CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
REGULAR
MEETING
7:00
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Fix called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith were present. No members were absent. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Ed Drobina, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 6, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion regarding proposed revisions to Sections 7 through 11 of the City Charter. Mr. Fix stated Mr. Hartmann had provided a memorandum reviewing these Sections and it appeared there were only a few points for debate.
Mr. Hartmann stated he had no suggested changes to Sections 7.01 or 7.02. He stated in Section 7.03 you request a vote of 2/3’s of Council authorizing the issuance of bonds, which is a little abnormal. He stated if you wanted to do any changes, it would be just a majority vote. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not see a compelling reason to change it. Mr. Fix questioned if the changes made to the Administrative Code regarding 2/3’s of the voting members would be reflected in this section, and Mr. Hartmann stated if that is what the members want it would make it consistent. He stated it would be if Council wanted it to be five members or 2/3’s of the members. Mr. Fix stated he thought it was 2/3’s of the voting members. Mr. Hartmann stated he had no suggested revisions for Section 7.04.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 8.01,8.02, and 8.03 are very similar to other Charters and he had no recommended changes. Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 8.04, qualifications, the question has come up as to whether the requirement for being an elector of the city for at least one year is from the date of taking office or of filing. He stated this seems to be clear it is from the date of filing.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 8.05, vacancies, has been an issue in the past. He stated if the Mayor’s position becomes vacant, the President Pro Tempore becomes the Mayor, and the question has come up if the President Pro Tempore must assume the Mayor’s position because they would lose their right to vote. Mr. Fix stated if that happened he thought Council could reorganize, and Mr. Hartmann stated however Council can only elect the President Pro Tempore during the January reorganization. Mr. Smith stated currently our elections are set with four elected members on each election cycle, so if someone would resign we could have five elected officials on one cycle and three on the other. He stated he would suggest that the vacancy, when it goes before the voters, it is only for the remaining original term. Mr. Fix stated that is what was changed in the Code and Mr. Smith stated it does not say that, it says it is a new term. Mr. Fix stated it reads to serve the unexpired term, and Mr. Smith stated he thought that was for an appointment. Mr. Fix stated Mr. Smith was correct, the Charter does not state the unexpired term. Mr. Fix stated then Mr. Smith’s suggestion was that an appointment would serve until the next election, and then be elected to the remaining of the unexpired term. Mr. Hartmann stated it does state in the Code that “a person so elected shall take office on January 1 following such election for the remainder of the vacated council member’s term.” Mr. Hartmann stated then it would be a two-year term. Mr. Smith stated he was okay with that. Mr. Fix stated it does not say that for the Mayor so there could be a situation where the President Pro Tempore is serving their last year, the Mayor is in his first year and resigns. He stated that member would then become Mayor for four years because there is no provision for election. Mr. Hartmann stated he would interpret that as council would get together and decide who the next President Pro Tempore is, and that person is Mayor. Mr. Fix stated this could get very confusing and Mr. Smith stated it is pretty clear as it is now so it might be best to leave it as it is. Mr. Fix and Mr. Sabatino concurred.
Mr. Fix clarified that the terms used in Section 8.06 for removal from office are defined legally. Mr. Fix questioned if the individual recommended for removal would have the ability to vote on that issue. He stated he felt the individual should have the right to defend themselves and to vote on it. Mr. Hartmann stated it is not clear now, but he could draft language clarifying it. He stated he would also clarify that the 2/3’s vote was of the total number of members.
Mr. Fix stated Section 8.07 deals with initiatives, referendums, and recalls. Mr. Hartmann stated the most recent change to this section was to allow the law director to review petitions prior to going through the process. Mr. Hartmann stated the Charter is specific on recalls, detailing the duties of the Municipal Clerk. He stated the sections regarding initiatives and referendums currently are served on the Finance Director, and he felt it made more sense to have all of these petitions served on the Municipal Clerk. Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino concurred the Municipal Clerk would be the more appropriate position.
Mr. Hartmann stated Section 9 deals with the merit system. He stated in Section 9.01 he was suggesting some additional language regarding appointments and promotions to allow some flexibility. Mr. Hansley stated the duties of the Personnel Appeals Board are not set by the Charter, but by ordinance. Mr. Fix stated the ordinance can be reviewed and amended or rescinded. Mr. Hartmann stated should the Committee recommend the suggested language then Section 9.02 could be removed. Mr. Hansley stated he felt it was a policy decision as to what the role of the Personnel Appeals Board would be. He stated by Charter all they do is handle suspensions, removals, and hearings. He stated in the Ordinance Council gave them the administrative power of what the Personnel Director would typically do. He continued that we have the Personnel Director and the Personnel Appeals Board who are doing the recruitment; the testing, certifying lists and he felt that was the conflict we have right now. Mr. Fix requested Mr. Hartmann draft an ordinance to rescind the ordinance regarding Personnel Appeals Board duties and bring it to the next Rules Committee. Mr. Hartmann stated he would do that and he felt it would be nice in this Section to have something that deals with the employment area for the City. Mr. Hansley stated we do have a consultant on retainer and we can have them help Mr. Hartmann draft the ordinance. Mr. Fix stated he would request that for the next Rules Committee Mr. Hansley and Mr. Hartmann have a draft of the entire Article 9 with their recommended changes and any ordinances that would be in conflict with the new Article 9 be brought to their attention as well.
There were not recommended revisions to Article 10.
Mr. Hartmann stated in Article 11 dealing with Charter review and amendment, he often receives questions regarding if a review can occur before ten years, and he felt it could. He stated you might want to be more specific on the make up of the Charter Commission, and to also allow some administrative changes to the Charter. Mr. Hansley stated he has seen this come up before because there were obvious typographical errors in the Charter, and everyone knew what the intent was. He stated this allowed those types of errors to be corrected, but was clear that no substantive change could be made. Mr. Fix stated he felt that should be included and Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino concurred.
Mr. Hartmann stated with regard to the Charter Review process, the requirement is that it should be reviewed at least every ten years. Mr. Sabatino inquired if that review would be ten years from an adopted amendment or would it be ten calendar years form inception. Mr. Hartmann stated it is open to interpretation, but he would suggest it was the effective date of the new Charter. Mr. Hartmann stated the concern would be if the suggested revisions were not passed at the ballot, so perhaps the ten-year timeframe should be from the date of the appointment Charter Review Board. Mr. Hartmann stated further the requirement is that the Charter be reviewed, and that could mean a review such as is being done by this Committee, it did not mean it had to go to the voters.
Mr. Fix stated at the next meeting this Committee would review all of the proposed revisions this Committee has recommended for the Charter so a work session can be scheduled for all of Council review all of the proposed revisions. He stated then in January a Charter Review Commission could be appointed and by June or July have a final presentation to send to the voters. Mr. Fix stated as the Rules Committee they would present the revisions Council was recommending to the Charter Review Commission. Mr. Fix further stated he would recommend the Charter Review Commission be composed of five individuals and we do have some applications for that Commission. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we should advertise for applicants and Mr. Fix stated perhaps we could include something in the October water bill. Mr. Smith stated he would recommend Rules Committee review the applications for citizen appointment already on file and also place an advertisement in the local papers.
4. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fix stated had nothing further to bring forward.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Rules Committee adjourned at 7:58 P.M, September 3, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________