CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 5, 2008
REGULAR
MEETING
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Fix called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino were present. Mr. Smith was absent. Others present were Brian Sauer, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, and Phil Hartmann.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 6, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 1-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and of proposed revisions based on discussion at the February Rules Committee meeting. Mr. Fix stated at the last meeting the Committee began a review of the City Charter and Mr. Hartmann had provided a draft summarizing the proposed revisions. Mr. Fix stated there were two significant points that the Committee wanted to review when Mr. Sabatino was present as he was ill at the last meeting. He stated these areas were Section 2.01, Number and Term of Council Members, and the Committee wanted to have a discussion regarding Wards. He stated the second area was Section 2.04, Role of the Mayor and Veto Powers, and the Committee wanted to discuss the relationship between the Mayor and the City Manager and clarify it so that the Manager either reports to Council and is hired and fired by Council or they report to the Mayor and are hired and fired by the Mayor, but not the way it is now where they are hired and fired by Council and reporting to the Mayor.
Mr. Hartmann reviewed the draft he had prepared and stated in Article I, Section 1.01 he had removed the last part of the paragraph because it conflicted with Supreme Court case law on detachment. He stated in Section 1.02 he had added the exercise of powers and construction of powers language. Section 1.04 defined the form of government and had no substantial changes. He stated he would make the language consistent throughout the Charter using the word “City” rather than “Municipality.” Mr. Hartmann stated he had put a note by Section 1.05 that it may need to be moved to a different section of the Charter.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Article II, Section 2.01 was the section that Mr. Fix had indicated discussion would be held on the Ward system. Mr. Sabatino stated he has expressed for some time the idea of approaching a Ward system, and his intention was that all the elected positions would remain non-partisan. Mr. Sabatino stated he would suggest having perhaps four defined Wards and three at-large council members, and having them elected on a split basis. He stated at one election there would be two Wards up for election, one at-large council member, and the Mayor, and the next election cycle have two Wards and two at-large positions. Mr. Sabatino stated these were his initial thoughts and he would like to know if there were other things to consider, if it made sense to others, etc. Mr. Sauer stated he shared a lot of Mr. Sabatino’s thoughts and he liked the idea of a Ward system, and he would like to see perhaps five Wards, but he was not stuck on that number. Mr. Sabatino stated he had suggested four Wards because everyone would have a direct representative relative to where they live, and there would be three other council members who would together comprise a majority. He stated a Ward representative would have to convince the three at-large members of a reason to support his issue. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought we would have to determine our population is and try to have contiguous Wards that each started out with approximately the same amount of population. Mr. Sauer stated the number of Wards was subjective to him, but the idea of a Ward system was something he was supportive of. Mr. Hansley stated he felt the Ward system has some merits, but he was not sure we were large enough to make it work as well as it might some place else. He stated he has seen the Ward system work to the detriment of the overall picture, because sometimes you have to do something, for example to improve traffic for the whole City, that might be bad for a single neighborhood. He stated further if you do Wards, language would have to be included that you start out as equal as possible with regard to geographic separations, but every five, eight, or ten years a neutral party, such as the City Planning Department, would undertake an effort to balance out the Wards again. Mr. Hansley stated he felt there were positives to the Ward system, but there were also negatives. Mr. Sabatino stated perhaps having three Wards would be better, and Mr. Hansley stated at the last meeting establishing two or three Wards was discussed because we are not quite big enough to have four distinct types of neighborhoods or populations, such as old versus young or new versus old. Mr. Sabatino stated the idea was not to pit one against the other, but to have a go-to person in the area where you lived so they could get with the other council members if there was something that needed to be looked at. Mr. Sabatino stated if the system is working correctly, Ward representatives could work with the rest of Council to get their opinions. Mr. Hansley stated that is the balance point, the citizens who live in those neighborhoods do feel empowered because they can go to a specific person who represents their interests and the citizens feel they have better access. Mr. Hansley stated he did not know if the City was big enough yet, but in looking at a Charter that is going to last another five or ten years this might be the time to look at that. Mr. Sabatino stated the idea is to stay ahead of the curve as opposed to being behind it, and he felt Council’s goal would be to keep the situations at a minimum where residents have to come to Council to complain about things. He stated residents are encouraged to come in and speak when they have a concern, but he felt we have an opportunity to relate better or be more accessible and this is something that would be worthwhile to look at. Mr. Hansley stated he has worked in cities both with and without the Ward system and he did not mean his comments to be harsh against the Ward system, and he felt with the City’s system if you had Wards it would take a long time before you noticed any major difference in how the process works. He stated the positive would be that it would make neighborhoods that have never had anyone elected to the Council from their area feel empowered. Mr. Sauer inquired if Mr. Hansley had seen a draw back to the at-large system such as the City has now, and Mr. Hansley stated the main reason a city typically goes to a Ward system is because of a racial issue, or an old versus new issue, and they go to the Ward system because a whole party of the population are disenfranchised. He further stated Mr. Sabatino’s point is well taken, because if that ever happened you would be out ahead of it and this might pre-solve an issue. Mr. Hartmann stated his experience with a Ward system has been very similar to Mr. Hansley’s. Mr. Hartmann stated another issue is that current council members all live very close and there are areas that clearly are not covered right now, so one of the big changes would be a change in faces on Council since everyone could not stay on Council due to changing to the Ward system. He stated then the question would be are you recruiting people, do individuals in these areas really want to be on Council, and would you be taking away people that really want to give to the community. Mr. Hansley stated it has been his experience that a Ward representative would look first to his Ward and second to the overall City. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel we would have a situation where a Ward representative would put their neighborhood on a higher plane than the City in general and he felt the Council people should be given a little credit about being open minded and fair and not prejudged. Mr. Sauer stated he did support the Ward system, but he understood where Mr. Hansley was coming from. Mr. Fix stated he felt the question was if we had a constituency in the City that is being underserved by the current system. He stated there are areas in the City that have not had any representation in the past several years, but are they different than other areas of the City where Council members reside. He stated the question was if over the next ten years was there a part of town that will be underserved and will that be an issue significant enough to make this significant a change to the Charter. Mr. Fix stated initially he thought Wards were a good idea, but when you started to weigh the benefits against the costs he wasn’t sure. Mr. Sauer stated he also supported the idea, but Mr. Hansley had given him a lot to consider. Mr. Hansley stated he was totally neutral and he did not want to sway anyone either way. Mr. Fix stated he felt this was question that needed to be thought about and would not be resolved this evening. He stated he would like to suggest each member put down on paper what the benefits and the costs were of a Ward system and discuss it at length at the next meeting.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 2.02, Compensation, he had added language regarding non-monetary benefits for ethics purposes.
Mr. Hartman stated in Section 2.03, Meetings, he had changed the language to be consistent with the current Administrative Code that five council members shall constitute a quorum. Mr. Fix further stated he had removed to language that the Mayor may call special council meetings based on the discussion that if the Mayor had a veto and called a special meeting the next day when some council members were out of town, the veto would hold. He stated he had also added a sentence that will allow the Council to extend beyond what the current open meetings law is, if desired, by ordinance. He stated, for example, council could go into executive session for economic development reasons to keep things confidential. He stated if no ordinance were passed, you would still be under the current Ohio Revised Code. Mr. Hartmann clarified that this would give Council the power that if there is something that Council deemed to be very important and confidential, and for some reason you cannot get into Executive Session, you could pass an ordinance stating that for economic development purposes council would be allowed to go into Executive Session, and those reasons would be justified in an ordinance. Mr. Hansley stated this did not mean that an ordinance would be passed every few months, but if one is passed it would be reviewed every five years or so. Mr. Sabatino stated something could be passed to allow for sensitive negotiations on contracts and Mr. Hansley stated that would be another thing Council may choose to add. Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to striking the language allowing the Mayor to call a special meeting, because if the Mayor were to call a special meeting and more than two members were not available, there would not be a quorum anyway. Mr. Hartmann stated this came up in the discussion regarding veto, and Mr. Fix stated since the language has been included making five members the quorum that would protect Council and he agreed with Mr. Sabatino that the language should allow the Mayor to call a special meeting. Mr. Hartmann stated he would put the language back the way it was.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 2.04, Role of the Mayor, just seemed to be in the wrong place, it should be under the Mayor’s section instead of Council’s section. Mr. Fix stated that can be moved, but they did want to have the conversation about the Mayor supervising the Manager. Mr. Fix stated the significant issue was to clarify the relationship between the City Manager and the Mayor. Mr. Fix stated the City Manager could be caught in the middle between the Mayor and Council. Mr. Sabatino stated typically an elected Mayor is not going to have the skills to supervise the work of a professional City Manager, and we hire a City Manager based upon their qualifications. Mr. Sabatino stated the hiring and firing is the ultimate responsibility of Council, so in his opinion, it would make more sense to remove the language that the Mayor supervise the Manager be stricken. Mr. Hartmann stated, as he understood it, language that Council shall supervise the Manager and the Manager will be responsible to Council, was what Mr. Sabatino preferred. Mr. Sabatino stated that was correct, and any City Manager he would vote to hire would know how to do their job and if there were issues it would become a function Council would deal with. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the current process put both the City Manager and the Mayor in a precarious situation because there is no clear line of responsibility. Mr. Fix stated his concern is that it would be very difficult to have seven bosses, and should council split, the City Manager can find themselves paralyzed by that split. He stated further, the majority of Council is the group that decides what happens in the City; it is not the Mayor, it is not the Manager, it is the majority of Council. He stated the Manager working for the majority of Council seemed to make sense. Mr. Hansley stated in his opinion a City Manager would never view themselves has having seven bosses, they would have one boss, which is the City Council, and they express that direction through a majority vote. Mr. Hartmann stated the way it is currently written can create conflict because the Mayor could give direction to the Manager that is opposite of what Council wants. Mr. Hansley stated he took the language that the Manager was under the Mayor’s supervision meant that the Mayor would make ensure that the Manager was moving in the direction given by Council, however, the language that the Manager would be responsible to the Mayor is what is really tough. Mr. Hartmann stated it appeared to be a consensus that the Manager would serve at the pleasure of Council so he would come back with draft language for the next meeting.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 2.06, he had defined motions, resolutions, and ordinances, and changing the amount of required readings to two, and the wait time on a resolution. He stated once a resolution is read, it would be effective immediately. He continued that he had removed the amount of $10.00 from the consent agenda requirements and added the language to have an amount established by Council by ordinance. Mr. Hartmann further stated the emergency legislation requirement has been kept the same. Mr. Hartmann stated further he would make the language consistent throughout using council member rather than councilperson, and also using city rather than municipality.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 2.07, Officers, there were no changes. Mr. Sauer asked if Mr. Hartmann would clarify that Council would organize at the first meeting in January of each year, and questioned if that were the only time council could organize. Mr. Hartmann stated in his first reading of this section he felt that Council could reorganize if necessary. Mr. Hansley stated in reading this section he understood it to mean that the organization would occur in January and the members elected as President Pro Tempore and Vice President Pro Tempore “shall” serve until the first meeting in January of the next year. He stated you could argue there is only way to organize and the officers “shall” serve, that is a “shall” not a “may” until the next January unless an event occurred that was beyond Council’s control. Mr. Hartmann stated when he first read it he read it as you could reorganize at any time, but he would like to take the opportunity to review this section again and get back with the Committee.
Mr. Hartmann stated there were no recommended changes to Section 2.08 or 2.09.
The Rules Committee recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:30 P.M.
B. Review and discussion regarding proposed revisions to Section 3 of the City Charter. Mr. Fix clarified that there were no recommended changes to Sections 3.01.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 3.02 deals with the veto powers of the Mayor. Mr. Fix clarified that three days was a reasonable amount of time for the Mayor to notify the Clerk of his intention to veto. Mr. Sabatino clarified that in the Mayor’s absence the Council President Pro Tempore is Acting Mayor. Mr. Hartmann clarified that if the Mayor is absent from a meeting and the President Pro Tempore acts as presiding officer of the Council meeting, that does not make them Acting Mayor. Mr. Hartmann further stated the Mayor will appoint the President Pro Tempore, in writing to the Clerk’s office, as Acting Mayor in the event the Mayor is out of town. While in that position the Acting Mayor does have the same power as the Mayor.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 3.03, he had made no revisions and Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino concurred.
Mr. Fix stated in Section 3.04, Other Duties, he was not sure for what military purposes the Governor would call on the Mayor. Mr. Hansley stated the Governor could authorize the Mayor to use the National Guard for civil enforcement within the City limits. Mr. Fix asked Mr. Hartmann to clarify the language that states the Mayor shall be the primary liaison between the City of Pickerington and all other political subdivisions. Mr. Hansley stated he thought it meant the Mayor was the ceremonial head of government and Mr. Hartmann stated he agreed with that, however, he felt it has been interpreted in a broader sense than that. Mr. Hansley stated he felt it meant the Mayor would attend meetings such as MORPC, the Board of Health, etc., and represent the City in those roles. Mr. Fix stated he felt that was completely appropriate. Mr. Fix stated he would like to clarify that last sentence so it says what it means. Mr. Hansley stated perhaps language that the Mayor cannot bind the City in that role or make commitments on behalf of City Council. Mr. Hartmann stated he could look at this and come back with some clarification language for the Committee. He stated it was his understanding that what the Committee wanted was language that the Mayor was the ceremonial head and representative to go to certain meetings, such as Board of Health, but they did not want the Mayor to be the primary negotiator as that was better left to the City Manager. Mr. Fix stated that was correct.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 3.05 he would add the same language regarding non-monetary benefits that would be included in the Council’s section.
There were no further suggested revisions to Article III. Mr. Fix stated he had a discussion with the Mayor regarding the timeline for the Charter review and they both agreed the chances of having this completed in time for the November ballot was slim. Mr. Fix stated this appeared to be a natural breaking point this evening and he requested that Mr. Hartmann prepare a review of Sections 4, 5, and 6 for the next meeting, as well as, a draft of the revisions discussed to this point. He further stated he would like to have further discussion on the Ward system at the next meeting, and he would put a note out to the remaining Council members and ask for feedback from them on the Ward system as well.
4. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fix stated he had nothing to bring forward.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sabatino moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Fix voted "Aye." Motion carried, 2-0. The Rules Committee adjourned at 9:00 P.M, March 5, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________