The Charter Review Committee scrutinized administrative provisions in the Rockport model charter, including whether the city manager’s duties should be framed as mandatory or permissive, how department-head hiring and removal should be handled, and whether the council or manager should take the lead on appointing the city secretary and city attorney.

Members noted Rockport’s phrasing sometimes uses “shall have the power to” or “shall consult with,” language several members described as weaker than a provision that would state the manager “must” perform certain duties, such as ensuring enforcement of state law and city ordinances. Committee members observed that Rockport’s charter alternates the order of council and manager consultation for appointment of the city secretary and city attorney; some read the Rockport wording as giving more direct hiring responsibility to the council for the secretary position.

The group discussed that some duties currently performed by city staff are carried out in practice through staff assignments (e.g., a development-services staffer acting as secretary to planning and zoning), and noted that a charter can either codify those assignments or leave them to ordinance and administrative practice.

Members asked staff to document specific phrasing options — e.g., “may,” “shall,” “must” — for manager duties and for appointment/consultation language, and to return with recommended formulations.