During the public comment period at the Tuesday night Richland City Council meeting, Tim Taylor told councilmembers that they could be recalled for ignoring the Richland City Charter. The council proposed approving six months of severance in City Manager Jon Amundson’s contract rather than the two months called for in the charter which could be a violation of their oath of office under the provisions of the charter itself as well as state law.

Taylor pointed out that Section 4.02C of the charter says in the case of a separation, “the manager shall be paid any balance of his salary then due or accrued and an additional amount equal to two months’ salary.”

Taylor told the councilmembers if they wanted to increase the severance they could do so by amending the charter. He noted that according to the minutes of the January 25, 2022, workshop, the council had decided that, “charter amendments were not necessary at that time.”

The agenda had Amundson’s new contract terms listed on the consent calendar of so-called non-controversial items that receive no discussion and one vote on all the items. Taylor suggested that it be removed from there for discussion and a separate vote.

The new contract that calls for six months’ severance amended the previous one, which said Amundson would get three months’ severance. 

City Attorney gave her opinion.

After Taylor’s comment, Richland City Attorney Heather Kintzley gave her opinion on the meaning of the charter.

“I would just provide, for council’s benefit that the charter, in this instance, provides a floor not a ceiling,” Kintzley said.“So long as a minimum of two months would be honored upon the involuntary separation of the city manager, the charter is satisfied.”

When asked the basis for that opinion, Kintzley wrote the Observer in an email, “As you know, the City is my client, and my role is to act as a legal advisor to and counsel for the Council and City Manager in matters relating to their official duties. I do not provide legal advice to anyone except my client.”

Councilmember Kurt Maier asked for further discussion on the contract amendment.

Councilmember Kurt Maier said he had had concerns about the contract before he heard Taylor’s comments, and he asked that the item be moved from the consent calendar to new business for discussion and a separate vote.

Maier noted, while in the past amending the 66-year-old charter might seem unimportant, he believed that “the most important leadership that we as the council can show is identifying places where we can make the foundations of our city stronger.”

Councilmember Ryan Lukson said the council mostly gave up on amending the charter. “People started finding 18 things that they wanted and all of a sudden it was 50,” Lukson said. 

Any charter amendment must go before voters, according to the charter.

The resolution on the severance passed by a vote of 5-0, Councilmembers Jhoanna Jones and Ryan Whitten were absent.

The significance of  “may” and “shall” in the Richland City Charter as explained in 1958.

“May” and “shall” were the keys to understanding the proposed Richland City Charter, according to an article in the September 7, 1958, Tri-City Herald, obtained by the Observer from the Herald archives.

The Herald explained that the charter  is “permissive as much as possible,” but has “some restrictions and definite boundaries established….”

“The words ‘shall’ and ‘may’ are the keys to the intent of the individual sections of the charter,” according to the Herald report.

The city charter section on the city manager includes four “may”s and three “shall”s [emphasis below added].

4.02 City Manager – Removal.

The council may remove the manager from office in accordance with the following procedure:

  1. By first adopting by the affirmative vote of at least four of its members a preliminary resolution stating the reasons for his removal. This resolution may also suspend the manager from duty. In either case, the manager shall continue to receive his salary until the final resolution of removal is adopted.
  2. Within fifteen days the manager may file with the Council a reply in writing and request a public hearing. This hearing shall be held not earlier than fifteen days nor later than thirty days after filing his request.
  3. Not less than thirty days after the date of adoption of the preliminary resolution and after such public hearing, if any, the Council by the affirmative vote of at least four of its members may adopt a final resolution of removal, at which time the manager shall be paid any balance of his salary then due or accrued and an additional amount equal to two months’ salary.

Council has ignored charter provisions in the past.

Richland City Charter, Section 4.01 requires that Richland city managers live in the city, “The manager need not be a resident of the state when appointed, but during his tenure of office he shall [emphasis added] reside within the city.”

In 2020, records showed no property in Richland associated with then Richland City Manager Cindy Reents. Her husband owned a home in West Richland. When the Observer asked if she lived in Richland, she did not respond.

Reents received six months severance plus $7,500 when she separated from the city in January 2021, documents obtained from the city through the Washington Public Records Act show. Kintzley, who was city attorney at the time, cited Reents’ contract as a precedent when she said that the two-months severance pay in the charter was “a floor, not a ceiling.”

Councilmember Ryan Whitten, appointed to replace Michael Alvarez in January 2023, filed to run unopposed for Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) in 2024.  

Section 2.02 of the charter prohibits councilmembers from holding another office. Councilmembers …”Shall [emphasis added] hold no other public office except in the National Guard, organized reserves, or as a notary public, and shall not be employed by the city.”

When the Observer described this charter provision to Whitten in July 2024, he responded that he had resigned. “That precinct has a PCO currently who is serving their term until December so I never officially held this position,” he wrote in an email.

Voters have approved amendments to the charter twice since 1958.

Voters have approved amendments to the charter twice since 1958, once in November 1975 and once in November 1991.

In 1975, Section 3.08(1) Initiative, and Section 3.09 (1)  Referendum were modified to eliminate most of the restrictions that had been placed on them in the original charter. The change allowed initiatives and referendums on any matter that wasn’t “contrary to the general laws of the state of Washington.”

Sixteen years later, voters approved Sections 2.03, Section 2.06 and Section 5.08.

Section 2.03 and Section 2.06 were amended to make it easier for the council to remove a mayor or mayor tem.  

Section 5.08 was amended to remove dollar amounts for the requirement for sealed bids.

*Correction Jan. 27: An earlier version of the article has been corrected. City Attorney Heather Kintzley said that the “charter is satisfied,” not the “target is satisfied” as originally reported. The Observer regrets the error.