§ 3.020. City Manager: Duties; compensation  


Latest version.
  • 1. The City Manager is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of the City Government. He is responsible to the City Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City. His duties and salary must be fixed by the City Council and he is entitled to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.

    2. The City Manager may appoint such clerical and administrative assistants as he may deem necessary.

    3. He may designate an acting City Manager to serve in his absence or, if he fails to do so, the City Council may appoint an acting City Manager.

    4. No Councilman may be appointed as City Manager during the term for which he was elected, or for 1 year thereafter.

    5. The City Manager shall appoint all officers and employees of the City and may remove any officer or employee of the City except as otherwise provided in this Charter. The City Manager may authorize the head of a department or office to appoint or remove his subordinates.

    The appointment of a Chief of Police or a Fire Chief by the City Manager does not take effect until it has been confirmed by a majority vote of the members of the City Council. If a person so nominated is not confirmed, the City Manager shall continue to submit nominations until a nominee is confirmed.

    NEVADA CASES.

    City charter amendments applied only prospectively thus requiring cause before employee could be removed. Where: (1) the appellant was employed by the City of Reno as the head of parks and recreation from 1971 until he was terminated in 1997; (2) before its amendment in 1997, the Reno City Charter § 3.020 provided that department heads could be removed only for cause; (3) the City Charter was amended in 1997 to remove the for-cause provisions; (4) the appellant sued the City of Reno alleging that his termination without an adequate hearing violated his right to due process and arguing that the changes to the City Charter could not be applied retroactively; and (5) the district court granted the City of Reno's motion for summary judgment on the basis that at the time of the appellant's termination, he was an at-will employee and therefore did not have a property interest in continued employment, the supreme court held, based on the presumption that statutes apply prospectively unless otherwise stated by the legislature and on the legislative history, that the amendments to the City Charter apply only prospectively. Thus, the supreme court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that the appellant was an at-will employee. The supreme court further concluded that the appellant could only be removed for cause as provided by the City Charter at the time at which he accepted his job. Pressler v. City of Reno, 118 Nev. 506, 50 P.3d 1096 (2002)

(Ch. 662, Stats. 1971 p. 1973; A—Ch. 715, Stats. 1975 p. 1473; Ch. 65, Stats. 1981 p. 161; Ch. 210, Stats. 1997 p. 735)