compliance with the mayor or individual council member's instructions. Attempts to directly supervise or direct employees, without council consent or direction, may create unintended Iegal liability for the mayor or city council members. Generally the doctrine of official immunity protects public officials from lawsuits based upon discretionary actions taken in the course of their official duties. Additionally state statute requires cities to defend and indemnify council members or any suit arising from their official duties. However, these doctrines maynot protect a mayor or council member if he or she is found to be acting outside the scope of his or her duties, In addition, it is important to note that neither immunity nor the state statute applies when a mayor or council member acts with malice or in bad faith, Aside from legal liability, attempting to directly supervise staff may also have the effect of creating confusion for staff, which may receive conflicting direction from multiple sources. This confusion may delay important city actions, create unnecessary expense, or itself be a source of legal liability. Only the council has authority over staff operations and it exercises that authority through crafted policies and directives, It is not only unnecessary, but harmful for individual council members to tell the city administrator what the council wants, for the council speaks for itself. The city administrator work for the council as a whole