No, based upon the language in state law, it does not appear that a town council has the authority to require confirmation for a municipal court judge. RCW 3.50.040, which relates to the municipal court judge provides that:

The legislative authority of a city or town that has the general power of confirmation over mayoral appointments shall have the power to confirm the appointment of a municipal judge.

However, a town council does not have the general power to confirm mayoral appointments. In fact, RCW 35.27.070 provides that all appointive officers shall hold office at the pleasure of the mayor and shall not be subject to confirmation by the town council.

In a non-charter code city with a council-manager plan of government how much involvement can the mayor and council have in personnel matters? Should the city manager report all personnel incidents and allow the council to discuss whether the manager's proposed discipline is appropriate? What personnel matters should be shared with the mayor and council?

How much involvement does the mayor and council have in personnel matters? The short answer is, except for the setting of policy, creation of new positions, and setting salary and compensation, the mayor and council have little or no role as to personnel issues. This conclusion is borne out, at least in principle, by RCW 35A.13.080(1), which gives the manager "general supervision over the administrative affairs of the city." Subsection (2) of the statute vests the manager with the authority to appoint and remove all department heads, officers, and employees. And RCW 35A.13.120 provides in part:

Neither the council, nor any of its committees or members, shall direct the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and neither the council nor any committee or member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager, either publicly or privately. ...

So, unless the manager chooses to involve the council, the council has virtually no role as to day-to-day personnel issues.

From a practical standpoint, though, councils do take interest in personnel matters. And managers, who are appointed and subject to removal by the council, will often accommodate the council's interest, by at least advising the council of significant daily personnel matters. But this is by choice, rather than by requirement. However, the council may be able to obtain some information from the manager, as a matter of right, if it is to, presumably, establish a new policy or determine whether a current policy is being carried out correctly. Thus, while "on paper," the council has minimal involvement is personnel issues, in real life, it does assume some role, with the manager's concurrence.

Should all personnel incidents be reported to the council? No, not generally. But, if there is an issue of great notoriety -- a misdeed by an employee lands on the first page of the newspaper -- the manager may want to give the council a report, as the council will undoubtedly be very interested. Should the manager discuss possible discipline with the council? Again, not generally, as that is entirely up to the manager to decide and, unless the underlying incident is severe (like the uncovering of embezzlement), the council simply does not have a role.

In quick summary, under the law, the council is not entitled to much information or involvement in personnel matters. Often, though, the manager will choose to give the council information, while reserving personnel decisions -- hiring, firing, discipline -- to himself or herself.