Procedures for Personnel Interaction

[Adam Benefield]

Here is a prompt that I asked ChatGPT:

I have uploaded the City of Lago Vista's existing Procedures for Personnel Interaction Policy that was passed in 2024. I have uploaded a City Councilmen's proposed cover letter, revised interaction policy, a redline version, the existing City Charter, Code Construction Act, and 2025 Public Information. Would you please provide an unbiased view if the existing policy is in alignment with the Charter and if revisions are required, does the proposed new interaction policy meet those deficiencies. Please remain unbiased in your response.

Response:

Here’s an unbiased legal and structural analysis of whether the City of Lago Vista’s existing “Procedures for Personnel Interaction” ordinance (2024) aligns with the City Charter, and whether the proposed 2025 amendmentcorrects any deficiencies.

---

1. Overview of Relevant Charter Provisions​

A. City Manager Authority — Charter §4.01​

The City Manager has exclusive authority to:

• Administer city operations and direct all employees.
• Appoint, suspend, and remove employees.
• Ensure efficient and lawful implementation of Council policy.
  (Charter, Art. IV, §4.01)
  City Charter

B. Councilmember Information Rights — Charter §3.23​

Each Councilmember has the right to seek information necessary to make informed legislative and policy decisions. The Charter does not require all requests to go exclusively through the City Manager.
(Charter, Art. III, §3.23)
City Charter
These two sections are co-equal — §3.23 gives Council legislative access, while §4.01 gives the City Manager administrative control. Both must be harmonized under the Texas Code Construction Act, §311.021(2), which requires giving effect to all provisions so that none are rendered meaningless
Code Construction Act - Govt Co…
.

---

2. Review of the Existing 2024 “Procedures for Personnel Interaction”​

The 2024 ordinance (No. 24-09-19-03) restricts Council communication with staff by requiring:

• All staff contact to go through the City Manager or with their approval.
• Councilmembers to request information only via the City Manager.
• Prohibitions on direct communication without prior approval
  Existin Procedures for Personne…
  .

Deficiency Summary​

Issue	Charter Reference	Conflict
Total routing of all communications through City Manager	§3.23 (Council information rights)	Overly restrictive; nullifies Council’s right to directly seek factual info.
No recognition of Texas Public Information Act rights for elected officials	Gov’t Code §552.403	Omission; Council has statutory “special right of access” to records.
No differentiation between legislative inquiry vs. administrative direction	§§3.23, 4.01	Creates ambiguity; could be interpreted as barring basic fact-finding.

Result:
The 2024 policy is not fully aligned with the Charter because it effectively reads §3.23 out of operation, leaving Council reliant solely on the City Manager for access to information.

---

3. Legal Framework Supporting Legislative Access​

1. Texas Public Information Act (PIA) – Recognizes a “special right of access” for elected officials to obtain otherwise confidential information needed for legislative duties
   2025 Public Information Act
   .
2. Texas Code Construction Act (§311.021) – Requires harmonizing all legal provisions rather than allowing one (City Manager authority) to supersede another (Council access)
   Code Construction Act - Govt Co…
   .
3. Texas Local Government Practice – In council–manager cities, the Council legislates and oversees, while the Manager administers. Courts and the Texas Municipal League emphasize fact-gathering ≠ interference with management.

---

4. Analysis of the Proposed 2025 Revision​

The proposed amendment (Ordinance No. 25-—) modifies §§1.310.4–1.310.5 to:

• Affirm the City Manager’s exclusive operational authority.
• Allow Councilmembers to directly contact department heads for existing factual or technical information.
• Require notice to the City Manager for transparency.
• Incorporate confidentiality compliance and the PIA’s “special right of access.”
• Explicitly prohibit any individual direction, supervision, or alteration of staff work
  Interaction Policy
  Redline Personal Interaction
  .

Key Improvements​

Charter/Statute	Addressed By 2025 Amendment	Evaluation
§3.23 — Council access to info	Expressly reaffirmed right to factual/technical information.	Restores legislative access.
§4.01 — Manager administrative control	Reiterated that supervision and direction remain solely under City Manager.	Preserved administrative authority.
Gov’t Code §552.403 (PIA special access)	Incorporated directly.	Statutory alignment.
§311.021 (harmonization)	Explicitly cited in cover letter and rationale.	Legally harmonized reading.

Result:
The proposed ordinance effectively resolves the Charter tension by creating a clear legal and operational distinction between legislative inquiry and administrative direction.

---

5. Neutral Conclusion​

Evaluation Area	2024 Policy	2025 Proposed Amendment
Charter §3.23 compliance (Council info rights)	Restrictive — deprives Council of direct access	Restores and clarifies access
Charter §4.01 compliance (Manager authority)	Reinforced	Preserved
Texas PIA compliance (§552.403)	Silent	Explicitly incorporated
Code Construction Act harmony (§311.021)	Creates conflict	Resolves conflict
Professional clarity & accountability	⚠ Ambiguous	Transparent, balanced

Unbiased Finding​

• The existing (2024) Procedures for Personnel Interaction are overly restrictive and not fully consistent with the City Charter’s provisions for Councilmember access to information.
• The proposed 2025 amendment correctly aligns the ordinance with the Charter, Texas Public Information Act, and Code Construction Act, ensuring both Council oversight and the City Manager’s operational authority remain intact.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Councilman Benefield,

I really appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into revising this policy. You’ve done an excellent job of restoring the balance between Council’s legislative oversight role and the City Manager’s administrative authority. I think your version substantially fixes the problems in the 2024 ordinance.

I do, however, think Section 1.310.4(c)(4) could be fine-tuned to ensure it can’t be misinterpreted or misused down the road. It reads:

“Include reasonable notice to the City Manager, either by copying the City Manager on written correspondence or providing a brief summary of verbal discussions.”

While I understand the intent, promoting transparency with the City Manager about interactions between Council and department heads, this could still be misread as a reporting requirement for both Council and staff.

Section 3.23 of the City Charter gives each Councilmember the right “to obtain information deemed necessary to make informed decisions regarding the business of the City.” That right is direct and unqualified — it doesn’t depend on notifying or summarizing anything for the City Manager.

Even if intended as harmless, this clause could be weaponized. A City Manager could later claim a Councilmember “failed to notify” or “didn’t copy” them, using that as a basis for an ethics complaint or reprimand. It also puts pressure on department heads to report every Council conversation “to be safe,” especially if the discussion touches on the City Manager’s performance, which defeats the purpose of improving transparency and trust.

To preserve the spirit of transparency without creating a compliance trap, I’d suggest this:

“Council Members are encouraged, but not required, to provide notice to the City Manager when practicable, such as by copying the City Manager on written correspondence or otherwise facilitating coordination. Department heads may, at their discretion, inform the City Manager of such communications, but no such notice shall be required or construed as a duty.”

This keeps communication open and cooperative while removing any perception of a mandatory reporting duty. It ensures consistency with the Charter, TML guidance, and the Code Construction Act.

Thanks again for the balanced approach you’ve taken on this, your revision is a major step forward and brings the policy into alignment with a fair, practical, and legally sound framework.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you Councilmen Roberts, I really appreciate your comments. Your point is well taken and understand the issue the language I proposed might create in the right situation. I have no opposition to your proposal as stated.

 

[Norma Owen]

Thank you, Councilor Benefield, for the thoughtful work you put into updating this policy. Your revisions significantly improved clarity around Council access to information and the City Manager’s administrative authority. Thank you as well, Councilor Roberts, for your careful edit. My suggested change is offered only to further align the language with our Charter and maintain consistency in oversight.

A Comment, I recommend the following wording:

“Council Members are encouraged, but not required, to provide notice to the City Manager when practicable, such as by copying the City Manager on written correspondence or otherwise facilitating coordination. Department heads are encouraged, but not required, to inform the City Manager of such communications, but no such notice shall be required or construed as a duty.”

This revision removes the phrase “at their discretion” from Section 1.310.4(c)(4) to strengthen alignment with the City Charter.

My reason, the phrase could be interpreted as granting department heads independent authority to decide whether to inform the City Manager of Council communications, which may unintentionally blur the chain of command established under Charter § 4.03.
Removing it preserves flexibility for open information exchange while reaffirming that departmental reporting ultimately occurs under the City Manager’s supervisory authority. This ensures consistent transparency, reduces the risk of selective or politicized communication, and maintains clear accountability within the organization.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Thank you, Councilwoman Owen, I appreciate your thoughtful input and the intent behind your suggestion. I agree that it’s important to maintain coordination without creating confusion over authority or duty.

As a possible refinement to 1.310.4(c)(4), I’d propose simplifying the language to:

“Council Members and department heads are encouraged, but not required, to keep the City Manager informed when practicable, provided that no such notice shall be construed as a duty.”

This keeps your intent intact while streamlining the section for clarity and consistency with the rest of the ordinance.

 

[Norma Owen]

I like the simplification Councilman Roberts. Appreciate the dialogue and edit.

 

[Charles West]

From the City Manger perspective, I do not see anything in the propsal than any city manger should have concerns with. I do prefer the language provided by Council Member Roberts in simplyfying providing notice to the city manager.

 

[Adam Benefield]

That's great news and thank you for the feedback Mr. West.

 

[Kevin Sullivan]

Great interaction by all.

On the topic Mr. Roberts brought up on 1.310.4(c)4, I personally think the change is a get out of jail free card. It holds no one accountable for anything. The original version has a very low bar. Copy the City Manager or provide a summary of verbal interactions. The first is a no brainer and keeps the CM apprised of inquiries he/she may need to be aware of and eventually take action on. There is no time limit for summary of a verbal exchange. If you forgot, and are reminded, no sweat, just send it then. I don't see any problem with Mr. Benefield's original language.

On the change to 1.310.4.(b), the rewrite reads: "Nothing in this Section shall prevent the Mayor or any Councilmember from communicating directly with department directors or other employees for the limited purpose of obtaining existing factual information, data, or technical explanation necessary to inform Council deliberations, legislative research, or policy evaluation.". The bolded text goes beyond what the Charter allows in section 3.23. What authority provides for this broadening of the authority granted in the Charter?

In section 1.310.4(d), the original text reads: "Councilmembers shall not interfere with the City Manager’s authority to manage City operations or supervise staff.". The replacement text reads: "The City Manager shall not restrict or penalize employees for providing factual information to the Mayor or Councilmembers in accordance with this Section, provided such communication complies with the above requirements." These are two very different things and acknowledging one doesn't invalidate the other. Why replace one with the other? Why not just add the additional statement?

In section 1.310.5(a), I don't see any new right granted with the alternate language. Is the intent to simply provide more detail and reference source state law for added clarity? If so, no harm no foul. It just seems to be an unnecessary edit given that no powers are being granted that didn't already exist and no powers are being taken away.

Mr. Benefield, thank you again for submitting this item and providing all the detailed thought and references.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you Mayor Sullivan,

I’m not able to find any provision in the Charter that requires a Council Member to notify the City Manager of a discussion with a department director. I wholeheartedly agree this should be best practice, but unless the Charter is amended, it should not be a mandatory requirement. In my opinion, Mr. Roberts’ version is the most compliant with Article III, Section 3.23.

Regarding Section 1.310.4(b), I agree, the phrase “or other employees” should be removed.

Regarding Section 1.310.4(d), that’s an excellent observation. I agree these provisions address two separate issues and that both sentences should be included.

Regarding Section 1.310.5(a), I agree with your assessment. The added language was included to provide clarity and to cross-reference Texas Government Code § 552.403.