The Soldotna City Council failed to enact an ordinance, which amends municipal code to provide for the city clerk to be supervised by the city manager. The ordinance would have amended the code to make the city manager, not the city council, responsible for hiring and supervision of the city clerk.
The ordinance was sponsored by Vice Mayor Lisa Parker:
“As you recall, back in November our former city clerk gave us notice and we started the process for trying to recruit a new city clerk. Because the clerk currently works for the city council, it was up to the city council to make sure we did the advertising and working with the HR manager, made sure we went through the process, had the applications that came in, went through that. There was a subcommittee that formed. Through the entire process, it was cumbersome, and it just didn’t go smoothly.”
Former City Clerk Shellie Saner told the council:
“If the clerk was to work under the administration and put in a situation where the administration was asking them for different treatment than the appellant or constituent, would the clerk stand their ground and say no, especially when they are saying no to the individual responsible for performing their evaluation? Also ask yourself, would a constituent, contractor or an employee feel comfortable and ensure that they are receiving a fair and equitable treatment when they knew the clerk answered directly to the persons whose opinions they are appealing? Those are the questions to ask yourself before you vote on this ordinance.”
The Soldotna City Charter requires that appointment and termination of the city clerk must be confirmed by the city council. If the proposed ordinance passed, the council would still have had a role in the selection or termination of the clerk, but the hiring and supervision processes would have been handled by the city manager.
The ordinance implied that the city manager was more capable of evaluating applications or conducting day-to-day supervision than the council is, however, the city council felt differently and failed to enact the ordinance on a 5-1 vote.
