[00:00:02]
ANGELA SUMMERS, I'M FILLING IN
[ CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO Charter Review Commission]
FOR MATH.ANGELA SUMMERS VICE CHAIR FILLING IN FOR MATTHEW SHOPPER, WHO IS NOT HERE WITH US TONIGHT.
UM, SIDELIGHT TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME TO THE HUBER HEIGHTS CITY, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
TONY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL? MR. DILLINGHAM? HERE.
WE ARE, UM, WITHOUT MATTHEWS SHOPPER AND JENNIFER ICK TONIGHT.
SO CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE MATTHEW S SHOPPER'S ABSENCE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
AND THEN JENNIFER STEWART SEC.
SO YOU, MR. RUSSELL, I'D LIKE, UH, MR. RUSSELL MADE THE MOTION AND THEN NOTE WHO MADE THE SECOND.
MR. RUSSELL MADE A MOTION AND MRS. BARGE MADE SECOND.
TONY, WILL YOU CALL? OH, MR. RUSSELL? YES.
SO, UH, WE HAVE HAD THE MINUTES DISTRIBUTED, AND IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS, THEN THESE MINUTES WILL STAND AS APPROVED.
AND WHICH MEANT THE, UH, ITEM TO, OH, IT WAS FOR MAY 6TH.
SO THIS WAS THE AGENDA MINUTES FOR THE MINUTES FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO A FROM MAY 6TH, 2024.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE OBJECTING, SO WE'LL MOVE ON.
ITEM THREE, A CHARTER REVIEW, COMMISSION PROCESSES, NEEDS, STAFF SUPPORT, AND OTHER ISSUES.
I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING FROM STAFF TO REPORT, UH, THIS EVENING.
SO UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING OTHER ISSUE SOMEONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP, UM, WE COULD DISPENSE WITH THIS ITEM, SEE? OKAY.
THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, ITEM THREE B, HUB HEIGHTS, CITY CHARGER, ARTICLE 10, FINANCE, TAXATION, AND DEBT.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING CURRENTLY, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED DISCUSSING ARTICLE TIME AND IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS, UH, TONY, UM, ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION.
I'M SORRY, MARK, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? MARK? YEP.
UM, WE DO HAVE A, UM, UH, PRESENTATION ON THE CIP, UH, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR UPCOMING WORK SESSION.
UH, THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE, UH, NEXT FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNSEL AT THE JUNE 18TH, UH, WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK.
JUST IN CASE, UH, THOSE LISTENING IN WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN SECTION, UH, 10 OH 0.02.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU, YOUR AREN'T AWARE WHAT, UH, MR. WEBB IS REFERENCING IS, UH, THE, THE GENESIS OR THE, THE REASON THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE DO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS THAT IT'S A CHARTER REQUIREMENT THAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED, UM, PRIOR TO THE TAX BUDGET, UH, BEING PRESENTED TO COUNCIL FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE B, ARTICLE 12, NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS SECTION OR ANY CHANGES THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE? WE WILL NOTE IT'S A RATHER SMALL SECTION JUST TO HALF OF A PAGE IN THE CHARTER.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THIS DEALS WITH, UM, WHEN THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS TAKE PLACE, WHICH IS IN, UH, NOVEMBER OF ODD NUMBERED YEARS, AND THERE'S STAGGERED TERMS OF COUNCIL AND THAT, UM, FOR NOMINATIONS OF COUNSEL, UM, IT SPELLS OUT THE PETITION REQUIREMENTS
[00:05:01]
AND, UM, REQUIREMENTS AROUND FILING THOSE PETITIONS.SO THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT'S IN HERE.
TONY, DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS SECTION IS, UH, I I WOULD SAY INTENTIONALLY LEAN, UH, BECAUSE OF, UH, UH, OHIO, UH, ELECTION LAWS ANYWAY, THAT COVER THIS? SO, YEAH.
UH, THIS SETS THE, THE PARAMETERS FOR WHEN OUR MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS TAKE PLACE HERE IN HUBER HEIGHTS.
HOWEVER, UH, TO YOUR POINT, UM, MOST OF THE REGULATIONS AND, AND, UH, PROCESSES, UH, SURROUNDING THE OPERATION OF THE ELECTIONS ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE.
UH, BEFORE WE GO ON, WE MOVED ON TO SECTION 11.
IS THAT WHAT WE DID? MM-HMM,
YOU KIND OF HUSTLED PAST ME THERE.
UM, THE, UM, SECTION 10 0 5, 10 0.05, UM, B AND UM, SUBSECTION ONE, UM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH COMPETITIVE BIDDING SHALL BE REQUIRED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE TO BE MADE TO A PER CONTRACT ABOVE WHICH BIDDING SHALL BE REQUIRED, UM, CONTRACTUAL EXPENDITURES, WHICH SHALL BE EXEMPTED FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN BIDDING IS REQUIRED.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DONE VERY WELL, UH, FOR A LONG TIME.
AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US, UM, AS WE HAVE CONTRACTS MOVING FORWARD.
UM, A LITTLE MORE EMPHASIS ON THIS PARAGRAPH.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO THIS WORDING.
I THINK THE WORDING IS VERY GOOD, BUT WHEN, WHEN WE'RE ASKED TO APPROVE AN RFP, I'VE, I'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES UP HERE BEFORE MR. RUSSELL JOINED OUR, OUR, UM, OUR STAFF, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE GOOD SPECS.
I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A SINGLE PURCHASING A, A CONTRACTING AGENT, BUT THAT'S HIS DECISION, NOT MINE.
UM, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS ARE.
OUR PREVIOUS OR MR. Z HAD PUT TOGETHER A PROCUREMENT, UH, REQUIREMENTS OR DIRECTIVES OR WHATEVER, UH, FOR WHAT AMOUNTS HAD TO BE, UM, COMPETED AND WHICH, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN, UH, WITH OUR NEW CITY MANAGER AND, AND TIGHTEN THAT UP TO CONFORM MORE WITH WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER.
THIS IS MORE FOR, UH, OUR NEW CITY MANAGER'S REFERENCE SINCE HE'S JUST JOINED US.
BUT, BUT I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN OUR CHARTER, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THEM.
SO, UH, WHAT SECTION 10 0 5 SAYS IS BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AROUND BIDDING AND PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
HOWEVER, UH, YOU'LL SEE IN SECTION, UM, 10 0 5 B, THE STATEMENT THAT PROCEEDS, UH, PARAGRAPH ONE, WHICH YOU JUST READ, SAYS, THE COUNSEL SHALL, SHALL BY ORDINANCE OF RESOLUTION, PROVIDE FOR THESE THINGS.
SO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS IS, UH, COUNSEL PASSES AN ORDINANCE OF RESOLUTION, GENERALLY AN ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S CODIFIED IN THE CITY CODE TO SPELL OUT WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR, UH, BIDDING AND PURCHASING AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
SO, UH, TO NANCY'S POINT, UH, MR. ZICK HAD BROUGHT FORTH A PROPOSAL TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THESE BIDDING PROCEDURES RECENTLY, AND THEY WERE PASSED AND CODIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO I THINK YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR US TO MAYBE HAVE A, A FRESH LOOK AT THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THE INTENTIONS OF THOSE AND THE PROCESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS HERE IN THE CHART.
DID WE HAVE ANYTHING FOR NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS TONIGHT? UM,
[00:10:01]
ON SECTION TWO, AND THIS QUESTION IS MORE FOR SARAH.UM, AND MAYBE I'M BRINGING UP A, SO SUBJECT
AND THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO US IS THAT WE ASKED THE VOTERS WHAT THEY WANT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY DO WHAT THEY WANT.
THIS, THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER THEY WANNA GO FORWARD WITH THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PUT IN THE CHARTER TO EITHER INCLUDE IT OR PRECLUDE IT.
UM, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T LIKE THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT AS AN ELECTION, IF YOU'RE GOING OUT TO ASK THE PEOPLE THEY WANT, YOU NEED TO HONOR WHAT THEY WANT.
UM, AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME IN ALL MY YEARS ON COUNCIL THAT I EVER SAW THAT HAPPEN.
SO, UM, I'D KIND OF LIKE TO GET LEGAL FEEDBACK ON, UM, ON ITS USAGE AND, AND MAYBE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHETHER IT'S EVEN VALID TO, TO INCLUDE IT.
AND YOU SAID THESE WERE ADVISORY ELECTIONS? ISN'T THAT WHAT IT WAS CALLED? IT IT WAS ACTUALLY AN ADVISORY BALLOT.
ADVISORY ELECTION ADVISORY BALLOT.
WE HAD A, UM, A COUPLE IN RECENT YEARS, THERE WAS ONE ON THE ISSUE OF, UH, RAISING CHICKENS IN, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY, UH, THAT WENT TO AN ADVISORY BALLOT.
AND THEN THERE WAS ONE ON THE WATER SOFTENING QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER RESIDENTS WANTED TO, TO, UH, HAVE THE WATER SOFTENED AND, AND PAY THE ASSOCIATED COSTS, UH, FOR DOING SO.
UM, AS NANCY REFERENCED THOSE, BOTH OF THOSE ADVISORY BALLOTS, UM, THEY'RE CALLED ADVISORY BECAUSE THEY WERE NON-BINDING ON THE COUNCIL.
BUT IT WAS USED AS A MEANS TO GAUGE, UH, PUBLIC OPINION OR, UH, PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF ON THESE ISSUES.
AND, UM, AND, AND WE DIDN'T GO AGAINST THE RESULTS.
THEY WENT WITH THE MAJORITY, BUT, UH, UM, THERE IS A, A PROCESS IN OHIO ELECTION LAW THAT, UM, THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ALLOWS US TO ADMINISTER THOSE TYPES OF THINGS UNDER UNRU AUTHORITY, UH, TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, NOW YOU COULD, IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WAS BINDING, THEN THE INITIATIVE PROCESS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN THE NEXT SECTION WOULD ALLOW, MEANS TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD BE BINDING IF PASSED.
BUT DIDN'T WE DO THE CHICKEN ONE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T TIME, OR THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T HAVE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH SIGNATURES, SIGNATURES TO DO AN INITIATIVE.
AND I JUST FELT LIKE NOW INITIATIVE YOU CAN REALLY, UM, THE ONLY LIMITING TIME ON AN INITIATIVE, AND WE'RE KIND OF GETTING INTO THE NEXT SECTION, BUT IS THAT, UM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SIGNATURES BY THE FILING DATE FOR, FOR THE ELECTION.
UM, SO IT'S NOT LIKE A REFERENDUM WHERE YOU ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE IS PASSED TO GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT FOR REFERENDUM.
UM, INITIATIVE DOES ALLOW YOU THE TIME, YOU KNOW, AMPLE TIME TO GATHER THOSE.
BUT LIKE YOU SAID, IF YOU DON'T GET THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, THEN YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T GET ON THE BALLOT.
WELL, I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE, AND THEN REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, I THINK, I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ASKED, UM, ON SECTION OH 3 11 0 3, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND I, I THINK THERE WAS, UM, A WILLINGNESS OR AT LEAST AN INTEREST IN ADDING PROVISION IN HERE THAT IF A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER CHOOSES TO RUN FOR ANOTHER POSITION ON COUNCIL, UM, YEAH.
THAT, UH, THEY HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR SEAT.
WE, WE HAVE THAT FOR DISCUSSION UNDER ONE OF THE ACTION ITEMS AND THE FOLLOW UP.
I THOUGHT IT WENT UNDER HERE, BUT, OKAY.
UM, I THINK THAT WAS, THAT WAS ALL I HAD IN THAT ONE.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR SECTION 11? OKAY.
THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO SECTION 12, GENERAL TH OR INITIATIVE REFERENDUM AND RECALL.
[00:15:01]
WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO OPEN A, A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSION ON, UM, UH, THERE WAS, UH, I SAY WAS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.IT WAS HOTLY DEBATED ABOUT THE 15% REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR BOTH, UH, REFERENDUMS AND RECALLS.
AND, UM, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST US ABOUT, UH, IS THAT NUMBER, UH, THAT'S 15% OF THE RIGHT NUMBER, THE LAST GUBERNATORIAL? YEAH.
AND IT'S 15% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST, UH, IN THE CITY IN THE LAST GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.
WE'VE JUST HEARD SOME NOISE THAT, UH, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT HIGH, BUT, UH, THOSE PEOPLE, UM, UM, ALSO, I THINK THEY FALSELY STATED THAT IT, UM, UM, WE HAD SOMEHOW RAISED IT AND MR. CAMPBELL, HASN'T IT BEEN 15% FOR A LONG TIME? YEAH, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOLLECTION.
BUT, UH, TONY, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YEAH.
IT, IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE CHARTER WAS WRITTEN.
UM, IF YOU LOOK UNDER THAT PARTI PARTICULAR SECTION, UM, UH, 1203 A, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON A PETITION, UH, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THAT EVER HAVING BEEN AMENDED.
AND SO THAT WAS THE, THE NUMBER THAT WAS USED FROM THE, UH, INITIAL CHARTER, WAS THAT IN THE OHIO ELECTION LAW? NO, THIS IS UNDER A HOME RULE AUTHORITY IN THE CHARTER, THE CITY TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, SET THAT.
BUT IT'S NOT AN UNCOMMON THRESHOLD THAT'S USED IN A LOT OF OTHER, UH, MUNICIPAL CHARTERS.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL RECALL USING THAT 15% NUMBER.
SO, I, I, I WANNA BRING IT UP.
UH, I GUESS I'LL SOUND PLAN DEVIL'S ADVOCATE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, SHOULD WE EVEN LOOK AT THAT NUMBER? AND I DON'T, I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO CHANGE TONY.
THE WATER UTILITY COMPANY, UH, PETITIONED AND HAD A REFERENDUM.
AND WASN'T THAT SUBJECT TO THE SAME PERCENTAGE? SAME PERCENTAGE.
AND THEY, WELL, THEY WERE NOT ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL IN PASSING THE REFERENDUM.
THEY DID GATHER THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO GET ON THE BALLOT.
SO THERE'S, UH, SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE, UH, THE THRESHOLD WAS SUCCESSFULLY MET, AND YOU REFERENCED THE RECALL, UM, IN 2018 THAT, UM, THAT MET THE REQUIREMENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, AS THE POPULATION CONTINUES TO GROW, THAT 15% RESULTS IN A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER NUMBER, BUT, UH, YOU'RE ALSO ABLE TO DRAW FOR MORE PEOPLE TO GET THOSE SIGNATURES.
UM, SO, UM, THE LAST I CHECKED, I THINK THE LAST TIME IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND, UH, 2200 SIGNATURES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT, UH, 15%, UH, THRESHOLD.
BUT THAT DOES VARY BASED ON EACH GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.
SO IF THAT GOES UP OR DOWN IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST, THEN THAT PERCENTAGE, UH, WOULD RESULT IN A DIFFERENT NUMBER FOR EACH ELECTION AS IT HAPPENS.
THE NEXT, LET'S SEE, WE'RE STILL ON INITIATIVE REFERENDUM AND RECALL, THIS IS A BIG ONE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NO.
ALRIGHT, THEN, I GUESS, UH, WE'LL MOVE TO ACTION ITEMS. UM, ITEM FOUR, A ACTION ITEMS TRACKING FORM.
SO, UH, WE'LL JUST BE REVIEWING, UH, THE ITEMS THAT HAVE EITHER NOT BEEN COMPLETED TODAY, UH, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS OR, UM, BUT WE WILL BE SPLITTING THE ITEMS THAT HAVE A DUE DATE THAT'S PASSED TODAY'S DATE, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE THE ITEMS FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS.
SO, UH, THE FIRST IS, UM, ACTION ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
UH, THIS WAS AGREED AT THE, UH, APRIL 23RD MEETING THAT WE HAD POSTPONED DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME, UM, ON THE ISSUE OF TERM LIMITS, UH, FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING TONIGHT.
SO, UM, I THINK OUR, UH, THE CONSENSUS WAS WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED BACK IN APRIL, WAS THAT, UM, THE COMMISSION WAS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, UM, MEANING THAT EITHER THE COMMISSION WOULD, UH, VOTE TO DIRECT STAFF TO,
[00:20:01]
UM, ACTIVELY, UH, START WRITING A, UM, SOME CHANGES OR A CHARTER REVIEW AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR TERM LIMITS IN THE CHARTER.UM, AND TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT TO THAT DIRECTION SO THAT WE KNEW HOW TO WRITE THOSE UP.
OR SECONDLY, THE OTHER OPTION WAS TO, UH, FOREGO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON TERM LIMITS AND, UM, AND MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS.
DID WE GET ANY OTHER, I THINK IT WAS MR. SHAW, DIDN'T HE BRING UP, WAS THIS HIS ITEM WHERE HE NO, HE WAS ONE OF, UH, SEVERAL THAT HAD BROUGHT SOME CONCERNS UP.
UM, HE WAS ALSO, WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DELIVER SOMETHING TO US THOUGH, OR GIVE US HE, HE WAS, AND THEN WE, WE DID NOT GET THAT.
UM, BUT THAT WAS ON ANOTHER ITEM.
BUT, BUT HE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND THEN MR. SCHAFER HAD SUBMITTED, UM, SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES AROUND TERM LIMITS.
BUT I THINK THE FEELING WAS THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA EXPEND A LOT OF LEGAL AND STAFF EFFORT IN TERMS OF DRAFTING THESE CHANGES, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SIGNIFICANT UNLESS THE COMMISSION WAS DETERMINED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
I, I MEAN, I'LL JUST SPEAK PERSONALLY, I, I'VE LIVED HERE FOR 40 YEARS NOW, AND I, I, I'M NOT A FAN OF TERM LIMITS.
I THINK IF SOMEONE WANTS SOMEBODY TO BE VOTED OUT, I THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT BY GOING TO THE ELECTION PROCESS AND VOTING THEM OUT.
AND I THINK WE ALL SPOKE WHEN THIS ITEM CAME UP, HOW DIFFICULT WE FEEL IT IS CURRENTLY JUST GETTING PEOPLE TO RUN FOR ELECTED OFFICE AND TO FILL THOSE SPOTS.
AND I MEAN, HOW MANY, TONY, HOW MANY LAST TIME WENT UNOPPOSED? I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBERS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I, I, I, I'M HAD A RIDE IN CANADA.
ONE, I FEEL LIKE, AGAIN, I'M JUST SPEAKING PERSONALLY HERE, NOT AS, YOU KNOW, ANY ROLE THAT I PLAY WITH THE CITY, BUT I DON'T DISLIKE TERM LIMITS AT A FEDERAL LEVEL FOR CERTAIN THINGS AND, AND OTHER ISSUES.
BUT I THINK LOCALLY, I THINK IT'S HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO ENGAGE AND TO DO THINGS AND, AND TO BE IN YOUR SHOES.
I MEAN, I, I SEE THAT HE, FROM A PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, POINT OF VIEW THE OTHER NIGHT THAT YOU GUYS TAKE ON CERTAIN ITEMS. AND I JUST, I, I DON'T WANNA LIMIT SOMEBODY'S ABILITY IF THEY WANNA SERVE IN THEIR AND, AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS CONTINUE TO VOTE THEM IN.
I THINK WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE HAMSTRINGING OURSELVES SOMETIMES TO, TO HAVING PEOPLE IN THOSE POSITIONS.
AND THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
I ECHO, I ECHO THOSE THOUGHTS.
I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT TERM LIMITS.
I FEEL LIKE IF WE ELECT THEM, THEN THAT'S THEIR HIRE.
AND IF WE DECIDE NOT TO ELECT THEM, THEN THAT'S IT.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, MR. WEBB BROUGHT IT UP TOO.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE TOTALLY UNHAPPY WITH SOMEBODY YOU ELECTED THE RE WE, WE'VE SHOWN THAT THE RECALL PROCESS WORKS AS WELL.
SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMEBODY AND YOU WANT THEM OUT OF OFFICE, YOU HAVE MEANS TO REMOVE THEM ALREADY.
WHY WOULD YOU, AND I'M GONNA PICK ON MR. CAMPBELL HERE,
ANYONE ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? I AGREE.
UM, I THINK ELECTIONS IN THEMSELVES LOCALLY SERVE AS A, A TERM LIMIT.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS MR. RUSSELL SAID, WE HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED.
AND IN REALITY, IF THERE WAS A STRONG ENOUGH DESIRE OUT THERE, UH, TO INSTITUTE THEM AN INITIATIVE COULD BE, UH, STARTED.
I MEAN, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BRING THIS TO THE, TO THE VOTE, I MEAN, THEY COULD, THEY COULD COLLECT SIGNATURES AND, AND BRING THIS TO A VOTE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE CHARTER NEEDS TO NO.
TO STEP IN TO THAT REALM UNLESS THE CITIZENS WANT THAT, YOU KNOW, TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
WELL, I WOULD ONLY ADD THE, MY PROBLEM WITH TERM LIMITS, UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SETTING TERM LIMITS, IS THAT YOU'RE REALLY GRABBING AN ARBITRARY NUMBER.
THERE'S NO DATA OUT THERE THAT TELLS YOU THAT, UM, X NUMBER OF YEARS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF TIME FOR, UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN DEALING WITH THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL.
UM, AND SO, BECAUSE I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE, UH, THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, UM, WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING TERMINATE, AND I WAS OUT THERE IN THE GALLERY, THE, UM, THE ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT YOU'RE REALLY JUST GRABBING A NUMBER AND SAYING, WELL, THIS IS THE IDEAL NUMBER OF YEARS.
AND THERE, THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR THAT.
I, I COULDN'T MAKE IT WORK THEN.
UH, TO ME, I THINK TERM LIMITS ARE DONE EVERY TIME, UM, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL PUTS THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT.
UM, IF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THINK IT'S TIME FOR, UH, THAT PERSON TO BE GONE, THEY'RE GONE.
[00:25:01]
SO I KNOW THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE FOR TERM LIMITS.UM, BUT I, AGAIN, WHEN I BOIL IT DOWN TO JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO QUANTIFY IT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT X NUMBER OF YEARS IS THE IDEAL AMOUNT OF TIME FOR A PERSON TO SERVE IN A POSITION.
UH, I'D FURTHER THAT BY SAYING, UH, SOME OF THE, UM, SCHEMES THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER, UH, SCHEMES, BUT THE, UH, THE TERMS THAT THEY WERE USING WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU CAN SERVE AS A WARD REP FOR THIS MANY TERMS, AND THEN YOU CAN BE IN AT LARGE FOR THIS MANY TERMS. THEN YOU CAN RUN FOR MAYOR.
BY THE TIME THEY WERE DONE, YOU WERE STILL LOOKING AT 12, 20 YEARS IN OFFICE OR SOMETHING.
SO I DON'T SEE A, I DON'T SEE A WAY THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH A LOGICAL DEFINITION FOR WHY WE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS OR WHAT IT WOULD MEAN.
AND, AND, AND TO THE CONTRARY, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT GET ON THE COUNCIL AND AFTER A COUPLE YEARS THEY SAY, EH, THIS ISN'T WHAT I WANT.
SO THEY CREATE THEIR OWN TERM LIMITS.
SO, UH, UH, ANGELA, I WOULD SAY, UH, I THINK WE CAN PUT THAT ONE TO BED.
I THINK SINCE THIS IS, UM, BEEN A TOP OF THE, THOMAS, DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN? UM, IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.
I JUST, I MEAN, I MEAN THAT NO, NO.
I MEAN, I AGREE WITH TERMS ON THE EVEN STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT THE ELECTIONS ARE SO SMALL AT A LOCAL LEVEL THAT, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT IN NOVEMBER, IF THEY DECIDE WHOEVER'S UP FOR VOTE IN NOVEMBER, I, I CAN MAKE THAT DECISION RIGHT NOW.
UM, WE'VE HAD ELECTIONS DECIDED BY 2, 3, 5, 7 VOTES.
I MEAN, IT, IT, IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T, I DON'T, IT DOESN'T, IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME EITHER WAY.
'CAUSE I MEAN, YOU, WE, LIKE YOU SAID, LIKE MR. WEBB SAID, WE COULD MAKE A TERM LIMIT, BUT WE CAN MAKE A TERM LIMIT, A 10 YEAR LIMIT.
WHAT IS, WHAT IS THAT? AND IT CAN BE TWO TERMS. OH.
20 YEARS, YOU KNOW, ON COUNCIL OR MAYOR, WHAT IT, IT'S ARBITRARY.
UM, I THINK THAT'S THE POINT, THOUGH.
LIKE IF THERE WAS A DEFINITIVE, IF EIGHT YEARS, IS IT 12? IF YOU, IF YOU HAD EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I COULD GET BEHIND THAT, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT EXISTS.
WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSENSUS IS, UM, THAT MAYBE WE CAN REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UH, ASK IF THERE'S A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM OUR ACTION ITEM TRACKER.
THOMAS LINGHAM SAID, MOTION SECOND.
TONY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL? ASK FOR DISCUSSION FIRST.
WELL THEN WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL? OKAY.
WHAT, WHAT MOTION QUESTION? HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE.
WELL, THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM REGARDING TERM LIMITS F FROM FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
SO MOVING ON TO ACTION ITEM SIX.
UH, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION, I THINK, ANGELA, THAT YOU HAD BROUGHT UP, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH, UH, CHANGING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR FROM THE CURRENT ONE YEARS, UH, ONE YEAR IN THE, UH, IN THE CITY CHARTER TO TWO YEARS.
AND I, I JUST WANNA SAY, I THINK THIS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE HAVING AN ALL AT LARGE, UH, COUNCIL, BUT SINCE WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD FIT, BECAUSE LIKE, UH, MR. RUSSELL SAID, WE HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME GETTING PEOPLE TO EVEN WANT TO RUN.
SO I THINK IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT, WE CAN REMOVE THIS ITEM AS WELL.
UNLESS SOMEBODY REALLY LIKED THIS IDEA.
NO, AND I DON'T, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE, IF, IF WE HAD EVERYBODY TO CHOOSE FROM AND, AND THOSE THINGS.
I THINK, I GUESS IT'S JUST 'CAUSE I GREW UP HERE.
AND I, I FEEL LIKE THERE IS STILL CONSTANTLY THIS, AND I HATE IT, THAT THERE'S THIS US AGAINST THEM, OR THE NORTH VERSUS THE SOUTH.
BUT MY FEAR IS IF, IF WE, IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE WARD SYSTEM, WE LOSE PEOPLE IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS REPRESENTED.
UM, AND AGAIN, I I, I THINK IT'S WORKED FOR US FOR SO LONG.
I JUST HATE TO, I HATE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT, SO, OKAY.
[00:30:01]
THANK YOU.I, I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT ONLY BECAUSE I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS, AND THE POPULATION NORTH OF 70 IS GROWING, AND IT IS NOT SO MUCH ON THE OLDER SIDE OF TOWN BECAUSE IT'S MORE ESTABLISHED.
SO THERE COULD BE A CHANCE THAT IF WE WERE AN AT LARGE ALL AT LARGE OR OR NON WARD SYSTEM, THAT EVERYBODY ON ONE SIDE OF TOWN, WHETHER IT BE THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN, NORTH, WHATEVER, THEY COULD, THEY COULD RALLY EVERYBODY AND HAVE A COUNCIL FULL OF PEOPLE JUST FROM ONE SIDE OF TOWN.
AND, AND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FACEBOOK GOING WILD
UM, WELL, I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IT IS HARD FOR SOMEBODY IN, ON YOUR STREET, IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SOMEBODY ON KITTRIDGE ROAD WOULD NEED OR WOULD WANT, OR, YOU KNOW.
AND I JUST THINK LIVING IN A WARD AT LEAST GIVES YOU OWNERSHIP.
AT LEAST GIVES YOU A FEEL OF I KNOW WHAT MY CONSTITUENTS WANT.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE, THAT WE CAN DO A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM FROM THE TRACKER.
SO CAN I GET A MOTION TO REMOVE 0 0 6 FROM THE TRACKER? I MAKE THE MOTION.
AND MRS. BARGE MADE THE MOTION.
DO I GET A SECOND? MS. PU SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? OH, ANY DISCUSSION?
BUT ANYTIME THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, UH, UNDER PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ITSELF.
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL? UH, MRS. BURCH? YES.
UH, THIS WAS THE ITEM ABOUT A REWRITE FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT ON ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 4.06 C, WHICH DEALT WITH INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION.
UH, THIS HAD, UH, BEEN ASSIGNED TO MR. ZICK, UM, AND HE HAD BROUGHT A DRAFT HERE AT A PREVIOUS MEETING.
AND, UM, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WANTED TO HAVE SOME FURTHER REWRITES OF THAT.
AND, UH, AS MR. ZICK IS NO LONGER HERE, UH, THE OPTIONS WOULD BE IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU, UM, STILL WANT TO, UH, CONSIDER, UM, IT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO STAFF TO, UH, BRING BACK SOMETHING STILL, UM, AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT ITEM.
OR, UH, THIS ITEM COULD BE DISPENSED WITH AS WELL.
DID WE GET ANYTHING AT ALL? YEAH, THERE WAS AN INITIAL, UH, DRAFT THAT YOU HAD BEEN PROVIDED, UH, RED LINED WITH SOME CHANGES, UH, MR. ZA, AND THAT WAS UNDER, I THOUGHT I HAD 'EM ALL HERE.
I WANT SAY, THIS IS UNDER NUMBER SEVEN, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 4 0 6.
SEE INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION.
I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME HERE, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T A CONSENSUS AROUND THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT MR. ZI HAD PRESENTED, AND HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO, UM, DO A LITTLE MORE WORK ON IT AND COME BACK AGAIN.
WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER AGAIN? TONY? 4 0 6 C.
I CAN READ YOU THE SECTION IF THAT WOULD HELP.
IT SAYS, UH, INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 4 0 9 OF THIS CHARTER AND INQUIRIES COUNCIL, OR ITS MEMBERS SHALL DEAL WITH CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ARE UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE MANAGER SOLELY THROUGH THE MANAGER.
NEITHER COUNSEL NOR ITS MEMBERS SHALL GIVE ANY ORDERS TO ANY SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, EITHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY.
NOW, I WILL THINK I WILL BRING UP ONE MENTION THAT MR. ZICK HAD, UH, BROUGHT UP WHEN HE BROUGHT BACK THE DRAFT, AND WE'D HAD SOME DISCUSSION.
UM, HE SAID, UNTIL HE GOT TO THAT MEETING, HE HAD NOT REALLY CONSIDERED THE BEGINNING OF THAT SECTION WHERE IT SAYS, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 4 0 9 OF THIS CHARTER AND INQUIRIES.
UM, AND HE WAS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER FURTHER REFLECTION, HE FELT THAT THE, UH, INQUIRIES PIECE
[00:35:01]
ALLOWED FOR COUNSEL TO, UM, TO MAKE INQUIRIES, UH, TO STAFF DIRECTLY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER.AND I, I REMEMBER ACTUALLY TALKING TO HIM DIRECTLY IN THE MEETING ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK I SPOKE TO YOU GUYS.
I, I DON'T THINK A DAILY RUNNING INTO TO MR. WEBB AND SAYING, HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS? I, I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE ISSUES, BUT I THINK, AND, AND AGAIN, YOU GUYS KNOW MY HISTORY HERE, JUST IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT I'VE BEEN IN, AND I THINK I GAVE THAT EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO GIVE AN ORDER TO A FIREFIGHTER OR A POLICE OFFICER, I THINK SHOULD BE REALLY LIMITED.
I, I THINK THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD COME THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
I THINK ULTIMATELY I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR THAT PERSON.
I, I, IF MR. CAMPBELL WANTS TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE DOING? OR HOW'S THE NEW MEDIC? OR HOW'S THE NEW WHATEVER, I THINK THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEN MR. CAMPBELL ORDERING SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING.
I, I, I JUST FEEL LIKE, AND I THINK I TOLD RICK THIS, AND HE, HE KINDA LISTENED A A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I, I JUST, I'VE GROWN UP IN THIS SYSTEM.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP SOME, SOME STRUCTURE AND SOME, I, I WON'T CALL IT DISTANCE, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A BUFFER BETWEEN STAFF AND, AND YOU GUYS.
AND I THINK I SHOULD BE THAT BUFFER AS THAT PERSON.
AND, AND SO THAT'S WHY I, I DON'T DISLIKE IT.
I THINK ONCE YOU READ IT AND YOU SEE THAT INQUIRIES IS IN THERE, AND IT SAYS, I CAN ASK INQUIRIES ALL DAY LONG, AND I THINK YOU GUYS DO THOSE THINGS, I, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY FINE.
I, I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO ACTUALLY GIVING ORDERS AND, AND MAKING THOSE STATEMENTS TO PEOPLE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO COME THROUGH THAT OFFICE.
MR. CAMPBELL, I THINK IT'S WELL WRITTEN.
I THINK IT NEEDS REMAIN THE SAME.
AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW.
MR. CAMPBELL MADE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THIS ACTION ITEM.
MR. DILLINGHAM MADE THE SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, YEAH, I DO.
UM, JUST, JUST A POINT OF CO OF A CONTEXT HERE.
I THINK THAT IT CLEARLY SAYS IN HERE THAT WE CAN'T GIVE ORDERS YES.
AND, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU AS THE CITY MANAGER, HAVE THE LATITUDE TO LOOSEN THAT UP TO WHATEVER RESPECT THAT YOU WANT TO.
I THINK THE WORDING IS, IS SOLID THE WAY IT IS.
SO WE HAVE A, UH, MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR YES.
TO REMOVE ITEM, UM, 0 0 7 FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. WEBB? YES.
THE NEXT ITEM UP FOR REVIEW TONIGHT WOULD BE ACTION ITEM 0 1 1, UM, WHICH WAS ABOUT, UH, THE FLEXIBILITY FOR COUNCIL TO HOLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
I GUESS IT WOULD'VE TO JUST BE COUNCIL, BUT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS WELL, UH, FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS TO HOLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
AND WE'D HAD SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS ON THIS.
UM, MR. CONNOR HAD BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF, UH, COLUMBUS AND HOW THEY HAD DONE THAT.
AND, UH, SARAH'S DONE SOME GOOD RESEARCH ON THIS TOPIC.
AND, UH, WE WILL PASS THAT RESEARCH OUT, AND I'M GONNA LET HER SPEAK TO THIS ITEM.
AND SO, WHILE EVERYBODY'S GETTING THE INFORMATION, UM, REALLY JUST FROM THE RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW COLUMBUS HAS, UM, PUT THIS IN THEIR CHARTER, THE ABILITY TO HOLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
I DO THINK UNDER HOME RULE THAT THE CITY CAN DO THAT.
UM, NOW I WILL SAY AFTER, UM, COVID ENDED, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID ISSUE A STATEMENT SAYING, VIRTUAL MEETINGS ARE OVER.
NOW YOU MUST BE IN PERSON AGAIN.
SO HE DID MAKE, AND THAT IS STILL ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE.
SO JUST SO EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THAT.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT UNDER CASE LAW FROM THE OHIO SUPREME COURT, UNDER CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE OHIO REVISED CODE, I THINK THAT A CHARTERED MUNICIPALITY CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THEIR CHARTER FOR THE ABILITY TO HOLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
AND WHAT COLUMBUS DID IS THEY ADDED VERY GENERALIZED CHARTER PROVISIONS, AND THEN THOSE PROVISIONS STATED THAT BY ORDINANCE COUNCIL WOULD THEN, UM, SORT OF DETAIL WHAT, WHEN A VIRTUAL MEETING WOULD HAPPEN.
SO WHAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU KIND OF WANT TO AVOID CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE JUST SAYING, OH, I CAN'T MAKE IT TONIGHT.
[00:40:01]
SO YOU MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE SOME OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WOULD, YOU WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO APPEAR IN PERSON VIRTUALLY.UM, SO THAT'S, UM, REALLY WOULD BE A DETERMINATION FOR COUNSEL.
AND I THINK THE FIRST, UM, DECISION WOULD BE TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD IN THE CHARTER, GIVING COUNSEL THE ABILITY TO THEN PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD DETAIL THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
AND I ACTUALLY, AND I'LL MAKE ANOTHER POINT.
I ACTUALLY LIKED, UM, IN SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT COLUMBUS USED, THEY CALLED IT A MODERNIZATION OF GOVERNMENT.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF A, A GOOD TERM.
I THINK A LOT OF CITIES ARE TRYING TO DO THAT.
SO THAT IS ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS, UM, MODERNIZING GOVERNMENT, LETTING PEOPLE HAVE MORE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT.
IF YOU EVEN CITIZENS WOULD BE ABLE TO, IF YOU DO, VIRTUAL CITIZENS WOULD BE ABLE TO VIRTUALLY APPEAR AND COMMENT.
UM, SO IT'D BE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
I JUST NOTICED AN INTERESTING PROVISION IN HERE THAT MADE MY, MY, UH, EARS PERK UP
UM, THEY HAVE IN HERE, IN THE LEGISLATIVE PART OF IT, IN COLUMBUS, IT SAYS, WHERE A FULL VIDEO RECORDING WITH AUDIO OF A MEETING OR HEARING HAS BEEN PRESERVED AS A PUBLIC RECORD WRITTEN MEETING MINUTES ARE NOT REQUIRED.
BUT, UM, I DO THINK THAT AS WE'VE DEVELOPED TECHNOLOGY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE THESE RECORDINGS THAT WE'RE PRESERVING PER PERMANENTLY OF MEETINGS MM-HMM.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH MM-HMM.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO LOOK THROUGH THIS AND TO CONSIDER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE ELSE FEELS ABOUT THAT, MAYBE.
AND I THINK TOO, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I HAVE, I'M, I'M SURE SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE HORROR STORIES DURING COVID OF THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND REALLY WHAT CAN HAPPEN AND HOW IT CAN GET OFF THE RAILS VERY QUICKLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE ONLINE AND NOT IN PERSON.
YOU LOSE WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN PERSON.
YOU JUST SORT OF LOSE THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD CALL CIVILITY,
AND SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, UM, IF SOMEBODY CALLS IN FROM A BALL GAME OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW? RIGHT.
I MEAN, YOU LOSE A LOT OF CONTROL.
I, I DON'T DISLIKE THE IDEA OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS IF THEY ARE IN EMERGENCY MEETING FOR WHATEVER REASON.
AND SAY IT'S IN THE SUMMERTIME AND HALF A COUNCIL'S OUTTA TOWN, AND SOMETHING HAPPENS.
UM, THAT I WOULD SAY VIRTUAL MEETINGS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, BECAUSE WE MM-HMM.
BUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE AN EMERGENCY? WELL, AS IN LIKE, UM, YEAH.
TORNADO, OR IF WE, IF WE HAVE A, WE WOULD POSTPONE IT IF WE HAVE THE, IF WE HAVE THE ANOTHER, OH GOD FORBID, A VIRTUAL ATTACK AGAIN, OR IF, UM, ANY NATURAL DISASTER, ANOTHER PANDEMIC.
OR, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY MEETING COULD BE DEFINED LIKE IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE I REVISED CODE AS, AS A TYPE OF MEETING, WHICH IS A MEETING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE LESS, UH, WITHOUT, UH, WITHOUT NOTICE, 24 HOUR NOTICE, ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE MEETING.
UH, OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, IT'S, I I SEE ROOM FOR LOTS OF ABUSE.
AND YOU HAVE THE, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO EXCUSE ABSENCES.
IF, IF SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT NECESSARILY THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A VIRTUAL COULD IT BE IN THERE? YES.
BUT AS A STANDARD NO, NO, NO, NO.
SO WHAT'S MY QUESTION IS TO SARAH, LET'S GO, LET'S BACK UP FOR A SECOND AND GO BACK TO COVID.
IS THERE ANYTHING PRECLUDING US FROM ALLOWING COUNCIL TO HAVE VIRTUAL MEETINGS IN A PANDEMIC OR A TORNADO AS THE WORDING SITS NOW? AND I KNOW THAT'S A LOADED QUESTION, AND I KNOW YOU PROBABLY WANNA LOOK AT THAT, BUT I GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO TO THE CHARTER TO ALLOW FOR WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
[00:45:01]
AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN HAPPEN? MM-HMM.UM, IF YOUR CHARTER DOESN'T SPECIFY SOMETHING LIKE VIRTUAL MEETINGS ARE ALLOWED RIGHT.
THEN TECHNICALLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD SAY IT'S NOT YOUR CHARTER.
SO, SO UNDER HOME RULE, THOUGH, LIKE WHAT COLUMBUS DID, THEY SPECIFICALLY PUT IT IN THERE AS AN OPTION.
AND I, I KNOW I KIND OF READ SOME ARTICLES 'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT WAS GOING WITH COLUMBUS.
AND I KNOW THEIR, UH, PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL REALLY SAID THAT THE INTENT WAS TO CONTINUE WITH IN PERSON AND THAT VIRTUAL MEETINGS WERE ONLY FOR EMERGENCIES.
AND THEY WERE STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THAT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT COULD MEAN IF THERE'S ANOTHER PANDEMIC, IF THERE IS A NATURAL DISASTER.
SO WE WOULD NEED SOMETHING IN HERE TO OUTLINE, LIKE WHAT NANCY SAID, AN EMERGENCY OR WHEN WE WOULD NEED THOSE MEETINGS APPROVED.
IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE.
SO COUN SO THE CHARTER WOULD ALLOW VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND THEN IT WOULD SAY AS ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL THROUGH ORDINANCE, AND THEN COUNCIL WOULD THEN DECIDE.
'CAUSE THEN AN ORDINANCE COULD EASILY BE CHANGED, YOU KNOW, AS SOME, AS THINGS HAPPEN.
NOW, NOW DOES THE ACTUAL COUNCIL MEETINGS, IT DOESN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT IT HAS TO BE HELD IN PERSON.
UM, SO IT COULD, WE, BY WAY OF ORDINANCE, PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT IF WE HAD A PANDEMIC OR WE HAD A CYBER ATTACK, OR THAT WE HAD THE AUTHORITY AS THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY AND NOT CHANGE THE CHARTER.
I WOULD WANNA LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GIVE YOU A MORE CONFIDENT ANSWER.
UM, 'CAUSE THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
'CAUSE I, THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, IS PRETTY GENERAL AND OPEN.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD WANNA LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE, BUT I, I DEFINITELY SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
PROBABLY IT WOULD BE WHETHER THE Y MEETINGS ACT, UH, YEAH.
YOU KNOW, SUPERSEDES, UH, HOW IT'S SPELLED OUT IN THAT GENERAL SENSE OF THE CHARTER.
SO THEN CAN WE MOVE THIS BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING? MEETING? MM-HMM.
THE END OF THE 25TH IS TOO SOON.
WOULD THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO GET INFORMATION? UM, YEAH.
WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? YEP.
SO WE'LL MOVE THIS ACTION THEN TO THE JUNE 25TH CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING.
THEN WE'RE MOVING ON TO, UM, LET'S SEE HERE.
UM, THIS HAD TO DO WITH, AGAIN, THE DISCUSSION MR. CONNOR BROUGHT UP ABOUT, UH, IN THE CLAYTON CITY CHARTER.
THEY HAD ADDED A BALLOT OR A CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSED THE, UH, THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PROMOTE, UH, BALLOT ISSUES OR, OR TAX SUMS. YEAH.
SO I PULLED THE CLAYTON CHARTER AND THE, THIS PERMISSION IS IN THE PACKET THAT YOU JUST DOT ALL OKAY.
SO THE PROVISION AND IS UNDER THE, UM, POLITICAL BELIEF AND ACTIVITY SECTION IN THE CLAYTON CHARTER.
AND BASICALLY IT SAYS THAT THE CITY THROUGH ACTION OF COUNSEL MAY FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF OR OPPOSITION TO ISSUES THAT IN COUNCIL'S OPINION, AFFECT THE OPERATION OR WELLBEING OF THE CITY.
AND IT ALSO ALLOWS CITY EMPLOYEES TO ENGAGE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE PASSAGE OR OPPOSITION OF SUCH ISSUES.
UM, BUT THEN AGAIN, IT DOES SAY THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO ANY POLITICAL PARTIES OR CANDIDATES.
UM, THIS PROVISION IS PRETTY INTERESTING.
NOT A LOT OF CHARTERS HAVE THIS PROVISION.
AND RECENTLY, UM, CHRIS AND I BECAME AWARE OF A HOUSE BILL, LET ME SEE.
IT'S HAS NOT BEEN PASSED YET OR SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, BUT IT IS A PROVISION THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE CLAYTON'S CHARTER PROVISION, UM, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UM, THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE COURTS, AND SO IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE HOUSE BILL PASSES.
UM, IT'S UNCLEAR IF, YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD TAKE ACTION.
UM, AND SO I TALKED WITH CHRIS OVER THIS AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY NOT FOR HUBER HEIGHTS
[00:50:01]
TO BE THE TEST CASEUM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REALLY BEEN HARD ON CITIES, UM, ESPECIALLY SCHOOL BOARDS PROMOTING LEVIES AND DOING THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD, UM, JUST SORT OF PUT ON THE BACK BURNER, BUT ALSO OPEN TO DISCUSSION
SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GONNA BE RESOLVED IN A TIMELY FASHION AS FAR AS OUR CHARTER REVIEW IS CONCERNED.
SO YES, MR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAWAL.
A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THIS ACTION ITEM.
UM, MOTION BY MR. CAMPBELL AND SECONDED BY MR. RUSSELL.
CAN, UH, ANY DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE 3 0 5 IS? UM, UH, LET ME SEE.
I, I MEAN, AS FAR AS WHAT ITS STATUS IS, ACTUALLY I DO NOT, I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS PASSED THROUGH.
WAS THAT, I CAN REPORT BACK ON THAT.
THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT IS IN READING IT, IT'S A PRETTY BIG HAMMER THERE.
AND I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY WRITTEN TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT WHAT WAS IT'S CASE LAW ALREADY AGAINST SCHOOL BOARDS, I MEAN, OUT OF BROOK.
I MEAN, I THINK, I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS PROMISING.
AND I THINK I AGREE WITH SARAH.
I DON'T THINK WE WANNA GET THE TEST CASE ON THIS ONE EITHER.
I, I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY BIG SHOE THEY'RE STOMPING ON US FROM, FROM THE, UH, DOCUMENT THAT'S IN HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS, UH, INTRODUCED INTO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE IT IS AS OF MAY 22ND, 2024.
AND I CAN DO ANYTHING MORE THIS YEAR.
CAN SOMEONE
IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED IS THAT EMPLOYEES SHOULDN'T, RIGHT ON THE CLOCK NOW, AGAIN, WHAT WE, THE BARGAINING UNITS ARE, ARE PROTECTED OFF THE CLOCK WHEN THEY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN SURE.
AND AGAIN, THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDED FUNDING AND OTHER STREAMS. AND I THINK THAT'S STILL HOLDS TRUE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S UNDER HIJACK.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT, YEAH.
UH, THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS YOU CAN'T PAY PEOPLE, UH, BEYOND THE CLOCK AND BE PROMOTING YOUR LEVY.
SO, MR. JONES, I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST ASKING FOR SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT, WHAT THAT, WHAT THIS ACTUALLY DOES OR WHAT THIS WHOLE SECTION MEANS.
'CAUSE I'M, IT'S LIKE A 7 47 RIGHT NOW,
UM, SO THE, THE IDEA IS THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE, UH, YOU CAN'T USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FUNDS.
SO WE CAN'T USE TAXPAYER MONEY AND SAY, HEY, VOTE FOR OUR LEVY.
WE HAVE TO USE OUTSIDE SOURCES TO DO THOSE THINGS.
AND SO THEN TO NANCY'S POINT, I CAN'T BE BEING PAID BY THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, GO OUT AND SAY, HEY, VOTE FOR MY LEVY.
'CAUSE I'M DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THAT LEVY.
SO THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING, BUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
WELL, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.
TONY, WE CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
THEN, UH, WE'RE MOVING ON TO 0 1 9.
UH, WHICH, UH, SARAH'S GONNA SPEAK TO ALSO, UM, THIS ONE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING, BUT I THINK THIS IS THE ONE THAT, UH, NANCY HAD BROUGHT UP EARLIER, WHICH IS, UM, FINDING THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR A CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 4 0 2, UH, TO ELIMINATE A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER'S ABILITY TO RUN FOR ELECTION FROM THE SAME SEAT.
AND THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, CHRIS AND I HAVE KIND OF STRUGGLED WITH DEVELOPING A PROVISION, SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET YOU ALL'S FEEDBACK ON THIS.
UM, ONE OF, I TALKED TO STEVE CHU, ANOTHER COLLEAGUE WHO'S BEEN A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND KIND OF GOT HIS THOUGHTS ON IT.
ONE OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS WAS, IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, HE RECOMMENDED YOU COULD PROHIBIT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM RUNNING FOR A DIFFERENT SEAT WHILE THEY'RE IN TERM, AND THEN ALLOW THEM
[00:55:01]
TO RUN WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR TERM.THAT WOULD BE ONE THING YOU COULD DO.
UM, I GUESS THE ISSUE BECOMES IF YOU PROHIBIT COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM RUNNING AT ANY AFTER MAYBE A YEAR OR SOMETHING, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE VACANT SEATS.
SO SOMEONE COULD JUST SAY, WELL, THEN I'M JUST GONNA VACATE MY SEAT.
AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE LOTS, SEVERAL VACANT SEATS DURING A YEAR, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FILL THEM.
SO I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT.
AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESOLVE THAT.
UM, AND SORT OF WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WOULD BE ON, UM, I GUESS ISSUES MAYBE THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD.
JUST, JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS ABOUT THE COMMENTS YOU JUST MADE.
THE, UM, ISSUE OF VACANCIES, THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE CHARTER THAT SMELLS ON HOW THOSE VACANCIES ARE FILLED.
AND IF COUNCIL BY A MAJORITY VOTE, UH, DOES NOT COME TO A DECISION WITH FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ON AN APPOINTMENT TO FILL A VACANCY, UH, WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN THE MAYOR GETS TO JUST MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS ON, UH, MM-HMM.
UH, THE OTHER POINT IS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROHIBITING HIM FROM RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE UNTIL, LIKE, SAY THIS LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE TERM, UH, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC FROM OUR CHARTER'S PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE, UH, CANDIDATES HAVE TO FILE FOR OFFICE, UM, MM-HMM.
UH, BECAUSE OUR CHARTER REQUIRES A, UH, PRIMARY RUNOFF IF THERE'S MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES FOR ANY PARTICULAR POSITION.
SO, UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PERIOD OF TIME LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS IF THERE WAS.
SO MAYBE IT COULD BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR LAST YEAR, YEAR.
IT'D ALMOST HAVE TO BE A YEAR.
I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THAT MYSELF, UM, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S STILL GONNA GENERATE A YEAR OF WHAT I CAN ONLY CALL TURMOIL.
THE, THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH, UM, ELECTED OFFICIALS RUNNING FOR, UH, OTHER POSITIONS ON COUNCIL IS THAT IT DOES CREATE STRONG FRICTION ON CITY COUNCIL.
UH, FRICTION THAT DOESN'T GO AWAY.
SO, UM, MY SUGGESTION WAS, AND, AND STILL REMAINS THAT I THINK THAT UPON, UM, CERTIFICATION OF A OF, OF, UH, MY PETITION, I'M GONNA RUN, I'M GONNA RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR UPON CERTIFICATION OF MY PETITION FOR MAYOR.
I, UM, AM REQUIRED TO VACATE MY COUNCIL POSITION.
THE THE REASON FOR THAT IS SIMPLE.
UH, ONCE I'VE MADE THAT DECLARATION, I'VE GOTTEN MY PETITIONS, I'VE GONE UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE GOTTEN ALL THE SIGNATURES I NEED TO BE, UM, A CERTIFIED CANDIDATE AGAINST THE MAYOR AT THAT POINT.
I'VE PRETTY MUCH DRAWN THE LINE IN THE SAND.
SO IN ORDER TO KEEP COUNSEL AS, UM, FUNCTIONING AND, UH, I, I JUST SAW THE DAMAGE THAT THAT HAPPENED WITH, WITH THIS DURING THIS LAST TIME.
UH, SO I, I'D LIKE SOMETHING REALLY SOLID THAT SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T.
IF, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT, GREAT, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT, YOU ARE, UM, FORFEITING YOUR SEAT ON CITY COUNCIL NOW GOING CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE MAYOR OR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE AT LARGE PERSON TO YOUR HEART'S CONTEMPT.
UH, THE OTHER THING IS THERE'S AN INEQUALITY TO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THAT MYSELF AND THREE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, MM-HMM.
UH, FOUR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS CANNOT RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR BECAUSE THEIR TERMS ARE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAYOR.
UM, WE CAN ALL RUN FOR THE OPPOSITE AT LARGE SEAT, UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE, AT LARGE, AT LARGE, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF MY, I LIKE THAT POSITION.
MAKES SENSE EXCEPT TO SAY, I REALLY THINK WE NEED SOMETHING STRONG IN THERE TO KEEP WHAT HAPPENED FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.
AND THAT'S MUCH CLEANER THAN SAYING SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE END OF YOUR TERM.
I MEAN, IF YOU'VE BEEN IN YOUR SEAT FOR A YEAR AND THEN OR TWO AND YOU DECIDE, HEY, I WANNA, I WANNA TAKE OUT THE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, THEN ONCE YOU CERTIFY THAT PETITION MM-HMM.
SO IT LEAVES IT UP TO, TO THE PETITIONER.
[01:00:01]
LEAVE IT UP TO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY ELSE.SARAH, THE WAY DON WEBB JUST DESCRIBED WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR, IS THAT THE BASIS THAT YOU LOOKED AT THIS ON? NO, SO I DID NOT LOOK SPECIFICALLY ON, UM, AT THE TIME THAT THEY CERTIFY THE PO THE PETITION.
AND THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING, UM, WITH THAT LANGUAGE, I THINK CHRIS AND I CAN DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO ADD.
UM, SO MY, MY NEXT QUESTION FROM THAT WOULD THEN BE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS GO UNDER THIS CERTAIN SECTION FOUR OR 4 0 2? OR DO YOU THINK IT WOULD FIT BETTER UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION? UM, I MEAN, I THINK IT COULD FIT NICELY IN THERE.
UM, BUT THAT AGAIN, ALSO UP TO YOU AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU WANT.
'CAUSE REALLY EVENTUALLY THIS COULD GO TO THE VOTER.
SO IT'D REALLY BE HOW DO YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT SECTION DO YOU WANNA PUT IT UNDER? HOW DO YOU WANNA, UM, PUT THIS OUT TO NORTH? YOU VOTE IT WAS UNDER 4 0 2, I THINK IT WAS 4 0 2 STILL.
COULD IT, UH, COULD IT GO UNDER 4.03 ELIGIBILITY, UM, AS A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH THAT, UH, IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE, UM, AND THEN INCORPORATE YEAH.
THE LANGUAGE I SUGGESTED AND IT, I MEAN, ARGUABLY COULD GO IN, UM, SOMEWHERE IN SECTION 11 AND ALSO LIKE NANCY WAS TALKING ABOUT.
SO IF WE WENT THAT ROUTE, WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED? UH, WHERE'S THAT IMAGE? 4 0 2 2.
YEAH, I THINK WHEREVER IT ENDS UP.
THEN THE OTHER RELEVANCE SECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE CROSS-REFERENCED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ISN'T IN CONFLICT.
SIMILARLY TO WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE RESOLUTION REFERENDUM ISSUE, BUT, MM-HMM.
UM, YEAH, SO I, I THINK THAT IF CA COUNSEL AND THE COMMISSION HAVE A DIRECTION THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GO, UM, THEN WE COULD, UM, YOU COULD WORK ON DRAFTING THE LANGUAGE AND THEN WE COULD PROBABLY TALK ABOUT FINDING THE BEST FIT FOR IT.
AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO, UM, PROBABLY LIST THE CROSS-REFERENCE SECTIONS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY IT.
UH, COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR OPINION WHERE IT SHOULD GO? LIST THE CROSS REFERENCE AND THE LANGUAGE? YES, I CAN DO THAT.
AND YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK.
AND DOES THAT REQUIRE A VOTE FOR US TO CONTINUE? NO, THIS WOULD JUST BE A FOLLOW UP.
COULD THAT OCCUR ON THE 6 25 MEETING OR? YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TRY TO PUSH A LOT ONTO THE 6 25 MEETING IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER ANY OF THESE FOR GOING FORWARD FOR NOVEMBER, BECAUSE, UM, COUNSEL WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE, THESE ITEMS IN JULY IN ORDER THAT FOR THEM TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECT.
SO THEN WE'LL MOVE THIS IF EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT TO 6 25 AND WE'LL SEE THE WRITEUP FROM LEGAL.
SO NEXT WE'D HAVE ITEM, UH, 0 2 0.
THIS WAS, I THINK BROUGHT UP BY JENNIFER, UH, SARUS.
THAT'S, OH, THAT'S NOT TILL 6 25, IS IT? OKAY.
WELL WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT NOW, JUST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS WAS, UM, ONE MR. Z WAS ALL SUPPOSED ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING UP ON.
NO, THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE, UM, AUTHORITY OF THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE OR ANOTHER DIRECTOR TO WRITE, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WRITE LETTERS TO BUSINESSES REGARDING ZONING.
UM, IT HAD COME OUT OF THE ISSUE OF THE STORAGE FACILITIES, UH, NEAR CARRIAGE TRAILS.
UM, SO MR. Z WAS GONNA REVIEW, UH, OTHER CITY CHARTERS TO SEE IF SOMETHING SIMILAR EXISTED IN THOSE CHARTERS.
I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, SARAH, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN A CHARTER THAT SPEAKS TO THIS LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC TASK OF A DIRECTOR BUT WHAT, WHAT NUMBER WAS THIS TO TONY? UM, IT WASN'T A PARTICULAR SECTION, BUT IT WAS A, A ACTION ITEM.
IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE MAY SIX MINUTES.
[01:05:01]
SO, YEAH.I, I MEAN, NO, I, I HONESTLY, ONE, DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IN ANOTHER CITY CHARTER.
SO THAT PART I DON'T THINK IS REALLY APPLICABLE, UH, AS HE SUGGESTED.
BUT I THINK THE OTHER THING IS, UM, WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER, UH, THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE ON.
ISN'T THIS SOMETHING THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE PURVIEW OF, OF AUTHORITY? I MEAN, HE COULD DETERMINE WHAT LATITUDE HE WANTS TO GIVE HIS DIRECTORS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, JOHN? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
AND I, I DO THINK, SO I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND RICK'S POINT.
SO IF, IF, IF YOU GO TO SECTION 7.07, IT TALKS ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THEN IF YOU GO TO SECTION 7.08, IT TALKS ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
AND CURRENTLY, AS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST WITH RICK AND ROB AND A FEW OTHERS, WE'VE MADE THEM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTORS.
BECAUSE OF POLICE AND FIRE AND THOSE THINGS.
AND CURRENTLY IN 7 0 8 AS IT SITS, IT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE, AND IF YOU GO TO THE LAST LINE, IT TALKS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO ZONING.
SO CURRENTLY, I THINK ZONING, BEING UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL ACTION THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, WHICH WOULD BE, NOW I SAY THAT ONLY TO SAY THIS,
IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CHARTER THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE CAN FILL MULTIPLE ROLES.
SO I STILL DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAVING AUTHORITY UNDER PUBLIC SERVICES IS NOT WITHIN WHAT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER.
I WILL ASK YOU,
BUT HE CAN BE THE CITY MANAGER AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
BECAUSE THE CHARTER SAYS HE CAN FILL TWO ROLES, I THINK UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S ROLE THAT HE HAS, HE STILL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS, BUT I'M NOT AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU, SO PLEASE TELL ME,
UM, BUT, AND, AND TO TONY'S POINT TOO, I THINK THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE LEVEL OF DETAIL RIGHT.
THE CHARTER NEEDS TO BE ON THIS ISSUE.
I THINK, I THINK WHOEVER SAID IT, I, I THINK THAT THE MANAGER HAS THE ABILITY TO PUT THAT PERSON OR THOSE, THOSE ACTIONS WHERE THEY NEED TO HAVE THOSE ACTIONS IN THE ORG CHART.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AS SPECIFIC AS MOVING IT FROM ONE SECTION OF THE CHARTER TO ANOTHER.
AND I DON'T THINK IF IT WENT BEFORE THE VOTERS THAT THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES INVOLVED.
NO, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
AND THIS IS, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE IS CHARGED WITH THE, UH, ENFORCING YES.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY COUNSEL RELATED TO ZONING.
UM, MR. WHAT? YEAH, I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT I, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IF, IF I UNDERSTAND, UH, JENNIFER'S SUGGESTION, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE IS A POLICY DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL TO THE CITY MANAGER, UH, OR THE, UH, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
IT, IT'S A, AND I I'LL SAY THAT I THINK YOU, I THINK YOU DRIVE THAT POLICY WHEN YOU APPROVE MY OR WHOEVER'S ABSOLUTELY.
I, I THINK YOU'RE SETTING THAT POLICY BY AGREEING THAT THE ORG CHART IS WHAT THE ORG CHART IS.
AND NOT TO, UM, NOT TO SPEAK FOR JENNIFER, SHE'S NOT HERE, BUT I, I THINK WHAT SHE WAS, UH, GOING AFTER THERE WAS THE FACT THAT, UH, IN PREVIOUS INSTANCES, LIKE THE STORAGE FACILITY, THERE WERE THINGS THAT, UM, UH, I'LL SAY FELL OFF THE WAGON ON THEIR WAY THERE.
SO, BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, HER CONCERN WAS THAT THE RIGHT KIND OF, UM, COUNCIL POLICY WAS BEING IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER.
UH, I DON'T, I'M REALLY WARY ABOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES AT ALL TO THE CHARTER.
I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY THAT OVER, OVER NEED TO REALLY EXAMINE EVERY CHANGE THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT OUT BEFORE THE VOTERS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PERTINENT IN THIS CASE HERE, I REALLY THINK THAT'S GONNA BE MORE OF A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO THE CITY MANAGER AS OPPOSED TO MAKING A, A BROAD CHARTER CHANGE TO IMPLEMENT POLICY.
[01:10:01]
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I AGREE.SO THEN DO WE WANNA REMOVE THIS ITEM OR CARRY IT OVER TO THE 25TH TO DISCUSS FURTHER? I MOVE TO REMOVE IT.
HAVE A MS. BURCH MOTION TO REMOVE.
I WILL SECOND MR. WEBB SECONDED.
MR. CABELL IS, TONY IS, WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER SET POLICY OF ANY KIND.
AND I THINK THAT, UH, MR. WEBB'S POINT, UH, THE CITY MANAGER COULD SEND A, A POLICY DIRECTIVE, UH, TO SENIOR DIRECTORS OR STAFF INDICATING THAT THEY CAN'T UNILATERALLY, UH, ISSUE A LETTER, UH, THAT MAKES A DECISION ON ZONING OUTSIDE OF CITY POLICY OR WITHOUT SOME PRIOR APPROVAL TO DO SO.
UM, 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE ISSUE HERE WAS A FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE WROTE A LETTER SAYING, INTERPRETING THE ZONING CODE A CERTAIN WAY TO SAY THAT THIS STORAGE FACILITY WAS PERMISSIBLE.
AND, UH, IT WAS, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS AN INTERPRETATION, BUT THEN THAT WAS USED, UH, BY THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROPERTY AS GROUNDS TO, UH, DETER THE CITY FROM DENYING THEIR, THEIR RIGHT TO, UH, HAVE THAT TYPE OF FACILITY AT THAT LOCATION.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE CHARTER WOULD INDICATE THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WASN'T APPROVED BY COUNSEL, IT'S NOT LEGAL.
BECAUSE WE SET THE POLICY CORRECT.
AND THE CITY MANAGER AD ADMINISTERS IT.
AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING HERE IS TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER.
I THINK WHAT HER SUGGESTION WAS, WAS TO SOME WAY CLARIFYING THE CHARTER THAT SPECIFICALLY LETTERS RELATED TO ZONING COULD NOT BE UNILATERALLY SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
BUT YOU COULD HAVE THAT SAME SITUATION WITH ANY DIRECTOR THAT LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, UH, THE IT DIRECTOR TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF DECISION THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS A POLICY DECISION.
SO I DON'T KNOW, TO ZERO IN ON THIS ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE TO CHANGE THE CHARTER AS RELEVANT.
I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IT'S COVERED IN HERE IN THE CITY CHARTER.
AND ANY FURTHER DIRECTION WOULD EITHER COME FROM COUNCIL TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THIS, OR FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO STAFF CLARIFYING WHAT THEIR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE.
BUT WE COULD BRING THE POINT UP THAT IT'S ILLEGAL.
SO IF WE HAD A STAFF PERSON WRITE A LETTER AND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? YES.
THAT WROTE IT ABOUT THE STORAGE FACILITY? HMM.
I MEAN, IT WASN'T LEGAL IN THE BINDING.
WELL, IT WAS PROBABLY NOT UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY YES.
TO DO THAT, WHICH MAKES IT ILLEGAL.
THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING ALLEGED OR PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER THAT IT WAS, IT WAS, YEAH.
SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO MO A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM.
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLE PLEASE? UH, THIS IS ITEM 0 2 0.
THE LAST ACTION ITEM IS, UM, 0 2 1.
UM, I WAS TASKED WITH, UH, BRINGING BACK SOME RED LINE LANGUAGE FOR THIS SECTION 9 0 7, ABOUT, UH, REMOVAL OF A BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER.
SO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD HAD AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE FACT THAT, UM, CURRENTLY UNDER THE CHARTER, UH, SECTION 9 0 7, UH, TO REMOVE A, A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER REQUIRES A VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OF SIX MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING.
SO MY SUGGESTION WAS TO CHANGE THAT TO FIVE BECAUSE, UM, FOR ONE THING, THESE BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE VOLUNTEER POSITIONS.
THEY'RE NOT EMPLOYEES OR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
UM, IT ONLY TAKES FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO APPOINT THEM TO THAT POSITION.
AND SO THE THRESHOLD THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED HERE IN THE CHARTER OF SIX, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE ALL THIS, UH, PROCESS OF A HEARING, UH, UH, BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNSEL REALLY NEARS THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT'S REQUIRED TO MOVE, TO REMOVE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
[01:15:01]
I GUESS MY ARGUMENT IS THAT, UM, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFICULT TO REMOVE A PROBLEMATIC MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION WHO'S SERVING IN A VOLUNTEER CAPACITY, IF IT IS FOR THE REASONS THAT ARE STATED HERE, UM, IN THE CHARTER SECTION, WHICH IS, UH, LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCY MISCONDUCT OR NEGLECT OF DUTY.YES, MRS. BAR, THERE IS REALLY NOTHING IN OUR CHARTER THAT, UM, ALLUDES TO THESE BOARD MEMBERS, EXCUSE ME, THESE BOARD MEMBERS BEING VOLUNTEERS.
SO IF THIS WERE TO GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC, THEY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VOLUNTEER PEOPLE, AND THEY WOULD SAY, WHY ARE YOU TAKING OUT DUE PROCESS IN THIS PARAGRAPH? SO I'M, I'M KIND OF QUESTIONING WHY SECTION 9 0 7 IS EVEN IN THERE WHEN WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED VOLUNTEERS ANYWHERE ELSE OR IDENTIFIED THEM AS VOLUNTEERS.
SO I'LL JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT, SAY TWO THINGS.
UM, ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER FROM SIX TO FIVE AND, AND RETAIN, UM, THE DUE PROCESS.
UH, I THINK THAT'S A STRONGER WORD THAN IT ACTUALLY, UH, THAN WHAT IS DESCRIBED HERE.
BUT, UM, UH, AND LEAVE THAT IN AND NOT MAKE THAT CHANGE, OR, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD LOOK AT SOME CLARIFICATION OF, UM, BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS AS VOLUNTEERS.
SO IT DOES SAY IN 9 0 3, UNDER GENERAL RULES NUMBER FIVE, SUBSECTION FIVE.
SO A FIVE, IT SAYS, ALL BOARD MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSION SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE OF RESOLUTION.
BUT THE PUBLIC NO, I, I, I DO GET YOUR POINT, BUT YEAH.
THE PUBLIC WON'T RECOGNIZE THAT.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T KNOW, SINCE THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT, WHY THE, WHY WOULD THEY SUPPORT A REDUCTION OF, UM, THE NUMBER OF VOTES? SO BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST SAYING YOU DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T, WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE IT
I DON'T, I MEAN, HOW ARE YOU GONNA JUSTIFY IT IF SOMEBODY ASKS YOU, RIGHT.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THIS, MY, MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT I COULD SAY, IT ONLY TAKES FIVE TO A POINT.
IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE FIVE TO, TO REMOVE.
THAT'S HOW I WOULD JUSTIFY IT.
BUT THAT'S HOW I WOULD SAY IT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT I NEED TO TELL 'EM THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS.
I JUST, I AGREE WITH TONY'S POINT.
WHY SHOULD IT TAKE MORE PEOPLE TO REMOVE SOMEBODY FROM ANYTHING WHEN IT ONLY TAKES FIVE TO APPOINT THEM? I THINK THAT'S THE SELLING POINT.
SHOULD TO REMOVE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO'S BEEN ELECTED BY THE VOTERS, THAT'S THE SAME THRESHOLD AS IT IS FOR A VOLUNTEER.
AGAIN, BUT THEY DON'T DIFFERENTIATE YEAH.
BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND VOLUNTEERS.
WELL, THERE'S ALSO NO HARM LOST IF IT NO, IT WAS PROPOSED AND, AND FAILED.
I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST REMAIN AS IS THEN.
I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE STRONG INCENTIVE THERE OR RATIONALE FOR THEM TO VOTE FOR IT.
IT SHOULD TAKE FIVE TO REMOVE.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT THAT IN ITSELF IS THE AD CAMPAIGN FOR THAT PARTICULAR, UM, UH, CHANGE THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING.
WHY ARE YOU SUGGESTING THIS CHANGE? WELL, IT TAKES FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO APPOINT.
IT SHOULD TAKE FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MOVE.
CAN WE GET THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL ON THE BALLOT, ON THE EXPLANATION? NO, BUT, UM, WE DID LAST TIME DO LIKE, UH, NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS AND RIGHT.
OTHER PUBLICITY WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PROS AND CONS TO THE, UH, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M FOR THAT.
TO FIVE, TO A POINT, AND FIVE, JUST, JUST KEEPING IT SIMPLE.
UM, I MEAN, THE REAL, AND THAT REALLY IS, AS TONY POINTS OUT, IT'S THE ONLY REASON TO DO IT.
UM, I MEAN, FIVE'S THE MAGIC NUMBER FOR ANYTHING, ADOPTING A RESOLUTION IN ORDINANCE, UM, APPOINTMENTS.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA CHEW ON THIS A LITTLE BIT LONGER, OR IF WE WANT TO MOTION TO PASS THIS
[01:20:01]
BOARD.UH, MR. IS THAT MR WHAT THE, UH, THE LINES, THE REASONS FOR REMOVAL, THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN? MAYBE NOT
UM, AND THE HANDOUT THAT, UH, TONY GAVE.
ANY DISCUSSION? DID YOU WANNA DISCUSS FURTHER? ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE?
IF WE CAN EXPLAIN WHY IT'S FIVE.
FIVE TO PUT IN, FIVE TO TAKE OUT.
BUT I THINK THAT PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM, MIGHT SEE THAT AS DUE PROCESS AND, AND NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENTIATION AS A VOLUNTEER.
UH, WELL, AS, AS I STATED, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THE HYBRID, WHICH IS TO, UH, GO FROM SIX TO FIVE AND NOT TAKE OUT THE OTHER LINE.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO GET THE NUMBER DOWN FROM SIX TO FIVE.
SINCE WE CAN MAKE, SO DO WE AMEND OUR, CAN WE AMEND OUR MOTION? SO, UH, IF MARK WOULD WITHDRAWS ORIGINAL MOTION AND THEN, UH, WITHDRAW MOVE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO SECTION 9 0 7 WITH ONLY THE CHANGE MADE TO THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE NUMBER FROM SIX TO FIVE.
HECK, THAT NANCY DRIVES A HARD PART.
SO THEN DID YOU MAKE A MOTION TO RESEND? UH, DON'T NEED, HE JUST WITHDREW IT.
AND THEN I ASSUMED ON YOU WITHDREW YOUR SECOND TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
SO MARK MAKES THE, UH, NEW MOTION.
MR. BURCH, I WANTS, WE'LL GO MRS. BARGE SINCE SHE HAD THE SUGGESTION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO.
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MR. RUSSELL? YES.
WE ARE AT THE END OF ALL OF OUR ACTION ITEMS. SO TO DATE, WE ONLY HAVE ONE PROSPECTIVE ISSUE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW? NO, WE HAVE THAT ONE.
WE HAVE, UM, THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE, AT LEAST.
UH, THE REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH IN A NEWSPAPER.
SO I, UM, AGENDA NUMBER FIVE, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. UM, FIVE A HUBER HEIGHTS CITY CHARTER.
NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 25TH, 2024.
AND THOSE WILL GO OVER ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ARTICLE 14 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION TONIGHT? YES, MR. CAMPBELL, YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
TELL MATT HE SHOULD BE HIGHLY CONCERNED.
ALRIGHT, WELL, OH, MR. WHAT I'D MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT.
UH, APPRECIATE ALL THE RESEARCH YOU DID.
WILL THESE BE ON THE, UH, AGENDA OR, OR WILL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO ACCESS THIS WITHOUT DOING A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST? YES, THEY'LL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES.
SO THE HANDOUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, UH, FROM LEGAL TODAY WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES.
WELL, WITH THAT, IT IS 7 24 AND THIS MEETING IS TURNED.