[00:00:03]
[ CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO Charter Review Commission]
SO I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE JUNE 25TH CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.MR. ROGERS, COULD YOU TAKE THE ROLE, PLEASE? MR. DILLINGHAM? HERE.
UH, THIS EVENING MR. CAMPBELL IS HOME ILL, SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EXCUSE HIS ABSENCE.
MS. BURGE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 12TH MINUTE MEETINGS, UH, WHICH WERE ALL EMAILED TO US BY MR. ROGERS.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO MOTIONED, MS. SARUS, WE WERE JUST LETTING THOSE STAND AS APPROVED, I THINK THE LAST TIME, DIDN'T WE? UHHUH HONEY? YEAH, JUST, UH, OKAY.
IF, IF THERE WERE NO CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS, THEY COULD JUST STAND AS APPROVED.
ARE ANY, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE JUNE 12TH MINUTES? I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK MS. SUMMERS FOR HER GREAT JOB FILLING IN AS THE CHAIR WHILE I WAS SUNNING IN FLORIDA.
UH, UH, SO MOVING ON TO OUR TOPICS FOR THIS EVENING, UH, CHARTER REVIEW, COMMISSION PROCESS, NEEDS SUPPORT STAFF, AND OTHER ISSUES, MR. ROGERS? UM, I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING, UH, TONIGHT, BUT, UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE, UH, JULY 10TH MEETING, WHICH IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
UM, DID YOU SAY ANYTHING YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO NO.
AND THEN YOU'RE NOT, AND YOU'RE NOT.
SO, UM, WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE OUT, UM, WE PROBABLY WE'LL NEED TO AT LEAST CANCEL THE MEETING.
I'LL LOOK AT RESCHEDULING A DATE AND GETTING BACK WITH YOU, UH, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING AVAILABLE THE, THE FOLLOWING WEEK OR, UH, AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.
BUT I KNOW THERE'S LIKE, UM, A COUNCIL MEETING AND A PLANNING COMMISSION THAT FOLLOWING WEEK.
SO I, I'LL JUST HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY AVAILABILITY THAT, AND THEN CHECK WITH THE REST OF THE MEMBERS ON, UH, THEIR AVAILABILITY.
AND OTHERWISE, WE'LL JUST MOVE ON TO THE, UH, MEETING.
THAT'S, UH, I THINK JULY 23RD.
WOULD THAT GIVE US, WOULD THAT GIVE US TIME TO REVIEW AND, UH, PRESENT TO COUNSEL ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, UH, WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT? UM, IT DEPENDS ON THE PROGRESS OF THE MEETING TONIGHT.
UH, I HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE MAYOR EARLIER THIS, UH, EVENING ABOUT, UH, MOVING THE ONES THAT HAD ADVANCED FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO, UH, THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK ON JULY 2ND.
SO, UM, IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, BASED ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSIONS, UM, AND EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THE ONES THAT WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AHEAD TO, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THE COMMISSION MEMBERS COULD MAYBE SUPPORT OR, OR PARTICIPATE IN SHARING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WITH COUNCIL AT NEXT WEEK'S COUNCIL WORK SESSION.
SO MOVING INTO THE CHARTER AND, UH, JUST A QUICK, CONGRATULATIONS.
WE'RE IN THE LAST TWO ARTICLES.
SO, UH, WE WILL START WITH ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISIONS.
UM, AND JUST FOR KNOWLEDGE IN THE CITY WHO, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, THERE IS NO AUDIENCE.
SO THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
SO WHEN I DON'T CALL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, THAT IS WHY.
UM, SO, UM, ARTICLE 13, GENERAL PROVISIONS, UH, ANY, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1301 OATH OF OFFICE 1302 OFFICIAL BONDS? JUST, UH, ONE THING I, I GUESS THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY SPECIFIC TO THIS, BUT JOHN DID, DID YOU GET AN OATH ADMINISTERED AS THE INTERIM? SO WE, WE SHOULD PROBABLY DO THAT
SO I'M FREE AND CLEAR RIGHT NOW.
I, UH, JUST TO MAKE IT TECHNICALLY COMPLIANT, UM, THE MAYOR, I COULD ADMINISTER THE
[00:05:01]
OATH.SO JUMPING TO 1303 FEES, 1304 AMENDMENTS, 1305 CONFLICTING AMENDMENTS.
1306, EFFECTIVE PARTIAL INVALIDITY.
AND IF CHRIS OR JORDAN, YOU HAD ANYTHING TO INPUT ON THESE, WE'D WELCOME YOUR INPUT, BUT I THINK THESE ARE PRETTY BENIGN COMPARED TO THE ONES WE'VE BEEN THROUGH AS FAR AS DISCUSSION.
UM, MS. PER IN, UH, 1307 A TWO, UM, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
UM, SO NO EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER OF THE CITY OTHER THAN OTHER THAN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
SO ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN PARTICIPATE OR TAKE PART IN THE CAMPAIGN OF THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT, BUT AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT.
A MEMBER OF BORDER COMMISSION YES.
AND BOARD AND COMMISSIONS CANNOT CAN OH, CAN, OH, YEAH.
BOARD MEMBER OF A BOARD OF COMMISSION COULD, YEAH.
UM, AND THEN ON B, COUNSEL SHALL ENACT ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS PROVIDING SANCTIONS FOR, FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION? I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SEEN ANY ORDINANCES OR RE RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS.
IF, IF I CAN GIVE SOME, SOME CONTEXT FOR THAT.
UM, THERE IS A, A FEDERAL PROVISION CALLED THE HATCH ACT.
AND THE HATCH ACT PREVENTS, UM, THE COERCIVE ABILITY OF, UH, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO, UH, INFLUENCE OR DEMAND THAT STAFF OR EMPLOYEES, UH, MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
UM, NOW NOTHING PREVENTS AN INDIVIDUAL FROM EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL PROCESS, BUT BY CODIFYING OR NOT CODIFYING, BUT BY PUTTING THAT IN THE CHARTER, IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT IS.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE RATIONALE, UM, AS IT RELATES TO SUBSECTION B, UM, GIVEN WHAT THE, THE, THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ARE.
AND I THINK THAT MOST PUBLIC OFFICIALS RECOGNIZE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE ENGAGING IN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CITY HALL
THAT, UM, I THINK THAT'S IN THERE IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING WERE TO OCCUR, ALTHOUGH IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT IT EVER WOULD OR RISE TO THAT LEVEL.
AND ACCORDING TO THE HATCH ACT, A CITY EMPLOYEE CAN CONTRIBUTE, IT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAMPAIGN, BUT CANNOT BE COERCED TO CONTRIBUTE.
AND, AND THAT ALSO WOULD ARGUABLY INCLUDE SUBTLE FORMS OF, UH, OF, UH, PRESSURE.
UH, THAT ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF KNOW THAT, GO ON.
BUT, BUT CERTAINLY WITHIN THE, THE, WHEN SOMEBODY'S HIRED BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PARTICULARLY, YOU SEE THIS AT THE STATE LEVEL, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A, A PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE.
THERE CERTAINLY CAN'T BE AN ADVERSE JOB ACTION TAKEN.
BECAUSE OF SOMEONE'S, UH, UNWILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UM, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE, NOTHING FURTHER FROM 1307.
1308 REMOVAL OF, OF, OF OFFICIAL MS. SUMMERS.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON V IT SAYS THAT THE CHARGING OFFICIAL OFFICIAL, WHERE THE PERSON ACCUSED OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL IS THE PERSON HOLDING OFFICE OF MAYOR.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, IF THEY, IF THE COUNCIL PERSON OR THE ELECTED OFFICIAL FAILS TO POSSESS OR MAINTAIN THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFICE PRESCRIBED BY THIS CHARTER, THEN THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY THE COUNCIL, UM, BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
[00:10:01]
AND SO I WONDERED IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO A COUNCIL PERSON WHERE THEY LOST THEIR HOUSE IN A FIRE AND THEY HAD TO GO LIVE WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN A DIFFERENT WARD, OR GO TO A DIFFERENT CITY TEMPORARILY UNTIL THEY, WHAT CONSTITUTES THEIR RESIDENCY? SO THAT'S SOMEWHAT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.UM, WE HAD A, A SITUATION LIKE THIS, UH, WHERE A COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, WAS GOING THROUGH A SEPARATION IN THEIR MARRIAGE.
AND, UH, AS A RESULT, THEY HAD TO MOVE OUT OF THE MARITAL HOME AND WERE LIVING WITH, YOU KNOW, IN A NEARBY COMMUNITY TEMPORARILY WHILE THEY WERE LOOKING TO REESTABLISH RESIDENCY IN THE CITY.
AND IT WAS THE RULING OF OUR LAW DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME THAT, UH, THAT THAT PERSON COULD, UH, REMAIN TEMPORARILY IF IT WAS A TEMPORARY SITUATION DUE TO EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
BUT THE COUNSEL AS THE BODY THAT IS THE, UH, TASK WITH REMOVAL OF THAT PERSON, UM, IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO ACT, KNOWING THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO PRECLUDE ACTION FOR REMOVAL.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THEY COULD HAVE PURSUED THAT IF, IF, IF THEY WANTED, AND THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS AND, AND THE VOTE FOR REMOVAL.
BUT THAT WAS THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE AT THAT TIME IN, IN, IN THE MOST RECENT CASE.
AND IF, AND IF I WERE ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON THAT FACT PATTERN, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, UH, OPINION OF, OF THE THEN LAW DIRECTOR.
I THINK THAT THE PROVISION IS INTENDED TO, ONE, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE ARE UNINTENDED THINGS THAT WERE TO HAPPEN AND THE CONTEXT OF A FIRE OR ACT OF GOD OR WHATEVER.
UM, SO THE ONE WOULD LOOK TO THE INTENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND TAKE THOSE STATEMENTS IN GOOD FAITH THAT THERE WAS SOME INTENTION TO, UH, COMPLY WITH WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE OF THE CHARTER AND WHAT THE, THE CONDITIONS WERE FOR HOLDING THE OFFICE, HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE FOR SOMEBODY.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE AS IF ONE DAY THERE'D BE SOMETHING ON A COUNCIL AGENDA TO REMOVE SOMEBODY.
THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE IT BECAME GOT TO THAT LEVEL.
AND IN FACT, THEY, PART OF THE PROCESS IS THEY HAVE TO, UH, PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED CAUSE FOR THE REMOVAL AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THAT, UH, 10 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF, OF, UM, BEING SERVED WITH A, A NOTICE OF INTENT TO HAVE A HEARING FOR REMOVAL.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM 1308? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, MR. MS. BIR, TONY, UM, UNDER F, UM, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS DEMANDED AND NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING WILL BE PUBLISHED IN ONE OR MORE NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY AND POSTED IT ON AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC MEDIA AT LEAST ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE.
SO THIS GOES BACK TO THE THING WHERE WE ADDRESSING THAT WE ALREADY APPROVED.
I WOULD MEDIA, SO THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY UPDATED.
I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST LOOK AT MIRRORING THE LANGUAGE THAT WE DID CORRECT FOR THAT, UNLESS YOU WANTED THIS TO BE MORE STRINGENT.
BUT, UM, OTHERWISE I WOULD SAY THAT WE JUST KEEP THE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND I WOULD MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.
ONE OF THE TRICKY THINGS IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT NOTICE PROVISIONS, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES BECAUSE THE, THE LAW ONLY REQUIRES ONE, ONE PROCESS FOR THAT NOTICE.
AND IF YOU DEVIATE FROM WHAT THE LAW IS, IT'S LIKELY THAT A MISTAKE COULD OCCUR.
AND I ASSUME THAT WE COULD GROUP THE OTHER PROVISION AND THIS ONE TOGETHER IN ONE CHARTER AMENDMENT SINCE THEY'RE OF A SIMILAR NATURE.
I MEAN, THAT GETS BACK TO ONE OF THE, WITH THE FIRST MEETING WHERE I THINK THAT THIS COMMISSION'S GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE WHOLE CHARTER AMENDMENT BALLOT INITIATIVE.
I MEAN, YOU COULD DO IT AS ONE FOR EACH CHARTER.
REMEMBER, THAT'S PRETTY CUMBERSOME GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CHANGES WE'RE LOOKING AT.
YOU COULD DO IT AS ONE, OR YOU COULD PULL OUT SEPARATE ONES BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE NATURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M EXPLAINING THAT CLEARLY OR NOT.
AND LAST TIME WE DID MOST OF 'EM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT SOMETIMES YOU GROUP SOME OF 'EM TOGETHER THAT HAVE, UH, OVERLAPPING PROVISIONS BETWEEN THEM, UM, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
AND I WOULD SAY THE GROUPING OF THOSE ARE MORE A DETERMINATION FOR COUNCIL THAN THIS COMMISSION.
JUST BECAUSE POLITICALLY THEY, THEY NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THEY'RE GONNA PROCEED TO THE BALLOT.
[00:15:01]
SAY WE DEFER THAT TO COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.WITH THAT CHANGE TO F DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON? YEAH, WE SHOULD.
WE'VE BEEN TAKING, I WOULD FORMAL VOTE ON THE ACTUAL RECORD.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR MODIFYING F TO MIRROR THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.
AND THAT WOULD BE BE, UH, SECTION 1308, PARAGRAPH F MS. BURGE AND MR. DILLINGHAM.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM F? OKAY.
MR. ROUNDERS, IF YOU COULD TAKE THE ROLE.
AND THEN I NOTICE MS. SARUS, YOU'VE PATIENTLY WAITED.
UM, I KNOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME OR IF WE CIRCLE BACK LATER, BUT ON C NUMBER FIVE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED MANY A TIMES ABOUT THE WORD CONSECUTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO MISSING THREE MEETINGS.
UM, I THINK WE HAVE TABLED IT AND WE'VE TABLED IT AGAIN.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE DISCUSS NOW OR WE WAIT TILL IT'S AN ACTION ITEM BROUGHT UP LATER.
THAT'S WHAT I HAD DOWN AS WELL.
UM, I'M OKAY WITH THREE, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE THREE IN A CALENDAR YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING AS WELL.
UH, IF SOMEONE IS ILL, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY WITHIN A YEAR TO MISS THREE.
BUT THIS IS UNEXCUSED, UNEXCUSED.
SO THE COUNCIL WOULD STILL HAVE THE OKAY.
OPPORTUNITY TO EXCUSE THE COUNCIL PERSON OR THE MAYOR FOR BEING ABSENT.
IT'S IF THEY HAVE THREE UNEXCUSED.
SO IF THEY CAN'T WIN A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THEIR ABSENCE, THEN OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, IF THREE EXCUSED ABSENCES, SOMEONE'S VERY SICK, SICK OR FAMILY.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I I THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT, BUT YEAH.
IF WAS OPT NOT TO COME, IF YOU JUST DROP THE WORD CONSECUTIVE FROM THAT SECTION MM-HMM.
AND THAT WOULD, MY, MY THOUGHT WOULD JUST BE CHANGE, DROP THE CONSECUTIVE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO CLASSIFY IT AS IN A CALENDAR YEAR.
'CAUSE YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, MARK CAMPBELL HAS BEEN SERVING FOR 40 YEARS.
HE MAY HAVE HAD THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES DURING 40 YEARS.
I DON'T WANT TO, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A TIMEFRAME ATTACHED TO, TO THIS WITH THIS CHANGE.
NOW, IF IT'S CONSECUTIVE, IT COULD BE AT ANY POINT IN, DURING YOUR TENURE.
UM, IF YOU HAD THREE CONSECUTIVE, SO IF YOU ELIMINATE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE, I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE A AMOUNT OF TIME ATTACHED TO IT.
I MEAN, I THINK 12 MONTHS OF LIKE A ROLLING 12 MONTHS, NOT NECESSARILY A CALENDAR YEAR.
THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT'S A LOT HARDER TO TRACK.
I QUESTION ARE, ARE TERMS, ARE, UH, NEW COUNCIL MEMBER SWORN IN JANUARY ONE? CORRECT? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, IF, I'M SORRY IF YOU ARE, IF YOU NO, NO.
UM, SO, SO WHAT IF, SO AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE COULD BE THEY'RE LEGITIMATELY SICK, BUT IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNSEL DOESN'T LIKE THAT PERSON, THEY COULD SAY UNEXCUSED.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN.
I WOULD HOPE WE ELECT OR BETTER THAN THAT.
BUT, BUT, BUT I, I, I'VE SEEN THE CONFLICT AND I JUST WONDER HOW THAT COULD PAN OUT IF THE WHOLE COUNCIL WAS MADE UP OF A GROUP AND THERE WAS ONE, OR, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? OR ONE OR TWO.
SO IS THERE A MORE DEFINITIVE REASON, UM, AS TO WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE MORE THAN JUST, OH, WE'RE GONNA JUST SAY NO, IT'S, IT IS ALWAYS BEEN THE COUNCIL DISCRETION.
I, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT GETTING TOO, UH, PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS IS SPELLED OUT IN A CHARTER.
BECAUSE ONCE IT'S IN THERE, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT TO, TO, TO MAKE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THAT AS WELL.
TYPICALLY, THOSE TYPES OF RULES AS THEY RELATE TO COUNSEL ARE PUT IN THE, THE RULES OF COUNSEL.
SO IF IT BECAME AN ISSUE, COUNSEL COULD ADDRESS IT.
BUT I WOULD SAY THIS ONE, THE ASSUMPTION IS, IS THAT ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND ARE DILIGENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.
UM, IF THERE WERE SOME GROUP OF, OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO DECIDED TO SAY, NO, WE DEEM THIS UNEXCUSED, EVEN THOUGH PAST PRACTICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE DECLARED EXCUSED.
[00:20:01]
WERE A CHALLENGE MADE, I, I THINK THAT A, A JUDGE OR SOME OUTSIDER REVIEWING THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THAT WAS AN ARBITRARY ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE DEVI FROM DEVIATING FROM A STANDARD OF PAST PRACTICE.SO I THINK THAT THAT IMPLICIT IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT, UH, PEOPLE, UH, BEHAVE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT THEY TAKE.
UM, AND I, I, WHILE IT'S IMPERFECT TO TRUST THAT PEOPLE WILL DO THAT, I THINK THAT THAT'S THE MODEL THAT WE SHOULD ADHERE TO AND NOT TRY TO LEGISLATE AND CREATE RULES IN ANTICIPATION OF BAD CONDUCT
WE'VE, IN ALL THE, IN ALL THE YEARS, I THINK WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE INSTANCE WHERE THIS HAS OCCURRED AND SOMEONE'S BEEN REMOVED AFTER MISSING THREE, AND HE WAS IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD.
HE WASN'T SHOWING UP FOR ANYTHING.
HE WAS WORKING, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.
AND ACTUALLY, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WAS REMOVED TWICE FOR THE SAME REASON.
UM, THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE, UH, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU PUT A TIMEFRAME ON THIS, WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST COULD GET AROUND IT WHERE ONE PERSON MISSES ONE COUNCIL MEETING, ANOTHER PERSON MISSES ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING, SO THEY'RE NOT CONSECUTIVE.
AND THEN THAT OTHER PERSON WILL, THE FIRST ONE WILL MISS THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS WHY I WANT THE WORD CONSECUTIVE.
WE WANT TO TAKE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE OUT.
SO I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT LIKE A LEGAL BEST PRACTICE.
WOULD WE NEED TO ADD A COMMENT IN THERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FROM THIS DATE MOVING FORWARD, IF WE PUT A TIMEFRAME? BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN SERVING 40 YEARS, UM, SERVING THE COMMUNITY, THEY GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEIR PAST RECORD, LIKE IT SHOULD BE FROM DAY, WHENEVER IT'S VOTED IN MOVING FORWARD.
WELL, I, I THINK YOU, WHAT COMES TO MIND IS, I THINK THREE OPTIONS.
ONE IS YOU PUT 12 MONTH, A 12 MONTH PERIOD, YOU KNOW, AS, AS TONY INDICATED, IF YOU DO A ROLLING 12 MONTH PERIOD, THAT COULD BE COMPLICATED TO TRACK.
YOU COULD IN THEORY, SAY DURING THE TERM OF OFFICE, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE ENTIRE, I THINK FOUR YEAR TERM, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN THREE.
UH, THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY EASY TO TRACK.
UM, I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, UH, INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS OR BAD BEHAVIORS AS IT RELATES TO NOT FULFILLING ONE'S OATH OF OFFICE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP TO COUNCIL MEETINGS, THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS THAT EXIST THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IN THE CHARTER.
THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE POWER TO CSU SOMEONE WHERE THERE'S A VOTE THAT SAYS YOUR ACTS ARE BAD.
BUT THERE, THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT IS CALLED OUT IN A PUBLIC WAY, UH, AND DEEMED TO BE UNACCEPTABLE.
ADMITTEDLY, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TEETH TO THAT OTHER THAN THE, UH, THE, THE, THE PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT OF THAT.
UH, I WOULD ARGUE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE CENSORED PROBABLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PUBLIC
BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S NECESSARILY A, A, A STANDARD THAT EXISTS, UM, FROM COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE FLESHED OUT LATER IN SOME RULES OF COUNSEL AS THE MATTERS COME UP.
SO I, I DEFER TO THE WILL OF THE, THE COMMISSION ON WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO DO AS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL.
UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA REMOVE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE, DOING IT FOR THE WHOLE TERM, THAT'S INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE, UM, AGREE.
I, I MEAN, THREE AND FOUR YEARS WOULD NOT BE AN IMPACT.
UH, BUT, UH, I, I WOULD SAY, UH, IF YOU WANNA TAKE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE OUT, PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO ADMINISTER IT WOULD BE A, A, A CALENDAR YEAR THREE MISSING, UM, OR UNEXCUSED ABSENCES FROM ANY THREE REGULAR MEETINGS OF COUNCIL BORDER COMMISSION ON WHICH PERSON SERVES IN A CALENDAR YEAR.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORE FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE, BUT JUST REMEMBER THIS SECTION DOES DEAL, UM, WITH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M THINKING NOW IS THAT I THINK THIS IS A OVERSIGHT FROM THE LAST TIME, BECAUSE WE ADDED A SECTION ABOUT REMOVAL OF BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, UM, AND TOOK THEM OUT OF THE SAME PROCESS AS THE COUNSEL.
'CAUSE THAT'S IN SECTION 9 0 7.
AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THIS LANGUAGE WAS CORRECTED IN THIS SECTION TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO THE BOARD AND COMMISSION.
SO JUST OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, DO YOU
[00:25:01]
HAVE AN ISSUE WITH PEOPLE NOT SHOWING UP TO BOARD MEETINGS? YES.THAT IS A BIGGER ISSUE, COMMON, MORE COMMON THAN WITH COUNSEL.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING ON A BOARD THAT CONSISTENTLY MISS MEETINGS, WOULD WE WANT THEM TO CONTINUE TO HOLD A BOARD MEMBERSHIP IF THEY CAN'T ATTEND? WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS REFERENCE TO THE BORDER COMMISSION IN SECTION, UH, 1308 C FIVE, I THINK WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT IN THERE BECAUSE, UM, ALL THE OTHER REFERENCES, I BELIEVE THE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS IN SECTION 1308 WERE TAKEN OUT IN THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
UM, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING REPLACED BY SECTION 9 0 7, SO THAT LANGUAGE SHOULD NOT BE IN THERE, IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
SO IT, IT SHOULD JUST SAY REGULAR MEETINGS OF COUNSEL IN A CALENDAR YEAR IF WE WERE CHANGE IT.
COULD THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED WHEN IT WAS REPRINTED? WELL, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE IF IT WAS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR THAT DIDN'T GET TRANSCRIBED PROPERLY, OR IT'S AN ISSUE THAT IT WAS OVERLOOKED AND IT WASN'T PART OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
IN THAT CASE, CHANGING THIS SECTION FOR THE OTHER PURPOSE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN IT UP AS WELL.
I, I, I LIKE JUST LEAVING 9 0 7 FOR REMOVAL OF BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER HAVING, UH, REMOVAL OF OFFICE ON 1308, JUST ADDRESS COUNSEL.
AND THAT, WELL, THAT WAS WHAT WAS DONE IN THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
AND THAT, SO THIS, SO THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF REFERENCES TO BOARD COMMISSION AND 1308, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS ONE DIDN'T GET REMOVED IN, IN C FIVE FOR SOME REASON.
DO YOU THINK THEN, IN LOOKING AT 9 0 7, WHEN I LOOK AT THE, THE, THE GROUNDS LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCY MISCONDUCT OR NEGLECTIVE DUTY, ARGUABLY UNEXCUSED ABSENCES WOULD BE NEGLECTIVE DUTY.
UM, IF WE'RE GONNA DO A, I SAW THAT THERE WERE SOME NOTES ON 9 0 7 BECAUSE OF THE SIX VERSUS FIVE VOTES, BUT WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO INCLUDE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR THERE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST REASON WHY BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE REMOVED IS THE ABSENTEE ISSUE NOT MISCONDUCT? OR IS IT BETTER JUST LEAVE IT AS A NEGLECTIVE DUTY, WHICH NOT SHOWING UP AS NEGLECTIVE DUTY? WELL, I THINK WHAT CHRIS MIGHT BE SUGGESTING IS ANYTHING THAT'S MORE DEFINITIVE MM-HMM.
IT'S CLEAR IF YOU MISS THREE OR MORE, YOU'RE OUT
AND, AND IT IS NOT OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION.
NEGLECTIVE DUTY IS, IS NOT CLEAR.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT NOT SHOWING UP AS NEGLECTIVE DUTY, BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES IT RISE TO NEGLECTIVE DUTY THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO REMOVE SOMEBODY? I, I, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S VALUE AND CLARITY.
UM, AND SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING.
NOW, THE QUESTION ON THAT IS, IS THAT WOULD COUNSEL HAVE THE APPETITE THEN TO REMOVE SOMEBODY SUMMARILY ON THAT THIRD UNEXCUSED ABSENCE? BECAUSE IF YOU WAIVE IT, THEN YOU GET INTO THE PATTERN OF PRACTICE, WELL, WHY AM I DOING IT? IGNORING IT FOR THIS PERSON? RIGHT.
UM, BUT COUNSEL, EVEN IF THAT PROVISION WAS IN THERE, THEY WOULDN'T BE COMPELLED TO VOTE TO REMOVE THE PERSON.
BUT WE, WE PUT IN THE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES FOR A REASON.
AND I WOULDN'T WANNA IGNORE IT PLAIN LANGUAGE IN OUR, IN OUR CONSTITUTION, BUT IT'S OKAY THE WAY THAT IT IS.
UM, SO TONY, JUST KIND OF ANECDOTALLY, IS THERE WORK THAT DOES NOT GET DONE OR DOES NOT PROGRESS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE NOT ATTENDING BOARDS BOARD MEETINGS? UH, WHAT HAPPENS, UH, MORE COMMONLY IS, UM, IF YOU HAVE SEVERAL, AND DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME BOARDS, THERE ARE ONLY FIVE MEMBER BOARDS, SOME ARE NINE MEMBER BOARDS.
BUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TO HAVE A QUORUM FOR A MEETING, THEN IT PREVENTS THE MEETING FROM TAKING PLACE.
SO THAT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF THE BORDER COMMISSION.
AND SOME OF THEM HAVE FUNDS THAT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO SPEND ON THE COMMUNITY OR NOT.
UH, SOME WOULD HAVE FUNDS, BUT IT'S, IT'S THINGS TOO, LIKE PLANNING FOR EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT COULD, UH, NOT BE DONE AS A BOARD OR A COMMISSION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM TO MEET.
SO, SO I KEEP GOING BACK PERSONALLY THINKING THAT YOU SHOULD ATTEND.
YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, SAID YOU'RE GOING TO ATTEND.
AND IF YOU ARE SLOWING PROGRESS, THREE ABSENCES, YOU
[00:30:01]
SHOULD BE REMOVED.BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S AN OPENING ON, ON A BOARD? WELL, THEN THAT IS AN ISSUE WITH THE QUORUM AS WELL.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO FILL THAT VACANCY.
UM, WHERE IT BECOMES MORE SIGNIFICANT IS ON SOME OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS, LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, WHICH ONLY HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, UM, BY CHARTER.
AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT OR CAN'T HAVE A MEETING, IT COULD DELAY THE CONDUCT OF, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR, UH, A DEVELOPMENT OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UH, BY SOMEONE'S NON-ATTENDANCE.
SO USUALLY WHAT WE START WITH IS HAVING A MEETING WITH THE BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER THAT'S, UH, BEING ABSENT FROM THE MEETINGS AND TRYING TO, UH, EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF EITHER ATTENDING THE MEETINGS OR RESIGNING FROM THE BORDER COMMISSION TO DO IT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, COMING TO A VOTE.
BUT WE'VE HAD SOME THAT JUST WON'T COME AND THEN REFUSE TO RESIGN EITHER.
SO, SO I, I, I WOULD SAY, I THINK CHRIS HAS MADE SOME GOOD SUGGESTIONS FOR 9 0 7, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ONLY MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THE CHANGES IN 1308.
SO YOU THINK THEY OUGHT TO MIRROR EACH OTHER AT THAT POINT? YEAH.
I MEAN, THE, THE ONE THING I'LL ADD IS, IS THAT THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT BOARDS IN ANY CITY ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF BZA.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY HAVING PEOPLE SHOW UP IS IMPORTANT IS THOSE ARE ALSO THE TWO BOARDS THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.
IF THEY'RE A NEIGHBOR TO A DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN'T VOTE, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A MEMBER WHO'S NOT SHOWING UP, UH, OR THERE'S TWO PEOPLE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY CAN'T, THEN YOU'RE LEFT WITH TWO BECAUSE ONE PERSON ISN'T THERE.
UH, THAT JUST CREATES SOME REAL PROBLEMS. AND I GET SOME PHONE CALLS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND IT'S NOT EASY AND COULD DELAY THINGS.
UM, THE OTHER THING, THE OTHER REALITY THAT'S GOING ON IN EVERY COMMUNITY IN OHIO, PROBABLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IS ON THE VOLUNTEER BOARDS, IT'S JUST GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND PEOPLE.
UM, SO THAT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO THE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, BUT, UH, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH TONY, IF THERE'S A, HAVING CONSISTENCY IN REQUIREMENTS MAKE SENSE IN YOUR CHARTER.
UM, WHAT'S EVERYBODY THINK? DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THIS FROM CONSECUTIVE TO JUST THREE? OR ARE WE OKAY LEAVING IT AS IS? I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CONSECUTIVE, THE WORD CONSECUTIVE REMOVED IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD ADDED.
CAN WE DO THAT? DO WE THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND? THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS MY HEAD WAS AT.
UH, I KEEP THINKING OF HOW THIS WOULD BE PRESENTED ON THE BALLOT.
IT HAS TO BE REALLY CLEAN AND SIMPLE, UM, AND, AND WITH A CLEAR MESSAGE OF WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE, UH, UNEXCUSED ABSENCE AND WHAT IT TAKES TO GET AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE.
I, TONY, HAVE WE HAD AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE ON CITY COUNCIL DURING, UM, MY TERM HERE? I THINK MAYBE THERE'S BEEN A FEW RARE ONES.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANY TIME WE'VE, I, WE HAVE HAD SOMEONE VOTE NO TO EXCUSE AN ABSENCE.
BUT I THINK IN MOST CASES, UH, THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THE ABSENCE.
I THINK WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THAT PERIOD WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE INTENTIONALLY MISSING MEETINGS, THAT THERE WAS ONE OR TWO WHERE MAYBE THAT WAS NOT EXCUSED BECAUSE THE GAME WAS UP OR WHATEVER,
SO I THINK IN THAT CASE, A A PERSON WHO'S EARNING UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, IT TAKES A MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNSEL TO, UM, CALL AN ABSENCE UNEXCUSED.
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN THREE TIMES.
THAT'S WHEN YOU GOT A BAD ACTOR.
YOU GOT, YOU GOT A BAD CHARACTER IN THERE.
SO IF THAT'S HAPPENING, I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO GET A WHOLE LOT CLEANER THAN JUST REMOVING THE WORD CONSECUTIVE.
IF SOMEBODY SAID THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, I, I WOULD ASK, UH, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, WOULD THIS BE GRANDFATHER? LET'S TAKE, UH, MARK CAMPBELL SINCE HE'S NOT HERE.
SO MARK'S BEEN AROUND FOR 40 YEARS.
UM, WERE WE, TO MAKE THIS CHANGE AND ELIMINATE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE, WOULD THAT BE, UM, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,
[00:35:01]
FROM THIS DAY FORWARD? OR WOULD THIS BE, OR THEY WOULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT, UH, 1972 IF THE WORD CONSECUTIVE WERE TO BE REMOVED? I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THAT IT WOULD BE, AND I WOULD INTERPRET IT, UH, SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT IT'S DURING THE TERM, YOU CAN'T GO BACK OUTSIDE THE TERM.'CAUSE ONCE THE TERM'S DONE IT, IT'S, THERE'S A NEW TERM.
SO IT WOULD BE THAT FOUR YEAR PERIOD UPON WHICH SOMEONE'S ELECTED, THEY WERE REELECTED, START FROM ZERO FROM THAT NEW TERM BEING SWORN IN.
I, I THINK THAT'S REALLY CLEAN.
IF YOU JUST DUMP THE WORD CONSECUTIVE AND WE JUST SAY THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, BECAUSE I'M THINKING OF WHAT IT TAKES TO GET, FOR ME TO GIVE NANCY AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE.
I'VE GOTTA HAVE AT LEAST FOUR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO AGREE WITH ME THAT, UH, NANCY'S A BAD PERSON AND WE'RE GONNA HER ABSENCE.
AND THEN THAT HAS TO HAPPEN THREE TIMES.
I I AND, AND THEN EITHER WAY, IF YOU TO REMOVE THEM, YOU GOTTA HAVE TWO THIRDS VOTE.
SO, I, I THINK JUST REMOVING THE WORD CONSECUTIVE GIVES IT, UH, IT IS VERY CLEAN, EASY TO SELL.
AND WE CAN, UM, UM, UM, AS A COUNCIL, IF THERE IS SOMETHING FURTHER, I THINK WE COULD GO TO A, UH, UH, RULES OF COUNCIL CHANGE.
BUT, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY FEELS ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK JUST GETTING RID OF CONSECUTIVE, UM, CHRIS, WHAT DO YOU THINK IF, IF YOU WENT WITH MR. WEBB'S SUGGESTION, BUT THEN THE RULES OF COUNCIL CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS FOR EACH TERM OF YEAH.
A COUNCIL MEMBER AND, 'CAUSE I MEAN, JUST READING IT WITHOUT THE WORD CONSECUTIVE, YOU COULD ALSO INTERPRET THAT, THAT FROM WHENEVER IT'S IN EFFECT UNTIL THE PERSON'S, YOU KNOW, STOPPED SERVING ON COUNSEL, THAT IT, IT COULD OVERLAP MORE THAN ONE TERM.
UH, ONE, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT, UH, I THINK THAT INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT BE UPHELD IF IT WERE TO BE MORE THAN JUST THE TERM OF OFFICE.
SO I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, I, I KIND OF PIVOTED HERE.
I THINK THAT ONE, IT WOULD BE CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT IT'S DURING THE TERM OF OFFICE, AGAIN, SWEARING IN REELECTION.
UM, SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH JUST TAKING OUT THE WORD CONSECUTIVE.
I THINK THAT THAT COMPORTS WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, GIVES THE COUNCIL THE, THE, THE, THE DISCRETION THAT IT NEEDS.
I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THEIR OATH OF OFFICE AND ACT IN GOOD FAITH.
SO I WOULD TRUST THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE VOTING WOULD APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS FOR UNEXCUSED ABSENCE OR WHATEVER THE DISCUSSION IS.
SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA STOOP DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE BAD ACTOR, IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE, UH, CHANGE.
AND JUST SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR, I MEAN, REGARDLESS TO WHAT IT SAYS IN HERE, IF YOU DON'T MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY REMOVED.
IT STILL REQUIRES A, A VOTE OF BOX MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO, TO EFFECT IT.
BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT SCRAPPING AT SCRATCHING ALL THE BOARD LANGUAGE FROM THIS.
I NEED TO GO BACK AND, UH, RESEARCH THAT, BECAUSE IT MAY JUST BE AN ISSUE THAT WHEN THIS GOT TRANSCRIBED WITH THE CHANGES, SHE MISSED IT, THAT IT, IT, YOU KNOW, WAS IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER AMENDMENT AND SOMEHOW GOT LEFT IN THE TEXT OF THE PRINTED COPIES.
SO I LEARNED SOMETHING TODAY THAT I DIDN'T KNOW.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT WE'RE COMING TOWARDS THE END, WE PROBABLY HAD OUGHTA HAVE A MOTION IF WE'RE GONNA TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL.
SO, MOTION TO REMOVE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE TO REMOVE THE CONSECUTIVE MM-HMM,
SO THAT WOULD BE, SO WE HAVE A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE FROM MR. RUSICK, DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO REMOVE? THERE WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSION.
HE'S GONNA CHECK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED.
AND IT WAS JUST, YEAH, I THINK IF IT HASN'T BEEN REMOVED, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 9 0 7, RIGHT? WELL, NO, REMOVING 13 13 13 0 8 REMOVED.
I'M GONNA LOOK AND SEE IF THAT'S A SCRIVENER ERROR AND WE COULD JUST HANDLE IT THAT WAY.
OTHERWISE WE'LL INCLUDE IT CORRECT IN THE VERBIAGE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
FOR THE CHANGE OF REMOVING CONSECUTIVE, WE'LL JUST STRIKE THOSE WORDS OUT TO, TO CLEAN IT UP.
YOU OKAY WITH AMENDING YOUR MOTION TO THAT? YEAH.
[00:40:01]
1308 C FIVE, AND IF NECESSARY, BASED ON THE PRIOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, UM, TO REMOVE THE WORDS, UH, BOARD OR COMMISSION FROM THAT SAME SECTION.SO, MS. SARUS HAS MADE A MOTION AS THERE SECOND.
SECOND, MR. DILLINGHAM SECONDS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING DONE? MR. ROUNDERS, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE PLEASE? MR. SHOPPER? YES.
NOW, DID YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT A CHANGE TO SOME REFERENCE TO, WITHOUT THE WORD CONSECUTIVE IN THE MEETINGS TO THE MORTON COMMISSION, SECTION 9 0 7 ALSO, OR, OR NOT JUST KEEP IT HOW IT'S, I THINK HAVING IT CONSISTENT MAKES SENSE.
IT'S A MOTION TO REMOVE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE TO ADD OR TO ADD THE THREE CONSECUTIVE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, NOT CONSECUTIVE.
THREE UNEXCUSED THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.
BECAUSE THAT 9 0 7 DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING WITH ABSENCES.
TO ADD THE LANGUAGE WE WANT TO CHANGE 9 0 7, 13 0.085 TO MIRROR 9 0 7.
THE ABSENCE LANGUAGE FOR BOTH.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND MS. SUMMER SECONDS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE 9 0 7 CHANGE? UH, HEARING NONE, MR. ROGER, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM 1308? OKAY.
1309 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ETHICS CAMPAIGN FINANCING 1310 SUCCESSION.
1311 EFFECTIVE CHARTER ON EXISTING LAWS AND RIGHTS.
SO WE ARE DONE WITH ARTICLE 13 HEADING INTO OUR LAST ARTICLE, ARTICLE 14 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, UH, 1401 EFFECTIVE DATE.
UM, I READ THIS A COUPLE TIMES AND, UH, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS.
UH, THE MAYOR IN, UH, B UM, ANY PERSON APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY.
AND THEN THE MAYOR ELECTED THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER AT LARGE.
AND THE PERSON ELECTED BY THE LARGEST, SECOND LARGEST AND THIRD LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF VOTES FOR THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER BY DISTRICT AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE ON 1985, SHALL BE ELECTED TO TERMS OF OFFICE.
THE, THESE ARE HISTORICAL REFERENCES.
SO WHEN, UH, WAYNE TOWNSHIP WAS, UH, INCORPORATED AS THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, THESE WERE TO, UH, CREATE A STAGGERING OF THE TERMS SO THAT NOT EVERYBODY'S, UH, TERMS WOULD EXPIRE AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IF YOU NOTICE, IF YOU READ FURTHER, THAT GROUPING, IT SPECIFIES ARE GOING TO BE, UH, AT FOUR YEAR TERMS COMMENCING JANUARY 1ST, 1986.
AND THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE, THE OTHER HALF, ARE GOING TO BE COMMENCING FOR A TWO YEAR TERMS. SO THAT PUTS THEM ON THE ROTATION THAT WE'RE ON NOW.
BUT THE, THIS, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING HERE, BECAUSE IT'S ALL JUST FOR HISTORICAL, HISTORICAL INCIDENT.
EFFECTIVE CHART ON EXISTING PERSONNEL.
DURING THE TRANSITION, WHEN THEY FIRST WERE INCORPORATED, UM, AND UNTIL THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED, THERE WAS A POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL IN PLACE OF THE MAYOR.
AND SO THEY WERE ELECTED JUST LIKE THE MAYOR WAS.
[00:45:01]
WAS ONLY UNTIL THE CHARTER WAS APPROVED.AND, UH, SO YOU HAD TO HAVE A, A, A ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE AFTER WAYNE TOWNSHIP BECAME THE CITY OF HUB RIGHTS.
AND IT WAS INCORPORATED, BUT IT WAS A LATER DATE IN WHICH THEY ACTUALLY GOT A CHARTER APPROVED.
I, JOHN, YOU MAY REMEMBER, BUT I THINK EVEN POSSIBLY THE FIRST CHARTER WAS DEFEATED AND THEY IT WAS YES.
WAS CAME BACK AND HAD SOME REWRITES, AND THEN IT WAS APPROVED.
SO DURING THAT ENTER PERIOD, YEAH.
THEY WERE TRYING THIS TRANSITION, YEAH.
THIS TRANSITION OF, OF, SO IF YOU LIKE, LOOK BACK ON THESE PLAQUES HERE IN THE BACK ROOM, THAT LIST ALL THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
IN THE EARLY DAYS YOU'LL SEE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL.
SO THE OTHER REFERENCES ARE HISTORICAL TOO.
AND THEN 1403 VOTES OF COUNCIL DURING TRANSITION PERIOD.
THEN ONE LITTLE INTERESTING POINT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ON THE BACK, IT TALKS ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF THE DIFFERENT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
SO WHEN WE COMPLETE THIS PROCESS, YOU GUYS WILL GO IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHARTER, UH, ON THIS PAGE.
SO WE HAVE MADE IT THROUGH ALL OF THE ARTICLES.
SO NOW WE NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH OUR LEFTOVER ACTION ITEMS. SO IF EVERYONE CAN GO TO YOUR ACTION ITEM TRACKING FORM.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR ACTION ITEM TRAP TRACKING FORM, UM, FIRST PAGE IS ALL COMPLETE ON THE SECOND PAGE.
UM, AND I'M JUST GONNA GO NUMBER, THE NUMBER AT THE BACK END.
UH, NUMBER NINE, PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING QUORUMS AND MAJORITY VOTES RELATED TO ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FOUR 12.
AND THIS, THIS ITEM NUMBER NINE IS KIND OF TIED TO A COUPLE DIFFERENT AREAS AND A COUPLE OTHER ACTION ITEMS BECAUSE, UH, THEY'RE ALL KIND OF INTERTWINED.
SO IF YOU WANNA PASS THIS DOWN, UM, THIS WAS, UH, KIND OF THE TIE UP OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT, UM, MOVING IN A DIRECTION OF GIVING THE MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE, ELIMINATING THE, UM, MAYOR'S VETO, AND THEN DEFINING, UH, QUORUMS AND MAJORITY VOTES, UH, RELATIVE TO THOSE CHANGES.
UM, SO I HAD PRESENTED YOU GUYS WITH AN OUTLINE, I THINK SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO THAT KIND OF SHOWED YOU THE SECTIONS THAT I ANTICIPATED MIGHT BE IMPACTED.
AND WHAT I'VE GIVEN YOU TONIGHT IS A RED LINE VERSION OF THOSE, UM, SUGGESTED CHANGES, UM, IN ALL THOSE AREAS.
AND I THINK IT'D BE, UH, EASIER THAN TO JUST TALK ABOUT A PIECEMEAL TO TALK ABOUT IT MORE COMPREHENSIVELY BECAUSE THE, THEY ALL TIE TOGETHER.
UM, AND CHRIS AND JORDAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THIS AFTER I, I SAID IT, I THOUGHT THE SENTENCE WAS A LITTLE CLUNKY, BUT JORDAN CORRECTED ME AS I WAS READING IT.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER THAT HAS A THREE FOUR VOTE? A REMOVAL? WHAT'S THAT? THE REMOVAL WE'RE ON, I'M IN THE WRONG SECTION RIGHT NOW.
NO, YOU'RE BEING TO TAKE YOUR MIC.
I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO THIRDS.
ARE WE ON THAT YET? WELL, IT'D PROBABLY BE EASIEST TO START WITH THIS 4 0 4.
UM, I THINK THE CHANGES MAKE SENSE AND, UM, I'M TRYING TO SEE HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
WE COULD PROBABLY GO ON THE ONLINE THING AND SEARCH FOR THREE-FOURTHS.
I THINK THERE'S SOME THREE-FOURTHS VOTES.
UH, THERE ARE SPELLED OUT IN THE RULES OF COUNCIL MAYBE FOR A COUPLE PROCEDURAL MOTIONS.
NO, JUROR, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER THAT WAS THREE FOUR MODE? UH, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING, BUT I'LL, UM, 4, 4 0 7.
THERE'S ONLY TWO REFERENCES TO THREE-FOURTHS IN THE ENTIRE CHARTER.
SECTION 4 0 7 HAS IT IN SUBSECTION B.
AND THIS IS TALKING ABOUT DISABILITY QUESTIONS OF DISABILITY INVOLVING THE MAYOR.
WELL, IF IT'S IN THERE, THEN IT NEEDS TO STAY.
AND THAT WAS JUST A QUICK YEAH.
AND THEN FOUR 12, SO IT'S TWICE.
SO SECTION 4 0 4, UM, DEALS WITH THE, THE MAYOR AND THE VICE MAYOR.
[00:50:01]
LINE WITH THE DECISIONS THAT WE HAD MADE AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, IT SEEMED PRUDENT TO STRIKE, UH, THE SECTIONS THAT ARE REFERENCED HERE THAT INCLUDE, UM, THAT THE MAYOR DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE UNLESS IT'S IN THE CASE OF A TIE.AND THEN THE MAYOR WOULD BREAK THE TIE.
SO BY GIVING THE MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THEN HE NO LONGER HAS THE RIGHT TO BREAK A TIE.
AND, UM, I LOOKED AT A COUPLE CHARTERS THAT WERE, ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO, UH, HUBER HEIGHTS, WHICH IS, UH, RIVERSIDE AND TROTWOOD.
AND, UH, ABOUT 75% OR MORE OF THE LANGUAGE IS IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD.
AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT SARAH HAD FOUND, HAVE A MAYOR, HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND NO VETO.
SO I JUST KIND OF TOOK THE LANGUAGE FROM THERE, UH, TO BE CONSISTENT.
AND, UM, THAT EXPLICITLY STATES THEN THAT NOT ONLY IS THE MAYOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL, BUT THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, BUT SHALL HAVE NO VETO POWER.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH THERE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT, GIVE THE MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
AND YOU WEREN'T AT OUR LAST MEETING, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
THERE WAS THE ONE BEFORE YOU WERE THERE.
SO THE COMMISSION VOTED BY MOTION TO GO IN THE DIRECTION OF ME DRAFTING LANGUAGE TO, UH, GIVE THEM MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND REMOVE THE VIDEO RETURN.
'CAUSE THE ONLY, THE ONLY VETO WOULD BE ON A FIVE FOUR ON A 4 4, 4 4.
WELL, I'M JUST, YEAH, HE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT.
HE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO VETO ON A FIVE THREE CURRENTLY, OR A FIVE TWO CURRENTLY.
BUT IF HE HAD A VOTE, HE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO VE VETO ON A FIVE FOUR.
AND IF HE'S ON THE FOUR CAN'T VETO THAT DOESN'T YEAH, THAT WOULD HE VOTE IT ON? HE CAN'T VETO AT ALL.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S SPLIT FIVE FIVE THEN? COULDN'T BE FIVE FIVE.
THERE'D ONLY BE NINE OR SO THERE'S NINE.
I THOUGHT THERE WERE ALREADY NINE.
IF SOMEONE WERE ABSENT, IT WOULD BE A, YOU COULD HAVE A FOUR.
THEN IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE RECONSIDERED.
BUT THEY COULD, THEY COULD CALL FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THE PHONE FAILED.
AND, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CALL IT UP.
TO CALL IT UP AGAIN, CONSIDERATION.
UM, IS THERE A LIMIT ON THAT? HUH? IS THERE A LIMIT ON THAT? LIKE, CAN YOU ONLY RECALL IT ONCE OR CAN SOMEONE JUST WASTE TIME TO NO, THERE'S A SPECIFIED PROCESS AND RULES OF COUNSEL FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A VOTE AND HAS BE BY, UM, A PERSON WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY.
AND IT HAS TO BE AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF COUNSEL AFTER THE ACTION WAS TAKEN.
SO IF IT ENDED UP, IF SOMEONE WAS MISSING AND IT DID END UP FOUR TO FOUR, IT WOULD BAIL.
IT COULDN'T BE BROUGHT UP FOR RECONSIDERATION.
THERE WOULDN'T BE A MAJORITY TO RECONSIDER IT.
I MEAN, THERE'S SOMEBODY, YEAH.
WELL THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL INTERPRETATION.
COULD, IF IT'S A TIE, COULD THE EITHER SIDE BE THE MAJORITY THEN
'CAUSE I ASSUME YOU'VE ADOPTED ROBERT'S RULES IN YOUR NO COUNSEL DID NOT.
WE, WE DON'T USE, UH, VERBATIM ROBERT'S RULES.
IT JUST SAYS WE WILL USE ROBERT'S RULES TO INFORM THE PROCESS, BUT NOT ADHERE STRICTLY TO, UM, COULD YOU PUT IT IN RULES OF COUNSEL THAT A FOUR, FOUR RULES OF COUNSEL HAVE NO TEETH? WELL, NOW THE RULES OF COUNSEL OF THIS CASE, YOU COULD, BECAUSE, UM, THAT'S WHERE THE WHOLE RECONSIDERATION IS SPELLED OUT, IS IN THE RULES OF COUNCILS.
BUT IF IT'S TO BRING SOMETHING BACK UP THAT TIES, IF YOU SAY SOMETHING ENDS IN A FOUR FOURS, I THEN IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE, THEN IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER RULES OF COUNSEL FOR ANYONE TO BRING IT BACK UP FOR A VOTE.
I WOULD TEND TO SAY THIS, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BRING UP SOMETHING FOR RECONSIDERATION AND A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL VOTED THAT THEY WANTED TO RECONSIDER IT, UM, THEY PROBABLY HAVE THAT POWER.
UM, BUT I, I, I, I NEED TO LOOK AT THE RULES OF COUNCIL, AND OF COURSE, I FORGOT TO BRING MY BINDER THAT HAS THEM RIGHT HERE.
[00:55:01]
HANDBOOK HERE.IT'S, THEY'RE ALSO ON THE WEBSITE.
I MEAN, BUT THE CHARTER DOESN'T NEED TO SOLVE FOR WHAT IFS AMONGST CORRECT SCHOOLS OF COUNCIL.
WELL, TONY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THE WORK BEHIND THIS, THIS THANK YOU.
UM, NOW WHAT IS, PLUS ALSO, I MEAN, MAYBE THAT ITEM COULDN'T BE RECONSIDERED, BUT IT COULD BE BROUGHT BACK IN A DIFFERENT, SLIGHTLY RIGHT, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORM, UH, AS A NEW ITEM AND BEING RECONSIDERED.
WHAT IF IT DIDN'T LEND ITSELF TO THAT? YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE HAD AN INSTANCE ONE TIME, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS, WHERE IT WAS SO, UH, SPECIFIC THAT WE COULDN'T ALTER IT.
THE, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ACTUALLY DOES MIRROR WHAT ROBERT'S RULES SAYS BECAUSE, UM, A MOTION TO RECONSIDER CAN ONLY BE MADE BY SOMEBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT.
IT'S NOT A, SO I VOTE FOR IT FOR FOUR TIE, I CAN BRING IT BACK AS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
SO, UM, AND IT, OR IT CAN BE BROUGHT UP BY THE A AN ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBER, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE'D HAVE THE FOUR FOUR, AND THAT'S A CHANGE WE JUST MADE THIS YEAR.
UH, IT USED TO ONLY BE THAT YOU COULD BRING IT BACK IF YOU VOTED FOR IT, UH, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
BUT NOW WE ADDED THIS YEAR THAT IF YOU WEREN'T PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, YOU COULD ALSO BRING IT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION.
BUT, BUT IT COULD ONLY BE DONE ONCE.
SO I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE PACKET THAT TONY HAS, MR. ROGERS HAS PROVIDED? I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OTHER THINGS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE REST OF THIS SECTION, UH, 4 0 4, UM, IT SAID THE MAYOR WAS A NON-VOTING MEMBER OF ALL COUNCIL APPOINTED COMMITTEES.
UH, SO I JUST STRUCK THAT TO BE CONSISTENT ON THE VOTING ISSUE.
AND, UH, FOUR 12, WHICH WAS WHAT THE ACTION ITEM WAS DIRECTLY, UH, ABOUT, UM, IT DEFINES, UM, A, A QUORUM IS, UH, FIVE VOTING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.
CURRENTLY, WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS IS FIVE VOTING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OTHER THAN THE MAYOR, BECAUSE THE MAYOR DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE.
IT WASN'T CONS, PART OF CONSTITUTING A QUORUM.
UM, AND THEN I CHANGED THE LANGUAGE AT IT SAID ORIGINALLY THAT THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SHALL BE COUNTED IN ARRIVING AT THE VOTE TOTAL FOR TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL, BUT SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
SO NOW THIS WAS KIND OF WHAT I THINK JOHN AND I TALKED ABOUT TO YOU GUYS AT ONE OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY THERE THAT THE MAYOR WAS COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE VOTE TOTAL, BUT DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
SO, UH, THIS ALSO CLEANS UP THAT LANGUAGE, UM, TO DO THAT.
AND THEN, UM, CHRIS AND JORDAN, I HAD MENTIONED IN MY EMAIL THAT 5 0 5 AND 5 0 6, YOU KNOW, WHILE THEY'RE RELEVANT, IT, I DIDN'T IDENTIFY ANY NEED FOR ANY SPECIFIC CHANGE TO GIVE THE MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE, UM, TO THOSE TWO SECTIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE KIND OF LIKE RELATED PROVISIONS.
UH, I HAVE ONE MINOR COMMENT ON THE 4 0 12 UHHUH
AND THIS IS JUST A, A WORD CHOICE PURELY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.
UM, I THINK THE, WHILE I THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW WHAT INCLUSIVE OF THE MAYOR MEANS, I STILL THINK THAT'S NOT A WORD THAT PEOPLE U TYPICALLY USE.
I WOULD SUGGEST SAY, INCLUDING THE MAYOR.
NINE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, SHALL BE COUNTED IN ARRIVING THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL.
AND I ORDINARILY YOU WOULDN'T NEED THAT, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT'S CHANGING THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF THE MAYOR, I THINK YOU LEAVE IT IN FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES.
SO IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR WE'VE MADE A CHANGE.
I DIDN'T HEAR THE DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO LEAVE THE VETO POWER IN OR NOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE LANDED ON THAT.
I THINK THE, THE REASONING AND THE RATIONALE WAS THAT, UM, IF WE'RE EQUALIZING THE MAYOR BY GIVING HIM A RIGHT TO VOTE, RIGHT THEN HE SHOULD, THE TIE BREAKING ROLE IN THE MAYOR'S VITO SHOULD GO AWAY BECAUSE THEN HE WOULD HAVE, UH, AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE, HIS PEERS ON COUNCIL OR HER PEERS ON THE CASE MATTER.
[01:00:01]
GUYS DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN 5 0 5 OR 5 0 6? NO.AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS SECTION FIVE 12, WHICH IS THE CURRENT BEARS VETO.
WE WOULD JUST REMOVE THAT ENTIRE SECTION.
OKAY, SIR, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROGERS ON THE WORDSMITHING HERE? AND EVERYBODY DID GET THAT CHANGE ON FOUR 12 TO INCLUDING THE MAYOR INSTEAD OF INCLUSIVE OF THE MAYOR.
SO IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MOTION IN SOME FASHION, A MOTION TO MOTION TO, UH, ADOPT A NEW LANGUAGE TO, UH, REMOVE THE MAYOR'S VETO AND INCLUDE THE MAYOR'S VOTE AS A PART OF THE MAJORITY OR NOT AS A PART OF THE COUNCIL.
AND THEN I WOULD JUST CLARIFY THAT BY SAYING THE CHANGES ARE TO SECTIONS 4 0 4, 4 12, AND FIVE 12.
AND THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE DRAFT, UH, THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS, AS YOU MENTIONED, CHANGING THE WORD, UM, INCLUSIVE OF TWO, INCLUDING IN FOUR 12.
IS THERE A SECOND? MS. BERG SECONDS? MM-HMM.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING DONE? MR. ROGERS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MR. DILLINGHAM, I WAS ALREADY MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
SO THAT TAKES CARE OF ACTION ITEM NUMBER NINE.
SO THE NEXT ONE THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IS, UH, NUMBER 11, UH, CONSULT WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR REGARDING THE FLEXIBILITY OF OLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
SO WE HAD, UH, SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS LAST TIME, AND, UH, SARAH BROUGHT SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THIS TOPIC.
UM, WE AGREED TO POSTPONE FURTHER DISCUSSION TO THIS MEETING WHEN EVERYBODY WAS PRESENT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE GONE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE HANDOUTS THAT WERE PROVIDED ON THIS TOPIC.
UM, I THINK JORDAN'S PREPARED TO SPEAK IF WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
UM, BUT IT'S KIND OF AN, UM, A POINT WHERE DO WE WANNA CONSIDER, UH, CREATING THAT OPTION, UH, EXCLUSIVELY IN THE CHARTER, UM, OR NOT, UH, AS PART OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WAS AROUND THAT.
THE WAY THE CITY OF COLUMBUS DID IT WAS THEY MADE A VERY GENERAL PROVISION IN THEIR CITY CHARTER THAT ALLOWED FOR THIS.
AND THEN HOW THAT WAS ADMINISTERED WAS, UH, GIVEN AS A POWER TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TO SPELL OUT THE SPECIFICS OF UNDER WHAT CRITERIA YOU WOULD HOLD A VIRTUAL MEETING OR ALLOW FOR A VIRTUAL MEETING.
I GUESS I WOULD LOOK TOWARDS THE CITY OFFICIALS AND THE COUNCIL HERE TO SEE IF THEY BELIEVE THAT'S A NEED.
WELL, I'LL COMMENT ON THE, ON THE FIRST PART, WHICH IS WHAT COLUMBUS APPEARS TO HAVE DONE.
SO WHEN LOOKING AT A VIRTUAL MEETING, YOU CAN, YOU IN THEORY, COULD MAKE IT JUST A BLANKET.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME HYBRID, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION COULD BE IN PRESENT.
AND THEN YOU COULD DO THE, I'LL SAY THIS FOR THE OLDER PEOPLE, I DON'T THINK JORDAN KNOWS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
MAX HEADROOM WITH THE TV SET
UM, BUT SO WHAT COLUMBUS DID, AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING IS, IS THAT THEY ANTICIPATE THAT FOR SOME REASONS THEY MIGHT DO A VIRTUAL MEETING, BUT THEY WOULD KNOW IN ADVANCE AND THEN PASS AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE THAT MEETING.
WHEN WOULD THAT HAPPEN? WELL, IN THEORY, MAYBE YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO WERE GONNA BE OUT ON VACATION AND PRESSING BUSINESS WAS GOING TO BE HAD.
UM, AND THEN THEY, THEY WOULD ALLOW THAT VIRTUAL MEETING AS A ONE-OFF, BUT IT REQUIRES MULTIPLE STEPS TO DO IT RATHER THAN AN AUTOMATIC.
UM, UH, JORDAN'S DONE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON IT.
I'LL LET HIM ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS, AND THEN I'LL, I'LL SHARE MY VIEW, UH, AFTER HE GIVES YOU SOME MORE OVERVIEW.
UH, I SPOKE WITH SARAH ABOUT HER RESEARCH.
UM, WE KIND OF DISCUSSED A, THE OPTION FOR THE CITY.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT WAS THE CONSIDERATION OF, UM, THE UTILITY OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND THE ABILITY TO DO IT, UH, EFFICIENTLY.
[01:05:01]
CONSIDERING THAT YOU HAVE IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT HERE.UM, EVERYTHING, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT SOMETIMES TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT ALWAYS COOPERATE.
UM, ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH, UM, THE ABILITY FOR CONTROLLING PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS.
AND ALSO THAT OFTENTIMES WE FIND THAT PEOPLE ARE A LITTLE MORE, UM, WILLING TO SPEAK IN A CERTAIN FASHION WHEN THEY'RE NOT PRESENT IN FRONT OF OTHERS.
SO YOU GET TO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONTROL PUBLIC COMMENT DURING A PUBLIC MEETING THROUGH VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
UM, AND THAT IT'S OF ME AND SARAH'S, UH, OPINION THAT, UM, COUNCIL'S PROBABLY BETTER SERVED HAVING MEETINGS IN PERSON UM, BUT THAT'S JUST OUR PERSONAL VIEW ON IT.
AND WOULD, IF IT WERE TO BE ALLOWED, COULD COUNCIL PRESCRIBE THAT TO SAY THAT THEY COULD ONLY DO IT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS, LIKE, IT AN EMERGENCY MEETING AS DEFINED UNDER THE HIGH OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THAT IS ONE THAT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 24 HOUR, OR, YOU KNOW, IS GONNA HAVE LESS THAN 24 HOUR PUBLIC NOTICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
COULD IT BE RESTRICTED TO AND ONLY A CERTAIN TYPE OF MEETING OR FOR A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE? SO THAT WOULD BE THE INVERSE OF WHAT COLUMBUS DID, WHERE COLUMBUS WAS VERY GENERIC AND ALLOWING FOR COUNCIL TO THEN TO MAKE SPECIFIC ORDINANCES THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR CERTAIN MEETINGS.
UM, YOU'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE, UM, THERE, THE CHARTER WOULD THEN DICTATE WHEN, UH, MEETINGS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE HELD VIRTUALLY OR, OR NOT VIRTUALLY.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE UP TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S PUT ULTIMATELY IN THE CHARTER.
UM, IF, IS IT POSSIBLE AS WE STAND RIGHT NOW FOR THE COUNCIL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME OR PURPOSE WITHOUT, WITHOUT IT BEING IN THE CHARTER? UH, SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, AND WHAT THE RESEARCH THAT SARAH PROVIDED IS THAT BASED OFF AN OHIO ATTORNEY AND STATE, SOME OF THE METHODS DONE UP AT THE STATE LEVEL, UM, YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE CHARTER AUTHORITY FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS TO TAKE PLACE.
HOW DID THEY, HOW DID THEY HANDLE THAT DURING THE PANDEMIC WHEN PROBABLY NO CHARTER IN OHIO.
SO THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED A RULING THAT SAID THAT, UH, VIRTUAL MEETINGS WERE PERMISSIBLE FOR THIS PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN THEY REVOKED THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT.
WELL, THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY PASSED THAT AS WELL.
SO THERE WAS LEGISLATION THAT APPROVED IT AS AN AMENDMENT FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME.
WELL, THEY, IT WAS OPEN ENDED THE SENSE OF THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.
BECAUSE I GET NANCY'S POINT, TOO.
I MEAN, THAT'S, I MEAN, THERE MAY ARISE ANOTHER ISSUE WHERE THEY, THE, THE EXAMPLE I GAVE JORDAN TODAY OF AN EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT I COULD SEE WOULD BE LIKE, UH, WHEN THE NIGHT THE CYBER ATTACK HIT, IT WAS A, A WEEKEND, A SUNDAY, AND WE WERE TRYING TO GATHER ALL OF THE COUNSEL TOGETHER FOR A MEETING POTENTIALLY.
IT, IT WORKED OUT THAT EVERYBODY WAS ABLE TO BE PRESENT WITHIN A FEW HOURS TO BE HERE ON SITE, UH, TO RESPOND TO THAT AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
HOWEVER, HAD, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BEEN OUTTA TOWN OR NOT AVAILABLE, UH, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN A TOOL THAT WOULD'VE ALLOWED THEM TO CONVENE AND TAKE ACTION, UH, QUICKER, UH, WITHOUT HAVING EVERYBODY PHYSICALLY PRESENT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? AND THEN UNDER THE HIGHER MEETINGS ACT, OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THAT WAS CONSIDERED AN EMERGENCY MEETING.
BUT UNDER THE CYBER ATTACK, WE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING.
I MEAN, EVERYTHING WAS SHUT DOWN.
SO YOU COULDN'T DO VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
WELL, YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT LIKE THROUGH A ZOOM, UH, ON YOUR PHONE IF YEAH.
IF PEOPLE WERE HOOKED UP TO THAT.
I MEAN, I AGREE WITH JORDAN, THOUGH.
I MEAN, ONLINE MEETINGS ARE PROBLEMATIC.
WELL, I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST THAT IT'S JORDAN'S CORRECT, THOUGH.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE THEY, THEY CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANNA SAY WHEN THEY'RE SITTING, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THEIR KEYBOARD AT HOME.
AND IN A SAFE SPACE, IT'S, IT TAKES A LITTLE MORE GUMPTION TO COME UP HERE AND STAND IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU, AND HAVE, AND HAVE A DISCUSSION.
IT'S, AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL THAT SIDE OF THINGS TOO.
SO I THINK YOU WOULD REALLY WANNA USE IT VERY SPARINGLY, IF AT ALL.
SO, AND, AND JUST FOR MY KNOWLEDGE, IF COUNSEL WERE TO APPROVE A, UH, THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO HOLD A VIRTUAL MEETING, DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK VIRTUALLY? 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A RIGHT TO SPEAK.
THERE'S JUST A RIGHT TO BE HEARD OR TO BE HERE.
THE PROCEEDINGS AT VIEW FOR THE PROCEEDINGS.
WELL, BUT I MEAN, YOUR, YOUR RULES OF COUNSEL CONTEMPLATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
[01:10:01]
IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT MAYBE WE ADOPT WHAT COLUMBUS DID AND MAKE IT BROAD AND MAKE IT TO WHERE ONLY COUNCIL SETS COUNCIL SETS THE RULES OR ORDINANCES FOR A VIRTUAL MEETING SO THAT IF THEY CHOSE TO HAVE A VIRTUAL MEETING, WE'RE GONNA DO IT UNDER THESE SET RULES.THIS IS HOW WE'RE DOING THE VIRTUAL MEETING, AND THAT'S IT.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH HOW DOES THE CITY FEEL? BECAUSE IF, IF COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT IT, OR THE, OR THE CITY PERSONNEL DON'T WANT IT, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BEAT A DEAD HORSE ANY LONGER AND JUST LET IT IT GO.
BUT IF WE WANT IT, I SAY WE GO WITH WHAT COLUMBUS HAS, BUT IF WE, BUT IF WE NEED TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER RIGHT, THAT'S TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE IT.
'CAUSE IT'S BEEN RESCINDED BY THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL.
WELL, THAT'S WHERE I JUST, I'D LIKE, YOU KNOW, MR. WEBB, MS. BURGE, MR. ROGERS, MR. RUSSELL, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS IF THEY SAY THEY WOULD, IT'S SOMETHING, A TOOL THEY WOULD LIKE, THEN I DO THINK WE NEED TO ADD IT TO THE CHARTER SO THEY CAN HAVE IT.
BUT IF IT'S NOT A TOOL THAT THEY WANT, I'M OKAY.
EITHER WAY, I'M OKAY EITHER WAY TOO.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT ME BECAUSE IT'S MORE FOR THEM.
SO IF THEY WANT IT, I SAY, LET'S GIVE 'EM THE TOOL AND DO WHAT COLUMBUS DID AND PUT IT INTO THE CHARTER.
BUT IF THEY DON'T WANT IT, LET'S MOVE ON, MR. WEBB.
UM, I'LL SAY, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
WE, UH, TONY'S REFERENCING THE EMERGENCY MEETING WE HAD, AND, UM, IT WAS A PAIN.
UH, I CAME, UH, FORTUNATELY I WAS, UH, ABLE TO CHANGE OUT OF MY PAJAMAS, BUT I DID COME
UM, AND SO DID, UH, ALL OF COUNSELING.
IT'S GONNA BE A RARE OCCURRENCE.
I JUST DON'T SEE THE, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR A CHARTER CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
I CAN'T IMAGINE A SITUATION, UM, WHERE WE'RE GONNA NEED THAT.
WELL, AND I THINK IF WE, IF WE GET BACK TO WHERE WE HAVE ANOTHER PANDEMIC OR, OR SOME TYPE OF EMERGENCY ACTION, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE STATE DOESN'T HELP US OUT IN THAT REGARDS AGAIN, TOO.
I MEAN, I, THE ONLY THING THAT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PROBLEM PROBLEMATIC IS IF IT'S A LOCAL, YOU KNOW, A LOCAL ISSUE WHERE YEAH.
IF IT'S, WHAT IF IT WERE A LOCAL ISSUE, NOT A STATEWIDE ISSUE.
I MEAN, THE PANDEMIC WAS STATEWIDE.
SO, I MEAN, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THE, YOU KNOW, THE AG OFFICE HELPED US ON THAT.
I, THE, UH, I MISINTERPRETED THE, THE, UH, COLUMBUS CHARTER SECTION.
UH, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE.
THEY, THEIR MEETINGS CAN BE HELD IN PERSON VIRTUALLY, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
I'VE GOTTA QUALIFY MY STATEMENTS.
THIS IS A POLICY ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.
UM, I THINK THE HOME RULE POWERS WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO DO IT.
UM, BUT, UM, SHOWING MY AGE, I DON'T LIKE CHANGE
UM, AND, UM, UH, I SEE MORE PROBLEMS WITH HYBRID MEETINGS THAN I SEE BENEFIT.
I SEE CONCERNS IN THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME PAST BEHAVIORS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO THWART THE ACTIVITIES OF, UH, THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE PROCESS COULD BE MANIPULATED, UM, IN A WAY THAT HAD UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PEOPLE WANTED TO BEHAVE THAT WAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
I CAN SEE THE VALUE OF VIRTUAL MEETINGS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DID A BUNCH OF 'EM.
THEY, THEY, THEY DO WORK AND THEY CAN WORK.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT, UH, I THINK A, A TRUTH OF THE HUMAN CONDITION IS WE DO BETTER IN FACE-TO-FACE DYNAMIC.
WE COME TO THE COUNCIL MEETINGS TODAY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS FROM BETHEL SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY, THEY WANT TO BE HEARD.
AND THAT FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION, YOU CAN'T REPLACE IT.
UM, I THINK THAT, UH, MY, AGAIN, MY PERSONAL FEELINGS, UH, WHICH ARE REALLY LARGELY IRRELEVANT, BUT I'M GONNA SHARE 'EM ANYWAY, IS THAT, UH, WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS TO, UH, DO MORE TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY RATHER THAN AVOID INTERACTION.
BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT LEADS TO THE BEST RESULTS INTO THE BEST INTERACTION.
AND I LOOK AT SOME OF THE, THE INTERACTION, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WE HAD THIS WEEK, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT DIALOGUE WOULD'VE OCCURRED THE WAY THAT IT DID WITH AN UNDERSTANDING BY TWO PARTIES WHO ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED,
[01:15:01]
THE, THE PERCEIVED PEOPLE WHO FAVOR ANNEXES ANNEXATION VERSUS NOT.AND THAT INTERACTION LED TO SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT MAYBE THERE WAS SOME COMMON GROUND.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING IN THE CONTEXT OF A, OF A VIDEO MEETING.
UM, SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY PERSONAL BIAS.
MY PERSONAL BIAS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW, HOWEVER, SO THAT DECISION IS, IF YOU INSTRUCT US TO DRAFT SOMETHING, WE WILL DRAFT IT, WE WILL MAKE IT LEGAL, AND, UH, WE WILL, UH, TRY TO TAILOR IT TO THE NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY.
UH, THE QUESTION YOU'VE GOTTA ASK IS, DOES THIS COMMUNITY NEED IT? AND IF THE ANSWER'S NO, THEN WE'RE DONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT I LIKE PEOPLE TO SHOW UP AND BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
WE JUST CHANGED THE CHARTER TO MAKE PEOPLE COME TO MEETINGS.
AND NOW WE WANT TO GO VIRTUAL
I MEAN, MAKE, MAKE PEOPLE, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTH.
I THINK IN EMERGENCY SETTINGS, AND, AND AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO THE PANDEMIC.
WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE SAME SPACE, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT HOME RULE, WE COULD, WE COULD ADOPT SOMETHING AT THAT TIME WHERE WE COULD, WE COULD MORPH INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
IF, IF YOU FELT THAT IT WOULD, IF, IF THIS GROUP AND COUNCIL AND THE CITIZENS OF HUBER HEIGHTS FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HAVE A CARVE OUT AND WE WOULD DEFINE WHAT EMERGENCY MIGHT BE THAT WOULD ALLOW IN THAT SITUATION YEAH.
CYBER ATTACK PANDEMIC BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY, WE COULD CREATE THAT POWER IN VERY, VERY, VERY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE COULD BE A VIRTUAL MEETING.
UM, I CAN EMBRACE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY'S THERE WE ARE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AFTER ALL.
BUT THIS IDEA OF HYBRID MEETINGS AND YEAH.
AND USING IT AS A, AS A WAY TO GET AROUND, HAVING PEOPLE SIT IN A ROOM, UH, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD POLICY.
I, I MEAN, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
I, I'M A TECHNOLOGY PERSON, SO I EMBRACE THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT, UH, IF THIS WERE TO, TO BE IN EFFECT, I WOULD ONLY WANT IT IN THE VERY RARE, VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AS A TOOL TO HELP MITIGATE THOSE YEAH.
AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE I WAS SAYING IF IT, IF WE WERE GOING TO ADOPT SOMETHING, IT'D HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
AND IF HOME RULE ALLOWS FOR IT TO HAPPEN HERE AS OPPOSED, BUT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE POLAR OF WORTH, YOU KNOW, THE OUTCOME, YOU KNOW, UM, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXTREMELY RARE, JOHN, YOU MADE THE POINT THAT IN SOMETHING THAT'S A STATEWIDE ISSUE OR A NATIONAL ISSUE, RIGHT? THEN, UH, LIKELY THE STATE'S GONNA GIVE RELIEF IN THAT RESPECT.
UM, SO IS IT WORTH, YOU KNOW, GOING AFTER THAT FOR THOSE VERY RARE CI CIRCUMSTANCES? I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? WELL, CERTAINLY, I MEAN, WE KNOW THAT ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, TROTWOOD WAS HIT BY TORNADOES.
UM, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A LOCALIZED DISASTER OR SOMETHING THAT MATERIALLY AND SERIOUSLY IMPACTED THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL SERVICE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT I CAN THINK OF IN A, IN A BROAD SENSE.
BUT THE NEED FOR THE CITY TO REACT WITHOUT UNDUE BURDEN ALSO, I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
SO I, I THINK THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOGIC TO CREATING THE EXCEPTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE TO DEFINED AS EMERGENCY AS WE DEEM IT TO BE NEEDED.
I MEAN, EVEN THIS RECENT SIT SITUATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER, WE HAD TO CALL ON VERY SHORT NOTICE, UH, TWO, UH, EMERGENCY MEETINGS, UM, TWO DAYS IN A ROW, RIGHT? UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MAYBE NOT ALL COUNSEL WOULD'VE BEEN AVAILABLE THAT HAPPENED TO BE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE MEETING.
SO, BUT THAT WAS EXECUTIVE SESSION.
RIGHT? BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO GET THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THROUGH, THROUGH THE PUBLIC MEETING.
I JUST, UH, SO I'M NOT HEARING ANYONE SAY THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE JUST, YOU KNOW, WILLY-NILLY VIRTUAL MEETINGS WHENEVER YOU WANT.
SO
WELL, MY CONCERN IS IF WE GO IN THERE AND WE PUT IT IN AS EMERGENCY, A LOCAL EMERGENCY SITUATIONS THAT WE COULD HAVE VIRTUAL, AND WE SET UP THE LEGISLATION TO SPECIFY THAT IN THE FUTURE COULD THAT LEGISLATION BE MODIFIED TO CHANGE IT TO BE MORE LENIENT, YOU KNOW, THEN I, I SEE OPPORTUNITY FOR MISUSE.
[01:20:01]
I SAY WE LEAVE IT ALONE.WELL, KEEP IN MIND THOUGH, IT'S A CHARTER AMENDMENT, SO IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THAT SCOPE.
AND WE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE IN THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT, DEFINE WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE AS BEST WE CAN.
UM, NOW GRANTED THEY CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVERY SITUATION, BUT I THINK THE, THE INTENT WOULD CLEARLY BE THERE.
AND SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND THAT THEN WOULD BE COME BACK WITH A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
WELL, MY OPINION IS KIND OF LIKE WITH DON, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
10, 10 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN SOMEBODY DOES THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW, TECHNOLOGY WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW.
LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT AT THAT POINT.
SOME MY HOLOGRAPH WILL BE SITTING HERE INSTEAD OF ME.
SO YEAH, WE'LL HAVE SOME AI HELP.
IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THEN.
BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET HERE FASTER IN YOUR FLYING CAR
WE, SO I'M, I'M HERE AND MOVE ON.
SO, UH, GOING THEN TO ARTICLE NUMBER 13, WHICH WAS PENALTIES FOR MISSING MEETINGS AS RELATED TO SECTION 5 0 5.
BUT DID WE KIND OF FIX THAT THROUGH, I THINK YEAH, THE, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION LAST TIME THAT, UH, SOME OF THIS WOULD BE FIXED THROUGH, UH, GIVING THE MAYOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ABILITY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO MISS MEETINGS TO, UH, YOU KNOW, PREVENT THINGS FROM HAPPENING.
BUT THEN I THINK THE CHANGE THAT WAS JUST MADE TO 1308, THAT ALSO, UH, REMOVES THE WORD CONSECUTIVE ALSO, UH, RAISES THE STAKES IN TERMS OF PENALTIES FOR, UH, UH, MISSING MEETINGS BECAUSE THEN COUNSEL COULD NOT EXCUSE IT AND, UM, IT WOULD COUNT TOWARDS THOSE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES THAT ARE DEFINED AS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.
YEAH, I THINK WE CAN MOVE PAST THAT.
I MEAN, THE OTHER CHANGES, I THINK, SOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU GUYS WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS ANYWAY, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS, YEP.
SO WE'LL GO TO 16 AND THAT, WHICH WAS THE MAYOR'S VOTE, MAYOR'S VETO QUORUM CHANGE THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE.
AND THAT IS THE SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER'S ABILITY TO RUN FROM A SAFE SEAT.
AND I'M GONNA, ROGERS HAS TO, UH, JORDAN, HE'S, UH, WORKED WITH SARAH TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS ONE, AND, UH, HE'S PROVIDED SOME LANGUAGE HERE.
SO WHEN THE ISSUE WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO US, UM, ONE OF THE FIRST CONCERNS WE HAD IS WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY TYPE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, PARTICULARLY WITH THE, UH, VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO HOLD OFFICE WHILE RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE.
UH, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND CASE LAW, UM, ACROSS URBAN STATES, BUT ALSO AT THE HI OR AT THE, UH, SUPREME COURT THAT UPHELD THESE TYPE OF RESIGN TO RUN TYPE STATUTES OR ORDINANCES.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT.
UM, IT IS NOT USED, UM, FREQUENTLY ACROSS OHIO, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE LIMITED, UH, LEGALLY FROM IMPLEMENTING THIS.
UM, WE REVIEWED, UM, ACROSS THE CHARTER TO WHERE IT WOULD BE BEST BE, UH, IMPLEMENTED.
UH, SPECIFICALLY WE LOOKED AT SECTIONS 4 0 2, 4 0 4, 4 0 6, UM, 4 0 7, 11 0 3.
UM, WHAT WE FOUND TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAS SECTION 4 0 3, WHICH IS ELIGIBILITY.
IT LISTS, UM, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, PEOPLE TO RUN FOR BOTH, UH, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT, UM, THIS COULD BE DEEMED AS A CONDITION TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR THE MAYOR SEAT OR THE COUNCIL AT LARGE SEAT.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING LANGUAGE TO BE ADDED TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF 4 0 3 TO READ, UH, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR AN AT LARGE MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
THE INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE, SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF FILING THEIR NOMINATION PETITION.
UH, IT CLEARLY SETS OUT THE LIMITATION THAT WAS ALSO WHEN THE CONDITION WOULD BE, UH, REQUIRED, WHICH IS AT THE TIME OF THE NOMINATING PETITION.
NOT, NOT THAT IT'S HAPPENED, BUT JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
WOULD THERE EVER BE A, A, DO WE NEED TO PROTECT THE FACT
[01:25:01]
OF A MAYOR MAY BE RUNNING FOR AWARD SEAT UNPROTECTED, OR AN AT LARGE PERSON RUNNING FOR AWARD SEAT UNPROTECTED TO TRY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THE SITUATIONS WE'VE HAD, WERE RUNNING, RUNNING FOR MAYOR FROM AN UNPROTECTED SEAT OR RUNNING FOR COUNCIL AT LARGE, AT AN UNPROTECTED SEAT.WOULD THERE EVER BE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE WOULD RUN FOR A WARD FROM AN UNPROTECTED SEAT? DO WE ALSO NEED TO PUT IN THERE WE TALK, BUT THEN, BUT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN THE, THAT WARD.
LIKE, OR, OR YOU'RE SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF AT, IF DON DECIDED HE WANT, OR IF NO, NANCY, NANCY DECIDED AT, SHE WANTED TO RUN, GO AT LARGE, AND SHE WANTED TO KNOCK OUT THE PERSON FROM HER WARD AND VACATE HER AT LARGE SEAT.
YEAH, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT WHEN YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION TODAY.
I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE, THAT'S RARE.
THAT WOULD BE A REALLY RARE SITUATION.
BUT, BUT IF, IF YOU HAD A, A QUOTE UNQUOTE ENEMY THAT YOU WANTED TO GET OFF COUNCIL, YOU RUN FROM YOUR SAFE SEAT.
IF YOU'RE GONNA ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, IT HAS TO ADDRESS THAT.
SO MAYBE THE CHANGE SHOULD JUST BE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR AT LARGE MEMBER, OR, OR JUST MEMBER OF COUNCIL, OR YOU SHALL NOT HOLD, I SHOULD PROBABLY SAY YOU SHOULD NOT HOLD THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT I DON'T THINK, I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER OF COUNCIL, AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO JUST DROP OR MAYOR OR MAYOR AT THE TIME OF THEIR NOMINATING PETITION.
AND I THINK YOU JUST DROP THE, AT LARGE, THE AT LARGE, THE AT LARGE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF THEIR FILING, FILING THEIR NOMINATING PETITION JUST TO PREVENT IT FROM GOING THE OTHER WAY AS WELL.
BUT WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT'S, WHAT WOULD BE WILD AT THAT POINT, IF THE MAYOR DECIDES TO RUN FOR AN THAT LARGE POSITION, NOW WE HAVE A VACATED MAYOR'S POSITION.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE IN SOMEBODY TO BE MAYOR.
AND THAT, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S, IT COULD TECHNICALLY BE THAT PERSON.
WELL, ACTUALLY, IF THE MAYOR RAN AND VACATED HIS SEAT FOR A COUNCIL POSITION THAT HE WAS ELECTED TO, THEN THE VICE MAYOR WOULD BECOME RIGHT.
FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, WE'VE HAD ONE SITUATION, UM, THAT I THINK WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.
NANCY, UM, AT ONE POINT, UH, YOU WERE, UM, WARD FIVE MM-HMM.
AND AT THE, UH, NEXT ELECTION, YOU GUYS FILED PETITIONS FOR THE OPPOSITE.
BUT WE WERE AT THE END OF OUR TERMS, BUT, BUT WHEN YOU FILE, YOU'RE NOT THIS, WHEN YOU FILE, YOU'RE NOMINATING, BUT WHEN YOU FILE, YOU'RE NOT, WHEN YOU FILED YOUR NOMINATING PETITION.
SO WHEN YOU FILE YOUR, YOU'RE MONTHS AWAY FROM THE END OF YOUR TERM.
YOU'RE SIX MONTHS AWAY OR WHATEVER, STEP DOWN.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO VACATE ALMOST A YEAR.
YOU'D HAVE TO FILE IN FEBRUARY.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THAT OCCURS, BUT THIS, THIS WOULD'VE REQUIRED, I THINK YOU AND MARK, I THINK THAT HAPPENS MORE THAN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS PEOPLE MOVING FROM WARD TO AT LARGE, THAT HAPPENS.
AND FROM AT LARGE TO WARD, THAT DEFINITELY HAPPENS.
SO THIS WOULD'VE REQUIRED BOTH YOU AND MARK TO STEP DOWN ALMOST A YEAR ABSOLUTELY.
YOU, YOU WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT SAYS UNLESS SEEKING REELECTION OF THEIR EXISTING OFFICE.
NO, THEY WOULDN'T, THEY WOULDN'T BE.
THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE IN THAT SITUATION.
IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SEEKING REELECTION, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE, THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM WHERE I'VE STILL GOT TWO YEARS ON MY TERM, I RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR FROM A TERM WHERE I STILL SAY, FROM A SAFE SEAT, A SAFE SEAT.
IF I'M JUST GOING FOR ELECTION, I'M JUST GOING FOR RE ELECTION.
IT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN IF THEY'RE GOING.
I MEAN, THAT IS PROBLEMATIC, DON.
I THAT'S WHAT IF YOU PROPOSING THERE WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT YEAR.
[01:30:01]
IT'S A YEAR OF CONTENTION.UM, AND IT MADE THINGS REALLY UN IT'S ALSO NOW CREATED A YEAR OF CHAOS IF WE LOSE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I MEAN, SO, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL, UM, WE WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO, UM, MAKE ANOTHER ONE.
SO, SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM IS AS FOLLOWS, THAT A, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS HYBRID, YOU'VE GOT THESE THREE GROUPINGS.
YOU GOT A MAYOR, YOU HAVE AT LARGE MEMBERS, AND YOU HAVE WARD MEMBERS.
A WARD MEMBER RUNNING FROM A SAFE SEAT FOR AN AT LARGE POSITION IS, OR MAYOR OR MAYOR RUNNING FOR THAT'S HAPPENED FOR AN AT LARGE OR AWARD, AWARD SEAT.
I'M IN AWARD SEAT AND I GOT TWO YEARS LEFT.
I'M GONNA RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR THIS TIME.
OH, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE, BUT THE, BUT THE MAYOR THERA THEORETICALLY COULD RUN FOR AS LONG AS THEY LIVED IN THAT WARD, THEY COULD RUN AGAINST SOMEBODY.
WHAT IF, WHAT IF WE PUT THE CAVEAT THAT THEY, THIS ONLY HAPPENED IF THEY HAD MORE THAN TWO YEARS REMAINING IN THEIR CURRENT TERM, THAT THEY ARE, IF THEY'RE A COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR WITH TWO OR MORE YEARS REMAINING IN THEIR TERM, LOOK AT IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO DO THAT.
LOOK AT IT FROM A VOTER STANDPOINT.
ARE THEY GONNA UNDERSTAND THE NUANCE? NO.
'CAUSE MOST, YOUR AVERAGE VOTER DOESN'T KNOW, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHEN MR. WEBB'S TERM, THIS IS GOING ON WITH THE OHIO SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW.
ONE OF, ONE OF THE JUDGES IS RUNNING MM-HMM.
UM, THE, THE RESEARCH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU, THAT THIS STEP WOULD BE LEGAL, BUT IT, IT'S A COMPLICATED ONE TO WRITE.
UM, 'CAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU NEED YOUR DI VENN DIAGRAM TO GET THAT AND THEN CREATE A FLOW CHART FROM IT.
UM, BUT COULD YOU ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY CAN RUN AS THEIR TERM IS EXPIRING, LIKE IF THEY'RE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF TERM EXPIRING, YOU CAN RUN, BECAUSE THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR SEAT IF THEY DID NOT, LIKE THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR SEAT THAT THEY'RE RUNNING FROM.
AND IF THEY DID NOT WIN THE SEAT THAT THEY WERE RUNNING FOR, THEY'RE OUT.
AND IT WOULD ALSO PROTECT THE SITUATION THAT DAWN DESCRIBED ABOUT NANCY RUNNING, HER TERM WAS ENDING.
SHE'S RUNNING FOR A DIFFERENT SEAT.
SHE WASN'T RUNNING TWO YEARS INTO A TERM, BUT THAT SITUATION WAS MUTUAL IN THAT, THAT THE TWO PEOPLE AGREED TO SWAP THOSE, UH, POSITIONS.
UH, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE FOR THE VOTER.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, LIKE, IT'S HARD TO MAKE A RULE THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, PREVENTS IT WHEN IT'S ADVERSARIAL, BUT PROTECTS IT WHEN IT'S, UH, MUTUAL
SO LET, LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY THEN I RUN, I, I PUT MY PETITION IN ON THE LAST DAY I RESIGNED.
I'VE NOW CREATED A VACANCY THAT COUNSEL HAS TO FILL.
THAT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT.
BUT, BUT IS THAT AN INTENDED RESULT? UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT HAS A DISRUPTIVE COMPONENT TO IT TOO, BECAUSE THEN YOU WON'T HAVE YOUR FULL COUNSEL.
WELL, I THINK SOMEONE WHO'S GOING, I, I THINK THE INTENTION WAS TO DETER PEOPLE FROM RUNNING FROM A SAFE SEAT.
AND ONLY HALF OF OUR COUNSEL PROCEED.
WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE USUAL OVERLAP BETWEEN THE TERM? LIKE WOULD THERE BE, IF WE PUT IN A CAVEAT THAT SAID, UNLESS THE PETITIONER WAS IN ITS LAST YEAR OF, OF THEIR THEN CURRENT TERM, WOULD THAT COVER THE CONCERN? YES.
WELL, IT, IT WOULD AND IT WOULDN'T.
THE, THE REASON IT WOULDN'T, UM, IN, IN THE CASE, AS I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UH, ONCE THE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HAD DECLARED, UM, THEIR CANDIDACY FOR, UM, AN AT LARGE OR AT FOR THE MAYOR, IN FACT BOTH, BOTH HAPPENED.
IT'S VERY HARD FOR ME TO RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR AND SIT UP HERE IN THIS DIOCESE AND NOT SLAM EACH AND EVERY DECISION THAT THE MAYOR IS MAKING AND TALK BAD ABOUT THE MAYOR AT EVERY, UH, GIVEN OPPORTUNITY.
SO WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS A WAY TO, AND THESE PEOPLE CAN DO IT.
I'M ACTUALLY ONE OF THE FOUR THAT CAN, UM, MY TERM IS OPPOSITE THE MAYOR.
[01:35:01]
SO, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, I CAN DO THAT FROM MY SAFE SEAT, KNOWING IF I, IF I LOSE AGAINST THE MAYOR, I'M STILL GONNA HOLD MY COUNCIL SEAT.WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET RID OF WAS THE ABILITY FOR HALF OF COUNCIL, FOUR PEOPLE ON COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UH, FOUR OF US ON COUNCIL CAN RUN AGAINST THE MAYOR AND THE, UM, AT LARGE, WELL, THE OTHER FOUR CAN RUN AGAINST THE OTHER AT LARGE, THE OTHER AT LARGE IN THE NEXT CYCLE.
COULD WE TALK THROUGH WHAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED ABOUT THE YEAR, UH, IF THEY ONLY HAVE A YEAR REMAINING ON THEIR TERM, HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT? YEAH.
SO LIKE, I THINK YOU WOULD JUST ADD THAT LANGUAGE TO THE, UH, THE END OF THE LAST SENTENCE.
SO IT'D READ AS WE'VE CURRENTLY CHANGED IT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR MEMBER OF COUNCIL, AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF FILING THEIR NOMINATION PETITION WITH ADDITION OF, UNLESS, UH, SAID PETITIONER IS IN THEIR LAST YEAR OF THEIR CURRENT TERM OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO IN THAT CASE, WITH THE SITUATION THAT WE HAD, IF THEY'RE RUNNING FROM A SAFE SEAT, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TWO YEARS LEFT IN THEIR TERM.
UM, SO IF THIS ONE YEAR RESTRICTION IS PLACED ON THERE, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THOSE PEOPLE FROM DOING THAT.
BUT IF IT WAS A SITUATION LIKE, UM, NANCY AND MARK WHERE THEY SWAPPED, THEY COULD THEN THEY DO ONLY HAVE LESS THAN ONE YEAR LEFT IN THEIR TERM.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE.
SO THAT MIGHT BE THE SOLUTION YOU STILL MAY HAVE.
LIKE IF, IF NOT THAT, IF, IF I WERE AN AT LARGE COUNCIL PERSON AND I ALSO LIVE IN WARD TWO, I COULD BE IN MY LAST YEAR AND RUNNING AGAINST DON, WHICH COULD PUT SIX MONTHS OF CAMPAIGNING ON THE DAES HAPPENING BY ME BASHING HIM, HIM BASHING ME.
BUT THAT 'CAUSE WE'RE IN THE LAST YEAR.
BUT THAT HAPPENS ANYTIME ANYONE'S RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
SO YOU MAY STILL HAVE THAT, BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAFE SEAT SITUATION.
SO WITH THE SUGGESTED, UH, LANGUAGE, UM, THEN IF MARK AND I DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO FOR EACH OTHER'S SEAT AGAIN, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT CORRECT.
BECAUSE YOURS WOULD BE SEAT WITHIN THAT LAST YEAR IF YOU LIVED IN A WARD.
IF YOU WERE AT LARGE AND YOU LIVED IN DON'S WARD YEAH.
YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UM, WELL, I WOULDN'T QUALIFY BECAUSE, BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE ON DIFFERENT TERM CYCLES, CORRECT? YEAH, BUT I COULDN'T RUN.
I'M SAYING IF YOU LIVED YOU CARRIAGE TRAILS YEAH.
AND YOU WERE IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION, YOU'RE IN YOUR CURRENT POSITION, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, UH, RUN FOR THAT WARD TWO SEAT BECAUSE YOU WOULD'VE TWO YEARS LEFT IN YOUR RETURN BASED ON HOW THE TERMS ARE STAGGERED, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SOLVING FOR ANYWAY.
I THINK IT, I THINK IT MAKES IT STILL ELIGIBLE FOR WHAT NANCY'S GIVING, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S STILL ELIGIBLE AND YOU CAN DO THAT.
BUT IT ALSO SOLVES THE PROBLEM YOU GUYS WERE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH CORRECT.
SOMEONE HAVING TWO YEARS LEFT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW.
SO YOU CAN RUN FOR, AGAINST SOMEBODY ON THE NORMAL ELECTION CYCLE.
BUT YOU CAN'T ON THE SAFE CYCLE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT WAS THE INTENT.
IT WAS, I THINK THE, THE SUGGESTION FOR SURE.
SO, JORDAN, CAN YOU READ THE CHANGE FORCE ONE MORE TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION IN A SECOND.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS.
I JUST HAD A LITTLE THING THAT, OR TONY, EITHER ONE.
NO, I MEANT TO ADD TO THIS, UH, WHERE IT SAYS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE.
UH, COULD WE MIRROR THE LANGUAGE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION TO SAY, TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE AND THEN THE REST OF WHAT YOU PROPOSED, DO YOU WANNA CHANGE THE, THE WORD OFFICE TO CANDIDATE? WHO WANTS THIS LAST SENTENCE, BE ELIGIBLE AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE TO BE SIMILAR TO THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
SO AFTER THE WORD ELIGIBLE, ADD AS A CANDIDATE TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
AND, AND THERE WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST SAY COUNCIL MEMBER, LIKE WE'RE SAYING IN THE SECOND PART
[01:40:01]
OF THIS LAST SUNDAY.SO TONY OR JORDAN, IF EITHER ONE OF YOU COULD READ THE CURRENT DRAFT SO THAT WE, OKAY.
SO I HAVE IT AS TO BE ELIGIBLE AS CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER.
AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION UNLESS THE PETITIONER IS IN THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR THEN CURRENT TERM
THAT WORKS BECAUSE, UM, MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ISN'T GONNA LET, UM, ME HAVE TWO.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE ONLY GONNA LET ME FILE FOR ONE OFFICE CAN'T FILE FOR COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA AT LARGE, SO, RIGHT.
IN EITHER CASE, THEY'RE, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY'VE NOW GOT SKIN IN THE GAME.
THEY KNOW THAT, UH, THEY'RE GONNA BE VACATING THEIR SEAT AT THE END OF THAT TERM TO RUN FOR.
UH, CHRIS, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD RUN BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS? AND THE REASON I ASK IS, WE HAD ANOTHER THING IN OUR CHARTER THAT CAME UP IN THE LAST YEAR, UH, RELATING TO THE ACTUAL PETITION THAT'S FILED WITH, UM, A BOARD WITH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
SO, UM, OUR CHARTER SAYS YOU HAVE TO FILE 90 DAYS BEFORE THE PRIMARY ELECTION, YOU HAVE TO FILE A PETITION SO THAT IF THERE'S TWO OR MORE CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THAT, UH, POSITION, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PRIMARY BEFORE ADVANCING ONTO NOVEMBER.
AND THE TWO TOP VOTE GETTERS MOVE ON TO NOVEMBER.
UM, BUT THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE, UH, HIGH REVISED CODE THAT THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS EMPLOYEES THAT SAYS SOMEBODY WHO DOES A WRITE-IN PETITION CAN DO THAT 90 DAYS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION WITHOUT HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PRIMARY.
AND WE JUST HAD SOMEBODY DO THAT IN THE, UH, LAST ELECTION.
SO LIKE, THEY DIDN'T GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS AS PRESCRIBED IN THE CHARTER, BUT THEN THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS LET THEM ON THE BALLOT AS A WRITING CANDIDATE BY NAME, BUT THEIR NAME WAS ACTUALLY ON THE BALLOT, NOT BY NAME AS A WRITING CANDIDATE.
WELL, BUT WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, IS THAT I WOULD'VE HAD TO WRITE IN THE NAME, YOU HAVE TO WRITE IN THE NAME.
SO WE BROUGHT THAT, UH, P, S AND E AND I BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
AND HE SAID, HEY, WE DON'T, WE CAN'T MONITOR ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL CHARTER THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA ENFORCE THAT TOUGH LUCK WHAT YOUR CHARTER SAYS.
WE'RE GONNA LET THIS PERSON BE ON THE, THE BALLOT ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT'S IN IT'S PERMISSIBLE UNDER I REVISED CODE.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THE QUE THE QUESTION, WE'RE NOT GONNA ENFORCE THIS IF, IF WE MAKE THIS CHART OF PROVISION.
I, I LOOKED AT THIS A LONG, LONG TIME AGO.
I'D HAVE TO PULL UP MY RESEARCH.
BUT AS IT RELA, I THINK THAT IS, DON'T HOLD ME TO THIS STATEMENT, BUT AS IT RELATES TO GENERAL ELECTION LAW, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HOME RULE CAN TRUMP THE PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL ELECTION LAW IN THE OHIO REVISED CODE.
UM, BUT UH, AS IT RELATES TO WHO MIGHT BE A CANDIDATE, I THINK THAT WE CAN DO THAT, UH, BY CHARTER.
NOW THE RIGHTIN THING IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE RIGHTIN IS A RIGHT.
THAT ALL CITIZENS WOULD HAVE UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS.
UM, SO I, I MEAN I KNOW JEFF, UH, YEAH, BUT I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION BECAUSE HE SAYS THEY'RE NOT GONNA ENFORCE THIS ANYWAY.
WELL, I, I THINK THE, I THINK THE DISCUSSION MAKES SENSE, NUMBER ONE.
UM, AND, UH, AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTED CANDIDATE PIECE OF THAT.
I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER.
I HAVEN'T HAD THAT ISSUE COME UP BEFORE.
UM, I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE HEAR
[01:45:01]
IT READ ONE MORE TIME, JORDANWHERE WE NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TYPE THE CHANGES ON THE BOARD.
UH, TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER.
AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE HOLDING THE, THE OFF THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE TIME OF FILING THEIR NOMINATED PETITION UNLESS THE PETITIONER IS IN THE LAST YEAR OF THE THEN CURRENT TERM.
I THINK THAT THE, UH, LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
AND I, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER ISSUE BETTER.
IT JUST HAPPENED THE LAST ELECTION.
SO, BUT EVEN IF SOMEONE RUNS AND THEY GET AS A ON, AS A WRITE-IN, WOULDN'T THE COUNCIL BE ABLE TO REMOVE THEM FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE CHARTER? THEY KNOW BETTER.
WELL, I WILL SAY FOR WRITING CANDIDATES AN UPHILL BATTLE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET SOMEBODY TO, WELL, YOU GOTTA GET A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS TO PRINT YOUR NAME EXACTLY AS IT, UH, HOW THEY PUT IT ON THEIR NOMINATING PETITION.
BUT EVEN BY SOME MIRACLE, IF THAT HAPPENS IN SOMEONE'S RUNNING FROM A PROTECTED SEAT, THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
SO THE COUNCIL COULD TAKE THE CHARTER AND SAY, YOU WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE RULES.
YOU TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD, AND THEY COULD REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR POSITION, WHETHER IT'S THEIR SAFE SEAT OR THE ONE THEY MIRACULOUSLY WON AS A WRITE IN.
YEAH, I DON'T, THAT'S MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTIONARY.
IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION BECAUSE IF THE PERSON IS OTHERWISE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR WITHIN THE CITY OF HUB HEIGHTS, WHICH PRESUMABLY THEY ARE, WHETHER OR AT LARGE OR THEY LIVE IN THAT WARD, UH, THEY WOULD CHECK THE BOX UNDER THE CHARTER FOR QUALIFICATION, THEN YOU'D HAVE TO TURN BACK TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE LEGITIMATELY ON THE BALLOT.
IF, IF STATE LAW TRUMPS THE CHARTER FOR BEING ON THE BALLOT, THEN IT'S PROBABLY THEY'RE LEGITIMATELY ELECTED.
AND I'M NOT DEBATING, I'M NOT DEBATING THEM GETTING ELECTED.
I'M DEBATING THEY KNEW THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE RUN FROM A SAFE SEAT.
NOW THEY'RE IN WHATEVER SEAT THEY'RE IN, WHETHER THE ONE THEY HAPPENED TO HAVE RUN OR THE SAFE ONE THEY RAN FROM, THEY KNOW THE CHARTER.
THEY WILLINGLY WENT AGAINST THE, THE CHARTER.
THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD AT THAT POINT.
IT'S REGARDLESS WHATEVER SEAT THEY'RE IN OR WHAT THEY WANT OR DIDN'T WIN, THEY COULD, MEANING THE COUNCIL SAY, YOU CLEARLY VIOLATED THIS AS A COUNCIL PERSON, AND THEY CAN TAKE ACTION THAT WAY.
ARE YOU SAYING THE VIOLATION WOULD BE FOR THE FAILING TO FILE FOR THE PETITION? NO, I'M SAYING PUT THE ELECTION ASIDE.
LET'S SAY THEY ONE DIDN'T WANT WHATEVER, THEY CLEARLY WENT DIRECTLY AGAINST THE CHARTER.
THEY KNEW THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE RUN FROM A SAFE SEAT, BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY.
WHETHER THEY WIN THAT ELECTION OR NOT, IT'S REGARDLESS, THEY INTENTIONALLY WENT AGAINST THE CHARTER THAT THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD.
SO, SO WHATEVER THEY WIN, DON'T WIN.
WHATEVER THE COUNSEL COULD TAKE ACTION ON THEM HOLDING OR RETAINING THEIR SEAT BASED ON THEM VIOLATING THE RULES OF THE CHARTER.
UH, THEY COULD, UM, I, I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE LEGAL CHALLENGES AT THAT POINT.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COURT WOULD RULE ON IT.
AND THE FACT PATTERNS IS DEFINITELY AN INTERESTING HYPOTHETICAL.
I WOULD SAY THIS, I, THE LAW DOES A COUPLE THINGS.
ONE, LAWS TEND TO BE REACTIONARY.
UH, LAWYERS ARE NOT ON THE FOREFRONT AND CUTTING EDGE OF, OF, OF WHAT SOCIETY DOES.
THEY REACT TO WHAT SOCIETY IS DOING.
UH, THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS THAT THE LAWS ARE PREDICATED UPON PRINCIPLES THAT PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW WHAT THE LAW IS.
AND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUALLY WRITE LAWS TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN'T DO.
UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO HAPPEN AS FREQUENTLY AS WE LIKE.
UM, AND SO THE, THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO THE PLACE OF SAYING, AM I MAKING A RULE THAT RELATES TO A ONE-OFF SITUATION? AND OR AM I BETTER OFF? AS WE TALKED ABOUT ON, ON THE, THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
WELL, WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE HERE.
UM, AND, UM, IT'S A WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.
I JUST DON'T, I I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS.
[01:50:01]
I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT, THAT JORDAN TINKERED WITH WORKS, I THINK IT ACCOMPLISHES THE GOAL.AND I'M NOT ARGUING THE LANGUAGE.
RIGHT, BECAUSE I, I, I MEAN, I SUGGESTED ADDING, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
IT'S AN INTERESTING, FASCINATING QUESTION.
SO ALSO WITH THAT HYPOTHETICAL, UM, SOMEBODY WHO WOULD WIN POSITION BY THAT MEANS WOULD BE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE HAD A VERY UPHILL, LIKE TONY SAID, A POLITICAL BATTLE.
AND IF THEY WOULD'VE WON THAT, THEN THEY WOULD ABLY BEEN SUPPORTED BY A LARGE PORTION OF THE VOTING POPULATION.
SO IT WOULD BE PRETTY POLITICALLY UNFAVOR TO THEN REMOVE THAT PERSON IS, YEAH.
THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN IN HUBER.
JUST SAYING
VIOLATION OF ANY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE CHARTER.
MM-HMM,
SO I THINK JENNIFER'S ASKING FOR, UH, WHERE'S THE TEETH AND, UH, JORDAN'S, UM, UH, LANGUAGE THERE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS THE TEETH THAT COUNSEL COULD THEN, UH, IF THIS, UM, SCHMUCK, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S A, IT'S A PERFECT WORD.
BUT SHOULD THIS PERSON, UM, VIOLATE THE CHARTER, THAT THAT WOULD BE WHERE IT WOULD BE HANDLED.
IF THEY END UP GETTING ON THE BALLOT FROM A SAFE SEAT, THE COUNCIL BY TWO THIRDS VOTE COULD USE 1308 TO REMOVE HIM.
THAT'S, THAT'S BECAUSE I WAS PLAYING IT OUT IN THE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE RAN AGAINST THE MAYOR AND DIDN'T WIN THAT SEAT, AND THEN PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE NEXT TWO YEARS RIDICULOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET ANYTHING DONE.
BY ADDING THIS IN THE CHARTER, THE COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YOU INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER.
THEY COULD TAKE ACTION TO REMOVE THAT PERSON.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT WAS THE PACIFIC VIOLATION? THEY RAN FROM A SAFE SEAT? THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THEIR LAST YEAR OF THEIR TERM, ASSUMING THE CHANGES TO 4 0 3, ASSUMING THE CHANGE TOOK EFFECT.
BUT I THINK THE CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS THAT THE, UM, IF THEY DID NOT FILE A NOMINATING PETITION, THEN THEY DO NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO RESIGN.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR THEIR RESIGNATION.
I'M SAYING THE COUNSEL COULD MAKE THAT DECISION AMONGST THEMSELVES THAT THE PERSON DIDN'T ACT IN GOOD FAITH VIOLATED THE CH THE CHARTER.
WELL, I, THAT THE MORE, THE INTERESTING QUESTION IN MY MIND IS THAT IF THEY DID THAT, PRESUMABLY THEN THEY WOULD WIN A NOVEMBER ELECTION, WHICH THEY WON'T, BUT WELL, BUT IF THEY DID
WHERE THAT, SO THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO, THAT THEN THEIR LI THAT LITIGATION WOULD BE ON THAT PERSON TO FILE SOME TYPE OF EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF, UH, MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE THE PUBLIC BODY TO TAKE THE ACTION TO MAKE THE SWEAR IS, OR HER, UH, I MEAN IT'S A, IT'S A FASCINATING HYPOTHETICAL.
UM, BUT IT, BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE LANGUAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS COMMITTEE, UH, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION HAS SAID THAT A PROVISION LIKE THIS WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL MM-HMM.
AND IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO, UH, SAY WE SHOULD ADOPT THAT LANGUAGE, UH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, THEN UH, YOU'VE GOT THE POWER.
WE'RE COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN DO IT.
AND I WAS JUST TAKING THIS SITUATION.
TONY DESCRIBED LIKE INTO REALITY, LIKE ONE STEP FARTHER.
SOMEONE ACTUALLY DECIDED TWO YEARS INTO THEIR TERM RUN FROM A SAFE SEAT.
AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD OF ELECTION RULES, LAWS, WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED, SUPERSEDE OUR CHARTER, THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROPRIATELY DEAL WITH THAT PERSON WHO FOLLOWED BOARD OF ELECTION RULES, BUT VIOLATED THE HUBER CHARTER.
I THINK THERE'S STEPS THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION.
WHAT THOSE STEPS MIGHT BE, WOULD REMAIN TO BE SEEN.
SORRY, I DID NOT MEAN TO TAKE US DOWN THAT PATH, BUT
WELL, I TOLD YOU WHEN YOU STARTED WITH US THAT, UH, HUBER IS A LEARNING LAB.
I THINK JUST IN GENERAL, THE POPULATION WHO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS IN HUBER ARE REALLY SICK OF A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE BEING VERY NOISY AND PLAYING GAMES.
IT IS FRUSTRATING BEYOND BELIEF.
AS AN OUTSIDER WHO WAS READING THE NEWSPAPERS,
[01:55:01]
THAT'S GOOD NEWS.WE HAVE A, UH, BASED ON JORDAN'S ORIGINAL DRAFTS, UH, SOME, UH, LANGUAGE READ, UH, THAT'S BEEN MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE POTENTIAL CHANGES FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND SECTION 4 0 3.
SO IS THERE A, A MOTION TO, UH, MOTION TO ADD THE LANGUAGE SECOND, MR. DILLINGHAM AND MS. SIK, AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT JORDAN READ TWICE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. ROGERS, PLEASE CALL FOR A ROLE.
LOOKING AT THIS, UH, ARTICLE 22 SAYS THAT WE'RE GOING INTO JULY WITH THAT YEAH.
REVIEW FOR RECENT CHANGED BIDDING.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CHANGE THE DATE ON THAT.
'CAUSE THAT WAS GONNA BE THE SEVEN 10 MEETING THAT WE DISCUSSED.
EITHER CANCELING OR RESCHEDULING.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE ARTICLE OR ITEM NUMBER 22 WILL GO TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHENEVER THAT WILL BE.
AND JOHN, THAT WAS ONE THAT'S KIND OF WITH YOU AND CHRIS, BUT BASICALLY TAKING THE RECENT CHANGES IN THE BIDDING AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES THAT WERE PASSED WHEN, UH, MR. ZICK WAS HERE AND COMPARING THOSE AGAINST THE, UM, BIDDING AND, AND, UH, PURCHASING PROVISIONS IN THE CITY CHARTER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER.
SO SINCE I WASN'T HERE, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA BELABOR THE POINT, BUT, BUT TYPICALLY, COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS ALL HANDLED ON EITHER IN THE ORDINANCE OR THROUGH POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY COUNSEL.
I WOULD NOT WANNA SEE STRICT BIDDING RULES IN THE CHARTER THAT, THAT I DON'T THINK THE, THIS CAME FROM NANCY, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS MEANT TO BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
IT WAS MORE SHE HAD A QUESTION OF WHETHER LEGISLATION RECENTLY PASSED CONFORMED WITH THE CHARTER.
AND I, AND I WAS NOT SUGGESTING, UM, THAT WE MAKE A CHARTER CHANGE.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE ARE DOING WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IN OUR BIDDING AND PROPOSAL PROCESS.
AND ONCE AGAIN, MR. Z HAD PUT A POLICY LETTER OUT, AND I ASKED THAT THAT BE REVIEWED BECAUSE I'M NOT SO SURE THAT IT WAS, UM, CONFORMING WITH WHAT E EVEN THE ORC SAYS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT BIDDING.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING FOR.
SO, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THIS OPEN FOR CHARTER PURPOSES BECAUSE I'M NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGE, BUT I'M JUST ASKING THAT OUR NEW CITY MANAGER LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT, OKAY.
THAT EVERYTHING SAYS IT SHOULD BE.
SO WE WILL REMOVE THAT FROM OUR, UM, PUNCH LIST HERE AND JUST LEAVE THAT TO MR. RUSSELL TO TAKE CARE OF AS THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER.
ITEM 23, REVIEW ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURES AND USAGE, AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE VALIDITY OF ADDING INFORMATION ABOUT ADVISORY BALLOTS TO THE CITY CHARTER.
SO, WHICH ONE OF YOU WANTS TO TAKE THIS ONE? GO AHEAD, JORDAN.
UM, I HAVE SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH SARAH ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
I BELIEVE THAT TONY'S SPOKEN WITH CHRIS AS WELL, UH, NOT TO POINT THE BALL BACK AT HIM, UM,
UM, TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, IT WOULD PREVENT OR WOULD POSSIBLY PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE.
UM, SO OUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO, UH, LEAVE IT OUTSIDE OF THE CHARTER AND RELY ON, UH, PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO DRIVE CODE.
UM, THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR US TO INPUT INTO THE CHARTER.
SINCE I BROUGHT THE QUESTION UP, I WAS NOT SUGGESTING WE PUT ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER.
I WAS JUST SEARCHING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE APPLICABLE APPLICABILITY OF IT.
I MEAN, IT JUST POPPED UP ONE TIME DURING AN ELECTION AND, UM, DURING A, YEAH, DURING AN ELECTION.
[02:00:01]
IT'S NOT USED VERY OFTEN.I, I WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT WHEN WE WERE DOING IT, AND, AND LEGAL HAD TO SEARCH FOR A WHILE TO FIND SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS WAS DONE, BUT WE DID RUN IT BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND THEY SAID IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL, UH, BY CALLING IT AN ADVISORY BALLOT.
UM, AND IT, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S ADVISORY.
SO IT'S MORE LIKE A POLL BY VOTING.
UM, AND IT WAS INTENDED IN THE BOTH CASES THAT IT WAS USED HERE ONCE WITH WEATHER TO ALLOW, UH, THE RAISING OF CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WHETHER TO MOVE TOWARDS WATER SOFTENING, KNOWING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INCREASE COST TO THE, THE, UH, RESIDENTS THROUGH THEIR WATER BILLS.
UH, THOSE WERE THE TWO THAT WENT TO ADVISORY BALLOTS.
AND, UH, IN BOTH CASES, COUNSEL DID ACT WITH THE MAJORITY, MEANING THAT IN THE CASE OF CHICKENS, UH, A MAJORITY VOTED AGAINST ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL CHICKENS.
AND, UH, AND THE WATER SOFTENING THE MAJORITY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WATER SOFTENING, EVEN IF IT MEANT HIGHER WATER BILL RATES.
SO, UH, THEY DID HAVE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES, BUT THEY DID, AND THEY USED IT TO GAUGE PUBLIC OPINION.
AND IT IS A PERMISSIBLE TOOL, UH, ACCORDING TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.
I GUESS, AND JUST PERSONAL OPINION HERE, I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM OF PUTTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT AND NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THE RESULTS ARE.
LUCKILY, WE DID FOLLOW WHAT THE RESULTS WERE, BUT IF WE HAD NOT, I THINK THERE WOULD'VE BEEN, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A LOT OF BACKLASH.
SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, COUNCIL VOTED TO PUT THAT ON AS AN ADVISORY BALLOT.
I KNOW, BUT IT, IT, IT WAS RELUCTANT.
SO IF COUNCIL WANTED TO PUT IT ON AS AN ITEM THAT WOULD BE BINDING TO THEM, THEN THERE IS THE INITIATIVE PROCESS THAT COULD BE COUNCIL DRIVEN OR RESIDENT DRIVEN TO PUT SOMETHING AND WOULD BE BINDING ON, AND THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITH THE CHICKENS.
AND THERE WAS A WHOLE STORY BEHIND THAT AND SYMPATHY FOR THE PERSON THAT DIDN'T, DIDN'T GATHER ENOUGH SIGNATURES AND THAT KIND OF STUFF WHO WERE PROMOTING IT.
DID NOT GETTING ENOUGH SIGNATURES ON A PETITION TO MAKE IT TO INITIATIVE.
SO THEY PERSUADED THE COUNCIL TO PRESSURE THEM INTO DOING AN ADVISORY BALLOT.
WHEN I'VE SEEN SOMETHING SIMILAR ACTUALLY WITH THE REFERENDUM OR COUNSEL PASSED SOMETHING AND, AND THERE WAS A FRIENDLY REFERENDUM BY THAT, I MEAN, COUNSEL KNEW THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE A REFERENDUM AND THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO SPEAK.
AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD GO VERSUS THE ADVISORY BALLOTS.
SO, UH, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL ARTICLES OF THE CHARTER.
WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL OF OUR ACTION ITEMS. UM, SO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, UM, I KNOW WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED IN JULY.
WE WILL GET A, A DATE FIRMED UP RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL JUST KEEP THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY.
UM, AND I'LL SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO REARRANGE, UH, THE ONE, UM, THAT HAS TO BE RESCHEDULED FROM THE 10TH.
UM, I WOULD ASK IF THERE, IF YOU, MATT, OR ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, UM, COMING TO THE WORK SESSION ON JULY 2ND.
AND, UH, IT'S JUST NEXT WEEK, BUT, MM-HMM.
WHAT TIME IS THAT MEETING? I'D SAY IT'D BE GOOD AS, AS MANY OF YOU COULD WHO COULD COME.
UM, IT WOULD BE AT SIX O'CLOCK THAT EVENING.
AND IF YOU, IF THERE WAS GONNA BE SOME OF YOU COMING, I'D PROBABLY TRY TO REARRANGE THE AGENDA SO THERE COULD BE NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
IF IT'S JUST GONNA BE ME THERE, THEN IT'LL PROBABLY END UP AS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
UH, 'CAUSE I'M ALWAYS GONNA BE THERE ANYWAY AT THE END.
AND IF YOU COULD MAKE IT EARLY, I'D APPRECIATE THERE'S A DRAGONS GAME THAT NIGHT I'D LIKE TO GO TO, BUT
SO I WILL COME TO THAT MEETING INSTEAD OF THE DRAGONS OR IN FRONT OF THE DRAGONS, HOWEVER YOU WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO BE PART OF THAT? I MEAN, YEAH.
AND I CAN BE THERE IF, IF NEEDED.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'D BE GOOD FOR THEM TO SEE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A FEW OF THE COUNCIL THAT
[02:05:01]
ARE HERE, BUT NOT EVERYBODY'S, UH, MET YOU GUYS DIRECTLY AND TO HEAR IN YOUR OWN WORDS, UH, ABOUT YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS AND WHY YOU SUPPORT THESE IDEAS.AND I THINK FOR THE PUBLIC TOO, IT, IT, IT ALLOWS THEM TO HEAR YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON THESE ISSUES.
YEAH, AND I THINK A GOOD, YOU KNOW, THAT'LL FRAME UP AS THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO BRING THESE BEFORE COUNSEL.
THEN COUNSEL'S GONNA HAVE TO ACT ON ANY, THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, UM, DURING THE MONTH OF JULY.
UH, IF AND WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEN UM, I WOULD TAKE THE COMPLETED, UH, LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY COUNSEL FOR THE CH CHARTER REVIEW, UH, AMENDMENTS, AND FILE THAT WITH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS BY THE DEADLINE OF AUGUST 7TH, WHICH PUTS THOSE ITEMS ON THE BALLOT.
AND THEN, UH, THAT'S WHEN THE EDUCATION PIECE REALLY STARTS.
AND WE, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE SEND THESE IN TO THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THEY WORK WITH US AND THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE TO FORM THE VERBIAGE OF HOW THESE ARE GONNA BE PHRASED.
'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE PUT IN A NEUTRAL TONE.
YOU CAN'T PHRASE 'EM IN A WAY THAT IS ADVOCATING ADOPTION OR NON ADOPTION OF THE ITEMS. SO IT HAS TO BE AS NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE.
ONCE THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE APPROVES THAT LANGUAGE AND WE HAVE THE FINAL BALLOT LANGUAGE, THEN IT'S GONNA BE EASIER FOR THIS COMMISSION TO KIND OF, UH, WORK TOGETHER AND WORK WITH US TO DETERMINE HOW BEST, UH, TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THESE PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
AND THEN THERE'S CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE THAT WE'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ADVERTISE THESE, UH, IN A NEWSPAPER GENERAL CIRCULATION AND, AND SUCH.
SO, UH, WE WOULD BE PUSHING THE WORD OUT AS A CITY IN A NEUTRAL SETTING TOO.
BUT AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU GUYS CAN PLAY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ROLE IN TERMS OF ADVOCACY FOR THESE, UH, IN, IN EXPRESSING A, A, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VIEW THAN WE CAN AS STAFF OR, OR LEGAL COUNSEL.
MR. WE, TONY, UM, EARLIER YOU MENTIONED, UM, SOME COMBINATION OF, UH, THE DIFFERENT, UM, LANGUAGE CHANGES WE'VE MADE JUST IN THE ABSTRACT HERE.
CAN IT BE ONE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT SAYS, UM, UH, A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER AND THEN LINE ITEMS WITHIN THAT SO THAT IT'S JUST, I HAVE SEEN IT DONE THAT WAY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I I THINK IT CAN BE DONE THAT WAY.
SO IT COULD BE ONE VOTE YES FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS, ONE VOTE GETS IT ALL DONE.
UM, OR YOU COULD BREAK IT UP AND, AND HOW YOU WANT IT BROKEN UP.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN IT WHERE, UH, COMMUNITIES CLEARLY KNOW THAT ONE OF THESE CHARTER CHANGES THAT WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO BE PASSED THAN THE OTHERS, AND THEY DON'T WANNA RISK THE OTHER CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE MADE TO CLEAN UP PROBLEMS. SO, UM, YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
AND, UH, LAST TIME COUNCIL DECIDED TO DO IT BY INDIVIDUAL ITEM, UM, AND WE BROKE IT OVER TWO ELECTIONS, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS, THERE WAS A LARGER NUMBER OF THEM THAT TIME.
BUT YEAH, TO GROSS'S POINT, YOU COULD DO IT EITHER WAY.
UH, BUT IF, IF YOU THINK ONE'S GONNA SINK EVERYTHING, THEN YOU, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WANT TO CONSIDER BREAKING THEM OUT.
WILL THAT BE DONE AT, UH, A COUNCIL LEVEL OR WILL THIS COMMISSION HAVE ANY, UM, INPUT OR THOUGHT INTO THE UM, AS I SAID EARLIER IN THE MEETING, I THINK THAT'S REALLY A COUNCIL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT'S A POLITICAL CALCULATION.
I, UM, THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THE LAST, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, MR. ROSSLEY, YOU WERE ON THAT, UM, UM, NANCY, YOU WERE ON THAT AS WELL.
UM, THE VOTE CAME DOWN SO STRANGE ON SOME OF THOSE THAT I REALLY GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT MAYBE PEOPLE WERE PRETTY TIRED OF READING 'EM BY THE TIME THEY GOT TO ITEM THREE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT IT WAS, BUT THE VOTE WAS SO STRANGE THAT, UM, I WONDERED WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BETTER JUST TO SAY, VOTE YES.
NO, NOT TO CHANGE THE CHARTER AND KEEP IT SIMPLE.
SO, UH, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AS A COUNCIL.
BUT, UM, SO HOW MANY ARE WE PROPOSING? THREE.
HOW MANY? WELL BEFORE TONIGHT, UM, I HAD FIVE.
WELL, THAT WAS ALREADY ON THERE.
SO WE HAVE THIS, UM, FOUR, OH NO, I HAVE THE 4 0 3.
[02:10:01]
SIX NOW BECAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE, WE ADDED THE CHANGES IN 1308 TONIGHT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ON MY LIST.OH, WE'RE GONNA GROUP THE ONES, AREN'T WE? ABOUT? WELL, THAT'S GROUPING.
YEAH, I JUST, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING SO CONTROVERSIAL THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP.
UH, AND THIS IS A DISCUSSION, UH, FOR COUNSEL, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WE, WE'VE COME UP WITH THAT'S SO CONTROVERSIAL THAT GROUPING 'EM TOGETHER WOULD SINK THE WHOLE THING.
WELL, THE, THE ONE THAT LAST TIME FAILED WAS THE CITY MANAGER ONE, AND THAT'S STILL A TOUGH ONE TO EXPLAIN.
AND, AND THE AVERAGE PERSON DOESN'T UNDERSTAND CASE LAW AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL AND THE MAYOR VOTE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CITY MANAGER? THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY MANAGER? YEAH.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THAT FAILED LAST TIME AROUND.
UM, IT WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.
UM, NANCY BRINGS UP THE MAYOR VOTED IT POTENTIALLY COULD THOUGH.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION THAT I THINK, UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THE MAYOR ALREADY VOTES.
THEY'RE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT THE MAYOR DOESN'T VOTE.
UM, SO THAT COULD COP BOTH WAYS.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE, BUT YEAH, THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE A, A CALCULATION ON WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED WITH THAT.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DECISION OF COUNCIL IS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE MORE THAN THREE ON THE BALLOT.
I MEAN THREE GROUPINGS ON THE BALLOT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM.
SO YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THE, UH, CITY MANAGER ONE BY ITSELF, THE MAYOR, ONE BY ITSELF.
'CAUSE IT COVERS SEVERAL SECTIONS AND THEN GROUP ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS STUFF AND, OKAY.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING? OKAY, THEN HEARING NONE.
IT IS EIGHT 12 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.