The most important topic at this meeting was the discussion about the new Sugar Hill City Marshal and City Marshal Service. Here's video of that discussion. The sound is bad, but it was extremely bad at the actual meeting, too. Be sure to turn up your sound. 

The City wants to change the city code of ordinances (city law) to outline the authority of the City Marshal. I think that's a big step considering they have only given the public a week's notice about changing the law. And considering I was the only member of the general public there, I'm not sure you could even consider it notice. Furthermore, the public will not have a chance to review the ordinance changes prior to their adoption, as far as I can tell. 

At about 1:00, the City Manager begins stammering over the issue of discussing traffic enforcement. I took the stammering to mean he was uncomfortable or hesitant to mention the topic. Seems odd, given that week before last, he told the AJC via email that the City does not plan to use personnel to perform traffic or speed control. That's what people are most concerned about, and if what he told the AJC is the truth, I'm not sure why there's a reason to be uncomfortable or hesitant. 

He mentions basing the ordinance changes on the ordinances for the City of Grayson, who already had a City Marshal.  

One interesting difference I already see is that the City Marshal of Grayson and all the employees are appointed by their city council and can be fired at any time by the council, whereas Sugar Hill plans to have the City Marshal report to the City Manager. It sounds like the City Marshal will be responsible for hiring all of the other employees.

I looked into how some other cities handle this. The City of Buford has a City Marshal, but their Code of Ordinances is not on their website or Municode. I'm not sure we ought to copy policy from a government that doesn't openly share it. The City of Berkeley Lake and City of Dacula also have City Marshals, and their ordinances are on Municode for open review. 

The Berkeley Lake Code of Ordinances states that their City Marshal is appointed by their mayor, by and with the city council's consent, typically serves a one-year term, and can be fired at any time by the mayor and council.

The Dacula Code of Ordinances states that their City Marshal is appointed by their mayor and council and can be removed from office by the mayor and council at any time. 

Sugar Hill's setup looks odd. Burying the City Marshal and the department under an unaccountable bureaucrat like our City Manager is a mistake for two massive reasons. One, it makes the City Marshal less accountable to the public because she won't be dealt with directly by the people who are elected to represent the people's interests. Two, it makes the Mayor and Council less accountable to the public, and provides plausible deniability.  If an incident becomes public knowledge, everyone gets to point fingers at each other and claim they didn't know. Even the City Manager can still try to claim HE didn't know. They'll then get to claim the situation is under control because somehow the City Manager is handling it, even though no one will ever tell you what was done. 

I suspect the City of Sugar Hill sees this as a natural extension of what they've already done with their Code of Ordinances, which puts every person the City employs under the City Manager. That doesn't mean it makes sense for the City Marshal role. Our list of responsibilities and powers for the City Manager is oddly specific and generous anyway, making him the most entrenched person in the City government.  It even includes the following item which made the City Manager the City Marshal up until now:

This is not the kind of government that can be trusted with a law enforcement agency.