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.