SURPRISING STUFF
The City of Lake Geneva is contemplating changing the city attorney from an elected position to an appointed position.
The last time this was discussed was back in 2006, and the vote failed to change the position to appointed. There are three different ways the ordinance can be changed. The first way is to hold a charter convention. In that process, a resolution is adopted by the city council to hold a charter convention. The resolution is required to be passed by a 2/3 vote of the members of the city council. If passed, the item is placed on the ballot as a referendum, with the first question being whether a convention should be held.
In the second instance, a question is presented asking what plans the voters would request the charter convention to adopt. In this case, do they prefer the city attorney to be elected, or do they prefer the city attorney to be appointed? The second process would involve the city council adopting a charter ordinance, changing the position of city attorney from an elected position to an appointed position. It would require a 2/3 vote of the council. It would not take effect for 60 days. If, in those 60 days, a protest petition is filed that is signed by 7% of the voters who voted for governor at the last election, the matter would be put on the ballot as a referendum question.
The third way to adopt or amend a charter ordinance is to pass a resolution to hold a referendum on how the position of city attorney is to be filled. The city council would propose a charter ordinance changing how the city attorney is selected. The question would then be put on the ballot with the question of whether the voters are in favor of or against the amendment to the ordinance. Here are some reasons someone would prefer the position to be elected: The city attorney is directly responsible to the voters and not the elected officials. Voters can directly remove the city attorney by petition if they are dissatisfied with the city attorney. There is less pressure for an elected city attorney to align with the mayor and city council than if the city attorney is appointed by the Mayor and City Council.
An elected City Attorney can advocate for legal issues aligned with voter concerns rather than those aligned with the current Mayor or City Council. There are also some advantages to having the attorney position appointed, such as it is easier to replace city attorneys who are not meeting the city council’s expectations. Contractual arrangements can be changed as the city’s needs change. Appointed city attorneys may work more closely with the City Council and staff, making for better coordination on legal issues. Of course, there are also disadvantages to both sides. This discussion was held at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting to inform the citizens of the process and what the council is considering.
