By Brandi Makuski

Members of the Stevens Point Common Council this month questioned the mayor’s authority to limit department heads to a two- year term, a practice that’s been used in the city for 40 years.

Alderman Randy Stroik first broached the subject in March during a meeting when the Council addressed perceived poor communication from Mayor Andrew Halverson’s office. Stroik said during that meeting he worried some department heads may be rubber stamping projects to carry favor with Halverson, who has the authority to not reappoint directors, essentially terminating their employment, without prior Council approval.

Stroik then had the issue placed on the agenda for discussion at the April Personnel Committee and Council meetings.

“When we gave the mayor feedback on the dysfunction between the council and the administration, I had brought up the fact that maybe our directors are, as one past director indicated to me several times- in essense fired every two years, as thus nearly all their time is spend all their time trying to reapply for the job,” Stroik said, adding he’s heard similar sentiments from several past department directors- some of whom served before Halverson was elected, who all felt the same.

“To know that you’re, in essence, fired every two years and have to reapply for that job every two years, is not a good way to say that we’re going to be competitive in the industry and getting good talent,” Stroik said, who also pointed out it was Halverson who in March blamed the Council for dragging its feet on changes he wants made to the city’s pay plan. Halverson hinged that request on keeping the city competitive on a statewide scale.

But Stroik said that pay scale was only one element of remaining competitive, saying job stability, job satisfaction and comfort level in the workplace were all equal factors with salary. Stroik said he was a “firm believer” that a majority Council vote should accompany any department head termination and appointments should not carry term limits, with personnel reviews and potential firings first discussed by the Personnel Committee in closed session.

“We have committees that change from term to term where somebody just doesn’t get reappointed, and we have no say. We can deny every future appointment, but have no way to bring that candidate back to an appointment process because of something that happened personally or between the administration and common sense. So I’m asking the Personnel Committee to look at that,” he said.

Mayor Andrew Halverson

Alderman Michael O’Meara disagreed with Stroik, saying they should be mindful of a possible rouge Council in the future.

“What if we really dislike the mayor, and what we’ve decided to do is, he’ll appoint all the directors, and we’ll reject them all just to get back at him? That’s the mischief I’m afraid of,” O’Meara said. “It gives an inordinate amount of power to the Council. If the mayor wants to terminate someone because he thinks they’re not doing a good job, he can terminate them. And we probably would go along with it. But I don’t think it’s a real red-hot idea to have the Council voting on whether or not someone’s going to keep their job for only two years, that’s what scares me.”

Stroik said his request had nothing to do with Halverson specifically, calling his suggestion a “starting point” which could foster ongoing discussion on the matter.

Council President Jeremy Slowinski agreed the conversation was worth continuing, saying city leaders should always be mindful of the best way to attract candidates to city employment.

“I’ve heard from people who were interested in positions but they pulled back just for the simple fact that, ‘Well, in two years I don’t know if I’m going to have a job- I need more security,'” Slowinski said. “I know there’s things that have to be weighed out, but I think it’s a good idea. I would definitely consider it.”

But Halverson bristled at idea, saying the suggestion was made because some members of the Council simply don’t like him.

“I think we have to be a bit practical that obviously my style and the way in which I look at this office obviously has contributed to it. I appreciate Alderperson Stroik’s reasonable attempt at trying to make me think otherwise. I think I know and all of us know differently,” Halverson said.

The current mix of department heads is one of the best he’s worked with, Halverson said, but admits that may not always be the case for him or a future mayor, adding directors need to be responsive to each mayor’s vision.

“Through the democratic process, through the electorate process, you ultimately have a mayor that sets (out) on a campaign to do certain things and accomplish certain things; he or she has to know and understand that as part of the way in which you can follow through on that vision and on those activities is that you have someone that’s going to be receptive of that vision and receptive of what you’re trying to implement,” he said. “So if we were to move in any way different than the structure we have now, yes, it will dramatically change the office of mayor and dramatically change the power differential. I know the Council has been very concerned about checks and balances, I hear it referenced often on projects all the time. But checks and balances go both ways.”

Halverson also said the Council needed to trust the information supplied by department heads was accurate and complete or communication matters could become worse.

Stroik presented the Council with information from surrounding municipalities showing Stevens Point was anomalous with the two- year terms- Superior, Neenah, Marshfield, Wisconsin Rapids and Wausau all appointed or hired department heads with no term limit.  Halverson argued the regular terms allow for routine performance reviews.

“Yes we need to be competitive but it’s not our role to exclusively protect the people in those jobs. I expect it’s no surprise former directors say they would have it be otherwise. It probably would have made their jobs significantly easier,” Halverson said, adding if the Council wanted to move on this issue, it might be in the city’s best interest to make the mayor’s position a part-time one and hire a city manager or administrator.

“If you take that away form the mayor because of style issues I’m obviously guilty of I think you’re doing all your residents a disservice. It shouldn’t be about me; it obviously is. You’re going to need to look well past that. If we do change this, it will be one of the most monumental shifts we’ve ever had in where authority rests within the city, and in my opinion, not in a positive way,” Halverson said.

Former mayors Jim Feigelson and Michael Haberman appeared before the Personnel Committee to support keeping the two- year appointments, reminding the Council and the mayor fell under two separate branches of government.

“We’ve been using this form of governance for the last 40 years and I feel there’s nothing wrong with a two- year term just like you aldermen have a two- year term,” Feigelson said. “Hiring with a two- year term gives a chance for review.  If you have an open-ended appointment you don’t always have that chance of review because time slips by and people don’t always get those things done. I would suggest you keep the city’s governance just as it has been.”

Halverson said he wasn’t opposed to continuing the conversation but asked Council Members to thoroughly weigh the possible outcome of making changing. .

“I understand the Council wants to be more engaged and wants to be closer to what it is we’re recommending and the policies we’re attempting to have implemented. I think all of you know the mayor cannot set policy unilaterally; all of those changes have to come before the Council as it is. But with this particular issue I just want to caution the council to think long term in terms of the form of government we do have. Regardless of how you define it or rank where the strength does or doesn’t rest; any mayor that gets elected does have to have the ability to have a staff that is going to be responsive of the views that person wants to eventually create. I would hope my opinion is at a minimum heard.”