CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY,
APRIL 2, 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. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith were present. No members were absent. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Brian Sauer, Cristie Hammond, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, and Phil Hartmann.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 5, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith abstaining and Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review of draft proposed revisions based on discussion at the March Rules Committee meeting. Mr. Hartmann stated most of the revisions suggested were reviewed at the last meeting; however, the Committee did want to have further discussion regarding Wards. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt now would be the appropriate time to question some of the changes being proposed. He requested in Section 1.01 if Mr. Hartmann would clarify the reason for deleting that language. Mr. Hartmann stated in reviewing the Charter most of this language related to detachment and had a specific way the city could grow through annexation and detachment. He stated the reason it was stricken is because it conflicts with the Ohio Revised Code and there is a Supreme Court case that says this is a law of general nature, meaning that you cannot change what the Revised Code says through your Home Rule power. Mr. Hartmann stated any annexation or detachment must follow the general laws, and that would be boundary adjustments as well.
Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to Section 2.04, Role of the Mayor, he had received a suggestion that we might want to consider having one less council member and having the Mayor be a voting Mayor. Mr. Smith stated that had been discussed, however, they felt there could be a conflict between voting for an ordinance and then being able to veto that same ordinance. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel the Mayor should be voting with the way our structure is set up. He stated he just wanted this suggestion on the record. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Smith made a very good point, and if you were going to do something like that you would probably have to take out the veto powers. Mr. Fix stated during the earlier discussion on this issue, it was his perception that the public appreciated having a face and a name that goes with the City. He stated he felt the citizens appreciated being able to choose their Mayor. Mr. Hartmann stated he has only seen one entity where the Mayor is a voting member. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that 2.04 dealing with the powers of the Mayor had been moved from the Council section to the Mayor’s section, which is under Article III.
Mr. Sabatino stated the Committee had discussed the issue of the Mayor supervising the Manager at the last meeting, and typically the Manager works for the majority of Council and the majority of Council could comprise different council members at different times, and that is the reason we went in this direction. Mr. Fix stated with the current system there is the potential for confusion and answering to two different bosses when the Mayor is responsible for parts of the City Manager’s job or discipline and that Council is the one setting the agenda. He stated it was suggested we go either one way, where it is all the Mayor’s responsibility, or the other way where it is all council’s responsibility. Just so there is not that inherent conflict. Mr. Hartmann stated the Section where it was going to be changed to Council would be put in under Section 4.05, where it talks about the Manager’s relation to Council. He stated he would be putting it in the Manager’s section; however, he has not done that as yet. Mayor O’Brien inquired if there were any specific examples where a conflict had occurred. Mr. Fix stated he did not have specific examples, but he was aware of times under the previous Mayor where it was generally known that he was going in one direction and Council was providing different direction. Mayor O’Brien inquired if anyone knew how the current form of government was brought about, and Mr. Sabatino stated if he recalled correctly that was changed through an initiative. Mr. O’Brien inquired if that was done by a citizen’s initiative, and no citizens have come in and requested it be changed back, was it not presumptuous to present a change when they have not asked for one. Mr. Fix stated that argument could be used for the entire charter review, citizens have not come in and asked for any changes, yet this committee is reviewing it to present them with options to make a number of changes. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt there was a different dynamic in place at the time the change was made, and we have a much larger population base now than when that change was made.
Mr. Sabatino inquired what format the changes would be proposed in? Would it be a line item type or one sweeping document with all changes included. Mr. Fix stated at this point he did not know. Mr. Hartmann stated that it could be done either way and it would be a council decision. Mr. Fix stated a concern about breaking it up into sections is that some sections rely on other pieces, so if one passed and the other failed, it could create a charter that was in conflict with itself. Mr. Fix stated the review will go through this committee, through Council, through a Charter Review Commission, public hearings, and then to the voters. He stated the suggestions being made by this small body have several steps to go through before they are accepted. Mr. Fix stated there are probably a number of recommendations made by this committee that will not make the final cut. Mayor O’Brien stated that is a thorough process that allows for a lot of checks and balances. Mayor O’Brien further stated, however, if it were one document he would not like to see one unpopular portion cause the entire charter to fail. Mr. Fix stated he felt it would be best to wait and see what changes are being proposed, how all of them factor in, how it goes through the hearings, etc., before Council can make an educated decision on how it is presented to the voters. Mr. Fix stated this process is probably going to take well over a year, and he would like to allow the process to take its course and ultimately the voter’s would make the decision. Mr. Fix stated he would like to approach this process from a standpoint of looking at how the charter will look ten years from now. He stated he would like to create a charter that makes sense for the community and not worry about who is sitting in what chair today. He stated he felt this was about creating good government.
Mr. Fix stated he would entertain discussion regarding the Ward system at this time. Mr. Sabatino stated the discussion regarding Wards began a few years ago and recently there have not been many comments from the citizens about it. He stated a few years ago he had been contacted about it and he had promised to bring it forward for discussion. Mr. Sabatino stated if wards do not make a lot of sense for the City, and it appears the consensus is we do not need it, then he would like to withdraw the discussion of Wards. Mr. Smith stated he does not see a compelling reason to change what we have, because what we have now is working. Mr. Sauer stated he was initially in favor of Wards, however, after the discussion at the last meeting he has changed his mind and does not see the need for Wards. Mrs. Hammond stated she does not see the need for Wards at this point. Mr. Fix stated he tended to agree that there was no compelling reason for Wards and Council has not heard anything from the citizens requesting it. Mr. Smith stated he felt the most compelling reason for Wards is to make sure a segment that is not currently represented is, in fact, represented. He stated he just does not see that happening in our city. Mayor O’Brien stated he did not think the City was large enough for a Ward system. Mr. Fix stated this would be withdrawn from discussion.
B. Review and discussion regarding proposed revisions to Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the City Charter. Mr. Hartmann stated the committee had received a memorandum from his office discussing these three Articles. Mr. Hartmann stated there are no real recommendations for Section 4.01 or Section 4.02.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 4.03 deals with the Mayor’s appointment of the City Manager with the concurrence of a majority of City Council. He stated it is basically Council’s decision on what they would like to do, and he had provided examples of what other cities have done. Mr. Hartmann stated the electorate would then vote on any changes. Mr. Sabatino clarified the appointment of the City Manager currently needs the concurrence of Council, and Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct. He stated the City’s system is that the Mayor selects the person, and Council either concurs or not. Mr. Fix stated he does not have any issue with the Mayor appointing the Manager with the concurrence of Council. He stated his concern was with the disciplining part of it and he felt that was a conflict. Mr. Hartmann stated he understood that would be changed so that Council would be the overseer and would probably be added into Section 4.05. Mr. Fix stated the conflict was that the Manager reported to Council but was disciplined by the Mayor.
Mr. Smith stated he would like to speak about this in relation to all employees of Council, the engineer, law director, and finance director. He stated in his view this has caused a lot of confusion about direction or these employees. Mr. Smith stated for discussion purposes instead of those three employees, what if just the City Manager and the Municipal Clerk were employees of Council and everyone else worked for the City Manager. Mr. Sabatino stated he didn’t think he liked that idea. Mr. Fix inquired what the benefit would be to have the law director and finance director report to the City Manager rather than Council. Mr. Smith stated he felt that gave the City Manager direct oversight of their staff. Mr. Sabatino stated the law director and finance director were not necessarily the Manager’s staff; their function was to provide Council with what information they needed to do their job. Mr. Fix stated his concern with having the law director report through the City Manager was with the way the Charter is written where Council must go through the City Manager to request a staff member to do certain things. Mr. Smith stated language could be included in the Charter that the law director is available to all members of council for advice and consult. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we needed checks and balances and having these functions controlled by Council has a definite advantage to keep providing those checks and balances. Mr. Sauer stated his concern would be with the finance director and law director. He stated he did not know if there had been problems in the past, but he liked the luxury of having that direct contact with those two individuals. Mr. Sauer stated his two main concerns were Council’s access to these employees, and their being able to provide unbiased opinions. Mrs. Hammond stated if these are employees of Council it would take a majority of council to give them direction. Mr. Smith stated that was a very inefficient way of administering legal and financial services. Mr. Hansley stated most entities have language in their charter that says the law director is the legal counsel to the staff and to council and is available for that purpose. He stated that same language could be added for the finance director so the Manager could not restrict those two or three positions that require a confirmation by council. Mr. Sabatino stated being a contract employee, council votes on that contract. Mr. Sauer stated to clarify certain circumstances that could arise, if you had a city manager that was in a position where that particular manager had a pet project or agenda, then sometimes the financial numbers could be manipulated to support that particular agenda and that is something he would like to see avoided. Mr. Fix stated because Council does not give day to day direction to the staff he didn’t know if it made sense for council to try and manage those positions. Mr. Sauer stated his point was that he did not want these positions totally reined in under the manager. Mr. Fix stated then language could be included in the charter that these positions could not be solely removed by the manager, it would be by concurrence of council. Mr. Sauer stated he could accept that, he just wanted to make sure because the way the charter is written now, in order to be able to give direction to these individuals it would have to go through the manager. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not have a problem with the manager being the daily contact person providing the collective direction of council to these employees, but he was vehemently opposed to them being staff employees. Mr. Fix stated then the suggestion was to have these positions report to the City Manager, they are brought on and let go with the concurrence of council and council has access to them, but the day-to-day management comes from the City Manager. Mr. Smith stated he would like to talk about a staffing model as they go through the charter rather than discuss each position separately. Mr. Fix summarized the suggestion is that the people who report directly to council, the law director, the finance director, and the city engineer would be hired and terminated with the concurrence of council, all of council would have full access to those three individuals, but the day-to-day activities of those individuals would be managed by the City Manager. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to point out that anything he or Mr. Hartmann offered during these discussions was meant to be neutral and not intended as recommendations or suggestions. Mayor O’Brien inquired if anyone knew the reason the Charter was originally written the way it is, and perhaps we need to interview some of the people who wrote the original charter and find out why they wrote it the way they did. Mr. Hartmann stated perhaps we could check the minutes of the original charter commission and see if there are comments on this issue. He stated further the section being discussed was if the Mayor would still be the person appointing the Manager. Mr. Smith stated he was just trying to see if there was a consensus on a staffing model rather than do this piece meal. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel a consensus had been reached.
Mr. Fix stated due to the hour, and another meeting yet this evening, he would recommend this conversation be continued at the next meeting and that the discussion begin with Section 4.03. He stated he would ask that everyone consider the appointment of the Manager as well as the other employees of Council as he felt there were valid arguments on both sides of that conversation.
4. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fix stated he had nothing further to bring forward.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: Mrs. Yartin stated there is a vacancy on the Personnel Appeals Board created by Mr. Sells’ resignation and questioned when Rules Committee would like to conduct interviews for this position. Mr. Fix stated the committee concurred that every applicant be interviewed and he would suggest scheduling approximately two special Rules Committee meetings for the purpose of conducting these interviews. He stated he would work with the other committee members to find some good dates and then would notify Mrs. Yartin so she could schedule the interview appointments.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sabatino moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Rules Committee adjourned at 8:04 P.M, April 2, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________