No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 - Charter & Code Commission Summary of Proposals for Change f CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK CHARTER AND CODE COMMISSION DECEMBER 1983 REPORT We were asked to study and comment on an Ithaca city govern- ment that has grown steadily more fractured since the present charter was first written in 1906 . The structure of the city' s government was laid out at the height of an awareness of civic corruption in the United States, and the framers apparently sought to minimize dishonesty in Ithaca by dispersing authority widely among a variety of boards, commissions, departments, and offices that would seldom interact, but would be drawn together primarily once a year in the process of approaching the Mayor and Common Council for operating funds. Onto this striking structure has been grafted succeeding generations of new boards and bureaus designed to garner state and federal funds or to address otherwise new enthusiasms of a city of varied interests. Twice the city invested in major studies of the structure of its government, a total of more than $50, 000 for separate charter revisions that voters rejected in referendums in 1959 and 1968 . Common Council instructed our commission not to develop any major change, and kept its monetary investment in our work modest as an apparent further signal of its desires. Thus launched, we proceeded first to study the way many city departments and boards work. We wanted to see if any major patterns of strength or weakness emerged. We identified several of each, and make a number of other observations that suggested the time is ripe for changes, minor and major. As one strength we found an apparent involvement of many community elements in the vast network of advisory and administrative bodies in the city government. We also observed the ability of a relatively small number of people to slow or stop decision-making, a strength in the eyes of some, a problem for others. As weaknesses we found confusion over the respective moles of paid staff and volunteer boards, a certain churning of decisions among the many units, difficulty in fixing responsibility for actions finally taken or not taken, and a lack of continuity .in an Ithaca government that in the past has prided itself on the longevity of its lawmakers and its full-time employees. The Floral Avenue controversy exploded right in the middle of our service and provided an apt example of the -3- -4- the 4-the confusion that can develop in a diffuse municipal organi- zation. Recommendations The following series of recommendations were developed one at a time , but, after we had approved them, seemed to fit into two broad patterns: -The Commission found itself generally favoring an increase in the authority of department heads, the Mayor, and Common Council, and a diminution in the authority of boards and commissions that at present administer city departments . -The ^ommission found a number of places where it favored clustering small departments and recently-formed study boards so as to focus responsibility in fewer major department heads, Common Council, and in a rejuvenated Planning and Development Board . Nearly all these proposals can be considered and adopted separately, without doing violence to our other proposals, but the benefit of a good number of them will be enhanced if adapted with others that deal with a particular department or city function. The specifics : 1 . Supervision of employees . The city has more than 350 employees, few of whom are now appointed by a single individual or by the professional who oversees their work. Instead, they are named by a diffusion of authority, some- times a board or commission, sometimes an elected official who is not involved in their day-to-day work. Specifically, the Board of Fire Commissioners and the Mayor appoint all employees in, respectively, the lire and Police Departments. Their chiefs do not. Public Works is slightly more complicated, with the Board of Public Works naming the Superintendent, and having a hand in other appointments within the department. Under Civil Service rules, the appointing authority is also the disciplining and firing authority, which means the heads of Ithaca' s three largest departments do not have direct and undivided authority to discipline and remove employees for whom they are in theory responsible . We propose that department heads appoint all deputies under them, and all other employees in their department, in Fire, Police, Public Works, and in the other major city departments we identify below. The aim is to focus respon- sibility for performance and employee conduct, and for supervision, and to improve uniformity of treatment and performance up and down the chain of city employment. ( One member of our commission favors the present appointment procedure in the case of Police . See Appendix I-8 attached. ) Later in this report we will propose the grouping of a number of smaller offices under one other department head to cut down further on the scattering of authority and responsi- bility. -5- 2 . Purchasing and contracting. Similarly, authority to prepare bid documents, accept bids, contract, and purchase are scattered through the city structure, most noticeably in the big-budget departments of Fire and Public Works. The Floral Avenue case this past summer provides a vivid example close at hand of how ill-equipped separate departments are to carry out this function, the added costs of which are borne by the city taxpayers . The so-called Spannier Study of several years ago has caused the Department of Public Works to undertake less construction and repair using its own staff, and to contract for more with private firms, thus increasing the City' s need . for careful, consistent oversight of the contract process . We propose that authority to contract and purchase on behalf of the City be the exclusive domain of Common Council, which it would delegate to appropriate paid staff, retaining final authority to approve in the case of large contracts and other obligations. This should assure review in advance of obligation by the City Attorney, purchasing agent, and other appropriate paid employees. 3 . Clustering central services. Several present city offices serve most or all departments of city government, and in any more manageable city structure should benefit from being grouped together under common leadership. The heads of many of these units are now appointed directly by the Mayor or by Common Council or by a combination of authorities, yet are seldom directed consistently in their work by them or by any other individual. We propose that at a minimum the present offices of Finance, Clerk, Personnel, and Purchasing be grouped together in a Department of Administration or of Administration and Finance . They would have a common chief, who might also head one of the constituent offices. In such groupings in other municipalities, the chief is often a financial person, but we view this department as requiring considerably more than accounting ability alone . The job will call for an ability to grasp and deal with problems of a variety of professions and with elected officials, so we urge that the person filling it be exceptionally broad-gauged. 4 . "Grandfathering" . Although our proposals call for new ways to appoint a number of officials, it is our sugges- tion that incumbents continue in office wherever possible and appropriate, and new procedures go into force when their replacements are named. 5 . Labor relations. Despite the increased power of public employee unions and the increasing complexity of labor relations and law, the city has dispersed responsi- bility for its labor relations to a variety of elected, appointed, and outside officials, including the Mayor, alderman, the Personnel Director, and a paid consultant. We propose assigning the union negotiating responsi- bility-to one individual, the Chief of Administration or the Chief' s designee, on whom others can focus. f This person would help the Council arrive at broad bargaining positions, work with city officials to determine their impact, be the contact with any paid consultants, and oversee adminis- tratian of labor contracts by the Personnel Department . The Personnel Director in public employment is asked to deal informally with complaints of employees as well as be a part of a management "team" . The more the City can do to remove the contentious aspects from the Personnel Office, the better. ( Some members of our Commission would assign negoti- ating leadership duties to the new Chief of Administration, others to the Personnel Director. In any regard, we see a need to fix this responsibility and to rely less or not at all on outside consultants. ) h. The Civil Service function. The City maintains sepa- rate offices for Civil Service administration and for all other aspects of personnel administration in the city. The Civil Service function is exercised by a separate three-person board, and a Civil Service secretary. The actual spaces occupied by the Civil Service and City Personnel Offices are adjacent and interconnected, but the existence of a board and secretary requires separate, extra steps whenever the City creates a new job or changes the description of an existing one . Professional expertise is duplicated in the separate offices . We propose the City include the Civil Service function within the Personnel Office . The director could delegate Civil Service to one professional, who would also serve as secretary of the board. Two members of the Charter Commission favored abolition of the Civil Service Board itself. The Charter Commission also rejected the option that Tompkins County assume the City' s Civil Service function. While the county Personnel Office clearly has experience with the process, it would add back the step we save by consolidating functions in the Personnel Office . All Civil Service decisions are still subject to approval by the ::tate Civil Service office , a final OK that cannot be avoided under any reorganization. 7 . The personnel function. Considerable improvement in efficiency and morale of city staff should be possible with improved training of supervisors which was begun in the most recent times. More attention is needed to the orienta- tion of new employees, particularly new department heads. We found this department to be inadequately staffed. Without trying to suggest any specific new organization, we propose Council make an early study of the needs and organi- zation of the Personnel Department, both as a consequence of any changes made in Civil Service and labor responsibilities as proposed here , and in the interest of adequate , uniform treatment of employee benefits, working conditions, records, and ..training. Consolidation of the Civil Service budget and some or all funds expended on outside labor consultants can help meet the expense of upgrading the personnel function. 8 . Other departments. Our recommendations so far deal with four major, similarly organized departments--Fire, Police , Public Works, and Administration and Finance . This leaves three other major centers of employment: Youth, Plan- iiing, and Building. Each should stand as a separate depart- ment for the time being. If, in considering this reorgani- zation proposal or at any time in the future, the Council felt one or more might logically be added to the Department of Administration and Finance, arguments could be found to support any such action. The end result of any clustering of city offices is to reduce the number of department heads whose performance in office must be reviewed regularly by the Mayor and Common Council, and thus to increase the time they have available for policy and legislative concerns. 9 . Selection of de-artmerit heads. A vast variety of arrangements are now used to select new department heads, ranging from appointment by the Mayor alone, to the Mayor and Council, to commissions, boards, and interdepartmental committees . As stated above, we propose that all employees reporting to the head of a major department be appointed by that depart- ment head . We propose that department heads themselves be appointed by the Mayor with approval 6f Common Council. We feel it important for department heads to have the support of the Common Council at the time they take office , and for residents to have confidence that the City' s top officials are chosen by a responsive body. Such appoint- ments will also establish the Council ' s responsibility for the appointees, and for the way they perform after they are in office . 10. A transition period . We view the changes already proposed as quite wrenching for a city bureaucracy and assemblage of boards that are accustomed to considerable independence . Only time will tell how this works, what sort of employees and supervisors are attracted and flourish under a more orderly scheme of business. The changes are signifi--. cant enough that they will surely require revision of the Charter and numerous elements of the City' s Administrative and Municipal Codes immediately. However, they may also be viewed as preparation for possible further changes, including the ultimate strengthening of the administrative authority of either an elected official (mayor or.� a city executive) or an appointed official ( city administrator or manager) . The Mayor and Council could direct a drafter of any new charter to provide for a formal review and possible "sunset" of certain provisions, to force further consider- ation of the role of the present administrative boards (Fire and Public Works) and the reporting lines of departments such as Planning, Building, and Youth, whose assignment may be more rationally determined after the new city organi- zation has a chance to be tried. A four-, five-, or six-year wait may be appropriate, depending on when it would fall in the cycle of local elections. 11 . The Fire Board. Under Recommendations 1 and 2, the Council will assume responsibility for hiring the Fire Chief and for purchasing, functions previously vested in the Board of Fire Commissioners. The Fire Board would continue to represent the interests of the volunteer firemen upon whom the city relies so heavily for firefighting manpower, admini- ster special funds available to the volunteer companies, and otherwise promote the importance of adequate fire protection for the city. 12 . The role of the Common Council . Every municipality must have a legislative body; the size and length of term are the primary variables. We find value in the current system of two aldermen per ward, with staggered terms, lending stability as this does to an important element in city govern- ment . This seems all the more important at a time when incumbent aldermen are choosing to stand for reelection less often than in the past, and the turnover of appointed officials seems to accelerate as well. We expect the standing committees of Council to become increasingly the forum for debate and settlement of key city policy questions . As the Council shoulders more responsibility for policy- making and oversight under our proposal, the Council might consider rearranging its committees to reflect any new clus- tering of city functions: Administration and Finance ; Plan- ning and Development; Public Works; Public Sagety ( including Building possibly) ; and Governmental and Human Relations ( to include ongoing monitoring of the changes in city govern- ment proposed here, relations with other municipalities and levels of government ; and the Youth Bureau, if that did not more logically end up under some other department) . The presently undervalued job of assembling the operating and capital budgets could be strengthened by having the chair of each standing Council committee sit also on a separate committee on the budgets. The Mayor should retain the important power to name standing committees and assign them duties. In this connec- tion it seems more logical that ordinances and other local legislation dealing with a particular department be reviewed within the committee to which that department reports, rather than through an overarching Charter and Ordinance Committee as at present . 13 . Intergovernmental relations. In the past, efforts to cooperate in water, sewer, economic development, and fire service have suffered from the divisions of authority within city government, and the difficulty in arriving at a common position for the municipality. We foresee the Mayor, Council, and Chief of Administration in a better position, with the powers we propose, to determine, express, and act on the City' s interests with its neighboring municipalities, the County, ;tate , and industries — -9- For lack of time, a charge to that effect, or much chance of approval, we have explored none of the more exotic arrangements for achieving intergovernmental cooperation with our neighbors--transferring city depart- ments of Public Works, Fire , or Police to town-city- village authorites or special districts, merger with the neighboring Town of Ithaca or villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, abandonment of city status to get the state and county funding advantages of town status, and other variations of these approaches. 14. The role of Mayor. We observe a recent tendency to consider the office as full-time, that of a city ombuds- man and manager who assumes characteristics of regular city employees doing regular city business. The legisla- tive , policy-making, and leadership aspects of the job tend to get lost as a consequence . Campaigns for the office have forced candidates to promise they will give up their regular jobs to run for and hold the post of mayor, a luxury few citizens can afford, severely limiting the pool of candidates available . No structural changes we may propose can assure particu- lar changes in practice . But by removing some obvious dis- tractions, we feel the form of city government can help encourage mayors to concentrate on being policy leaders more and administrators less . Reducing the number of department heads will have this effect . In a later recommendation we propose removing the permit-issuing function from the Mayor. With the hiring and purchasing functions removed from the Board of Public Works, there may well be less reason -or the Mayor to chair that body. The use of "task forces" made up of full-time city staff, which was proposed in 1974 by the Flash-McColl study group, has been tried on occasion, and could be extended as a way to prepare policy alternatives for the Mayor and Common Council ; under general direction of the Mayor, but without requiring the Mayor ' s presence at every step of investigation. Establishing the job of Chief of Administration should be another important step in bringing together the elements of city government that feed into policy decisions, bringing those elements closer to the Mayor and Council when they are considering the impact of policy alternatives. The Mayor should provide leadership in budget-prepara- tion and in the economic development of the city. William Shaw increased the mayor' s role in preparing the operating budget, and a start has been made in greater use of the long- term capital budget as a planning tool for the government . One added alternative is for the Mayor to chair the separate Council committee on the budgets proposed in Recommendation 12 above . The Council may wish to keep its decision-making independent of mayors, of course, but the possibility exists to streamline the decision-making process if the Mayor and Council work closely in matters that require summoning large amounts of information and calling heavily upon staff. Y -1a- Council members and staff are attending many meetings in the service of cross-board and cross-departmental liaiso n which greatly increases the steps and time needed to make city decisions . Council and the Mayor should seriously con- sider greater use of the committees of the Council as the place where key ideas come together; reduce the cross-repre- sentation to Public Works and Planning advisory boards that exists now; and thus make better use of the time of staff, appointed and elected officials . The jumble of criss-crossing responsibilities is part of the reason citizens are serving for shorter periods ; they appear to suffer burnout in city government at an early civic age . 15 . The planning function. Competing forces have served to splinter the City' s effort to plan and control Ithaca ' s development, economic and otherwise . A strong independent board formed to administer the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/ Community Development Corporation is one competing element . The requirement that the City' s primary Planning and Develop- ment Board review every zoning variance on its way to the Board of Zoning Appeals has further drained time and energy from the Planning Board. Creation of a plethora of separate study and advisory boards in the fields of beautification, hydropower, recreation, historic preservation, and the Ithaca Commons are examples of splintering and of apparent denial that the Planning Board itself is capable of considering new ideas. To preserve time for its main function as the guardian of the City' s General Plan and its zoning laws, we propose ( below) that the only variances reviewed by the Planning Board be those truly major cases that it chooses to take up. We view the creation of the great number of new boards as a sign of failure by the central Planning Board, and propose that Council redesignate them as advisory to the Planning Board, which itself will keep track of their progress, report their findings to the Common Council, and propose aboli- tion when a job is done . In many cases they could and should be ad hoc subcommittees of the Planning Board, with finite lives, rather than full-blown, continuing, separate entities. No simple solution occurs to us to avoid some duplication between the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/Community Development Corporation function and the Planning and Development Board, but IURA/CDC should be viewed as part of the planning function and its linkage to the city legislature and administration set up accordingly. The Planning Board should be viewed as the city' s "blue sky" forum where new ideas and possible new functions for city government are considered and ranked alongside_ the existing responsibilities of city government. In this way the economic development role of the City and the need to allocate resources, make long-range spending plans, and determine the proper balance among residential, commercial, and industrial uses of the City' s limited domain can all be brought into one rational plan. 16 . Capital budgeting. Elsewhere in this report we suggest roles in capital budgeting for the Mayor, Chief of Administration, and a special Council committee on budgets . By r ---ital budget we mean both the current year' s list of major financial commitments, but also a long-term list updated every year as conditions and resources change . By major commitments we generally mean new construction and major repair of buildings, roads, bridges, and other city facilities paid for from the general fund; the purchase of expensive equipment ; and other large outlays such as a Charter and Code overhaul, or other costly studies or reports. ( See Appendix II-10B for the current guidelines for capital budgeting contained in a memo from Mayor Shaw to Commissioners Marcham and Weaver. ) The Planning and Development Board should be an impor- tant participant in this process. 17 . Permits and licensing. City Attorney Paul Tavelli and Commissioner Charles Weaver have each outlined in memos attached ' to this report the clutter of separate procedures, offices, and officers involved in issuing permits and licenses in the city. In general, we suggest the City avoid using highly trained and expensive police and other personnel for issuing permits and licenses in the city. We do not propose major new structure or change in duties, but a rational sort- ing out of the present tangle, removing the Mayor and several other officials from issuing anything but pronouncements, assigning fees where appropriate , and possibly eliminating some requirements for permits where not appropriate . 18 . Review of zoning variances and exceptions to the sign ordinance . Commissioner Weaver' s report and that of our subgroup on Planning (Pat Vaughan and Frank Moore) concur that fewer applications for variances or exceptions should go before the Planning and Development Board ( see Recommenda- tion 16) . They also propose that fewer than at present go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. ( See their reports in Appendix I attached. ) Specifically, the Building Commissioner should be able to grant requests for certain area variances and exceptions to the sign ordinance directly, without review by either board, if no affected party objects. In the case of some categories of use variances, step-saving might also be possible . The savings in time, energy, and expense should be considerable. without loss of safeguards to citizens of the community . 19 . The cost of change . The apparent, immediate annual expense of the changes proposed here is not easy to estimate . Depending on the nature and extent of the changes finally adopted, extra expense can be expected for a Chief of Admini- stration, whether a head of an existing department or a totally new employee occupies the position. Savings might include less expense for a hired labor negotiator, depending on how much of his work is assumed by the new chief, and less salary for the Mayor, given the diminished administrative -12- oversight we propose for that office . Less measureable savings, and increases in efficiency, may grow out of fewer flawed contracts and delays in decision- making, and--if the duties of various boards are consolidated as proposed here--les s need for staff to attend multiple meetings on the same subject. 20 . Charter change . Neither the form nor content of the City' s Charter and two Codes are accessible to City officials or the public . The Municipal Code, which is supposed to contain city legislation of continuing importance, is impenetrable in its organization and incomplete in its content. Money spent annually on so-called codification appears ill-spent . The City desperately needs a simplified charter that spells out the organization of city government and the main responsibilities of its key units . Three models already exist--the complete city charters drafted in 1959 and 1968 by professional consultants, and the Tompkins County Charter, drawn by the same C . W. Robinson firm that drafted the City' s 1968 document. The so-called Administrative Code and the Municipal Code ( or "Blue Book" ) are equally confusing documents and together incomplete . Several city departments are either not dealt with at all or incompletely so . The Administrative Code is not clearly enforceable because of the circumstances under which it was adopted. More importantly, these documents are simply not up to date and not followed by city officials. Chris Pine of our staff outlined this in part in his report on administration (Appendix I) , and others of us came up on this circumstance repeatedly. Pine 's report also contains a wealth of other observations and insights into the present workings of city government, and a confounding set of diagrams that represent the relationship between city offices and bodies . Regardless ofother changes, we strongly urge that the City strengthen and clarify the duties of the Personnel and Civil Service offices, and completely reorganize and bring into accord with city practice the present Charter, Administrative and Municipal Codes. Once the Common Council decides how extensively it plans to change the structure of city government, it should decide how it wishes to translate changes in a new Charter and Code , what role staff will play in this translation, who will direct the effort, and what outside help to engage . The long time it has taken Tompkins County to develop a code after adopting a charter suggests the need for extreme diligence--a timetable , assignemnt to committee of Council, and a specific city offical responsible_for fallow-up. 21 . Approval of changes. We have assumed that our assignment to review city government this year was the first step in a commitment by the Common Council and other city officials to take serious stock of the government in which they serve, and to make changes where needed. We outline here the major decisions we think city lawmakers should con- sider first . s —13— Other business is always distracting, so we urge the Mayor and Common Council in early 1984 to address these problems and deal with them promptly. It is not at all clear that the particular package we propose would require a referendum, but if it does, the need for prompt attention well ahead of the next change of city government in 1985 is apparent . Conclusion Our failure to comment on certain aspects of city govern- ment should not be given undue weight. In some instances we have not had time to explore deeply, in others we could not reach agreement or had no clear recommendations to make . We have prepared two appendices to this report . The first includes several memos needed to carry out our specific recommendations, and an index to the second appendix. The second appendix consists of all other documents generated or seriously considered by our commission. It is not to be duplic ated, but is to go into the file of the City Clerk for historical and reference purposes and for drafters of later charters and codes. (The existence of such a file would have speeded the work of this commission considerably. ) A number of important documents from earlier charter studies were missing from the Clerk' s files . We have added a copy of the 1968 Robinson Charter Proposal to the Clerk ' s files, and in our second appendix have included the three key documents to come out of the 1958-59 Commission as well as the most recent Tompkins County Charter. We thank Jean Hankinson, Joseph Spano, Dominick Cafferillo , and Paul Tavelli of the city staff for continual help to us in our work; graduate student aides Christopher Pine and Lorraine Weiss ; student volunteers Joseph Sarachek, Cathy Stein, Steven Durning, Mark Weatherly, Elizabeth O 'Leary, and Jean Howard ; and the many city officials who gave of their time and ideas . We stand ready to advise as individuals, but understand that as a group we expire with the turn of the calendar into 1984. Frederick Bent H. Stilwell Brown Franklin Moore Carol Sisler Patricia Vaughan Charles Weaver, Vice Chairman John Marcham, Chairman December 12, 1983 CITY OF ITHACA , NEW YORK CHARTER AND CODE COMMISSION DECEMBER 1983 SUMMARY These are the main observations and proposals of the Commission, spelled out in detail and explained in the Commission ' s report under similarly numbered sections . Underlining is intended to help in finding topics quickly rather than for emphasis . Summary of proposals for change 1 . Department heads appoint all deputies and other employees under them. 2 . Authority to contract and purchase on behalf of the city be the exclusive domain of Common Council . 3 . The present offices of Finance , Clerk, Personnel, and Purchasing be grouped together in a department under a common chief. 4 . Incumbent department heads continue in office wherever possible and appropriate . 5 . Assign the union negotiating responsibility to one individual, a city employee . 6 . Include the Civil Service function within the Personnel Office . 7 . Council make an early study of the needs and organization of the Personnel Department, and increase the resources available to it . 8 . Youth, Planning, and Building Departments could stand as separate departments . 9 . Department heads themselves be appointed by the Mayor with approval of Common Council . 10 . Possible further changes, including the ultimate strengthening of the administrative authority of either an elected official or an appointed official: provide for a formal review and possible "sunset" of certain provisions, to force further consideration of the role of the present administrative boards, acid -the reporting lines of separate departments such as Planning, Building, and Youth. A four five- , or six-year wait may be appropriate . 11 . Roles will still continue for the Police , Fire and Public Works Boards . 12 . Common Council might consider rearranging its committees to reflect any new clustering of city functions, including a separate committee on budgets ( operating and capital) . 13•. Intergovernmental relations U'Je see the Mayor, Council, and new Chief of Administration in a better position to determine , express, and act on the city' s interests with neighboring municipalities and other bodies and enterprises . 14. The role of the Mayor. The proposed form of government should encourage mayors to concentrate on being policy leaders more , and administrators less, use task forces of full-time city staff, provide leadership in budget preparation and in the economic development of the city, and serve part-time in the job, thus allowing more people to consider the job . 15. The planning function. The only variances reviewed by the Planning Board be those truly major cases that it chooses to take up . Council redesignate the great number of new boards as advisory to the Planning Board . IURA/CDC should be viewed as part of the planning function and its linkage to Council and the administration worked out accordingly. The Planning Board should be viewed as the forum where new ideas and functions are considered within city government . 16 . Long-term capital budgeting should be a regular city process, involving Mayor, Council, Chief of Administration, and the Planning Board and staff. 17 . A rational sorting out of the present tangle of permit- and license-issuing authority should be undertaken, removing the Mayor and other high-paid and trained officials from the process, assigning fees where appropriate , and possibly eliminating some permits . 18 . Zoning variances and exceptions to the sign ordinance . The building commissioner should be able to grant requests for certain area variances and sign law exceptions without review by boards if no affected party objects . In the- case of use variances some step-saving should also be possible . 19 . The cost of changes will include some savings in labor negotiation, possibly less salary for the Mayor, fewer flawed contracts, fewer meetings for hired staff to attend, and other costs unmeasureable ; and some added expenses for the new post of Chief of Administration, even if the person also heads a continuing office . 20 . The city desperately needs a simplified charter that spells out the organization of city government and the main responsibilities of its key units . 21 . Approval of changes . A timetable , assigns: nt ,to a committee of the Council, and a designation of a specific city official responsible to follow up will be essential to carrying forth any of the changes proposed here . r g�. COMM IT v AP M.}3IX -I ii nses r' pt? 't" af' I�+ rle to. the '# 2. List of erita nflw, ssuod by etch city : 'fico. heaver, Of. l tense`s d ;prmeits new i ase�3 b te :t , " y �de4�ter N© e�ib3^. eo on permit-i:ssingo certain "city cff�.c ;ad ,. from Pa u3. 'ave . " , . C i Attcreepmae 't . °repz��rt of the suittee: cn3 a�ix ;r of tie lCc i�ssion, 'Patricia- Vaughan -.and 'Franklincac a +se er ' Rpr f Christflsr' Bn fids t the. © tis. on *` city adffiini tratien, December. .. . a ' Fred Bent ori F'ersine3,;. Tee'ebr . C© encs on, olice Depsr ent by Fr klin' M�Qre, f7�cember .... fir' eon u3tais 'or, �r'=�er rsva��ic� frc �r�ir�e aideto `.1`ohn #,0. -index,, `Ap end�.�° Ill of h is reportf f' = �efe a ��. 2. y ,z i i L PERMITS AND LICENSES most -per !its 04 licenses ark; .anthorited or required by . provision" of the Municipal Code. The sub j:ects range from licensing bbothOas-es-.or professions to granting:, onstruction permits ani, tegu ati tg parAdea a assembly. -i ..am advised' -that :the,_, . :no ortf€rr- nt of certain provisions or that a:different pros_ -d a e: is f flowed. It ,seems inapprflpriate to: recd ends specific soli-tuns- except to point out that admin strati*e# not legislativetican ,would seem adequate. In the case of non nforcement thi-i§may well reflect fhe public will,, but repeal uld- be morecr$e! ly. The fees ar9 are'not relates to the cost to g Ornment, aksilby to pay ojc any. discermabie .desire on. the part of local g+�!vsrmmnt to "encourage an X particular activity. The a -provisions have the :Board of Public works Board of tonin jP cais, Planning and Development Boards Coin Council, Housing Board- f, Review, Building;, Code Board of Review, dew York aril f . t3ew on the Bui.ldi.ng Code, The- Beard- hf Appeals on tae dire Prevention Code and the Mayor all in the hearing }ausineas In.. the 'lirensing ,of occupations the code shows intaj�ent in R pedd_ era paprobers, auctlo'neer ,, taxicab drivers and electricians- hut in the field- of ,plumbing there is a ma aXxnber'.s liceaa,, the journeyman plumber 's license, the. . " apprentice Dl-umber ' s license, the-r..sewer layer. s license and the-- . ;` peoal pi.umbe 's license. .: - -r a^3 '�� 3�th .•-, ;;art, > ,n'" '� fiber of unusAtaI combinations* Nk RVl enforced by the Building Commissi€ e�e" wiCh �ppeals granting variances. however, . if t � .. blic property, Common Council is the Appy! example, the Building Commissioner ias � h #e erm ts. for all types" of construction wore el ept ° In' suth work he is charged with enforcing the Plumb Code4 a pert of the State Building Code, but the plu ► ng VeOrow � is issued'by thef Plumbing Inspector who is employed by the - ' D of PuIP 1c Works. ,fie charges the Mayor with issuing permits for e €t j sol .citors of funds, circuses and places of t t. It 16 not clear why our lawmakers expected mayb t� "," hive ' al int4rest or experience in this field k pse Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code deals with _ a -du lity Review, or potentially very . important g si . acts ons, charging enforcement and compliance to the #ate dertment" seems to invite trouble. A leadtgeny v ignted and a check list of activities subject to , r circulated periodically. lea fob approving subdivisions should be altered $o „that -ttvisian creating two or more "buildable” lots comer ` _ z ' ynt procedure and nuisance subdivisions creating builde le" lot are approved administratively by the Plan _ 3irector/Building Commissioner. I recommendadoption of the New York' State Fire Prevention Code . tl replace the xisting Code. This would eliminate conflict and _ over]ap ith the Building Codo atl. ,Mould. prov: dr fo'r automatic s revisit. '=Tt. would also `s11ow. standardized. enforcement procedsr,ee.t The Fire- Chief, has r*60mmended s�°3ra,l amendments to the New York :-btate 0odee wh cb s'hodjd also' be seriously considered. The r#jO fPr grant sng. zo-ping variantQs".should be -changed so that -ail but parking issues mciy ,begranted .aft nIstrati-rely. .i. ' Appeals..from admini'strati'v ' .actions could follow thea current appears Et procedure. I reommid' a review of all coda enforcemeftpith the eectige of eliminating unnecessary regulation, adustiug fee`` 'fit lea to meet :ac ts, bonsol Ida ing activities, both in granting + It erases 'and yea irin appeals, and allowing �ls rat# e= granting of� v2triances where. possfbl& and appeals r :review enlir on :contested issues. I recommend sign off there multi ple department interests Must be served. ` w The .City Attorney has circulated a memorandum concerning a' few _parts.` A copy is attached. x: -- Charles M: -Weaver 'velli IWu Vlist k, " F rA F G I-2 .IE9BED By Developmint. Permit Alteration ;R**it mobil Home" Pairk Certificate cif Compl3 ance . Zoning Enc roacbn*nt Sign Building, Per t Cert ifi6ite sof- 00c sncy Demolition Permits Swimming Pool ;P�Mit Heating ".# V�;i °l.atzng Electrical Pe1rt'it _ Chief of Po 1 ice Taxicab nriV---' Taxicab License :Cir/cy�u7��syyM, Carnival_ Exhibitors ml .- �3�stn1� Aseely ed Parade; Aotorcade Mer��itu�iSe. . icYce :-UR-tsf bl-4- ftrka edmma.na Pe an u tto" ,. perate . j W$ter & 'Heuer .3 iais n or. ��n9 ar Qf Pl.n�e.rs e �i 'er to --ic$13s�' lg ' Perot. fir, . nrlit"iran9 (using city water) a Or* plus ie r s licences ion 'porlt t � nt" Y-1ronaenta-1 Ouality ReVjew lei bi ,ing& for Pluig Permit `. x �. MWE" x s '. Is, License: is License License72, r l a F � 8 NMS Yn i7 nt y arniVal Exhibition` ` R Flu "LOW il. ....... Trar-teictail Business . JB3c $:mond' Eand (Police) �� f ri a= so r34- Board con `.Kermit j Peddles ;:on COM*Ons z• � AARy 3333 PERMIT or LICENSE AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COMMENT Commons Municipal Ithaca Commons Advisory Board ? See Permit Code 70 . 4 Sales , Solicitation,Organized Tavelli Appeal : Common Council Activities Commons Municipal Supt. of Public Works ? See Permit Code 70 . 5 Permits Operation of MV on Tavelli Appeal : Common Council ' Commons Peddlers Municipal Commons Advisory See on Commons Code 70.15 Tavelli Appeal: Common Council Assembly Municipal Chief of Police with notice None, . See Parade Code 65. 42 To Mayor , Fire Chief, Supt DPW Tavelli Appeal : Mayor Motorcade Merchandise Municipal Chief of Police None Display Code 65. 51 Display more than 12" in sidewalk Bicycle Municipal Chief of Police - Inspect for . 50 Also issued by Cornell License Code 65. 2 Ownership, safety & register Annual Campus Police in one Dealers must report sales uniform system. Games of Municipal City Clerk - -- Chance Code 14. 3 Bingo Chpt 112 City Clerk - Also investigation - § 498 GML License Local Law hearings , supervision and collection and transmission of fees Pigeon Municipal City Clerk None -- Code 54. 22 Permit to trap Dog Municipal City Clerk $3 . 50 without reproductive capacity Code 54. 38 $8. 50 with (Annual Renewal) Marriage City Clerk $10 . 00 No Appeal Auctioneer Municipal City Clerk $50 annual Code 16. 22 Board Approval-Attorney $25 month $10 day Hunting & City Clerk Fishing PERZIT or LICENSE AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COrIMENT Junk and Municipal City Clerk or Chief of Police $5. 00 16 . 43 "No person shall be Second Hand Code 16. 42 required to procure from the Mayor. . . . " Pawnbroker Municipal Code 16 . 53 Mayor $100/annum Peddlers Municipal Chief of Police $200/year Solicitor Code Fees based on vehicles used $30/month Chpt. 17 $60 minimum Solicitor of Municipal Mayor with identification card Funds Code 17 . 13 issued by City Clerk Circuses Municipal "Mayor through the Chief $75 Circuses Carnivals Code 19.2 of Police" $50 Other Exhibitions Shows Places of Municipal Mayor - Theater , Movie, Bowling $10 Dance Hall Amusement Code 19. 5 Alley, etc. $25 Other Taxicab Municipal Chief of Police after $5 Original MC 23 . 44 Right to hearing Driver Code 23 . 21 in,. stigation and test $5 Annual by Chief of Police Taxicab Municipal Chief of Police after $25 Original Same as Above License Code 23 . 32 inspection $25 Renewal Transient Municipal By City Clerk , Bond required Tax based on sales and Retail Code 24•. 3 to be approved by current real estate tax Business City Attorney Street Municipal City Clerk $10 Street Requires Engineer ' s Work Code 244. 22 $5 Sidewalk approval of plans Air Municipal Office of Water and Sewer Yes, See Condition Code 245. 41 Division, Permit to install plumbing and operate system using city code water . Sewer Municipal Examining Board of Plumbers None? layer 's Code 245. 3E license PER111T or AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COMMENT LICENSE Building Municipal By Bldg . Commissioner . Not to be On value: Fees Permit Code 26. 24 issued until after approval by Less than $500 - 0 inadequate to Fire Chief, Bd. of Pub. Works, 500-5000 - $5 meet direct Health, State or Federal 5000-25000 - $1 costs. Authorities ea 1000 over 5000 . Over 25, 000 . 50 each 1 , 000 over 100, 000 . 25 each 1000 over 250 , 000 , .10 each 1000. Certificate Municipal By Bldg . Commissioner onil.- None Fee would be appropriate of Code 26 . 24 Required on Public , Semi- Appeal - State Board of Occupancy Public , Apartment or Place Review of Public Assemblage. Demolition Municipal By Bldg . Commissioner with $5. 00 I-lay require multiple Permit Code 26 . 38 Approval of Planning Develop- inspections by Bldg . ment Board and Landmarks Dept. & Fire Dept. Preservation Commission, Fee should reflect City City Attorney (Approval of effort. bond) Swimming Municipal By Bldg. Commissioner Variance: Board of Zoning Pool Code 35. 3 Appeals Permit Heating & Municipal By Building Commissioner with $5 Fee inadequate for Ventilating Code 26. 66 approval of Fire Chief If only large commercial and HVAC equip. industrial installation. Appeal State Board of Review Development Municipal Building Commissioners to Review None Appeal & Variance - Permit Code 38. 41 and determine that all other Board of Zoning Appeals Permits have been obtained PERMIT or AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COMMENT LICENSE Alteration Municipal Building Commissioner after a None Appeal: Common Council 32. 9 Permit Code 32. 6D Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued by Landmarks Preservation Commission Mobil Home Municipal Building Commissioner after Min. $25 If applicant opposes Park Code 27 . 59 approval of Planning Board and $1/lot Planning Board Recommen- Permit up to max , dation - Public Hearing $50 and determination by Annual Common Council, 27 . 64 Renewal Certificate Municipal Bldg . Commissioner for None Major expense to city - of Code 27 . 45 compliance with Housing Recommend fee based on Compliance Code. Renew each 3 yrs . number of units Appeal-Housing Board of Review Zoning municipal Board of Zoning Appeals with , 15 Legal notices and record of Variance Code 30. 58 Advice of Planning and proceeding may cost much Development Board more than fee. Art. 78 Encroach- Municipal Building Commissioner $25 plus Appeal : Common Council ment Code 33 . 2 $5 Annual Sign Municipal Building Commissioner 0-50 $20 Appeal: Board of Zoning Permit Code 34. 9 Fee by area in sq. ft. 51-100 $40 Appeals, Fee $10 101-1.50 $60 151-200 $80 201-250 $100 Sub- Municipal By Planning & Development None Recommended : Administrative division Code Board, subject approval by approval unless subdivision Chpt 31 BPW creates more than one buildable lot. Environ- Municipal See Municipal Code 36. 2A 36 .13 not 36 .1 "Consult the mental Code "Appropriate Department" to exceed City Clerk" Quality Chpt 36 . 5% project Review cost PERMTT or AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COMMENT LICENSE Plumbing Municipal By Plumbing Inspector who is Collected Divided responsibility Permit Code 26 . 44 appointed by BPW CH � 5. 12 by between Bldg . Dept & DPW or 245. 14 Work must conform to NYS Bldg . Inspector Code & Local Standards Appeal Bldg Code Board of Appeals if refused by Examining Board of Plumbers Plumbing Municipal Register with Chamberlain Original License issued by Chamberlain License Code 26. 43 Pass Exam by Examining Board $100 26 . 45 on water heating Master C-1 of Plumbers--show proof of $25 Annual systems is in conflict with Plumber liability insurance 26 . 66 . License Municipal Same as above Original License by Chamberlain Journeyman Code 26 . 43 Plumber C-2 $10 Annual License Municipal Same as above Original Licensed by Chamberlain Apprentice Code 26. 43 $5 Plumber C-3 $5 Annual License Municipal Register with Chamberlain $100 one Licensed by Chamberlain Special Code 26. 43 Show current Master Plumbing job only Plumber E-3 license from other municipality, proof of liability insurance Exam for Municipal Examining Board of Plumbers $10 The license to conduct above Code 26. 43 business , contract , and licenses A2C do work is in strange contrast to general con- tractors where no regis- try or examining is required. License Municipal Examining Board of Electricians $10 exam Electrician Code 26. 54 $10 annual Electrical Municipal By Building Commissioner $5 if EE generally included in Permit Code 26 . 56 work only BuilGing Permit Electrical Municipal By Electrical Inspector Fixed by All fees to NYBFU who InsLpe;ction Code 26. 57 Board of pay the Inspector . Fire No cost to city. Under- writers PERMIT or AUTHORITY PROCEDURE FEE COMMENT LICENSE 43 different Municipal Application to Fire Chief who None Appeal : Board of Appeals safety Code 55. has right to grant variance if Fire Prevention Code related storage, recorded. Fire Chief has recommended use of hazar- adoption of State Model Fire dous materials Prevention Code. Would avoid or in main- conflict with present tenance of building code. buildings Explosives Industrial. City Clerk or Fire Chief None or Fireworks Code - 14YS Iy - U a j FORAYED CITY QF ITHACA 1 OB EAST 'GREEN STPEET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF TELEPHONE 272-1713 CITY ATTORNEY CODE 607 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor William R. Shaw Chief of Police Superinreblic Works Chairma & Ordinance Committee FROM: Pauly At y DATE: Sept rfib In the year and a half as City Attorney I have found much disorganization and disarray in the permit issuing procedures under our codes and charters . For a number of years permits have been issued under a myriad of guidelines often not even set forth in the Charter. I enclose a review by my office of the various pro- cedures and past practices . I' d ask that all of you examine my memo and prepare reports as to how you think the Charter should be amended or changed or whether you think present procedures should remain the same. It is also possible the new Charter Revision Committees could evaluate these procedures . P.N.T. PNT/rn Enclosure 1g � Lf- CITY OF ITHACA PERM177ING PROCEDURE SUGGESTED CHANGES i The current permitting procedure operates in an unnecessarily cumbersome fashion. The following are suggestions to relieve some of the problems: I. Create uniformity in the permitting process for solicitors of funds for both religious and nonreligious purposes. Under the Municipal Code 17.13, the Mayor is supposed to issue permits to solicitors of fiords for nonreligious purposes. In actuality, however, �. such solicitors are referred to the Police Department,. which then issues a permit. The Code should be modified to reflect the actual process. In addition, changing the Code in this way for nonreligious solici- tation would bring that procedure into conformity with the procedure for religious solicitation (Municipal Code 17.14) . Under 17.13, City Clerk is supposed to issue an I .D.card after a permit is approved. There is no such requirement under 17.14. This pro- cedure should either be eliminated or required for both sections. 2. Have the Police Department, not the Mayor, issue permits for parades and assemblies, as is required by Municipal Coda 65.41-49. The Code requires that the Chief of Police (or his designees) issue a permit for a parade-or assembly, after i,,hich the Mavor, Fire Dcpaninent, and _ Department of Public Works need be notified of the issuance. In actuality, however, the M4ayor has been issuing these permits. The Code should either be changed to reflect actual practice, or responsibilitN, should be shifted from the Mayor to the Police Department. 3. Permitting process for parades and assemblies on the Commons should be T` brought into line with the process established for other parades and assemblies. If, under W2 above, it is decided that the M9a,or should continue to be the issuing department, then no change from existing regulations would be required for Commons' permits. If hQ,ever, the Police Department is given the resyns.ibility, the Commons' process should also designate the Police Department as the issuing body. In addition, parties parading or assembling on the Commons are required to obtain an orange card from the Chamberlain's office. If, upon review, this procedure appears to be unnecessan•, it should be eliminated. L l CE NSF1 AERAIIT ALq ORIT `( FRO Ge(DUKC APPEAL FEES C_0 MUNI(-,Phi.- CoDu UIEI=DF -PDI4cE T- VIEIJS cxce,'r Tftsc uPr t��DOC S I�,I �I2 �1D ISSue--S we-e-�Se vtjD&e h.iF�> s (LsW6� FRo,4 41S/mo is d zoo%r, -17•S- FrDco 6"L) mg:�p DE 11•S fins Nevi2 L'rW l:SttLU T051M By -%OLIGIlZP- s Ace_eP7nn16 PAJMe7Jr W Ad)VAIILEof PEL-I✓egLy So ICl7`//v6 Mum(CIP& Co DG MAVOV- REVIEWS AND ISSUCS �ONC MlIyDR SES NC'I KCV)f-" Lic_faJSE — T D. CARD p()LiLE DEPT Ac Fu„/Qs )1. 13T-a-( CITY LLCRI,L CITY CLa;21- DOES 11O I s5-E' IQ C405 �Doesn'} 4pp�y fo �G�i 9/uN5 Or er�o•,izgfiaA.f ---• -•------ --_--_--- - . _ . _ Ce-5 tAJNICI PAS CWC - PD\t1 Sony DD. 'P-,,EVIEW S To CAM"r)N f(ZDM O N CEF�z 70 --�IPEt11J-rENDEUT of Coot4cl L,- �S � `6ZS/DAY PQ64 SECTIDIyS 2 fly!- ?I)aLAC wD2K5 o(Z GAF Sp,kLE L),SE� (yvT Go,.,nmaNS TYPE E ?MHIT5 X51Gores 155JES 1jD -f�- FDS C1)i-R NI cl—Le5 t>chc -l-1, - MP No�lrl�3 FI�C� -5 pLTIJI Pot.IcE, c-rC . cRjENtI:,D >'Io ^c5 an�Con,m�n��y`- _I ems,red �c:h�,t�es) - C+W�`t f3 tr2 l,facl NS CFFI CF - 155ues is'ue MUNIGI PA-L- Pczmlr OFFICE, EpestIr"fea N[<' MPyoIL AC7VAtI � / (.oD by ek-eF Jt )--bllc-e)J5 ij /.1ul IFI CS TTL IC �S. �N— `f� Nc>'flFEt; 5 MAyo12 , AS.SEm 6 L 1�'5 DPW PgrkS) i 2- ; 4. Permitting process for parades and assemblies in Cass Park and r Stewart Park should be brought into line with the process estab- lished for other parades and assemblies. Following #2 above, either the Mayor or the Police should be the issuing department for parks permits. The current process for the parks (DPW superintendent issuing a letter of approval or denial) is not adequate to insure an applicant's rights. DPW should, of course, be notified of scheduling and may veto a permit on that ground. Note that under 65.41-49, the Chief of Police has authority to issue permits for parades and assemblies in all public places, including parks. 5. The requirement of a posting of a $5,000 bond by solicitors accepting payment in advance of delivery of goods should either be enforced or eliminated from the Code. Code Section 17.5 requires that solicitors accepting payment in advance of delivery post a $5,000 bond. This provision has never been used and R5 necessity should now be evaluated. 6. The current policy of DPW regarding DeWitt Park needs to be changed. In the 1856 agreement berween the First Presbyterian Church and Ithaca, the Church agreed to let the City have full control over the park and that the park should be used as a "Public Walk and Promenade". No mention is made that the park should be rese»,cd for "quiet enioy- men t'only. Thus, DPIV's policy towards allowed usage in the park is un- necessarily restrictive, and a permitting process similar to Cass Park's and Stewart Park's should be instituted, i .e. , public assemblies and parades should be allowed. 7. A fee for soliciting funds should he charged. Fees are currently charged for all activities that are of a commercial nature: fees are not charged for parades and assembly permits, religious activity permits, or community-oriented activity permits. Hoi:,- ever, a fee is also not charged for solicitors of funds for non-relinious purposes. This does not fit in with the general fee schedule and a charge for such permits should be instituted. AUTI+ORI1— �R�G�DU(��� APPEAL SEG 5 � L4T PAKAA 65 �51 1AU N I C► PAL A.P P RDV E�S _rb umoj - C,Nfie>\ '70 -CDMt4ta,'15 b�. rt�' NON 6_ (� COi�M0NS 5ECflc�N `f 'C"66ZLAIN'S c�D�t� T(PE g PEKIIfrS 155UE5 aF-W(,E OA _D inc��de s rely�,oJ f OL -heS� 4rICIDUS MON ICITAL- -FDWCE� I>FPt 15SUe5 N DNE COMA=S Ur' AUC-1�TIoNI �D '?Mkrr y CIRCU5E5� ��UN I C 11�Ac(— Cf►-t� D r' •'POLI Crs - --- - MNyoCs-S K/ya G12-�J1v1tl,S, cbl) I j6_5 "'f L'ZM ITS Y � �f iT5 5�raw_ oars - iso/day 6� 19 o I Ty � _ WeP (— T:i�E S 5. gP�nl ��Cs S . z�P1r�1 I55 U r;5 ��I i�1 S j2 5/XrnA r4- po Ctt�. 2`f l �2 U 5E OF: ` AV(UDNS � 5 on sl2e o pRocgSS �2 NO F�� to✓ Baru�eS nss�aueis C�cSS �P�K 6pV�f BEGS -�Pv� Iss0E5 pWMl-rsJ M � J C �( .Zy� /Perm ri- L.rt c t 2 �P rn� i_)1. �('o r �CL�.(CI`t IIQn) r )4 L- APpP-0VA1 tJo dee -�'� r.)Ry OF 'PA�2�-DES, ASSL�6LI PARK- 'DLJ A,t an15 r10 uSE ► ide4yjep DT+E� -0l-pq\j 0016—r ,� ,� ct,���ti ("fl A's izd contrc/ L�je"I'rjvkje"J-j 010 cl,A- Plt�hO�s, r�5�q�\►3U es 1 I ' I I_5 REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANNING Distilled from a mass of interview reports, primary documents and meeting minutes, this report makes four major recommendations: 1) Enabling legislation, charters and administrative codes pertaining to all aspects of the Planning process in the city of Ithaca need careful examination and revision. 2) The duties of the Planning and Development Board should be re-defined to permit the group to consider both long-range and short-range planning concerns. 3) The cluster of planning-related committees and commissions should be re-examined in light of current needs and practice, and some should be redefined or eliminated. All such entities should transmit their reports to Council through the Planning and Development Board, which will append its endorsement or criticism. 4) Council should seek ways to improve communications between the Planning and Development Board and the IURA. Although planning and development have become increasingly important in Ithaca City government in the last decade, the Department and its associated committees exist only on the fringes of the legal documents which govern the city. We strongly recommend that these documents be amended to establish and define these entities. The language of such recommendations should be as similar as possible to that which establishes other city departments such as BPW. Symmetry in these matters is desirable, but must be tempered by good judgment and current practice. The status of the Planning Department under the July 1975 Administrative Code is particulary tenuous. No one we interviewed could state conclusively that Article XII, had been adopted by Council. In light of current (and presumably future) disagreement on the relative powers of the Director of Planning and Development vis a vis the mayor, such enabling and defining legislation becomes imperative. Current practice appears to be that the Mayor may appoint the Director, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. In light of the relatively short terms of many mayors, this committee wishes to devise some better method of achieving continuity and of insuring some measure of professional tenure for the Director. As a minimum, we suggest appointment by the Mayor, with approval of council and removal by the Mayor for cause. There should be suitable probationary period - perhaps 12 or 18 months. We would also recommend that the Director be given the right to choose all of his subordinates, subject to appropriate Civil Service procedures and city personnel procedures. The group within the planning sphere which has been of greatest concern to the subcommittee is the Planning and Development Board. We in respect to planning are persuaded that this Board is not now operating at its full potential, and therefore its duties should be re-defined so that it can serve the City better . This Board should become a true planning entity, recognizing that development activities in the city have been largely pre-empted by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. The Board can be of assistance in these general areas: 1) It can anticipate problems and opportunities that will confront the city in the future, and can assess the ability of the city to deal with emerging problems. 2) It can provide lay perspective on vital current issues such as zoning questions which affect citizens. 3) It can provide a flexible counterweight to a strong director, moving to balance his weaknesses or to reinforce his strengths. 4) It can provide a balance between short range and long range planning interests, and with assistance from the professional staff, can guide City planning policy. The subcommittee believes that the greatest obstacle .to success in these four areas is the Board 's current preoccupation with short-range or crisis issues. There are times when this board must devote significant attention to issues of immediate importance, such as those presented by the siting of radio transmitters on South Hill , or the Ramada Inn petition. We believe, however, that Council should re-define the Board 's duties in relation to variance hearings to allow the Board more time to confront long-range issues. Much of the Board 's time is currently spent hearing petitions for zoning variances. Most of these petitions, especially site variances and questions involving the sign ordinance, could be handled more efficiently by the building commissioner or the professional planning staff. An additional duty of the Board, mandated by state law, is the approval of subdivisions within the city. Because the city has few remaining buildable lots, such subdivision approval is rarely needed, except in the case of "nuisance subdivisions" , applications which affect more than one lot. These commonly occur where neighbors trade a few feet of property, perhaps to adjust a driveway. We believe that many applications falling within this class which do not create two buildable lots should also be handled administratively, in procedures analogous to those for zoning variance petitions outlined above. The professional planning staff, the Planning and Development Board and the Building Commissioner , with input from the Board of Zoning Appeals, should draw up guidelines which will define the categories of cases which might require the special attention of the Planning Board. We believe that the Board should have sole discretion to determine which cases to hear, and should in fact consider only those which present issues of substantial concern to the city planning process. The professional planning staff will make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals on each case, but the Planning Board should not be required to make a recommendation unless it chooses to do so. The Board of Zoning Appeals will continue as the "court of last resort" for all such petitions and applications, subject to its own rules and procedures. We hope that freeing the Board from the torrent of petitions will give it time to consider broader matters of policy such as possible major revisions of the zoning map or the updating of the General Plan, last issued in 1971. The Board should also be an active participant An the budgetary process of the Planning Department, reviewing and commenting on the budget before its presentation to Council. The Board could also play a central role in the citywide capital budgeting process, reviewing departmental budgets for conflict or compliance with the General Plan, and submitting these capital budget requests with comments to the Capital Improvements Committee or to the Capital Program Committee. The current process involving both the CIRC and the CPC should be reviewed and amended to avoid redundancy. Altering the policy on variance reviews will give the Planning and Development Board time to consider other important matters, but this change alone will not transform it into a significant, policy-shaping body. This will come only as Council recognizes the importance of a group which comprehensively considers the whole range of future possibilities and challenges facing the city. In brief, the Board can be only as important as Mayor and Council permit. We are not at all certain what to do about the plethora of other boards, commissions and committees which have sprung up over the last decade or so. On an organization chart these appear to float in space with few links to any authority. We ask two questions: To whom do these report? Which ones do we need? As a first step, the Planning and Development Board should review these planning-related entities to determine their current relevance, and should make recommendations for their continuation, redefinition or extinction. We would recommend that when Council establishes new committees it should include provisions for regular review, or perhaps include a "sunset law" in the enabling legislation. We also note that professional expertise is often necessary for these auxiliary groups; perhaps the residence requirements for appointment might be relaxed to include some number of members who are residents of Tompkins County outside city limits. In some cases these boards may be integrated into the Planning Board or one of its subcommittees. Those planning-related entities which remain separate from the Planning Board should transmit their reports to Council . through the Board, and these reports should receive endorsement or criticism of the Board. One additional area of concern is the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency. The IURA was created under Federal and State enabling legislation, and is renewed by the Council about every five years. This agency is not restricted by municipal law, and is therefore freer than Council to carry on development activities in the city. The IURA can sell and lease land and property, hold a mortgage, and sell without going through a bidding process. Although the agency may commit the city to a project, the Council has final approval. Projects are brought to the agency, which submits proposals to the Council; Council may then designate the IURA as the lead agency for such projects. The IURA does not have a budget of its own, but is responsible for administering various funds. It is involved only when public funds are used, not when a private developer is carrying out the project. IURA members currently hold permanent appointments. While this provides for continuity which the Planning Board does not enjoy, permanent tenure seems excessive. We recognize the need for longer terms when projects of some duration are in progress, but we would suggest that three to six years is a more appropriate period. Members, now appointed by the mayor, should be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Council. We also strongly recommend that some lay board member should serve expressly as a liaison between the IURA and the Planning and Development Board. This might be accomplished by a cross appointment to IURA and the Planning and Development Board, or by naming the members of the Planning Board to the Citizens ' Advisory Council of IURA. I-6 MEMORANDUM December 12 , 1983 TO : Charter and Ordinance Review Commission FROM : Christopher A . Pine , Graduate Student Aide SUBJECT: Final revision of August 2 , 1983 Report on Administration Attached is the final revision of the August 2 report, in fulfillment of my summer ' s work-study efforts on your behalf. According to your suggestions, I have broken out major subheadings in the text with regard to the Table of Contents to make it more self-explanatory. I have also expanded a section on Advisory Boards, revised the draft Organization Chart, and added recommendations concerning Council Standing Committees and review of the Planning function, in order to reflect discussions in the intervening months bridging to the work of the Commission. The main thrust of the recommendations made in August has not changed . Charter revision, while a salutory end, will be a grueling task to accomplish at best, and requires professional and legal expertise the City must get from the outside . Of more immediate concern is clarification of guidelines for City government as laid out in the Municipal Code . The current form of this document is inadequate to the task . It needs , at minimum, three additions or revisions : -A comprehensive Administrative Procedures section needs to be added . -The Municipal Code needs to be properly indexed and cross-referenced to other pertinent legal documents--a task best handled internally by each department and consolidated by a special Staff Task Group. -The Code should have a section that consolidates the procedures and appointments of all lay boards, including procedures for their familiarization with government operations and annual reporting of their activities ( e .g. , agenda, attendance, votes taken) . These activities are longer range . More immediate action should be taken with regard to the reorganization of adminis- trative tasks . It was clear from the two dozen interviews conducted that operations could be smoothed out if the Mayor and Council reasonably consolidated a few key areas of administration below them. In the long run, that may well mean centralizing authority in either a strong mayor or professional administrator . The immediate problems have to -2- do with getting the work "out the door" effectively. A good start toward solving those kinds of problems would be to ask those who do the actual work--paid employees below deputy or assistant department head--how they would improve the operation. The recommendations for reorganization made in this report should be taken as suggestions for discussion by the employees, not as solutions to be imposed by Council without their participation. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you, the City Administrations, and the community as a whole . I will be available for any further testimony required, at your convenience . C . A . Pine THE CHARTER AND CODES : STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF ITHACA , NEW YORK An analysis with recommendations prepared for the Charter -and Code Commission by Christopher A. Pine December 1983 Contents I . AN ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT 1 A . Basis of the Analysis 1 B . Understanding the Organizational Chart 2 1 . Problems of making an organizational chart . 2 2 . First Tier: Council, Standing Committees and Their Staffs. 2 3 . Second Tier: Administrative Units. 4 4. Third Tier: Advisory boards . 8 II . REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE MUNICIPAL CODES 9 A . Clear Guidelines for Commissions and Boards 9 B . Charter and Code Revision 10 1 . The Charter. 10 2 . The Municipal Code . 10 3 . Codification and the Administrative Code . 14 C . Recommendations 11 1 . Staff participation in revisions . 11 2 . Suggestions for updating the Administrative Code . 12 3 . Regrouping administrative units. 13 4 . Committee and Planning Department changes. 14 5 . Suggestions for referencing and indexing the Municipal Code . 14 III . CONCLUSION 15 Attachments 1 . Draft Organizational Chart of City Government. 2 . Tompkins County Advisory Boards and Commissions with City of Ithaca Representation. I . AN ANALYSIS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT A . Basis of the Analysis This analysis is based on 24 interviews with 18 people involved in city government administration past and present, conducted during June and July 1983 . During that time key documents were reviewed to clarify and confirm ( and sometimes contradict) information and impressions received during those meetings . From the outset it was quite clear that most of the actors had a clear opinion of their own particular role in the administration usually based on documentation in their personal possession. Their understanding of how other actors ought to perform or were legally bound to act was based on experience of how "things really get done around here . " Relative newcomers were clearly disturbed by this loosely- collected information. Even longer-term handsvoiced concern that the basis for some of their activity was from accepted practice or an obscure Council resolution in years past . Document research bore this out. There is no single document that details the operations of city government, from the election of Council and Mayor down to the dissolution of ad hoc advisory committees, from letting out capital improve- ments contracts in a fair and legal manner down to explaining why the Building Department issues building permits, but the Department of Public Works inspects the plumbing. The Charter and the Municipal Code, separately or together, do not describe or even mention every administrative unit in the City. Frequently one must laboriously wade through the proceedings of Common Council to find the legal basis for some procedure and why it is under a particular unit. Even then, one m a y encounter the phrase , "Discussion followed on the floor" , and be forced to give up. It would be kind to say that past Common Councils and Mayors have shown lack of foresight in how they proceeded to document their creations. From time to time , it has been suggested that reorganizing the government from the top down, .)e. , changing to a manager form, would go toward solving these problems and others . Aside from Mayor Shaw, there was a universal lack of interest among the interviewees for that suggestion. Rationales ranged from the political futility of the proposal, to the observation that cities of similar size and with the manager form also have problems with their charters and codes. That latter point was borne out by correspondence with ten such cities in Upstate New York. ) A much more widely held belief was that Council and the Mayor should mandate guidelines or protocols and adhere to them. Time and again it was heard that current council members were not aware of past rulings, or were ignoring them, thereby setting up conflicts and confusion. A look at the attached draft Organi- zational Chart will give an indication why all this is so . -1- ' -2- B . Understanding the Organizational Chart 1 . Problems of making an organizational chart . Most organizational charts are drawn with lines of authority or communication between units to create the familiar branching pattern. In the case of Ithaca, there are few of these formal lines, and little continuity one to another. There is a clearly mandated line between Mayor and Common Council, and between each of the Council ' s standing committees and a specific top level administrator . The City Attorney has a specific relationship with the Mayor and Council . All the so-called "operative" boards ( commissions that have some autonomy of action on behalf of the City) have mandated linkages with one or more of the top-level administrators . But, overall , the primary relationship is based on which department is per- ceived by the Mayor and Council as having their interest at the moment . Department heads or their emmissaries come before Council or its standing committees at the request of Council, on department business, or sometimes at the request of an associated board . The more independent boards (Fire , Urban Renewal, Public Works, Zoning Appeals) reserve their requests for budget-time and major policy issues . Operative boards that perform an examining function apparently seldom request staff to go to Council (Plumbers, Electricians, Civil Service) . Advisory boards live and languish according to their relationship to a department . A number of of reasons account for this : If the problem is seen as timely oz:' pressing by Mayor and Council and the department head, the board will be expected to be a working group ( if staff time is at a premium) or a review group ( if the department head feels that staff can handle the load) . If the issue is frought with political contention, Mayor and Council will defer to the board, and the staff will be more or less cooperative depending on the department ' s agenda. If there is a difference of personality or "style" between staff and boards, the board will have to depend on its political clout and knowledge of the subject to outweigh that of the department head in order to prevail before Council . Much has been made of various Mayors creating this or that Board for political hay-making. One should not put much credence in that . Council must approve the formation of committees and their budgets ( if any--most often expenditures come from department lines) . Without a strong ongoing relation- ship with staff, part-time voluntary boards lack continutiy to carry out long-term programs . Such a board may outlive the administration of the appointing Mayor, but they seem to gain reputations as repositories of eccentric behavior. Given the above--the Mayor and Council as a central control unit with associations of departments and related lay boards dealing with the central authority more or less indepen- dent of the other associative units--the form of each associa- tive unit becomes important for understanding the overall chart construction. 2 . First Tier: Council, Standing Committees and Their Staff . If one were to imagine the City as a private corporation, Mayor and Council operate as a Board of Directors with an inde- ' -3- pendently elected chairman of the board who is also the chief executive officer. Because there is no separate executive ( either a strong mayor independent of Common Council or a city manager) there is no administrative staff to Council as such. The City Attorney ( 1) advises both the Mayor and Council, and the City Clerk ( 3) serves as Secretary of the Minutes of Council Proceedings . (Note : Parenthetical numbers or letters after a staff title appear as "flags" in the Chart to simplify reading. For example , City Clerk ( 3) means that wherever ( 3) appears, Clerk is associated with that unit as staff. ) The Mayor and Attorney share an administrative aide (AA) , and the Clerk has a steographer, who is shared with other boards and committees . However, the Mayor divides up Council into five Standing Committees, each of which has a top-level administrator assigned as staff. The Controller ( 2) serves the Budget and Administration Committee , which, in addition to its obvious function-, also happens to be a committee of committee chairpersons . The Mayor, while not listed as a committee member, attends most of the meetings . Two of the five members also sit on the Planning and DevelopT:ient Committee , the Planning and Development Board ( the advisory board to the Planning Department) and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency or the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission; and three of the five sit on the six-member Capital Improvements Review Committee . This would seem to make city planning interests well represented on budget and administration issues . "B & A" is universally considered among the interviewees to be far-and-away the most influential of the standing committees . It also has a reputation in this and past administrations as being the most close-vested in its workings . The Personnel Administrator also serves a de facto staff role to this committee , which will be covered later on. Charter and Ordinance is often considered the second most influential standing committee , because all proposed charter changes and ordinances are reviewed by it. Most resolutions are referred to it by Council that have longer-term policy implications . It may seem surprising that the City Clerk, and not the Attorney, serves as staff to this group ; but the Clerk is the keeper of city records and standard forms of laws, and posts the public announcements, while the Attorney may be asked to rule occasionally on legally complex items that come before them. The Clerk ' s stenographer aids this committee in day-to-day business. The Planning and Development Committee is staffed by the Planning Director ( As suggested above , much of its influence derives from its members ' involvement in a number of other related advisory boards having to do with the physical development of the city. Of course , this also is the primary limiting factor, because the Committee must cooperate with the other groups to be most effective , and it is difficult to get that many actors to be of one mind on a given issue . The Human Services Committee is staffed by the Mayor (M) because the city has no human services agency per se , and the Mayor, as a sort of "councilperson-at-large" , is presumed to -4- have the welfare of the less fortunate citizenry at heart . The Youth Bureau Director ( 10) has a staff relationship to this group specifically regarding departmental programs. As with the Planning Committee , Human Services derives its influence from affiliatitins with other groups, but this is much more dilute because the other groups represent the larger community of Tompkins County or are citizens ' action groups that are politically "outside the system" . The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is staffed by the Clerk (3) , again mainly due to his records-keeping function. The current Mayor appointed himself chairman of this committee, so for all intents and purposes, it has become a function of his office and dormant as a Council Committee . 3 . The Second Tier: Administrate=ve Units. As was said above , every top-level administrator or department and related lay boards can be considered an associa- tive unit. The structure of the unit may be statutory solid lines and boxes) or de facto either by long-standing precedent or as a consequence of legal requirements in other spheres of government ( shown on the chart by dashed lines or boxes) . In either case historical conditions and continuing evolution give each unit a unique form that bears on its mission/function. REMEMBER THAT THIS CONCEPT IS MERELY AN INTERPRETIVE TOOL! FOR THE MOST PART, THE CITY DOES NOT MAINTAIN A COMPREHENSIVE AND UPDATED DESCRIPTION OF THE FORM OF ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS. SOME DEPARTMENTS KEEP SUCH RECORDS AS A MATTER OF COURSE , BUT THE MATERIAL IS NOT DISTRIBUTED OR SHARED. Of course, not every administrator or lay board member will agree with the forms shown; these are offered as a compre- hensive draft of a likely organizational chart. Recommenda- tions for dealing with this and related problems will be made further on in the report . (Again, parenthetical numbers show appropriate staff relations. ) The City Attorney ( 1) is not a department head . His is a part=time office that has part-time access to the Mayor ' s administrative aide and three part-time legal assistants to allow him some time for private practice . He is available to all departments and boards for legal opinions from the city' s corporate perspective . He is an ex officio member of the Conservation Advisory Council ( see the third tier below) . The Finance Department is a combination of three official functions each separately mandated by the City Charter, as is the Department itself. The Controller ( 2) oversees the budget- planning and administrative costs of the City. This administra- tive requirement gives him virtual direction over the lower level staff of the Department, but not over the Chamberlain and Deputy Chamberlain, who oversee the collection of city taxes and fees, or the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk, who maintain the City records, contracts, and other archival material. The City Historian also assists the Clerk. This arrangement makes for a certain amount of confusion over the lines of authority and consequently occasional ruffled feathers. The Chamberlain -5- has no staff connection to any lay board, but the nature of the office makes him the most publically visible of the three , after the Clerk ; the latter issues licenses and permits, the former collects the fees . The Clerk ( 3) is staff to Common Council as mentioned above , and sits on the Conservation AdvisDry Council ( third tier) in a role similar to that of the Attorney and Mayor. The Controller ' s second major staff function, after "B & A" , is to the Capital Improvements Review Commission, made up of two members each from Council, the Planning and Development Board ( the lay board) , and Board of Public Works. He shares staffing responsibility to this commission with the Mayor, the Director of Planning, and the Superintendent of Public Works--the four administrators are collectively known as the Capital Planning Committee . Every budget that is presented by each department is split into Operations and Capital Projects ; the latter goes from the Controller to the CPC to the CIRC to the B & A Committee and finally to Council . Along the way it is recoupled to the Operations portion for submission to the B&A by the Mayor as his Executive Budget . It is not difficult to see how extremely influential the position of Controller, and consequently the Finance Depart- ment, is . ( One further note : for some obscure reason that nobody seems to know, the Building Commissioner ( 5) supposedly reports to the Controller "for administrative purposes" as a requirement of the Charter. Perhaps it has to do with the issuing of permits and the collection of fees and the making of public notices . At any rate , aside from collecting fees, nobody seems to bother with making the connection, and it is left dangling. . . ) The Planning Department is a creation springing from the demands put on the Director of Planning (4) to serve in several capacities . On record there is no "planning department" as such. There are two lay boards that have the power to hire staff. The Planning and Development Board now largely serves an advisory capacity to the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council, but at one time , it Was . influential . In fact, under the enabling ordinance of 1946 , it was the Board that created the position of Planning Director. Since it drew its power from state law that allows it to control subdivision (no longer done much in Ithaca) and direct and suggest a General Plan for the City ( superceded by Federal funding pro- cedures) , the Board has receded in prominence . Its influence was seriously undercut by the creation of the CIRC . Since capital projects are the main tool for implementing a general plan, the removal of the Board from project priority-setting sharply circumscribes what they can in fact do . As a result, there have been repeated claims of poor appointments to the Board, and counterclaims of frustrated efforts by the Board to contribute to City government. The Director also serves as staff to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency/Community Development Corporation ( IURA CDC ) . Through a series of legislative actions by succeeding Common Councils intending to take advantage of Federal grants and loans for local economic and community development, IURA/CDC accrued a great deal of authority and influence . to set the -6- development agenda for the City, sometimes presenting Common Council with fait accompli . At times the ironic moderating factor between Council and IURA has been the Planning Director, who happens to also be the executive director of IURA , an appointment made to save the City some salary money, and, of course , to maintain some influence over Agency operations . The Planning Director or his staff also serve other boards as well ; he serves as secretary of the Capital Planning Committee ( but only nominally--the Controller does the actual work) ; he or his designee staff the Design Review Board regarding specific zoning matters, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, the Hydropower Commission, the Task Force on Recycling, the Route 96 Design Review Board, and the Zoning Appeals Board regarding the recommendations of the Planning and Development Board . The Director also serves the Mayor and Council for purposes of data management and long-range planning, but because of the heavy emphasis placed on economic develop- ment, this is perhaps the most tenuous of his functions . Likewise , the Building Commissioner ( 5) has a department built up around him based on the exigencies of his office . Unlike the Planning Director, though, he has an authoritative mandate from the Charter, and a set of clearly defined opera- tive lay boards with which to work . These are the Examining Board of Electrician's, the Housing Board of Review, the Board of Appeals to the Building Code , and the Board of Zoning Appeals . The last is perhaps the most problematic , simply because nobody likes to be told how to use their property. The Board of Appeals to the Building Code is also staffed by the Fire Safety Inspector ( 12) ( Fire Department) and the City Engineer ( 9) (Department of Public Works. ) Building inspections regarding the installation of plumbing (DPW) and wiring (New York State Board of Fire Underwriters) are handled by the agencies indicated, whose inspectors work in concert with those directed by the Building Commissioner. The Purchasing Agent ( 6) position was created to insure the most cost-effective acquisition of general items ( e .g. , tires) and specific purchases under departmental budget lines that go out for bids . The current Purchasing Agent maintains a file outlining procedures, as he interprets the intent of the various ordinances and resolutions Common Council has passed regarding centralized purchasing. This departmental memo was made necessary because there was no systematic revision of the Charter and Municipal Code by Council reflecting interdepart- mental relationships neccessarily changed by centralized pur- chasing procedures . The key phrase in the enabling ordinance that has never been fully interpreted by the City Attorney is " (purchases) shall be subject to selection by the Purchasing Agent . . . " Does this mean a class of items or a specific bid on a particular item? The Board of Public Works has a "working relationship" with the Purchasing Agent, but still uses part of its regular agenda to approve purchases . The Fire Department, that is to say the Board of Fire Commissioners, still disputes control, based on the difference between putting a purchasing contract out for bidding and the actual awarding of the contract . This is clearly one policy dispute aggrevated by the haphazard -7- codification of departmental duties. The Personnel Administrator ( 7) is responsible for overseeing city-wide personnel policy, particularly with regard to affirmative action programs and grievance procedures . The Administrator is also expected to work closely with the contracted Labor Negotiator, and the Civil Service Commission through their Executive Secretary. The Commission is appointed by the Mayor and Council, but is guided by the state and Federal civil service agencies . As with purchasing, personnel policy is garbled by the lack of clear and systematic encoding of departmental duties regarding personnel management. Unlike purchasing, where the Purchasing Agent is a person of long- standing in local government affairs, and thus personally familiar with City Hall goings-on, the Personnel Administrators both have been relatively new. The policy jumble has been particularly onerous, because the City also lacks any sort of orientation procedure for new employees or appointees, or even newly elected officials . Along with capital projects, personnel management is a high-priority policy item; that also makes it the prime subject for discord among the Mayor, department heads, and the Common Council . The independent nature of the Board of Fire Commissioners, and their personnel policies ' effect on City policy, create more contention. In the midst of this, the Mayor and Council have placed a Personnel Administrator with no power to arbitrate or negotiate, and diffuse lines of authority. The Administrator is dependent on other departments for initiating job requests ( departments can be opaque to inquiries why jobs are left unfilled) , on the Mayor for disciplinary action, on the Civil Service Commission for job specifications, and on the Budget and Administration Committee for funding approval . In fact, because all personnel-related matters ultimately go through B & A , the Personnel Administrator is staff to that committee in fact, though not by rule . (When the City was in transition between old and new Personnel Adminis- trators, there was very little question that the Controller-- as staff for B & A, and Chief Financial Officer--would stand in. ) The rest of the second tier of the chart is made up of associative units that are relatively independent, based on combinations of strong lay boards, funding sources, and departments with highly defined missions and hierarchical structure . In fact, it could be argued that disputes of long standing over this quasi-independent state are what define the structural relationships of these units to the rest of City government . The Board of Public Works at one time was more powerful than Common Council in terms of day-to-day operations . Through the Superintendent of Public Works ( 8) and his staff, they maintain the essential services of the City. Over the years Common Council has established more control over the Department of Public Works through appointments to the Board and top-level staff, changes in the budget-review process (many apparently intended for just this purpose) , and the appointment of special advisory commissions for oversight on topical issues . -8- The powers of the Commons Advisory Board mandated by the Municipal Code have been apparently proscribed by actions of the Mayor and Council. There have been disputes in the past with Common Council over policies for the Ithaca Commons and management of Center Ithaca. Supposedly ( I. have not been able to document this) the Commons Coordinator has been directed to report for administrative purposes to either the Superintendent of Public Works or one of his subordinates., The Youth Bureau receives major portions of its funding from outside the City. The current Director is employed by the City ( he is one of the most senior of top-level administra- tors) , and, as said before , serves as staff to the Human Services Committee of Common Council . Program proposals and policy are worked out between the advisory boards and staff, w ile minimal oversight is done by the Human Services Committee . Other than through the appointmEnts of City Prosecutor and Acting City Judge and some political influence in the election of City Judge , the City Court is a wholly independent body from the rest of city government . The Police Commission is appointed by the Mayor, and has some discretion in the matter of promotions and discipline . Administrative matters are largely left to the Chief of Police . By Charter mandate , the Mayor is the head of the Police Department, whose authority has been mostly delegated back down to the Chief. The City Surgeon ( 13) , according to the Charter, serves as medical aide to the Police and Fire Departments in medical emergencies and first aid to officers on duty. He also serves as examining physician for the City in personnel matters. The Board of Fire Commissionersand the Fire Department are effectively an independent corporation contracted by the City. Other than through annual budget review and grants, and the occasional special request for urgent purchases, the City exercises very little control due to Charter structure . 4 . Third Tier: Advisory Boards. Advisory boards and commissions comprise what is in effect a third level of city government, below Council and its committees, and loosely associated with the administrative tier. Unlike the operative boards associ-ated with administra- tive departments, these boards do not directly make policy or operating decisions . Their main function is to facilitate public education and participation in policy-analysis . They are intended as sounding boards for proposals that Council and department heads want reviewed, and clearing houses for citizen inquiries and suggestions. Some are ad hoc , others seemingly deathless ( and meaningless) . Depending on political :a7AInformation based on secondary sources and not on direct interviews with the subjects . However, these sources are either top-level staff, elected officials, or the preliminary (April) reports of members of this Commission, so the material as presented can be considered accurate . -9- and administrative relationships, this tier might be considered "limbo" for boards in disfavor, troublesome-but-not-"critical" issues, and political-favors-paid. Some interviews consider these boards redundant and hinderances to the governance ; others see the advisory boards as a misued resource of potential talent and involvement. In either caes, there are no clear rules or understanding in the Charter and Codes as to what, in general, these boards ought to be minimally doing. In addition, the City has representation to about fifteen advisory boards of the county and region. An attached table lists them, the number of seats on each, the starting date of the appointments, and their method of selection. The material for this table was summarized from the files of the Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors . The City apparently does not have a readily available list of these appointments. II . REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MUNICIPAL CODES A . Clear Guidelines for Commissions and Boards. A commonplace in many of the interviews conducted was that setting down procedures or protocol for general city administration probably would not work. Reasons given included: Mayors and Councils seem to enjoy breaking their own rules, organizational charts do not really reflect the way things are done , lay boards need the freedom to set their own methods of operation and stay flexible in their response, etc . If one thinks about it, such negativism ( yes, even in supposed freedom of the boards) is a reflection on how disruptive the lack of policy guidelines is. In response to these concerns: Mayors and Councils trip over old procedures they did not know about, or are unclear as to their purpose in the scheme of things. If they want to institute new procedures, of course it will be perceived by those affected as "rule-breaking" , because there is no clear method of transition from one set of policies to the next . Organizational Charts are by nature obsolete as soon as they are distributed, but at least they give a focus for discussions about improving the organization, through their obvious ommissions as well as their accuracy. Yes, advisory boards should be free to respond and organize themselves--but to what purpose? Every board ' s mission, relationship to departments, and responsibilities to the community should be clearly stated and spelled out, so that all concerned can use the direct citizen involvement on the boards to the highest ends for the community, and legitimately challenge those which are not . The proper vehicles for protocols are the City' s Charter and Municipal Code . Without quoting chapter and verse , and by saying that neither document has much to say about half the departments mentioned above , and almost nothing about committees, boards , and commissions, one can make a strong case for addenda, if not for revidion, to these two-documents . ' -10- B . Charter and Code Revision. 1 . The Charter. In the case of the Charter, that document is not easily altered . There is no difference between amendment and revision of the Charter. By attempting to add needed clauses to the document, Ithaca would open itself to fractious disputes over archaic phrases which may or may not still be relevant to the operation of the City. For example , now that horses are generally considered big pets and not work-animals, do the citizens want to allow the livery of horses back in the city? Will their "natural tendencies" be held on par with those of dogs ( also covered in the Charter) and be considered public nuisance? And what does that have to do with efficient government? It seems clear that the Charter is not the vehicle for necessary change even though it may itself need revision. 2 . The Municipal Code . The Municipal Code is a much simpler document within which to deal with structural change . If six members of the Common Council and the Mayor, or seven members of Council over a Mayoral veto , wish to amend or revise policy, they may do so--in most cases without approval from the Department of State in Albany or through popular referendum--by ordinance . Extensive revision may require a Local Law, subject to approval from Albany, and sometimes a referendum. Still , if it were really that simple , one would think that past Mayors and Council would have preferred periodically updating the Code to the more haphazard method they in fact used . Most administrative changes Council approves are done through resolutions of the will of Council, or ordinances not designed to amend the Code but to stand independent of it . All advisory boards have been created that way, as have the administrative positions of Planning Director, Purchasing Agent, and Personnel Administrator. Staff responsibilities to the Common Council and the lay boards were also handled in this manner. 3 . Codification and the Administrative Code . At the moment that the changes were considered, and the months of discussion that sometimes preceeded, they were well- intended changes . But the future interpretation of those actions has been colored by no codification, poor referencing and lack of a clear continuity with related law. In the mid-Seventies two separate consulting firms were hired to look into the problem. The first, Municipal Consultants and Publishers, established the present format of the Municipal Code , enacted by the City ,1X1 1975 • Resolutions and ordinances are still customarily forwarded to them for their suggestions on incorporating the material into the Municipal Code . As was said, many referenda have not been incorporated, because they were not passed by Council in the legally proper manner for inclusion in the Code . The second report mentioned resulted in several such inappropriately formatted resolutions . The Robinson Report, as it is generally referred to , contained a recommendation for a comprehensive Administrative a They have no contractual obligation to continue this service which they provide as a courtesy. Code detailing some ( but not all) administrative units and their duties and responsibilities. Even in those units cited, the report most often deferred to the Charter as the source for information. Its primary focus was on the budget process, capital projects planning, and the related offices of the Mayor, Controller ( as Chief Financial Officer and head of the Finance Department) , and Planning Director. The Youth Bureau was the only other department described in detail. The report was apparently adopted by resolution of Council July 2 , 1975 , after six months of deliberations in the Charter and Ordinance Committee . According to the records of the City Clerk, it was adopted substantially as it was presented in January. Versions now circulating around city government show substantial deletions and alterations . This seems to have resulted after Municipal Consultants and Publishers advised Council that it should consider making the Administrative Code local law ra her than a mere resolution of Council ' s will . It went back to Committee for three years with no apparent move to act on the suggestion. However, significant changed in City structure were made as a result of the original report, and perhaps the further deliberations of the Committee . The budget process as described in detail in the Administrative Code is in place and working. Some aspects of the proposed restructuring of the Finance Department were incorporated into the positions of Purchasing Agent and Personnel Director as they were established a few years later. Left unresolved were the Administrative Code ' s effect on the offices of the Mayor, Controller, Planning Director, and Youth Bureau Director, and the application of the Administrative Code as a whole . C . Recommendations . 1 . Staff participation in revisions . The Charter and Ordinance Committee should consider discussions with the Cmtroller and Planning Director, and their associated boards and committees, what elements of the Administrative Code could be salvaged in order to clarify the administration of their respective departments . The City Engineer should be consulted by the Committee regarding the efficient presentation of the Code for two very good reasons . First, even though sections of the Municipal Code covering many aspects of Department of Public Works operations are extensive, the Municipal Code is still inadequate in matters of project development, liability and other procedures for which a '.Drofessi.onal engineer can be held responsible . I am not sure that any other official could give the Committee the necessary information. Second, modern engineers come from a background in large projects planning, programming and development and would be an excellent source of information regarding the Municipal Code as a specifications document . The Personnel Administrator should be consulted, because he/she is presumably removed from departmental politics, and is a natural choice to act as liaison with other department heads, since the personnel relation is ubiquitous . -12- Merely as a group of .people asked to work together, these particular four represent a gamble--because of personal- ity and professional bias, can they work together? Is there potential conflict due to perceived age , gender, experience or other differences? However, the group makeup may be highly conducive to creative solutions for formatting the Municipal Code more usefully, and incorporating the Adminis- trative Code into the Municipal Code . 2 . Suggestions for updating the Administrative Code . The Administrative Code as suggested by the Robinson Report, even if it were to be codified within the Municipal Code , has been outdated by events in city government subsequent to 1975 . It also does not cover two important aspects of administration discussE?d above, the creation of lay boards, and their relationships to administrative departments and other commissions . If the Administrative Code were codified as, say, Chapter Four under the Administrative Title ( I) of the Municipal Code , its general format would have to be reorgani. ed . At present it is a thirteen-part laundry list of some of the units of City government, parts of which merely refer the reader back to the Charter without summation or clarification. One possibility for improving the format would be to have chapter sections : e .g. ; "Sec . 9.--General Provisions of the Administra- tive Code , " including its purposes and contents ; "Sec . 2-- Elected Officials" ; "Sec . 3--Appointed Officials and Adminis- trative Departments" ; "Sec . 4--Boards and Commissions" ; and as appendices, an organizational chart and a reference :index including cross-references to the Charter, Municipal Code , and state laws where appropriate . Articles would have to be added to describe the Purchasing, Personnel, and Building Departments . Articles on the Board of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Development will have to be expanded ; for the former, to encompass a description of the Department of Public Works ; for the latter, to more clearly define the different aspects of community development, long-range planning, and planning assistance . Several long articles of the Administrative Code , notably those covering Common Council, City Attorney, the Fire Depart- ment, City Court, and the Board of Public Works, are sparsely described because it was "not necessary or useful to interpret" sections of the Charter. By its more easily amended form, the Administrative Code should indeed be an interpretive document, containing the most current version of how the City is administrated . There is no good reason why it cannot be rewritten as changes in policy are made , and codified on an annual or semi-annual basis . This would go a long way toward alleviating a very aggrevating problem in City govern- ment : People on all levels from the person on the street on up to the Mayor do not have a clear understanding of what the rules are , how they can be referred to , and how to go about affecting them. -13- 3 . Regrouping Administrative Units . Some provision ought to be made for general administrative assignments . The articles of Common Council, the Mayor and the Finance Department in the original Administrative Code suggest functions and duties in a disjointed fashion. No mentioned is made of the Standing Committees in the Code, and staff relationships to them are merely indicated in an uncodified ordinance . The Mayor ' s powers and duties are updated somewhat, but no provision was made for an Administra- tive Director ( presumably on the same level as Controller, Clerk, and Chamberlain) who would handle staffing assignments, routing, personnel, and purchasing matters--rather like a city manager, but one step lower in the chart . Apparently, the separation of purchasing and personnel administration was seen by Common Council as desirable , but a central administra- tor of whatever title was not . Those functions of the aborted Office of Administration not subsumed by the creation of the Purchasing Agent or Personnel Administrator can still be used as the kernal of improvement for daily operations in City Hall . (Refer -to Article IV of the Administrative Code , Section 4. 01 , subsections a, b, g, i , j , k, and 1. ) Dealing with the public for daily functions such as information and referral, fees and permits, mailing and distribution, documents processing and reproduction could all be managed under one unit .Wade up of the Clerk, Chamberlain and parts of the Controller ' s staff which could be given a more modern designation like "City Business Office" . There would also be an Administrative Coordinator who would direct the provision of staff services to the Mayor, Common Council and its Committees . He/she could temporarily assign clerical staff from one unit to the other to meet workload demands . The Coordinator would be responsible to the Controller, as head of the Finance Department, but at a level lower than Deputy Controller, Clerk or Chamberlain. Overall , the Controller would direct a Finance Department with a City Business Office unit and a Finance and Administration unit . Other staff assignments would have to be adjusted -to make this work out . The Administrative Aide to the Mayor should be assigned full time to the Mayor. The City Attorney should share staff time with the Charter and Ordinance Committee ( if left intact) , or the Attorney should be designated staff to the Charter and Ordinance Committee . The Clerk ' s Stenographer would be jointly appointed to Council as a whole and Charter and Ordinance and Board of Public Works would provide their own stenographer to keep minutes, but under the direction of the Clerk, as provided in the Charter. Part of the duties of the Administrative Coordinator would be the maintenance of current protocol and appoin-Iments of the various boards and commissions . Additional articles would have to be made for the Administrative Code detai__ing general procedures and qualifications for appointment, terms of office , and mandated relationships of each Board or Commission, and perhaps the notion of a "sunset" clause for certain classes of advisory boards, ought to be considered . -14- The important consideration for the advisory board is not that their duties and preogatives be minutely circumscribed, but rather that all boards be described in one document so that their relationship to the rest of city government be understood . For example , what the -Board of Zoning Appeals must consider is spelled out by the "Zoning" chapter of the Municipal Code . On the other extreme , how the Planning Department provides staff to it, the Planning and Development Board, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, the Planning and Develop- ment Committee and the Mayor is not spelled out in any one place , officially. This is just one example, and the City has over two dozen such boards, and representation on some fifteen more at the county and regional levels . 4. Committee and Planning Department Changes. Two areas of consideration beyond the scope of this report are the make-up of the Standing Committees of Common Council, and the make-up and role of the Planning and Development Department . The Standing Committees are lopsided in the distribution of responsibilities among them, with Budget and Administration far and away the dominant group. A great deal of effort is put into budget-penciling and personnel decisions, and less in policy recommendations to the full Council than ought . While this matter requires a great deal of thought, it is suggested--merely as a starting point--that the Mayor and Council consider reordering and consolidating the current five Committees into three : ( 1) Budget and Capital Planning, ( 2) Administration and Operations, and ( 3) Community Develop- ment and human Services . Respectively, each would focus on: long-range and medium-range policy; Internal day-to-day opera- tions of the city, e .g. , personnel, maintanance , transit, garbage collection ; and Ways and means of community service improvement, including economic development public services ( recreation, health, welfare) . As noted in a previous section, the Planning Depart- ment is a creature of the Planning Director, whose time is commanded by competing elements of long-range planning, policy analysis, and community development . They are competi- tive to the extent that City policy as established by Council has not structurally allowed for the changing requirements of the City' s planning functions . The current dual division of Community Development and Planning seems inadequate to the tabks of long-range planning and policy analysis . Just how the Department would be reorganized is a subject for another report . 5 . Suggestions for the Referencing and Indexing of the Municipal Code . It was suggested that some sections of the Municipal Code were inadequate to protect the City or define its liability, with regard to Public Works . Until that document is adequately cross-referenced to itself and other documents the same case could be made for every administrative unit in the City. Shouldn 't the Code include references to Adver- tising, Bidding, and Contracts or some reference or citation- -15- index on city policy regarding "X-rated" adfilt entertainment controls, Youth programs, as well as Zoning--everything from A to Z and in between? Bather than have the Committee attempt to do that thank- less job, they should recommend to Council that the Mayor and Attorney coordinate an interdepartmental task force whose sole objective is the upgrading of the indexing and cross-references of the Municipal Code . At least the Committee should poll the Four administrators previously mentioned, and others the Committee feels appropriate , as to whether they feel they have adequate legal guidance under the current Code . III . CONCLUSION It seems simplistic to reduce the problems of city government to one of communication, but that is a very good starting point for a more detailed explanation. Pointing out how City government operates may clear up a good many disputes . It will also threaten those who have developed a great deal of influence through obfuscation. I do not pretend to cut any Gordian knots by suggesting the prosaic mechanism of a properly codified administrative code as an aid to under- standing. But shouldn 't the City have one document that: 1) Summarizes the duties and responsibilities of every elected and appointed official? 2) Explains how citizens ' advisory boards work in rela- tion to elected bodies and administrative departments? 3) Offers a procedure for amendment that does not threaten the basic structure of City government? 4) Provides a comparative basis for deciding whether or not we are getting good government? 5) Differentiates between precedent and mere force of habit in daily operations? 6) Is readable and accessible to anyone who wants to know how we govern ourselves? : FIRST TIER SECOND TIER THIRD TIER Attachment I ,� QUASI-INDEPENDVNT OP_RATI'✓n AND A =, T n DEPARTMENTS ADVISORY BOARDS &&� 3 A—R S— .VA OR CITY ATTORNEY M part-time �1 1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMMON COL'NC�T� ASSISTANT TO 3 THE MAYOR BUDGET & CAPITAL FINANCE DEPT. ADMINISTRATION IMP$OVEMENTS REVIEW 2 CONTROLLER (. Z COMMISSION 3 CITY CLERK CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL HISTORIAN PLANNING CHARTER &� 3 COMMITTEE F M7 27478 ORDINANCE ITHACA URBAN —PLANNING DEPT. —-. COMMUNITY RENEWAL AGENCY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY DIRECTOR OF COMMITTEE 4 PLANNING PLANNING & PLANNING AND DE'✓ELOPMENT i DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY GENERAL BOARD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING STAFF STAFF CITY OF ITHACA m i ENERGY CONSERVA- `'' ITHACA LANDMARKSILPC I TION COMMISSION r PRESERVATION COORDINATOR y DESIGN REVIEW 4, HUMAN COMMISSION ) I BOARD C SERVICES ——— — — — —— — J HYDROPOWER 10 COMMISSION ASKFORCE ON DEPT_. —__ RECYCLING M ON J �3 RECYCLING, BOARD OF BUILDING ZONING APPEALS COMMISSIOFER INTER- HOUSING GOVERNMENTAL RELATICNS BOARD OF APPEALS INSPECTORS TO BUILDING CODE BUILDING HCUSING BOARD INSPECTOR i 9,1 2 OF REVIEW I i 1 EXAMINING BOARD ELECTRICAL ;F ELECTRICIANS INSPECTOR (reports to and employed by NYS l Bd. of Fire - I Underwriters) o I PLUMBING INSPECTOR (reports to and w employed by DPW) I 9 E" �. W F i PURCHASING DEP —� I a I PURCHASING AGENT 6 I i � PERSONNEL DEPT_—— PERSONNEL o I ADMINISTRATOR 7 F}. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADVISORY v LABOR CONTRACTS I COMMISSION NEGOTIATOR o (private contract) z l CIVIL SERVICE CSC EXECUTIVE COMMISSION SECRETARY (reports to NYS) (ofapageon�` inues at top ix t 'y j � i-41inu , r , 3.r Fit �F w- biSE h, f k *.' > j"S.0 '�'.x'u„ {, k• G, d k ,5 « s{,rp nth' t, `Jp .,. fi. +�`a d�:�' S ''b _�lY 4' ��r�M:,',t�rh 9" b P.; 4=, • f yr � iaA ,) �,; ,i's ,+, , ,•;� u,, :a,.. e r,' ^;. .< .,,.: s^, xrzti,�. a +,5 z3 ,a ;,s •%.� s:kv ,ix{` �. ..,.,, -, s, •�..... , �. 4 ,.:<,. .,y� e r. .P, „..,..,., , , ,. a :-,.,rJ ( ,.,..,..4 Y^ 'F((,..,*x„ :fit'., , Y' x ff�t. iut�y�� '-r"4 4 , $..: ,r+'x'+ ,' Y , ,....•.,, :. a.±..... {i,...t, ,.�.Mr.." h. 9 k, .. v,. v1:n,..Y, <... t.. ,4... ,a,L ,..,.. A :,., M1`Y, ,. ,.. t pp.. ..i .,. J, .0 .. y, >• ,. } .. <,. ... e , ,,,- ,, r... .,.. t r.. .,, t.. r. j L• , ..:... , k .,. ,..,.Y. .. tf X. f A , ,:.: PS.,,, ,.. fii: .f, ,,.fa r =,; t• . :i...�` ...,..,. ,M .•.. ,t Y .,,, :�,. ,.,y '�i .J ., ,.m '�'.:. .. is.f 5r"_k :, 6 �, 4. i�. -L,er 5 .:v .. Y L K 1 .\. a .v: h t V u .. s } ,.,... '�',_•... ,.s s,m ... .!. r ,. ,.: , .,.N. {dN.S.. .: ., xt ,r :..r .., ,,, f.. ,: .• m, .., n: u t .. , C.,.aa r, .,� &^c n. l,r.,.+" �'`. a, r., ..' ,. -s. .. ..'� ., , ... ., �, ,. , ,, �.. r., ... ,.. ,. .. Y.lat ,, v+,. k `r .ai, •«,.. ,r. I) ,. ,.. 1.. ,r„ .., ,,. "�, a:M zx 3.. ,. ..r..., ,r �.-,... .. z. •. ,..-. ,... :T -,....a .s ,.l, ..:, I F .9Y ,.4.'{..., -0. ,ki.:a.: m -, ...'. .:> � .. ,... n..v a, ... t.. �.... ., .,..r.r. :. ,. a. :. .t ,.. a Ma' ..p�� ,>. r., -, .. J• r..r,,...n e.,. A,�`..n. .,:..3 �' ., 1 ,...:.: i', a •.., ,l.r �. , .., �......N .. ,+.. T. U u : .... v ..e�-R .. t ,. `,_.I. a _._, W ,.7,.. ,R.. e ti Y',. „�„ u4 ... , .....7E•. ... , :d, £: ,., A=.k... �..... :. , , .... V ,:nr.•, .S.fn.: ,.. � d.� '£'k"',Pa'. 5 >�' d' T ,,,, , ,C.::. .. ,g+.i,.:rr. ":r✓ .. , ,..,. r..{d R P ,,,::. ri, Y y ..p ,N.. _ ,N.. d. ,.. ,a ti , :_ ", ,,�. .. .,.. .... a°t °�.: . . , ,.,: .. r ... zt. 4.. .� ,.:�.. .. [" . .:..., ,a + •�.a: .. ,� 4 ....r , , Qg+� p ,. ,A. i r. 5'• , tl ..:. ;}. A, ':r.e. ,,.. r:,Y e�u. .«.{. x. v � u ±r ..„.s,;:,a..r «, ,., ,. , .r4h.•, ..... ,,..'� „�.... .., rrn. d .,. .,. �� ., d. ,, .,t •. r, .Wr., r �- 4`r': :rrR rt ,,, e,. ..m .. .�,, ,u t ;u,.,. ,,. _:, �° "f".. „ , .. ..a. u.,. .. ,,, s.,.. r ,�, • .< W _i. , r" sa Y ,w, @x.. r,�}ra,..r� '.. ,� c° ,... ,. , ,,. ,•:,,.k : ., �' �F re gv.r ul''� ,ark, r5 ,*n.. r v,r, ,., '•,.. ... fJ,v :.,.,.:i k� xi 4°. •Y, r..,n R�., �., .. *...,S Ak r .a....... ,..,.trrf. w..,,:... rY+ ,,4�, a..;. e, ,.:,. ,Yr ,,.,. ..<,.. „_. ;:, ,t.,..,k' ,. ,F ,., n�',. ,�} •:,d' "r � -.�kS i+� ,i. f r.,».. ?,_;..,, ,; :.: z r}a..,:, .. r ,.. .r, r,., �3• ?., .: „ ;� x.._.> ,r P, ,'k. t E ,r r' a •r , WSW .:. s'. t , > �P no —fly z 3 s Mas WN c�3 •N,axF .y r W :y4 a %t Pvi: r ,k, ,x gr* , fr' • cia.': vkr. es �-': x}, ,�� ��:� rn r s�.;� ��I fid,, ,E. � E ;,cry .�i.' tv �f , 4"T,.f � f •',)1SrrIt F:t"Cfis' i L.k. ✓ :,a,k u, ;'.F y, " e tai>b .: r�:>,,:..,. ,•,,,, r�P.ru. t.3 , ,e' , „. ., ..,' u.., .raw .ru �.::<>,... .� x'�..... !Wan. < .. a,. sse.. XJ F`. ..,s } ,,, .. ... x,, ,'�, „-.,._ r ., P:, P, .,..<; x„ P ,. ,.,, .::X.C,. ,•r � . ,� £ ., 5t w . . T< '4,. ...,,. , aa:: >. .,,.� :1 f rr x 4« ,, ..x ,cif�, _.„..ls ,,_,d �., r;z. :... �4 riF man ti� r::. :.; r , Y ,,. ,r ,..�a, r 3: ,: ,,.. , , -•..., k�- .,:,{ ,r ...a.. ”: , , m ,:. tq ..: ..,.. , ,. ,.. wl'. .. ,...: , f r- , ., n. {, 'i>KX r.. n. C s ,..r•. f r ,..�?.._ r,v..* r.!...,, ,.. .. , ,9�, n. _., ., ...<.. �• i. ... .. i,.. :... ..; ,. r.w :. ,. ,,t. ..r .. , fir.::. '�,,.,. r. ....x,.... �. .6 ,,,, .M,,.,. 1... .1 ,.: Tx, ,. r, ,..t �. ...... .. ... .. „ n.:.> .t,r „i:V-,, i d:...:• , «. ',, :.: f ., ,!. .:i. : .::, ... 1 ..,. .: , a U.. ... 1. ", + .... C ,..,b,.✓ , d. ,,: , .: w , '➢.. „f" ,,:.. .,..4a r, t.:., �. .:., ,.rd :,, ,r , ,. tiM .-,.,, „ r. .. d.. � :,;..., ., , ,..,.: R.' `,.:. t ,.a .L ,..ate. y `•'�". ,.....,< 4. r ,,,,:..,. ..,. a c .... .. .,.... a.. 4.. d ,,,a` ,t.. :; »:..s1' •. r. ,... 9. .� ,a,�,,a!, J ,.,. ,..t r, a ,x,,. .L ,. .:, r. ,, i .x,. ,. ..,nY...:. ,.. , E ,., F. .,r;v „:& V... .., ,,, a. t , h: ..::-,.f.. ,.. e a. ,..-f'• ... . .. i.. . .t,. .. £ }:�, :d.: P :iv L t:... r d r..•,,,..„ ..:.,...n .:E.x..-, t. ,..v.a, p(�,�y ti.: i , ...>.:x,i A, ',:Ly,. .,, n., .. ;n .,... .f: ,hir '.P.1 .�4....,. ... n..: � ,.,,.,_, .. ., , .... F.. , , g,, �, ,.,a., ,, a... T.. :4"":a.. , S .:$a r:c x.:.. >•!..,. � 6 I �=4 ds, „h ., ... „n .,v d,,:::r_rx .. v,,..,ova...,. att_ :,� _, :. ,n,• ... ,,. ,.-..'C... , ,J „4, �:. .. n..,a.+ :t* {. ,.,,� .� , u,s.. .,i , ,m .:r� , .,, ,¢.. }, .. ,... .,,5, -,+,. r.n..Y- . .. � •a„, � +4, . 1,... "h 1 d..r S.. A'.::r k/�y;Fa,,.., ..ir;� � d7"" ,n"�. , :., .,�4+„ ""kY',�u... r” '.,.._ ,. :,, „,i .-5+,... ,rF.r. .:., ::. ;...,�,,•-; ,:,.t`P,. 5,,. .sfi: .,. .>•',..,,, �„ ., ,a",lt.. �. { f, xi ,. ..v... .. ,..7�.�' '.s. C ., r �.. � -.P .:,:. ......� .+... .. ..v,...,.}� ,.� c„ ti,r ,i.. ..;,.1 :.,P � {• :ke:. A �+:, (-. , F.,. t. ,.,.;,.. ,, .., .,: .; :,,,., .,, ✓,„ ., G. ,:: �� .,x�.< ,'� ,_ >. __ ,: , mo-,. P k': �u r.:3 .. , n ,.. .... .'... � ..:. :�, � 5.,.:.-xiY ,.... :♦ 'A,m. d,J..... w;.a 4v. �'1' �Y,. 4.r ., ><,,,. :..+:. �:xr' x i i J.,.:S . ,R, ,k,, f•. r ,,,-: ,*d'µ �h , ,>.. : . ,r c , : . ., r'.J , '§(:,� � t,`�,.. t y � � -..i ..,.t.. ,...,. k•=; P ,.. .,... .;'. .v ., t,. .ns ..• � ,,r, .. :.,.. e � :. ,t.,q ,",�,,' p §, ,k Y .,}j}a..kf (C �w`, .: ,.z ...1 „.� 7�Y,Jdt;R,,*..�..:.. .,r..' ,s r a ,.„:. :,✓ t,.« ".k c .-,..:,' ,.,+, 4” ,..x *.,v'� ,. k x b ^, r';'7� Sh; �A i �, } •,Nr.�t�sx�,d� �, . Pxta J^d 4t 4 35x k ',,,.,. s »,";m,:..- �ka*,t' y. ,',t`��i;:. :,+1' °a ,?.ax'r.3v'J;�. ,.,;..",„ rr,x..•+`� a rz. .� '11 'd }A ,xi Si,p2� x 7 r',"�`,YiY .a * r d � a �iA" R � �` xr 30ARD OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS ROUTE 96 DESIGN SUPERINTENDENT Q REVIEW COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS O SIX-MILE CREEK COMMISSION 9 CITY ENGINEER ASSISTANT TO THE CIRCLE GREENWAY Engineering and SUPERINTENDENT Utilities Div. Streets and CONSERVATION Facilities Div. ADVISORY COUNCIL SEWER INSPEC.OR TRANSPORTATION TV CABLE PLUMBING INSPECTOR SUPERVISOR COMMISSION ELECTRICAL SHADE TREE INSPECTOR COMMITTEE (see also EXAMINING BOARD Bldg. Dept.) OF PLUMBERS GOLF PRO 1 ITHACA COMMONS1 �� COMMONS ADVISORY BOARD COORDINATOR YOUTH BUREAU YOUTH BUREAU ��Q DIRECTOR OF ADVISORY BOARD I1 YOUTH BUREAU G.I.A.C. (see County list) CITY COURT CITY JUDGE (elected) ACTING CITY JUDGE (n CITY PROSECUTOR a U C POLICE FOLIC D PT. COMMISSION p CHIEF OF ?OLICE 11 r U x BOARD OF FIRE o ` COMMISSIONERS —FIRE D PA TMENT z a semi-independent o i corporation which F I contracts services ! to the City) F � Z ' FIRE'CHIEF 12 4 VOLUNTEERS ' m OTHER COUNTY AND 4 REGIONAL BOARDS k (see list) 0 F c a a x K : U W EY a z Official unit (department, board, committee) z O >cc E- a r— — — '-� -- de facto unit (not specifically created L _— — by Charter or ordinance) N D+ a a:3 -1111110 0 appointed or elected official (numeral e w indicates staff linkages tQ other units) s o : O U 6 The Charter and Codes : Structure of Administration of the City of Ithaca, New York, December, 1983 C . A . Pine , Attachment 2 Tompkins County Advisory Boards and Commissions with City of Ithaca Representation Source : working file of the Clerk of the County Board of Representatives, July 1983 . 1 . Assessment Review Board -Local Advisory Board . 3 seats ; appointed 10/1 , 2 by Common Council, one by the Co . Bd . of Reps . (usually the rep. from that district) 2 . Economic Opportunity Corporation. 2 seats ; appointed 4/1 by Bd . of Reps . , another elected by "the Poor" . 3 . Environmental Management Council .1 seat; appointed 4/1 by Bd . of Reps. , on recommendation of Common Council . 4 . T . C . Fire and Disaster Advisory Board . 4 seats ( plus alter- nates) ; appointed 1 1 , all by Bd . of Reps. on recommendation of Common Council . 5 . Greater Ithaca Activities Board . 2 seats ; appointed 1/1 by Common Council . 6 . Board of Health. 1 seat, appointed 1/1 by Bd. of Reps . , on nomination of Mayor. 7 . Human Services Coalition. 2 seats ; appointed ? , by Bd .' of Reps . usually the Mayor and chair of Human Services Committee . ) 8 . Industrial Development Agency. 1 seat ; appointed ? , by Common Council. 9 . Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Commission. 1 seat (plus alternate) ; appointed 1/1 by Common Council . ( In addition, its Planning Committee may include as many as three members from the city: 2 professional staff, plus the 1 commissioner above . ) 10 . T . C . Area Development Corporation. 3 seats ; by Bd . of Reps. 11 . T . C . Economic Advisory Board . 1 seat ; appointed 1/1 by Bd . of Reps . on nomination by the Mayor. 12 . T . C . Planning Board . 2 seats ; appointed 1/1 , by Bd. of Reps . on recommendation of Common Council. 13 . T . C . Youth Board. 5 seats ; appointed 1/1 by Common Council . 14 . STOP-DWI Advisory Board.1 seat ; appointed 1/1 by Bd. of Reps . 15 . Southern Tier East Regional Planning and Development Board . 1 seat ; appointed 1/1 , elected official of City, appointed by Bd. of Reps. I-7 a The Personnel Department of the City of Ithaca was not estab- lished until 1979 • Prior to that time , all personnel matters were the responsibility of individual department heads, the Mayor, and the Common Council . Consequently, the Department is confronted by a large backlog of work, long neglected by city administrators. It has the responsibility of initiating new personnel policies, administering those already in existence , handling employee bene- fits, and if asked, to be of staff assistance on personnel questions as these are rased by the Mayor, Common Council, and department heads . To perform all of these duties, the Department consists of one Personnel Administrator and three persons performing essentially secretarial functions . Given its limited staff and recent creation, it has not yet established itself as a staff agency integral to the more efficient functioning of city government . Rather, it has been confined to routine personnel transactions and the handling of emergency problems as they arise . Jurisdictionally separate from the Department is the Civil Service Commission. Established in 1912, it was intended to act as a watchdog to prevent city administrators from making partisan appointments--at the time not an unreasonable activity. The bi- -idrtisan Commission consists of three Commissioners appointed by the Mayor for six-year terms. To assist it in its work, the Commission has an Executive Secretary who sees to it that job specifications donform to state standards, administers qualifying examinations, and maintains eligibility lists . In the performance of these duties, the Executive Secretary works independently of the Personnel Administrator; each is responsible to a different appointing authority. More importantly, there is no one person responsible for the functions of examination, recruitment, train- ing, evaluation, employee development, etc . Tl1is division of authority is found elsewhere in City Government. The power to appoint municipal employees conforms to no uniform set of standards . Exempt employees ( that is, those not governed by labor union contracts) are selected in a variety of ways . With important Exceptions noted below, Department heads are recruited after a national or state-wide search. All applicants for vacant positions must meet state requirements determined by educational qualifications, experience, or successful passing of an examination. An ad hoc committee consisting of the Mayor, certain department heads and members of the Common Council screens candidates and recommend three for the Mayor to consider. His appointment must then receive the approval of the Common Council. Cibil Service regualtions provide for a six-month probationary period after which the person must either be dismissed or given permanent tenure . Dismissal thereafter can only be for cause . There are important exceptions to this appointment procedure . The Fire Commissioners appoint all members of the Fire Department ; the Board of Public Works selects the Superintendent and other engineers and assistants ; and the Mayor appoints all members of the Police Department . We have already mentioned that the Civil Service Commission appoints its own Executive Secretary without the -2- r approval of either the Mayor or the Common Council. • The lack of consistency in the appointment of key exempt employees is obvious . Several important department heads ( the Fire Chief, Superintendent of Public Works, and less significantly, the Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Commission) do not require the approval of the Mayor. The Common Counol is not allowed to give it consent to the appointment of these officials plus that of the Chief of Police . Heads of the Police , Fire , and Public Works Departments do not select their immediate subordinates . Instead these are appointed by lay boards and commissions. In fact, there is confusion as to who has the power to appoint sub- ordinate professional staff in other departments as well. Finally, the independence and autonomy of the departments has meant that the judgement of the professionally qualified Personnel Administrator is seldom sought in the selection of new employees. What steps can be taken to improve personnel management within the City? The first recommendation is to make certain changes in the organization of the Personnel Department. According to the Attorney General, the City cannot replace the Civil Service Commission by a single personnel officer without securing first the approval of the Common Council followed by a public referendum. Thus, the present Personnel Administrator cannot also perform the duties of the Civil Service Commission without submitting this change to a public referendum which would not only be time-consuming, but is likely to fail. We recommend that this effort not be under= taken but that the postion of Executive Secreatary be abolished with the present incumbent given the opportunity to qualify for a new position--Assistant Personnel Administrator. In this capacity, he/she would work directly under the Personnel Administrator on all matters except those "watch dog" responsibilities mandated by state law. This is intended to be more than a mere cosmetic change . It would mean that in planning personnel policy for the City and in performing day to day duties, the two administrators would work collaborately. There could be periods when both would be concerned with training programs, employee evaluations procedures, or in computerizing employee records. At other times they could work together on the preparation and auditing of job specifications . Without minimizing the importance of enduring fairness and equity in personnel practices, biased political appointments are not the burning issues they were seventy years ago . The fact that the Personnel Administrator is responsible for affirmative action programs ( and that the Civil Service Commission could be replaced by a single individual) bears out the contention that the current division of labor between the Personnel Administrator and the Executive Scretary could be modified without jeopardinzing 'the integrity of the Ithaca municipal service . It is very clear that the Personnel Department could use additional ,rofessional staff. One personnel officer per 100 employees is not an unusual ratio to strive for. Much has been accomplished in the past four years, but a lot remains to be done . If budget limitations prevent the firing of a new staff member, the City could consider the use of graduate interns ctudying at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. -3- s s The Personnel Department needs to be brought from the periphery into the mainstream of city government. Future project and program planning by the line departments should involve the Personnel Department since it will be ultimately responsible for locating people with the necessary qualifications . Similarly, the Personnel Administrator should be involved in the preparation of the annual operating and capital budgets since a major item of expense will be the direct and indirect costs of personnel . Finally, plans for improving employee performance , conducting supervisory training programs, developing career ladders, and improving inter-departmental transfers can only be done if the Personnel Department is actively encouraged to work closely with other central staff agencies and line departments of the City. The second major recommendation concerns the appointive power of the Mayor and Department heads. We have already pointed out the variety of practices currently followed . Very simply, we believe that the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the Common Council, should appoint all Department heads and that Department heads should have the power to appoint their immediate professional subordinates. Appointments at both levels would conform to Civil Service regualtions regarding qualifications, etc . The Mayor is, according to the Charter, the chief executive ,jfficer of the city. If we are to hold him responsible for the management of city affairs he should have the right to appoint heads of Departments . Recruited under standards established by the state and guaranteed tenure with dismissal only for cause , they will provide professional continuity. Very importantly, they will be administratively responsible to the Mayor who is the only elected official with a city-wide mandate . Essentially the same argument can be used to justify the right of Department heads to appoint those professional staff members who report directly to them. A head of Department cannot be fairly held responsible for the management of his/her department if subordinate officials are selected by others . Vesting appointing authority in the hands of Department heads would mean that subordinate staff look to them for guidance and direction and not to the lay boards or commissions. --Frederick Bent 12/6/83 r I-8 COMMENTS ON POLICE DEPARTMENT The Draft Report of our Commission urges a diminution of the power of various Boards, and suggests that Department heads generally appoint their subordinates. I do not believe these ideas should be applied to the Police Department, for the following reasons. The Mayor, in his capacity an head of the Police in the City, now is the appointing authority for Sergeant and above. These appointments are from the first three of the current Civil Service exam list, and now also require a psychological exam. Nominations are made by the Chief , but the Mayor, with advice of the Commissioners, decides. Appointments are provisional for one year. There are compelling reasons for this arrangement, beginning with the responsibility of the Mayor for the Police. Higher Police O++icers have great power over citizens and events in the City, and the Mayor , having the ultimate responsibility, must be certain the right people are in place. For example, if a riot is badly handled , the Mayor cannot shift blame to the Chief for a bad appointment . One may ask. , Is the Mayor always_ going to be attentive or effective in exercising civilian control? One cannot guarantee it, but that is democracy. In a. pluralistic City, it is a commonplace that Police appointments can be sensitive. again, the Mayor is the chief political officer , and it is proper for him to be responsible for such matters. In any case, it is unreasonable to expect the Chief to be a local statesman as well as a fine policeman. One may ask: .whether it is necessary that the Mayor be the civilian controller of the Police. The Police Department is a military type of organization, which is dictated by the type of work:, and Police want and need a chain of command. That is, they need the sense of continuity, stability, and will that the word command implies. The Mayor should provide that . It is unreasonable to ask: Police to be sophisticated enough to sort out the signals emanating from Common Council , or subcommittee thereof . There are not many Renaissance men in Police work; character, training , discipline, fidelity are the military virtues one expects. It should be added that the PBA is a real factor in Police management. PBA concerns itself not only with pay matters, but also with aspects of Department operation it deems important. For example, PBA might criticize the state of training of Patrolmen. In this circumstance, a firm but responsive management is needed. Arguably, the Mayor is uniquely able to exercise that management, from his position as "Commander in Chief " . One can also argue that a Chief , strengthened by the power of appointment, could do the same job. However, the Mayor' s higher position seems important in this regard, while the Chief would be distracted from his Police duties by Department politics. - I — If one accepts that the Mayor should provide the civilian management of the Police Department, how can he effectively do it^ He must make use of a Board of Police Commissioners. He himself should take a lively and visible interest in Police matters, but should rely on "his" Commissioners to keep track of details. Especially, the Commissioners must deal with citizen relations: grievance hearings are a vital means of maintaining the proper level of professionalism. Seeking new ways to bring safety issues to public attention, and finding creative ways to make Police work: attractive to minorities are obviously important things for a Board to pursue, precisely because the ability to generate such ideas is not usually found in the uniformed police force. Occasionally, law-enforcement issues need Board consideration ; perhaps the k::9 matter is a good example. The Police Commission should be strong, in the sense of having the strong support of the (Mayor, and being depended upon by him for review of personnel and budget matters. An important intangible in the present method of promotion to higher- rank- would seem to be the ceremonial effect of recei.,,,ing Promotion from the Mayor-, the chief ITIagistrate of the City. One IT18y a SUme this effect is one of emphasizing the public trilst reposed in the Officer promoted. Recommendations: 1 . That -the Mayor Continue to appoint Officers to the rank of Sergeant or above, subject to usual personnel procedures. 2. That the Mayor be urged to maintain a strong Police Commission to assist him in management of the Department. . That no changes be made in the basic management of the Police Department without careful Study and a thorough understanding of consequences for the effectiveness of this crucial service. I-9 December 22, 1983 MEMORANDUM : To : John Marcham From: Lorraine Weiss, Commission staff Re : Consultants for Charter revisons There are no lists of consultant available for charter revision, but there are two sources of assistance in Albany. I spoke to Batya Goldstein, a Municipal Consultant in the Office for Local Government Services at the Department of State . They will provide assistance in reviewing drafts of charters, and there is no fee charged for this . There are sample charters which can be used as references for format, and attorneys on the staff will review the draft to see that it is consistent with state sta-cutes . She also mentioned that the Government Department of a university is a source of writers . Don Larsen of the New York State Conference of Mayors stated that, while a list of consultants is not available for distribution, he can recommend several and supervise the work . There is a fee charged by the consultant for thiq. Both offices cautioned against simply using a local attorney or the City Attorney, since it is necessary to be well-versed in State and Municipal Law. Other municipalities which have recently gone through charter revisions include Saratoga Springs, Dunkirk, Troy (which did not pass a refer- endum) , Fulton, Amsterdam, and Plattsburgh. The telephone number for the Office of Local Government is ( 518) 4.74-4.752 . The number for the New York State Confer- ence of Mayors is ( 518) 4.63-1185 . b 4 'f p € ------------------- WT— g�PQ £ ' a x "� ..v s x NAM ' 11`-' 9- m Is qu Rs ., � I �v, '""^s.�.y, ��-`� "�! :-sem ��' � .,�' � -" ���"'��•�� ��f�y, A— `� - Jwk MR { " Wn &OAK v , rp £� r Appendix II Contents: 1983 City Charter Commission 1 . Council resolution of 10/6/82 establishing the Commission. 2 . Mayor Shaw' s memo to Council Charter and Ordinance Com- mittee asking for a charter study, 6/10/82 . 3 . Rosters of 1983 Commission members and staff. 4 . Chairman' s memos to the Commission: 3/8 , 3/23 ( general questions to study) ; 4/5 ( specific questions to study) , 4/6 , 4/28 ; 5/19 ; 6/11 ; 7/28 ; August ; 9/159 23 ; 10 23 ( first statement of conclusions) ; 11/15, 11Y22 ; 12 2, 12/7 . 5 . Marcham-Tavelli memo re funds, 5/27 . 6 . Marcham memo to Mayor, Council for meeting; Schlather response , 5/9 and 5/20 . 7 . Minutes of Commission meetings by Chris Pine : 4/5, 4/20 ; 8/17 ; 9 13 ; 10/31 ; and by Marcham in 10/23 memo , minutes for 10/7 meeting. 8 . Commission members ' studies: Public Works I and II , Brown and Pine Fire , Moore , 3/21 and 4/21 Police , Building, Marcham and Stein Youth, Sisler and Weatherly Controller, Weaver and Sarachek Personnel, Purchasing, Bent and Weatherly Attorney, Bent and Sarachek Public Works III , Sisler Planning II , III , and IV, Vaughan, Moore, Weiss (V is in Appendix I) 9 . Aides ' reports: Stein and Weatherly on how to proceed, April Sarachek questions, tables of appointments and Boards, Organization charts of city departments, May Pine , draft report on administration, August Weiss, six case studies in decision-making, October Pine , an optional way to organize city departments, November 10. A . City memos: Tavelli to Marcham on creation of the Planning Board and adoption of the Administrative Code, 4/20 Alderman Elva Holman on 1984 capital projects, 8/31 Finance office charts and procedures for operating budget reporting, 1983 Donald Kinsella on BPW decision-making processes, 2 Hazel Best, statistical report on city staffing, 9y15 B . Mayor Shaw to Marcham and Weaver, on capital budgeting, 11/30 11 . Written notes: Weaver-Marcham, 3/23, 12/3 Marcham meeting notes, (mostly undated, unfortunately) Bent, Sisler notes commenting on first and second draft (Appendix II Contents, continued) 12 . Present City Charter 13 . Brochure on City Manager form of government 14. Tompkins County Charter 15 . 1958-59 City Charter Commission materials: proposed charter, summary, and explanation, and final commission report. 16 . Council minutes re payment for 1958-59 and 1968 charter studies 17 . First draft of the 1983 Commission refort . 18 . Second draft of the 1983 Commission report 19 . Memos 12/12 to the press, Mayor, Mayor_Elect, and Charter and Ordinance chairman Forwarding second drafts Note : The Commission appears to have met 20 times: 2/23 , 2/28 ; 3/21 ; 4 5, 4/20 ; 5/3, 5/26 ; 6/7 and one other time ; July once ; 8/7 ; 9/13, 9/26 ; 10/4, 10/17, 10/31 ; 11/14, 11/21 ; 12/6 , 12/12 .