WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 4, 2009
REGULAR
MEETING
9:05
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 9:05 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith were present. No members were absent. Others present were Jeff Fix, Brian Sauer, Mike Sabatino, Trisha Sanders, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Eric Pawlowski, and others.
Mr. Smith stated prior to starting the agenda he would like to discuss the scheduling of two work sessions around Charter review; to go over the changes recommended by Rules Committee. He stated these work sessions would provide the opportunity to get all comments on the record so they can be presented to the Charter Review Commission. Mrs. Sanders inquired if the work sessions could be scheduled to follow a council meeting and Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wisniewski stated they thought immediately following council would be a good time since everyone would already be present. Mr. Fix stated perhaps the first work session could be scheduled immediately following the March 17th Council meeting and then since some members would be gone during spring break, schedule the second work session for immediately following the council meeting on April 21st. Mr. Smith stated then the first work session would be scheduled to immediately follow Council on March 17th and the second one would be immediately following Council on April 21st. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the Rules Committee discussions would also be provided to the Charter Review Commission, and Mr. Smith stated he thought the comments, mainly the dissentions, and the comments as provided the by Municipal Clerk and the Law Director would be available for the Commission. Mr. Smith stated he felt as Council went through each part of the Charter, if there was a dissenting opinion, it could be discussed at that point so it would be consolidated in one place for the Charter Review Commission.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 4, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion regarding proposed revisions to the City Charter. No discussion.
B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending City Codified Ordinance Section 274.01(a) entitled “Parks and Recreation Board: Creation and Powers.” Mr. Smith stated everyone had received a draft ordinance and requested Mrs. Yartin give a brief background on this proposed amendment. Mrs. Yartin stated at their January meeting Parks Board had to adjourn early when one member had to leave and they lost their quorum. She stated then the question arose if the Council Representative was a voting member of the Board. Mrs. Yartin continued that Mr. Hartmann had reviewed this issue and determined that unless otherwise stated, the Council Representative on all of our Boards and Commissions are voting members. She stated further that our ordinance does state that our members are appointed in the manner set forth in the Ohio Revised Code 755.14. Mrs. Yartin stated this section of the ORC states that two members of the Parks and Recreation Board would be appointed by the School Board and we do not appoint our members in that manner, all members are appointed by council. Mrs. Yartin stated that Mr. Hartmann had prepared the draft ordinance that is before Rules this evening to reflect that five members are appointed by council in addition to the Council Representative appointed by Safety Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought we wanted to give the Parks Board more authority in setting direction and this doesn’t really do anything in that regard. Mr. Smith stated this ordinance establishes the Board but the Administrative Code is where most of the specific duties of the Board are outlined. Mr. Smith clarified this will amend the Administrative Code to clarify the number of voting members on the Board. Mr. Hansley stated during the recent amendments to the Administrative Code, the duties of the Parks Board had been reviewed and outlined. Mr. Pawlowski stated his big issue was about the quorum because it is sometimes hard to get a quorum of three let alone four. Mr. Pawlowski stated at the Parks meeting he had asked for clarification as to why they were losing their quorum and it was because Mrs. Sanders was not present at the meeting and when one member had to leave early, then only three members of the Board were left. He stated in his experience anyone representing staff or administration was an ex officio member and did not have voting privileges. Mr. Smith stated he felt the intent of Council was to have the Parks Board be a functioning, relevant Board. He stated in past years it has not been because the Parks & Recreation Director has been has really done all the stuff council wanted the Parks Board to be doing. He stated Council changed the Administrative Code and put a council rep on the Board to give them advocacy right into Council and the intent was always that they be a voting member. Mr. Pawlowski stated he certainly appreciates the support; it is just the quorum thing that seems like one more hurdle for them. He stated when someone had to leave early to pick up their children, the meeting had to end because they lost their quorum. Mr. Hansley stated the ordinance provided to the Committee tonight is a draft and this Committee can make any changes they want before sending it to Council. Mrs. Sanders stated if it would help, she would not have a problem if she were not a voting member. Mr. Hansley stated you could also state in this ordinance that a quorum would be three members of the six member Board. Mr. Wisniewski stated he agreed with making the change that the quorum of this Board would be three members. Mr. Wisniewski moved to forward this ordinance to Council with the language added that a quorum is defined as three members; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
4. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith distributed copies of a memorandum from the law director regarding the reading of ordinances. Mr. Smith stated he has attended the Dublin and Hilliard council meetings and when the rules were suspended, all they did was vote on the suspension of the rules and if three-fourth’s voted in favor of it, that was it. There were no more readings as the suspension of rules was that you did not have to do the second and third readings. He stated he had asked the law director about this and it was the law director’s opinion that the way our Charter is written and the way most parliamentary rules are done, that is the way it is. He stated the city’s history has been that the suspension was to suspend the three separate days part of the reading so we could do the readings on the same day; we did not actually suspend the readings. Mr. Smith stated legally when we suspend the rules we do not have to have the second and third reading. Mr. Hansley stated this would be waiving the reading of the title and voting on it because your one vote covers both of those. Mr. Smith stated that is why the suspension requires a three-fourth’s vote. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the purpose of having those three readings was to give the citizens three times to comment, and Mr. Wisniewski stated the citizen’s chance to address council on any of the topics on the agenda is before the agenda is even approved for the meeting. Mr. Wisniewski stated further this wouldn’t change that because now if the rules are suspended for three readings, it will still be completed that night. Mr. Sabatino stated but that would not allow citizens to come back and speak on an issue at the next meeting and Mr. Hansley stated that does not happen now when we do three readings on one night. Mr. Hansley stated the process would be to read the ordinance, then a motion would be made to suspend the rules and the Mayor would call for a vote on the suspension only, and if that motion passes, the Mayor would call for a vote to pass the ordinance itself. Mr. Hansley stated if the motion to suspend the rules does not pass, there would be a vote on the first reading and then the second and third readings at the next two meetings. Mr. Sabatino then someone would already know they want to do three readings on an item and Mr. Hansley stated we usually do know that. Mr. Smith stated the suspension will still require six votes in order to pass. Mr. Wisniewski stated appropriations would probably always receive the six votes, however, an item such as the Red Flex contract would probably not get enough votes to suspend the rules. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought he could support this if the items that were going to get a motion to suspend the rules were clearly identified on the agenda in some way so if a council member had a question on it they could get their questions answered. Mr. Hansley stated we have been suspending the rules for years without identifying them ahead of time and Mr. Sabatino stated that was correct, but we have discussion between each reading. Mr. Smith stated we do have the opportunity for discussion, but rarely does that happen. Mr. Sabatino stated his point was if someone knew in advance that they wanted an expedited situation that there be a way to identify that when he gets his packet. Mr. Hansley stated it is almost always something that comes out of committee with the recommendation of suspending the rules. He stated normally it is the committee chair asking for the waiver. Mr. Wisniewski stated when you make a motion, have the discussion right then about it, or there is the section on the agenda for Council Communications where a council member could state they were planning on suspending the rules for specific items. Mr. Hansley stated you could also do that when the Chairman gives the committee report. Mr. Sabatino stated you know that in advance of printing the agenda, and Mr. Wisniewski stated you didn’t always know. Mr. Hansley stated the need to do multiple readings might happen after the agenda has been printed. Mr. Smith stated he did not know if he liked the necessity of tying council to that requirement, he would like to preserve council members flexibility to make motions on whatever they need. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this would just add a little more discussion to the suspension portion prior to the first reading. Mr. Smith summarized that the process would be to have the ordinance title read, someone would make a motion to suspend the rules, there would be a vote on the suspension only which must pass with no less than six votes, then a motion would be made to adopt the ordinance itself and a vote would be taken. Mr. Hansley stated if the vote on suspension did not pass then it would go through the normal three readings process. Mr. Sabatino stated he just wanted to make sure that this would not cut the citizens out in any way. Mr. Wisniewski stated this would not change anything; it was strictly a procedural thing. He further stated staff has always done a good job about letting council know they need multiple readings and the necessity for it. Mr. Wisniewski stated if staff does not give a good enough reason for the suspension, council could question them. Mr. Smith questioned then if council wanted to stop the voting on the first and second readings and if the rules are suspended that is the motion right after the ordinance is read. Mr. Sabatino inquired how an emergency would be dealt with and Mr. Hansley stated it would be the same way with the emergency declared and it must meet the reasons set out in the Charter. Mr. Smith stated then, to be clear, council was eliminating votes on the first and second readings, and if the vote to suspend the rules to waive the second and third readings passes, then there would be a vote on the ordinance. Mr. Wisniewski asked if something could be drafted on this and Mr. Hansley stated Mrs. Yartin, Mr. Hartmann, and Mayor O’Brien would get something put together to go into council packets. Mrs. Hammond moved to forward to Council the recommendation that Council accept the law director’s recommendation with regard to reading of ordinances; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Rules Committee adjourned at 9:50 P.M, March 4, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________