Who is looking out for the taxpayer? The recent article “Council supportive of assistant manager”has left me totally confused.

Did the City Charter not have an assistant city manager listed, and was that position not eliminated by vote and replaced with a director of Human Resources several years ago?

Now we have an assistant city manager, who lives outside the city, and is shown as a department head on the city website? But wait, was not the assistant city manager on the council agenda late last year, for a vote to again make the position a department head to again amend the City Charter? Why was that vote not taken, and now we are back again in “Da Mayors” article?

Even more confusing, I have attended the work sessions and council meetings for quite some time, and it was not my impression that the council liked these proposed changes.

Most confusing how the charter system works.

 

Craig Havener

Albert Lea