HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-28 Government Operations Committee Minutes � GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
7anuary 28, 2004
Councilors Present: Richard Greene, Peter D'Errico, Gerry Palmer, Anne Allen, Dan
Tremble, David Nealley, Geoff Gratwick, Frank Farrington
Staff Present: Bob Farrar, Norm Heitmann
Others Present: Charles Birkel, Arthur Tilley, Frank Knight, Dawn Gagnon, 1
Member of the Public
The meeting convened at 5:05 p.m.
Comrnittee Chair Greene indicated that Councilor Palmer would like to have a few
minutes to address the committee. Palmer said that this was his first Government
Operations Committee meeting since he was Chair of the Committee. He presented
� Greene with a gavel and congratulated him on his appointment as Chair of the
Committee.
Greene moved that discussion on item 3 be moved to the beginning of the meeting,
and asked if there was any objection to this.
1. Discussion concerning the use of the title of Mayor in place of Council
Chair.
Seeing no objection, Greene noted that at the last City Council Meeting, a
resident, Charles Birkel, raised the issue of the improper use of the term Mayor
when referring to the Chair of the Council. The Council took Mr. Birkel's concern
under advisement and referred the item to this Committee for further review.
Greene noted that Heitmann had provided some additional information in the
weekly Council packet. Greene invited Birkel to come forward.
Birkel said that he was here today at the Council's request. He said that he
presented his comments and correspondence on the 12th of January. He said
that before he says anything further, and since he was invited here today, he
wanted to know if the Committee had read his letters and attachments. Greene
and D'Errico commented that they had read the letters. Palmer noted that he
� was not a member of this Committee, but had read and responded to the emails
from Mr. Birkel. Birkel said that his concerns are very simple, to terminate the �
dishonest and wrongful use of the title of Mayor by the City Council Chair.. He
said that we need to restore integrity to the Council Chair by complying with the
city charter. He listed the benefits of doing this, such as eliminating confusing,
misleading, misconception and often misunderstanding of the form of local
government we have here in Bangor. Birkel said that our citizens can familiarize
themselves with the true form of Council - City Manager form of government
without pretending that we have a mayor that represents the City of Bangor.
Birkel indicated that under section 3 of the city charter, City Council Chair has
same authority as other City Councilors, one vote each, with the City Council
Chair recognized as the official head of the City for ceremonial purposes, not as
mayor. He said that the term mayor usually applies to someone in authority.
We have no such one single person or position here in Bangor. The City Council
Chair has no authority to act alone. Birkel said that as a citizen, he is asking this
body to be honest and to stop this wrongful habit that has been going on for too
many years. Birkel said that we need to bring integrity back into our form of
government.
Greene thanked Mr. Birket and asked for questions from Council. Birkel said that
he would like to hear comments since he was invited to the Committee.
D'Errico said that he understands what Birkel is trying to address. He said that .
he has no problem addressing the Chair as Chair, and feels that he has tried to
practice using this terminology. He noted that Heitmans's final paragraph spells
it out completely. Birkel asked what that was. D'Errico pointed out that this was
on page 30 of the weekly packet. Birkel read ��Nowhere in the Code of the City
of Bangor is the word "mayor." D'Errico said that he was referring to the section
that said "The City Charter, Article II, section 3, provides that the chairman shall
be recognized as the official head of the city for ceremonial purposes, and shall
have the powers and authority given to and perform the duties required of
mayors of cities for all purposes of military law, and shall act as a mayor in so far
as representation is provided for the city by the mayor upon any board or
commission or otherwise provided by any statute."
Palmer said that the mayor or the chair has a lot of power in some ways, they
decide who gets called, who gets to speak, how long they get to speak and that
includes the Council. Additionally the chair or mayor can call a meeting of the
Council with notice by him or herself. If the rest of the Council would like to
have a meeting, it takes 5 Councilors to make that happen, which implies some
power to the position. Palmer said that the word mayor has been used back into
the late 1800's. Palmer said that this is a form of respect to call the Council
Chair the Mayor. Palmer wanted to know what is the loss of integrity.
�
� Birkel said that we do not have a mayor in the City of Bangor. The habit has
been formed for many years. He said that in 1934 we stopped having a mayor
form of government in this City. We have been in the habit of using this
terminology, and the term mayor implies authority, and we have no person or
position like that in this city. He noted that the Council Chair has no more
authority than any other councilor. He said that we need to operate the City's
form of government the way it is supposed to be. Birkel wanted to know if this
was a legal problem. Palmer wanted to know about the photos in the hallway
that are of the past Council Chairs. He said that this implies a sense of
recognition and respect, and he does not see how it is harmful to use the term
mayor. Palmer noted that this is not something new and why is this complaint
coming in 2004 and not when you moved to Bangor. Birkel said that he became
involved in the City in 1975, and wrote many articles on this particle subject.
Because he is a man who believes in integrity, Birkel said that he wrote about
this subject in 2000. Birkel said that he has been writing about this for years.
He said that the integrity of the Council Chair should be upheld according to the
City Charter. Birkel said that the photos in the hallway only depict one person
who served on the Council, what about all of the other people who served on the
Council.
Nealley noted that he is not on this Committee and said that there is an issue of
� integrity that should be addressed. He said that he often has to explain the
difference between calling our Council Chair the mayor versus having a mayor
form of government. He said that there is a tendency to use the term mayor for
ceremonial purposes because it sounds more official. Nealley said that the main
goal of this"mayor" is to chair the Council. He said that he does not feel that
the Council Chair has the right to not recognize somebody unless there has been
a violation of a rule of conduct. He said that for the most part we apply Roberts
Rules of Order. He said that we are talking about something that does not
require a change, but a consensus to refer to the Council Chair as such and not
mayor.
Tremble said that he agrees with the conclusions of Mr. Birkel. He said that the
issue is the degree of the seriousness of the issue as Mr. Palmer referenced
earlier. Tremble said that most people on the street do not know that we have a
council form of government. He said that the term mayor refers to the
administrative head of the city and should probably be Ed Barrett as the City
Manager. Tremble said that the Council hasn't done anything to be misleading
and suggested that a line be added to the ordinance that states that the term
mayor may be used for ceremonial purposes.
Palmer said that he has had the pleasure of serving with 7 Council
, Chairs/Mayors. He has never heard anyone address the Council Chair as such,
- __-
always Mayor. He said that this would take a lot of education in the community �
to address this issue.
Birkel said that we should not try to change the charter to meet what we want to
do, but should adhere to the charter as it is.
Nealley said that we will be attending the National League of Cities in
Washington, DC, and will be representing the Bangor area. While there, we will
be coming in contact with other mayors who do have a mayor form of
government. He said that we need to move away from the term mayor, because
it is misleading. Nealley said that Charlie Birkel is right and it is up to this
Committee to decide what to do about it.
Allen said that we are all elected at large, and it doesn't matter who leads us. It
is wrong to equate the City Manager on a parallel form with the leadership of our
government, as one is an appointed form of city government and the other is an
elected form.
Heitmann said that the definition of mayor according to Webster's Dictionary is
the administrative head of the city, however, no one would ever think of the city
manager as the mayor. Heitmann said that Bangor is not alone in referring to its
Council Chair as mayor. The only problem is the public perception. Heitmann �
said that we could make an amendment to our ordinance that says the Council
Chair could be referred to as mayor. We.could leave it the way it is. Heitmann
said that there really isn't an ordinance that can be passed that prohibits the
Council from using the term mayor. Heitmann said that Councilors could
voluntarily refrain from using the term mayor.
Frank Knight of Bangor commented that Birkel's comments are along the same
line as what he feels. He said that when addressing the Council Chair as mayor,
we are diminishing the role of the Council Chair to a ceremonial term. He noted
that the Council Chair is elected by the Council, who are elected by the citizens
of the City of Bangor, therefore the title of chairman is diminished..
Tremble recommended that we do nothing different.
Nealley suggested that someone on the Committee make a motion to strike the
use of the term mayor in reference to the Chair Council.
Allen said that what we have is one form of government, all elected at large, and
we have elected one person to lead the Council. She said that we have a mayor
that is elected by the elected body, and suggests leaving the issue as is.
�
� Greene noted that we do not need a motion if we are going to keep the issue the
way it is. He thanked Mr. Birkel for his comments and noted that he and possibly
others on a voluntary basis would try to refrain from using the term mayor.
Birkel said that this was an issue that he has had since the 1980s. Tremble
acknowledged Birkel's efForts although he disagrees with the issue. Birkel asked
if this would go to full Council, and Greene replied that since there was no action
it would not. Farrington clarified that we had not changed our form of
government. Palmer reiterated that there was no action from this meeting
according to the three voting members of the Committee, therefore there is no
change. He noted that some Councilors feel that they should try to use the term
Council Chair in place of mayor, however, there are other Councilors who feel
that they will continue to use the term mayor. Heitmann noted that no one is
� required to change the way they address the Council Chair, and that there is no
change to the Charter.
2. Discussion of Public Comment period at the beginning of City Council
Meetings.
Greene noted that Council Chair Tremble had requested that the Committee
discuss the procedure by which the public addresses Councilors at Council
� meetings. He has suggested that the Committee consider whether or not to
impose time limits, whether the comment period should be at the beginning or
end of the meeting and other related issues that might prove helpful to this
process. Tremble said that he has no strong feelings one way or the other,
except that the procedure we are using right now does not always work well. He
suggested presenting proclamations first, before public comment and limiting
each speaker to 15 minutes at the beginning of the meeting. Tremble said that
he did not want to limit who was allowed to speak.
Gratwick said that this is an important topic to allow the Council to hear from
citizens and to operate efficiently. He suggested that we begin the meeting with
a request from the audience as to how many people wish to speak and is it for
contentious issue"X"that will be later in the evening.
Allen said that we have curtailed comments in the past when a large group of
people come out to speak about one particular subject, by asking them to refrain
from redundancy. She said that to deny any citizen the ability to speak or
present what they feel is an important issue before this Council is not doing
justice to this Council or the citizens.
Nealley agreed with Allen that this is all about the public. He noted that he has
• witnessed non-residents go on and on at Council meetings referring to subjects
that are not relevant to the City of Bangor. He recommends keeping the process �
� open to the public as much as possible. He said that we may need a time limit
up to 15 minutes, and if someone has a large presentation that they may need
to go at the end of the meeting.
D'Errico said that we should stay away from time limits. He said that there may
need to be some discretion on the part of the Chair.
Palmer said that he has mixed feelings, noting that people have the right to
speak, however, our time is valuable as well. Palmer said that Birkel was
allowed 2 minutes, took 5 minutes at the Council meeting, and then received an
hour at this meeting. He noted that people may be limited to comment at the
Council meeting and then referred to the appropriate Committee for further
discussion. He recommended that we receive email during Council meetings so
that citizens can participate. He said that he thinks two minutes is not enough
time.
Allen said that if we start limiting the public, will we start limiting the Council as
well? She said that she supports allowing people to speak at the beginning of
the meeting.
Greene concurred that there should not be time limits. He indicated that �
Committee members had received a survey of what area towns/cities do at their
respective Council meetings regarding public comment. He said that he believes
the Council Chair has the right to limit if people are becoming repetitive. He said
that the Town of Sanford has a sign up sheet for citizens that wish to speak at
the meeting, and the Council Chair calls them to the podium.
Birkel said that any level of government that attempts to establish limitations on
the public that they represent, from being heard, may be treading in an area of
serious consequences. He said that this could be interpreted as an attempt to
infringe on our constitutional rights.
Farrington said that he had previously suggested placing public comment at the
end of the meeting. He said that his concern is for those that are at the meeting
for a scheduled topic, some of which bring legal counsel who they might be
paying for based on an hourly rate, and it is not fair to make people wait if they
have been scheduled to appear. He disagreed with Palmer in that he feels that
the public has the right to chastise the Council and be rude if they so desire,
although most residents are not rude. He said that public comment is just that,
not a discussion. The Council should not respond with discussion, however the
resident should be referred to a Committee. He said that we as Councilors
should give thought to what comments that we make, and that Council meeting •
� farewell comments should be short and not for discussion or controversial
remarks.
Gratwick concurred with Farrington. He said that there are two issues, one
being how long do we want to listen to people speak, and that it should be the
Chair's prerogative to move along a discussion. The other issue is when should
the comment period occur. The negative aspect of having the comment period
at the beginning is that it seems quite rude to the rest of the people who are
waiting for their scheduled appearance. He said that we are all committed to be
here on Monday nights.
Tremble asked if the Chair could ask for a consensus of the whole group. He
said that he agrees with Birkel and did not mean to be rude, rather he wanted to
move things along at the meeting. He said that he has never seen people before
the U.S. Congress or the legislative delegation, but Bangor has decided to allow
people before the Council meeting. He agreed that there should not be limits,
and liked the idea of the sign up sheet. He said that we should set aside 15
minutes of public comment at the beginning and a period at the end if
necessary. If it is at the beginning, Tremble said that he would like to issue
proclamations before the public comment period.
i Heitmann said that he asked the City Clerk to review how many people spoke
during public comments in 2003, and she said that it was 22 people for 24
meetings.
Palmer agreed with Farrington that public comment should be at the end of the
meeting. He said that he was very supportive of the comments regarding
Councilor comments at the end of the meeting. He said that in regards to
chastising, he was referring more to the haranguing of a particular Councilor by
a member of the public.
Nealley said that he respects Farrington's comments that an item should receive
a referral from the Chair to a Committee when a member of the public is
speaking. He said that he would rather not see structure of the public comment,
however, he said that he agrees with the public comment continuing after the
scheduled people have had their turn to speak.
Greene asked if one of the voting members had a motion. Allen made a motion
to keep the public comments as is at the beginning, open to the public without a
time limit, and that we add a sign in sheet for those who wish to speak. D'Errico
seconded the motion.
�
Tremble indicated that he got a sense that the majority of the group wanted the �
public comment period at the end of the meeting, however the voting members
of the Committee recommended that the public comment period remain at the
beginning of the Committee, and asked Heitmann what authority does the
Committee have. Heitmann said that it is not binding that if you want to change
the rules, then we need a Council Ordinance change. Tremble asked if this is a
referral to Council. Heitmann said that this is a recommendation only. Tremble
asked if Greene could ask what the consensus of the group was. Greene said
that we have a motion on the floor and should vote on it. Farrington said that it
should be up to the Council Chair as to how he is going to run the meeting.
Heitmann said that the Council Chair's decision can be overridden by the vote of
the Council, therefore it is preferable to determine the wishes of the Council if
possible before this happens at a Council meeting. Palmer agreed with
Farrington, that this is a recommendation to the Council Chair as to how the
Government Operations Committee would like to see him run the meeting, and
that it is his right to pick and choose which recommendations he wishes to
follow. Allen wanted to know if this meant that the Council Chair could overrule
the Finance Committee.
Heitmann said that if an ordinance provides that the Finance Committee gets to
make the determination on the award of a contract, the Council Chair does not
get to overrule this. If there is a Council ordinance or resolve being considered �
by a Committee, the Council can overrule a Committee decision. In this situation
we do not have an ordinance that says how public comment should be
conducted, therefore any vote from this Committee is only a recommendation.
Tremble said that he was just trying to get a sense of the full Council.
Allen reiterated that the motion was that there be no time limit on public
comments, that the public comment period remain at the beginning of the
meeting, and that there be a sign up sheet at the door for those who wish to
speak. Palmer said that he hopes this motion fails and that the will of the
Council is elsewhere. Greene asked for those in favor of the motion as
presented by Allen. The vote was 3 in favor, none opposed. Tremble thanked
the Committee for their input and recommendation.
3. Review/Discussion — Form of Government
Greene noted that at the last City Council meeting, a request was made for the
Committee to review and discuss forms of local government. Heitmann
referenced the material he has previously provided to the Committee and noted
that he really didn't have anything additional to add to it. He noted that there if
there is a change in the form of city government that this is a change in the •
__ _
� charter, thus requiring a charter amendment and a public hearing. It would then
go to the voters for a majority of the vote.
Allen made a motion to table this for the next Government Operations
Committee and expressed her interest in having a subcommittee address this
issue. Greene seconded the motion. The Committee voted 2-1 to table this
item.
4. Gaming Legislation Update.
Barrett provided an update on the status of the gaming legislation. He said that
there had been another public hearing today in Augusta. He presented a list of
issues that the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee wanted to address. Barrett
noted that he and Council Chair Tremble attended most of the meeting. He said
that the Committee had decided to keep most of these issues on the table. He
said that they removed ��adjoining towns role in approving racino,"'�LD1820
specifies that it is not intended to limit municipal regulation as long as no conflict
with state laws." He noted that the Committee will have a session with the
Attorney General's Office regarding item 1 B. Vested rights of tracks/applicants.
Barrett said that his understanding that Penn National is not against this notion,
that they would like to see if the legislature is going to pass gaming legislation,
� that they take the time necessary to come up with something that it appropriate
and workable. He said the Committee removed the proposed limits on slot
machines, that this would be best determined by the market.
He said that the Committee has voted that they do not want to consider the
proposed amendment that the Penobscot Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe have
produced. He noted that there is some talk to place this on another referendum.
Barrett said that there is some talk about combining all gaming regulation under
one department. As legislation is written, licenses will not be transferable. He
said that the Committee left in the issue of 4% of revenue to go to Scarborough
Downs, as the host community. Barrett said that the City of Bangor would like to
see a minimum of 4% of revenue if Scarborough Downs receives this amount.
Barrett noted that Pat Blanchette is a member of this Committee and has
Bangor's interest at heart.
Barrett listed the issues that the City of Bangor has with the gaming legislation.
He said that one of the biggest issues will be whether the Committee is going to
introduce legislation to defer the effective date of the referendum. He noted
that he does not have a big problem with this being deferred as long as it is to a
, date certain. Gratwick wanted to know if that would change our race starting
date in Bangor. Barrett said that the referendum is set to go into effect February �
23rd, 45 days after the start of the legislative session. The concern that the
Committee has is that they don't want to be limited later on for overall
legislation.
Barrett said that Blanchette has pointed out that Bangor has a contractual
arrangement with a company, in regard to the talk of the Penobscot and
Passamaquoddy Tribes.
Barrett said that a number of legislators have indicated that they recognize that
the public had adopted a referendum and that the will of the people should be
given great deference, and that they should limit their changes to the minimum
necessary to provide an appropriate regulatory scene.
Gratwick commended Barrett and other City staff for doing the work, so that
Council is not obligated to attend the hearings.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
�
�