- Well, thank you so much for being here. I'll call to order the special session of the Bloomington Common
- Council on the date today, March, March 11th, 2026. Our honorable clerk. We please read the call the
- roll. Council member Flaherty Stossberg Zulek here. Sorry. Here. Daily here. Rollo here. Ruff here.
- And Rosenberger here.
- Okay, well today and this the special session is a short one when them will transition into a deliberation
- session I'll be honest we had ambitions the the four of us at the hiring committee to be able to Before
- this meeting come to an agreement about what we wanted all of the job descriptions to look like and
- to have those for you but we did not come to an agreement about that instead what we have today is a
- little bit of a
- According to our charge we have four options of things that we can at least discuss whether we want
- to move those forward Now so that they can inform how we want to progress with the job descriptions
- Of course, we don't have to make a decision on that today But but that's that that is what the committee
- is prepared to do today. So So what we'll do here is just a very quick
- Very quick sort of update on on our last meeting And then and then we'll present the we've come up with
- four different options We'll present those options and then hopefully have just some some discussion
- and if we do come to an agreement then that will help us Move forward with crafting the job description.
- So I'll start and then please councilmember Rallo and and Zulu, please feel free to
- jump in at any time. The way that we see it is that we have, as I said, four possibilities. The first
- one is obvious is the status quo, which is just keep things as they are. We have three lines. Keep them
- in those three lines. You have a lawyer administrator, a deputy lawyer administrator, and then some
- type of a legal researcher. Choice number two
- is the idea of separating the administrative functions from the legal functions. Of course, there are
- some administrative functions that overlap with legal functions, like preparing, for example, legislation.
- But the main gist of choice two is to separate these two roles.
- The question that that begs is, where does that administrator then sit? The option that we're proposing
- is that that person would sit in the clerk's office. We could talk about what that would be called,
- but you could think of that as a council project manager, a chief
- clerk for council liaising Chief administrator something like that But that person would be in the clerk's
- office and then we would maintain our two lawyers who would just be lawyers Option three, please add
- to that one of the things that we discussed about just in terms of housing one of Well housing someone
- who was previously a council staff in the clerk's office is there was a little bit of concern that we
- might lose some autonomy so I just want everyone to know that this is not a
- Person that would be making decisions on behalf of council. This is just a person that would be doing
- a lot of the labor that Goes into creating a council meeting whether that be packet preparation or like
- assisting with scheduling those types of things So, please don't interpret this as we're giving up something
- Thank you the third option was a hybrid of option one and two
- which is something along the lines of instead of having that third line be a full-time legal researcher
- is turning that into two part-time roles. Of course, a lot of extra work would be required to do that,
- one of whom would sit in the clerk's office with the role that we just described and another who would
- fulfilled the duties of a legal researcher with the other two positions staying more or less the same
- with a light and administrative load.
- And then our fourth option, I don't think any of us liked, but it's sort of thinking about shifting
- where the responsibilities within the status quo might lay, which is namely to put more of the administrative
- burden on the person who's currently the deputy. Now this has precedent, and then everybody else staying
- the same. This does have precedent prior with Dan Sherman when, and her name is escaping me, but we had
- a lawyer who was not yet a licensed attorney, that's when we first had this legal researcher job. That
- job was then upgraded when she got her license, and then that's how we ended up with a deputy attorney
- and a lawyer.
- sort of chief attorney and so so so that would be the fourth idea is something like Re-shifting amongst
- amongst the the three positions that we already have some of the roles and responsibilities In a way
- that you put more of the administration on the deputy than on the then on the lead legal person So those
- are the four four Ideas anything that I'm missing councilmember Rallo Yes. Well, I have a different
- recollection actually and that is and you know, my opinion is that
- variation of the current scheme schemata of the council office my main concern is autonomy of the council
- office and That I would like to keep our duties in-house And so I thought one of the options was to
- have an attorney Hired but not a administrator per se but an attorney and
- that would then direct a deputy attorney slash administrator that would have under them a legal researcher
- for the work that we needed in order to investigate and work on legislation and an additional assistant
- for administration, somebody who could do the work that is more clerical
- in nature, you know putting together the essentials of the packet and You know making sure rooms are
- reserved or you know, what whatever charges other charges are necessary for For just the day-to-day
- administration. So You know my my contention is to try to keep it in house because I think that we have
- limited power as a council and I would hate to have
- I mean, what I see is a potential for conflict. If we have somebody who is directed by the clerk to
- assemble packets and there's a problem with the packet, whose responsibility is that fall on? Who does
- the higher firing? How do we work out the details of this person's role that directly affects council work?
- So that's my contention keep it in-house and if we're going to add an extra FTE and ask the mayor for
- that I think that we should it should be for our office. We have a very limited staff. Thanks.
- Thank you Okay, so so with that the yeah, please councilmember clarity. Can I ask you to clarify the
- third option again? I'm not sure I fully followed number of staff roles where they sit and what they're
- So there's there's lots of lots of variations of how it could work But the basic the basic tenet is
- go from three lines to two full lines and two part-time lines And then lots of different ways that you
- can arrange what those two those two part-time lines are Got it So in the second option are we keeping
- the legal researcher because you mentioned keeping the legal researcher I
- No, so within rid of the legal researcher. Yeah, so keeping so keeping the three lines But turn it but
- but turning the third one into an administrator that would sit in the clerk's office Councilman Flaherty
- and I assume Like I don't know if it's still called this but like service core fellows and things like
- that sort of live outside this we're only talking Staff with yeah. Yep. And and yeah, that's another
- Question to be answered. I think later which is sort of where might you know Maybe that expands our
- capability to receive more service Corps fellows and the type the like like wonderful Michael But you
- know thinking about sort of where they would sit and be Councilmember Rosenberg. Hi, I'm sorry. I'm
- not seeing this. Is this a memo that I can know there wasn't one and sorry, I Guess I know I mean I
- mostly like I cannot wrap my mind around these
- Do you all not have anything in writing that can be passed on to us? No. Did you read something out
- for this? No. Apologies. I guess I just thought I missed it. Do you just want to go through them all
- again? Sure. I'm sorry, everybody. I have nothing to look at. No problem. So we have three lines. And
- option one is keep the three lines as they are.
- Option two is change line three, which is our legal researcher, to being an administrator that would
- sit in the clerk's office. Option three is to break up line three into two people part-time.
- Option four, what was option four? I forgot. So option three, the two part-time, one would live in the
- clerk's office and one would live in the council's office.
- the is to split up is to split up line three and then and then option four was to re realign
- the administrative functions within the status quo. So move those to the deputy administrator rather
- than rather than to the chief legal person move administrator to deputy.
- Daily and then councilman Flaherty Just a quick question then on your thoughts on how that plays out
- because you had said when you're talking about them that option four was the least Attractive one Why
- yeah, we just didn't think that it I mean and you all tell me if you feel differently but I think at
- the time when we met just yesterday we didn't feel like the like that really solves any
- I think it just shifts the burden from one from one position to another so So I mean we were presenting
- it as an option because it was something we discussed but none of us particularly liked that option
- Well, I did okay. I like that option Dave loved that option I mean it's worked before it worked for
- three years under Dan Sherman. It worked for several years under Stephen Lucas The idea of the deputy
- having all of the administrative
- Most of it fell on actually was it was sort of a team effort. I think it was shared but yeah, it would
- be more of the you know, you know, we I think we were told if I'm not mistaken that You know, we can't
- hire an administrator. We can hire an attorney Yeah, and so the attorney that we hire Should be able
- to sort this out and in the past it's been sorted out by having the deputy attorney be
- Administrative duties in this case they could share they could have that burden and I think that we
- should do what we should do is advocate for another At least half FTE or maybe a full to do administrative
- work that would help the deputy but we need a full-time legal researcher I mean I think that for in
- my experience for the council office to work optimally with the various ideas that we all have about
- legislation and
- You know, we are nine people that would be required, you know, this person would be required to do legal
- research potentially for nine people. And I think that that's asking a lot. So that's my contention
- is that leave it as it is and modify it maybe after we hire an attorney. Let them sort it out once they
- assume the duties of the office and see what their needs are.
- Excellent, thank you so much, Councillor Fleming. Are we just in sort of open discussion slash questions?
- Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, attorneys are legal researchers. They're very good at it, and they can
- do more than that and develop legislation and other things. And so I think the attractiveness of approach
- two, which fully separates the administrative function fully, I don't know if that can be quite fully
- done. I guess I'm curious about that a little bit, that if we have two full-time attorneys where their
- main focus is
- the legal work of helping us understand the legal context and contours of the legislation that we're
- receiving, helping us develop legislation. That seems like a large capacity out on the legal support
- front, and it also seems, I guess, in that context, I'm worried about our, I know it did work, I think
- it was Stacey Jane Rhodes and then Steven Lucas for a time, but I think we'll be hard pressed to retain
- barred attorneys who have a substantial administrative function much past the first year or two of their
- career. I don't think that's what most attorneys went to law school to do. That's a concern I have,
- I guess, sort of using the old approach, I guess. Additionally, it seems like the administrative burdens
- of the office have increased substantially since, say, five to ten years ago for a variety of reasons.
- you know, accessibility laws, you know, the, I don't know, maybe just the pace of activity, you know,
- the management of online meetings, just a bunch of stuff, right? And I'm wondering if that came up in
- the committee's discussions at all and how you all were thinking about that. And honestly, even if one
- FTE sitting in the clerk's office is enough to handle all the administrative duties. And then final
- question as related to did you consider that is how the chain of command or like interplay between the
- You know the lead attorney for the council's office and the administrative person sitting in the clerk's
- office how that would work I mean it can they can they assign things would it be done jointly with the
- clerk? How would that function? Thank you Do you want to take you want to take that city? Okay, Dave.
- Do you want to talk about that first? Yeah Well, you know how I see it is by having the administrator
- in the in the clerk's office We're setting ourselves up for a potential conflict conflict in packet
- preparation for one thing
- The other is that I would like an administrator in-house that's responsible for our budget and responsible
- for scheduling. So we have scheduling meetings, I think, every Tuesday still. Okay, we have scheduling
- meetings with the administration. I expected that that person should answer the council, not the clerk.
- So that is an administrative duty that I would hope that would fall within
- domain of the council, as well as the budget, as well as the packet preparation, to at least a major
- extent. Because otherwise, I think we're setting ourselves up for a conflict. Thank you. I think to
- answer the question, yes, we did discuss it. And I think, as Councilmember Arreola just illustrated,
- this is part of the reason why we needed to bring the discussion to a larger group. Because I think
- that was the big contention point, is it's that I think
- I think we all get your exact point of, and this is also something that our past
- our past attorney stroke administrators, including Steven Lucas, have all shared. They were like,
- you know, the burden of administration is increasing. And so, you know, how do we lessen that burden
- or share that burden in a better way? But the question that we don't have an answer to is like, okay,
- well, what does happen if that person's in the clerk's office and they then serve at the pleasure of
- the clerk? How do we
- have them, like what charges can be given, how do they work together with the attorneys, with counsel,
- like a lot of those type of questions I think we need to iron out if we're of the opinion that we'd
- want to move this position to the clerk's office. There's another caveat, which is, I mean,
- we sort of, by process of elimination, assumed that the place where you put it is the clerk's office.
- I mean, could be somewhere else, I guess, but I don't know if there's a better option than the clerk's
- office, but yeah.
- Well, I'm also kind of.
- So I guess a few things are going through my mind. One is I feel like we're talking about administrative
- function and administrative burden and putting it all together in like one bunch of stuff. And I think
- there's lots of different pieces of administration and there's some that would have to stay with our
- staff. And so ironing out and understanding what would need to stay with our staff and what could go
- with maybe a more dedicated administrative person would be really important. And I guess I would kind
- of wonder in terms of like
- What maybe you know in terms of packet preparation in terms of some of the accessibility stuff in terms
- of some of that like scheduling piece and that kind of like calendaring stuff I feel like that that
- person could potentially make more sense to go underneath the administration somewhere or out of the
- mayor's office somewhere because I mean the
- Don't know if I'm assuming the legislative assistant in the mayor's office still comes to the scheduling
- meetings But it and especially when it comes to I mean the stuff that goes into our Wednesday packets
- I mean it comes from the administration and then also has to go through You know this process of our
- attorneys reading it to make sure that there's not something going wrong with it and they would still
- need to do that and
- and it would almost make more sense to go, okay, well then if this person who's then preparing the packet,
- and packet preparation's also gonna have to change because of accessibility in terms of links and things.
- I don't know if that has been discussed as a where, does it make sense to put that person
- That office. What does the administration think about that? The same questions maybe could arise in
- terms of that like structure and reporting structure, but because clerk staff all report to the clerk
- in this very Structured way according to code and according to state code Like I'm kind of with councilmember
- Rollo. It makes me kind of uncomfortable. Mm-hmm
- to put somebody who's essentially a dedicated staff member for counsel into the clerk's office and I
- guess I may be less uncomfortable putting that into the administration somewhere because so much of
- the stuff that goes in the packet is coming from the administration already in terms of ordinances and
- Reports and all of those pieces like that person communicate could would communicate so much with different
- departments and
- Different people in different departments who come to us for things. Yep Okay. Yeah, so I have a couple
- of thoughts of that and also clerk McDowell at any point. Feel free to also a pine Go ahead council
- member Zulek. Oh, I just have a couple um, I
- We did schedule our next hiring committee meeting for Tuesday at 5 p.m. And so we are planning to discuss
- the job responsibilities if we are able to identify which option that we wanted to go to go with tonight
- and so part of the reason that some of those questions are unanswered is because we haven't like we
- will be discussing it and
- after this. And I think that you raise a good point as well, which is these things sort of go together.
- We sort of stalled at the very thing that we're stalling at here yesterday at our meeting. But obviously,
- once we approve, once you all, we all, as a body approve the actual job descriptions, I think it does
- maybe help us tease out some of what are the duties that we're really talking about.
- you know, in both cases. So maybe some of that just gets teased out as we go. But just a general sense
- in the room though, I mean, are we all, do we all generally share the idea that part of, and I'm sorry,
- that's a leading question, but like, I don't know how to ask it in any other way, sorry, being too colloquial.
- Do you disagree with the idea that we want to separate the administration the administrative functions
- from our the the attorneys that we would hire like the the bulk of the clerical elements of of those
- administrative functions anybody disagree with that point see Councilor rough I'm not saying I necessarily
- disagree with it. But as Councilor Rosenberger said I I saw nothing about this yet You know, this is
- This is proposing makings potentially some very dramatic changes to some complex interactions and workings
- to get legislation and Council business done There's no way between now. I'll just tell you nothing
- between now next Tuesday I'm going to feel comfortable that we're going to put some changes
- based on ties discussion into a New job description or to somehow apply it to the job search starting
- now and and I don't necessarily agree That there is a significant amount of work that needs to be shifted
- away From council staff the way it has been as has been pointed out It worked extreme it's worked for
- a long time That doesn't mean there can't it can't be improved
- Doesn't mean it can't be tweaked but to just charge in and and make dramatic changes when There's really
- not evidence that the system was broken Right and you know, I I still talk with Stephen Lucas and It
- wasn't The primary reason of his of his leaving would had nothing to do with the work-life balance I
- So my strong feeling Based on the very limited information and I've had about this in the short time.
- We've had to think about it and discuss it is With this job search which we need to start pretty soon
- We should move forward with what the current we have job descriptions, you know, we have something to
- move forward with now We make the hire
- We use that time as has been described by think some of my fellow council members tonight. We use that
- time to work with that person How can we how can we decide exactly what all what duties are? Problematic
- or could be moved best or what they're most comfortable. I just like we'll need that input We got my
- instinct is go with what we've got. We've got something that we know has worked for decades Not perfectly
- or flawlessly
- But to go in and just dramatically change it When we don't really know none of us have done that all
- that work that work that goes on behind the scenes to to make our work happen and I I'm totally opposed
- to any dramatic changes this quickly and not involving someone who's directly
- participated or will be participating as and maybe our new hire in Distribute to figure now how we're
- going to do this how a better way might be to shift some of the duties around That's how I feel.
- So thank you. Thank you so much. I'm comes from resilient Thank you. Well, I think we should consider
- the circumstances of the different staff that we've had Dan Sherman served for a very
- Served for quite a long time and so he had a long time to be able to acclimate to the position and Steve
- and Lucas was fortunate enough to come up through the council staff and Operate in the council office
- for multiple years before he eventually became attorney And so I'm concerned that if we leave it as
- the status quo that a new attorney might not have those same
- skill sets because a lot of those skills are going to be developed on the job. So I don't have a specific
- answer but I just want to point that out and also just point out that we did one of our options is to
- suggest a part-time legal researcher who could maybe fill in some of the gaps that our two attorneys
- might not be able to finish and then move or create a
- Part-time position in the clerk's office that would be just for those clerical responsibilities. So
- I think that Those are some things to keep in mind. Thank you. That's what flirty and then The best
- time to make a change of some kind would be now it's not Realistic I don't think to say we have the
- job description, you know with much respect to mr. Ruff like it's kind of rough. It's it's
- Yes, we have the job descriptions. It's almost similar arguments to council salary of all things.
- That like, you know, there's some similarities of like, well don't, you know, just go with it because
- we all knew what it was, but then it's hard to change it at a systems level if you're trying to change
- it for the next people. And that's kind of like what this is like. If we hire the positions exactly
- as they exist, that's what you hired for. Like the decision, you know, the die has been cast. Like you
- can't reformulate everything then, at least definitely not very easily.
- Arguably you could hire the attorney like if we were going with option for say Which I think was like
- mainly just attorney function for the lead attorney heavier deputy function for the second attorney
- you could hire the first one first because that may be compatible with both systems to and for and like
- give them a minute and then like Sure have their input and help, you know help help making that decision
- But I think the evidence is mixed I know I know it worked well for Dan Sherman for you know 30 year
- plus career I think
- and that we had some success with it, I also think the demands of the job administratively have shifted
- quite a bit, as I noted. So I do think we're in a changed context, and I think the recent experience
- has not been positive. And I know there's multiple factors going into all that, but I think the design
- of the office and how the positions are staffed was part of it, as I understand. So I don't feel like
- we have strong evidence of this is a successful model, and as much as it might cause us some discomfort
- weighed into uncertainty. And yes, it's high stakes in a sense. It's also always changeable. If we run
- into conflicts and it's just really not working with an administrative person housed in the clerk's
- office, we can eliminate the position and go back to what it was. I know that involves hiccups too,
- but it's kind of like a no risk, no reward thing to me. I see the benefits and opportunity of trying
- something different, and I think I favor that.
- Approach of trying to separate those functions. I like the design of option two Obviously, we have a
- diversity of opinions up here. So where we land, I don't know but Just some counterpoints. Thanks I
- think counselor Stossberg and then comes Marella I'm kind of feeling a little bit like a both and right
- now too and I'm just reading through the job description that
- We approved last year for the attorney position which is different than the one that was shared in the
- Google Drive earlier if that if anybody wasn't aware of that but most of those essential primary actually,
- I think all of the essential primary duties are all legal or supervisory and the non-essential secondary ones are
- there's only one that really falls under administrative, which is answering telephones, greeting visitors,
- et cetera, which I think anytime you work in an office, there's the chance no matter what your job,
- you're going to have to answer a phone or greet somebody in the office. So that doesn't bother me. And
- kind of looking at this, I do think that this job description is pretty good for whatever that primary
- attorney is that we
- Need in terms of somebody directing an office So I'm kind of with councilmember rough and going like
- let's get this one advertised at the very least and technically like this is the one that that we supervise
- as a body this is the one that we hire as a body and the other ones all report to this person and so
- then Cooperatively working with this person to figure out what it is that they want or what they think
- is best for them moving forward I think that that
- In some way it would take longer to maybe staff the full office. Yeah, but maybe it makes more sense
- long term And the other thing that I want to bring up is all four of these options have the assumption
- that we want to full-time attorneys, right? Do we want to fold him attorneys? Do we want but you know
- this this main person to be a full-time attorney and then do we want a part-time attorney? Right, right
- and and and then do like one and a half part-time attorneys and then like a full-time researcher and then
- Part-time Administrative person like I guess I feel like there's like other options in here. Yeah I
- mean one of the benefits that that Lisa shared with me about having two attorneys is then you can bounce
- ideas off and Have that kind of collaborative nature and that yeah that can be done with city legal,
- but you know sometimes Council what what council is looking at and what city legal is looking at are
- kind of At odds potentially depending on
- what the research is, what the thing is, and so having a second part-time attorney might actually allow
- for that, but in some ways also split off some of that administrative work or some of that, as you called
- it, like if you go to law school and you get barred, then you wanna do legal work, you don't wanna do
- administrative work, but perhaps you could have a part-time
- legal researcher that does do more of the administrative work, which I think has also been for the folks
- that we've employed for Christine, who had a lot of that related experience already. She found that
- stuff very interesting. And even that clerical stuff was still good for her. I think that Aria feels
- the same way in terms of her background, and they're not
- They're both on a track to be attorneys, but they're not there yet. This is Bloomington. There's a lot
- of people in town that might have some of those skills that can be useful in the researcher context,
- and then they would be totally fine with some of that more administrative piece as long as we have that part-time
- The thing that I don't know is whether there are attorneys out there that want like part-time Consistent
- like this as opposed to contracted and I don't like I just don't know Thank you Councilmember Rosenberger
- then roll I would say I Really want to full-time attorneys I think there's a lot of legal work that
- I've been that's been held up because it hasn't there's been like zero time to get it done I mean, I
- understand if we try to
- make space and take packet production off our attorney's plate. It can be different but I think there
- in our work there is a lot that an attorney has to have their eyes on no matter what at some point in
- the process. It just like really complicates everything. I will say just like
- As an attorney, I think that I haven't been able to get my questions like asked and answered by anyone
- in our office other than the attorneys. So like the legal researchers don't have, I think that experience
- and even sometimes our attorneys don't have the experience, right? And so we're all looking it up. And
- I think having two full-time attorneys, I think is really important. I do also wonder if,
- whatever, if anything, we do part-time, if it just limits the applicant pool. I mean, that could really
- go either way, so I think it's just something to consider. I have said for a long time, since before
- we hired our last two staff, that I don't think we have enough hours of workers in the office, and I
- would opt for, I kind of just lost my, oh, it closed, an option four with,
- I forget what option for is it's the the redistribution essentially. I would just add that person in
- as a new a fourth employee in the council office. I think I'd like look forward to potentially in the
- next year and a half being able to write legislation. And I think right now we don't have attorneys
- to do it. And there's like so many proceed even with the new.
- with the mayor only being two years old here like there's so there's been so many procedural questions
- right. And so I just I like the idea of another staff person and I think to me that's almost easiest
- to get going. I mean I hear what council member Ruff is saying and then Stossberg that our
- the job description right now doesn't have a lot in it. That's not legal. I mean I even thought though about
- develop submits and executes the budget. I mean what if like that job gets switched to an operations
- administrative person. But then this job is still to like approve the final budget right. Like I don't
- know things that could be taken off but with approval of this position I guess.
- Okay, we'll go to Councilman Zulik. We just have about five minutes, and we don't have to make any decisions
- today anyways, because we already have a charge. Nine whole minutes, great. We already have a charge,
- just reminding you of two things. We already have a charge that we've all, I see, I see, I see. Oh yeah,
- I said you were before Zulik, so yeah, so Rolla and then Zulik. But we already have a charge, so we
- don't have to take up any vote today or anything like that.
- one of the things in the charge is that you will all see the job description before they go out. So
- you can be easy with that. But go ahead, Council Member Rowley. So I'm trying to establish points of
- agreement with my colleagues, and I happen to agree broadly with a lot of things that have been said.
- One thing that was said by Council Member Stasberg is that there are non-essential duties that
- are administrative that could be shifted.
- and that's logical. There's probably little hazard in doing that and it could actually be the administrative
- role to do that. So that's possible. However, again, it comes down to in an office you have a hierarchy
- and you have expectations and if those aren't fulfilled then you have a chain of command that you look
- to. If we divide duties then you end up with potential conflict
- That to me is still unresolved, but the non-essential duties are essentially I think I'm Relatively
- at peace with that and I want to explore that more Statute says that we can hire an attorney according
- to Corporation Council Margie Rice. It's silent on hiring an administrator doesn't say one way or another
- Apparently some cities have in any case it seems to me that in the past as it could be going forward a
- those administrative duties could be shared, could be shared on the relative importance and complexity
- at various levels within the office. If I understood Councilman Rosenberger, you were saying whatever
- number of the scheme, you said number four, but I took that to mean attorney, deputy attorney, administrator,
- legal researcher and then another FTE that would be involved in administrative work. Is that correct?
- Okay, because that's what I favor, too. I think that we should have two full-time attorneys. I think
- that it's important to have a backup, and it's also, in my experience, a collaborative and reaching
- agreement on things that have levels of complexity and controversy is helpful to have two attorneys
- collaborating and consulting
- with each other but the main thing is that there are things that I would be really Regretful if certain
- administrative duties like scheduling and oversight the oversight of the packet and the council budget
- were to be in a different Where to be outside the council office? I mean those things are essential
- that we should be controlling It seems to me and if we're gonna create another FTE want to do it in
- the council office I mean we've been
- You know, we haven't asked for much have we? For years and it seems to me that we and that another FTE
- is needed because we're all in agreement more work is happening and we have zooming and things like
- that, so Thank you. Thank you councillor. Well, it just might be worth reaching out to our public access
- counselor on whether or not we actually can hire Okay, we don't Well if there were any experts But I
- think that
- The question that we need answered is whether or not we can hire a non-attorney in our office or someone
- who's not meant for legal research Thoughts here Just to say I forgot to add I'm happy with the current
- job description Thank You customer rough. Yeah, I just want to make one Observation or ask a question
- of my colleagues that made this point. So I heard that
- People say well you you you we don't use the current job description for this next hire because then
- you can't really change it once You know you make the hiring things are going yet at the same time.
- I heard someone say Well, if we choose option two and move some of the duties to the clerk's office
- and it's not working Then we can just change it. Well that involves the council's office staff that
- we're gonna be hiring so I don't see the difference in
- Really substantively between saying well, we could change it in one way, but then we can't change it
- this way councilmember daily I was just gonna circle back to something that councilmember Flaherty said
- a while ago I think I understood what he was saying was that you know our our attorneys They're in legal.
- They do research that is their job. So I guess I'm wondering and this might be totally shaking up the
- snow globe What? Oh
- Thank you. Sorry, and this might be totally shaking things up But maybe we don't need to have then that
- third role that legal researcher if we have attorneys who are doing that and then turn that into an
- administrative role Just throwing yet another thought on the table I don't know if that's what you were
- getting at and if I'm way off base, I apologize Yeah, sure very briefly 100% agree We need the question
- answered about the administrative role if it can be in the council office great do it Maybe to call
- the cities that do that
- And yeah, use corporation counsel to assist us. But I think just to briefly distinguish following Mr.
- Ruff's comments, Council Member Ruff's comments, I think if it's an administrative role that isn't working
- in service to our attorneys, that's very different than saying this doesn't work, we needed a different
- administrative function, than telling our lead attorney that your job description isn't what we want
- anymore and we're just gonna change it and you can keep your job or not. It feels to me like it's a
- total office restructure
- versus like I Don't know making it. I guess it feels like different in scale of like how to make adjustments.
- That's all Okay, we have two minutes. So any last comments? Councilmember Rosenberg, we do have hybrid
- positions right now. I think to I
- To get around the attorney hiring thing, I mean attorney administrator, I think we could have legal
- research and operations. I think too we talk a lot about administrative, but I think about it as like
- office management and operations, right? Pens, pencils, all the constituent services is a huge thing,
- which could also be like initial legal research for a constituent or something like that.
- I think I asked this in our last meeting but if I just couldn't find I just didn't look up the state
- code if it says we can only have the positions of attorney and legal researcher or if those are the
- people we need to hire because those are two different things. All right. Last comment. OK. Well thank
- you all. Would you something come from Salzburg. It's not worth it.
- Okay, well, the hiring committee's gonna meet on Tuesday again. Hopefully we can, from what we've heard,
- sort of get that together and make a little bit of motion here to bring it back to you all at our next
- meeting to vote on something amongst the many things in our charge. So thank you so much for the time,
- and we'll now get up and transition to the next thing. Thank you all for being here, or adjourned.