- 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. Asari? Here. Daly? 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 we'll present the, we've come up with four different options. We'll present those options and
- then hopefully have just some discussion. And if we do come to an agreement, then that'll help us move
- forward with crafting the job description. So I'll start and then please, Council Member Rallo and Zulik,
- 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
- You know preparing for example legislation But but the main gist of choice two is to separate these
- two these two roles the question that that begs is where does that administrator then sit and The option
- that we're proposing is that that person would sit in the clerk's office. So we could talk about what
- that would be called but you could think of that as like a
- I don't know, council project manager, a chief clerk for council liaising, chief administrator, something
- like that. 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 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
- fulfill 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 is 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
- attorney, who that's when we first had this legal researcher job. That job was then upgraded when she
- got her license. Then that's how we ended up with a deputy attorney and a chief attorney. That would
- be the fourth idea, something like reshifting amongst 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 lead legal person.
- 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 a 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
- And so I thought one of the options was to have an attorney Hired but not a Administrator per se but
- an attorney 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 and and
- and work on legislation and an additional assistant for administration somebody who could do the work
- of 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 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, who does that, whose responsibility does that fall on?
- Who does the higher firing? Who does, you know, 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 with that, yeah please, Council Member Flaherty.
- Can I ask you to clarify the third option again?
- Fully followed number of staff roles where they sit and what their Purview is 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 but Got it
- So in the second option, are we keeping the legal researcher? Because you didn't mention keeping the
- legal researcher. No. So it would be getting rid of the legal researcher. Yeah, so keeping the three
- lines, but turning the third one into an administrator that would sit in the clerk's office. Councilman
- Flaherty? And I assume, I don't know if it's still called this, but service core fellows and things
- like that sort of live outside this. We're only talking staff with, yeah. Yep. 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 core 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. I'm sorry. I Guess I know I mean almost
- need 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? I don't know. I'm sorry, everybody. I have nothing to look at. Yeah, sure. 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
- Share 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, Councilman Felici. 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 Stephen 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 like 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? 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 and
- 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 for For scheduling so we have scheduling meetings.
- I think every Tuesday still we have Okay, we have scheduling meetings with the administration. I expected
- that that person should answer that a council not the clerk so
- That is an administrative duty that I would hope that would fall within the 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 Ralla 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. It's that I think we all get your exact point of... And there's 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, you know, 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, assume 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 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 I don't know if I'm assuming the legislative assistant and
- the mayor's office still comes to the scheduling meetings and
- 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 It would almost like make more sense to go. Okay. Well, then if this person who's then preparing
- the packet and
- And packet preparation is also going to have to change because of accessibility in terms of links and
- things. I don't know if that has been discussed. Does it make sense to put that person in that office?
- What does the administration?
- Think about that how 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 Rolla. It makes me kind of uncomfortable. I
- 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
- 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 councilman
- Rosalick. 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, you know, I mean, 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, you know, 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 gonna feel comfortable that we're going to put some changes based on times
- 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 has 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 And 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 and we use that time as has been described I think some of my fellow costs 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 with? 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. Thank you. Thank you so much. 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 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 four, 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 two and four, and
- like give them a minute, and then like, sure, have their input and help making that decision. But I
- think the evidence is mixed. I know it worked well for Dan Sherman for 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 the links
- I think counselor Stossberg and then comes Marella I'm kind of feeling a little bit like a both and
- right now too. 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 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? Mm-hmm, right,
- right and and and then do like one and a half part-time attorneys and then like a full-time
- researcher and then a part-time Administrative person like I guess I feel like there's like other options
- in here. Yep 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 or 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 want
- to do legal work. You don't want to 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. And I mean, 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 attorney. The thing that I don't know is whether there are attorneys out there
- that want 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 really complicates
- everything. I will say, just like, as an attorney, I think that I haven't been able to get my questions
- asked and answered by anyone in our office other than the attorneys, so the legal researchers don't
- have, I think,
- that experience, and even sometimes our attorneys don't have the experience. We're all looking it up.
- I think having two full-time attorneys is really important. I do also wonder if anything we do part-time,
- if it just limits the applicant pool. 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 like I Kind of just lost my oh it closed an option
- for with I forget what option for is it's the It's the the redistribution essentially I would just I
- 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 like write legislation. And I think right now
- we just like don't have attorneys to do it. And there's like so many proceed, even with the new, I mean,
- with the mayor only being two years old here, like there's so, there's been so many procedural questions,
- right. And, um,
- 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 will go to see councilman
- as you look we just have about five minutes of 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 Rollo 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, Councilman Rollo.
- 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 councilmember Stasberg is that there
- are non-essential duties that are administrative that could be shifted and That that's 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, 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, she 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 that's what
- I favor too. I think that we should have two full-time attorneys and
- 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.
- 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
- We have zooming and things like that. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, it just might be worth
- reaching out to our public access counselor on whether or not we actually can hire. OK, 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 is 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 people say well 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 between
- 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 a hundred percent 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 need 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 Rosenberger, 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.