PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009
COUNCIL WORK
SESSION
9:15 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O’Brien opened the Council Work Session
at 9:15 P.M., with the following council members present: Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer,
Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mayor O’Brien. No members were absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, and
others.
2. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and discussion of
proposed changes to City Charter. Mayor
O’Brien stated the Rules Committee had requested the work session to review the
changes proposed to the City Charter.
Mr. Smith stated he would ask Mr. Hartmann, the Law Director, to take
the lead in this work session. Mr. Smith
stated the purpose of this review is to collect comments so they can be
packaged together and provided to the Charter Review Commission. He stated the purpose is not to argue for or
against any particular revision to the Charter, but mainly to collect input
from Council to get the Charter Commission off and running. Mr. Sabatino stated his question would be if
there was a change that was favored by two members of the Rules Committee, but
the other five members of Council did not think it was a good idea. Mr. Smith stated then you would have all five
member’s opinions that are dissenting.
Mr. Sabatino stated his question would be what gave the Rules Committee
the authority to be the dictator of changes.
Mr. Wisniewski stated that was a perfect comment, and it can be added to
the minutes that three people came up with this change out of the seven that
are elected, and that not everyone agreed on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the
purpose of the work session was to get comments on every section and that will
go on to the Charter Review Commission.
Mr. Fix stated ultimately it did not matter what Council recommended,
the Charter Review Commission will present it to the public. Mr. Hansley stated it was his understanding
that when the end product comes back to Council from the Charter Review
Commission, Council will place something on the ballot. He stated it may be that document, but he
thought Council had one more chance to modify it. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct. Mr. Sabatino stated then what was the point
of having a Charter Review Commission.
Mr. Hartmann stated you are required to have a Charter Review Commission
at least every ten years, and what they make a recommendation to Council and
Council has the ability to review the recommendations, amend it, leave it as
is, or not accept any of them to put on the ballot. Mr. Hansley stated another choice would be to
put the whole thing on the ballot so there is one vote on the whole Charter or
your could do it by several sections. Mr.
Hartmann stated he would like to clarify something. He stated in reviewing the Charter it states
it shall be reviewed every ten years and amendments or revisions to the Charter
recommended by the Charter Review Board shall be submitted to the electorate. He stated what that said to him was that
there is not an opportunity by Council afterwards to make changes. Mr. Wisniewski stated then, whatever comes
out of the Charter Review Commission is what has to go on the ballot. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, Council
was basically a perfunctory vote that put it on the ballot. Mr. Fix stated going back to when he was on
Rules Committee, they wanted to go through this process simply to provide the
Charter Review Commission with something other than just handing them the
Charter. He stated the whole two years
spent debating this on Rules Committee and now on Council is simply to give
them recommendations, to give them Council’s thoughts, give them some direction
on what Council saw. He continued, however,
ultimately it was up to the people who were picked to sit on the Charter Review
Commission. Mr. Sabatino clarified there
have been two Charter Review Commissions in the past several years, and for
those two Commissions Council did not go through this process to provide any
type of input to them. Mr. Sabatino
stated he would question why it was being done now. Mr. Wisniewski stated these comments can be
provided to the Commission, such as Mr. Sabatino not agreeing to the
input. Mr. Sabatino stated his question
was who decided we were going to provide these recommendations when
historically, the last two, we did not.
Mr. Fix stated because historically the Mayors have stacked the Charter
Review Commission with their buddies and tell them what to do and they got it
done that way. He stated this Council
was not doing things that way any more.
Mr. Smith stated Rules Committee had established a timeline so there
could be a chance to meet the spring ballot of next year. Mr. Sabatino stated he saw a potential for
conflict because the Rules Committee is proposing this new document that hasn’t
been done in the past, and then Rules Committee is going to be the one that
selects who the Charter Review Commission members would be. Mr. Smith stated that wasn’t correct because
everyone on Council votes on the appointment legislation. Mr. Smith further stated the Charter is
silent on how this is done so Rules discussed for two months a process, which
would make sense. He stated obviously
Mr. Sabatino had some dissenting opinions, but by a majority of Rules Committee
this process was decided upon because it was felt it was as fair and objective
as it could be and still get all council members input to go to the Charter
Review Commission. Mr. Smith stated
there would be some controversial issues to be discussed, but he felt the
majority of the recommendations were administrative housekeeping and
updating.
Mr. Hartmann
stated he would like to talk about the procedure for a minute. He stated Rules Committee, as always, is a
recommending board. He stated it would
then go to Council for Council to recommend it to go forward to the Charter
Review Commission; it would need a motion to go forward and without the four
votes of Council it would not be presented to the Charter Review
Commission.
Mr. Hartmann
stated he would follow the memorandum on proposed changes the Council members
had received and would review the substantive changes, and if there are other
changes anyone might want just let him know.
Article 1,
Section 1.01, Incorporation, some wording was added regarding detachment from
the City as the Supreme Court has ruled this must be in accordance with the
Ohio Revised Code.
Article 2 is now
Council. Mr. Hartmann stated the biggest
change is in the compensation section, Section 2.02, and that was done because
“nonmonetary” benefits includes health insurance. He stated there have been some AG opinions
that are not controlling, but have said they believe that health insurance is
part of your pay and therefore if there is a change in your health insurance in
term it would be a violation of some laws.
He stated this is being included in the Charter so it would not be a
problem when the City is looking for a better insurance deal.
Section 2.03, Meetings, was changed to conform with what was already discussed within the Administrative Code that five members would be a quorum to conduct business. Mr. Hartmann stated that was done in exchange for the issue of when you have votes that it is based on the actual members voting unless it says otherwise.
Section 2.04, Powers, has just been moved to a different article.
Section 2.05, Form of action by Council. Mr. Hartmann stated what was done here was to change the actual form of actions and the amount of readings, and actually broke out definitions of motions, resolutions, and ordinances. He stated this is the only place he has witnessed where a resolution and ordinance have to go through the exact same readings and have a 30-day wait. He stated generally resolutions are effective immediately and only have one reading. He stated resolutions are normally temporary in nature such as ceremonial, appointment to boards or commissions, acceptances of dedications and rights-of-way, etc. He stated currently, unless it is on the consent agenda, a resolution still requires three readings, and with this change a resolution would only need to be read once and would be effective immediately. Mr. Hartmann continued the other change would be that an ordinance would only be read twice and would still be effective in 30-days. Mr. Fix stated questioned if it should read 30-days after the expiration of the time the Mayor could veto. Mr. Hartmann stated that is what it is now, but this makes it a little clearer. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not agree with changing the number of readings because by the time people find out about something it is usually when they read it in the newspaper after it has been acted upon maybe one time, and that still gives them two more chances to come in and have input on it. He stated this would give them only one instance to give input. Mayor O’Brien stated the legislative process needs to be expedited, and that is not with the intent of denying anyone the chance to participate, it is just that our process is lengthy. Mr. Smith stated Rules Committee had consistently solicited both Mr. Hansley’s experience and Mr. Hartmann’s experience with not only our City, but also other cities, and the two readings seemed to be not only the most common practice, but also the best practice. Mr. Sabatino stated that was well and good if everyone had the same type of composure of the community, but he felt everyone knew Pickerington was politically more active than most communities. Mr. Fix stated in the time he has sat on Council there have been only about three issues that people have gotten active on. Mr. Sabatino stated if we go from three to two readings, there will be less opportunity and if there is a real time issue there is still the three readings that can be exercised if there is a real time issue. Mayor O’Brien stated residents also have the opportunity to talk about issues at the Committee level because those agendas are posted as well. Mr. Sabatino stated the point is the press does not usually attend the Committee meetings. Mrs. Sanders stated the agendas are available and if someone wants to get involved they can come to Committee meetings where they can have more say than they do at Council meetings. Mr. Wisniewski stated the reality is however that most people do not get involved until they read something in the paper, they don’t care about the committee meetings. He stated the more press something that is controversial may get, it gives them an opportunity to get involved. Mrs. Sanders ascertained generally other communities have two readings and a few others have three. Mr. Hartmann stated the requirement for three readings is an Ohio Revised Code requirement and most people when they get a Charter try to streamline the legislative process a little more. Mr. Hartmann further stated a lot of communities do not have the Committee action where there is an extra meeting for input. Mr. Hansley stated to his knowledge we were the only Charter City that has the requirement for committee action and three readings. He stated Council can waive readings and pass things by emergency, but we also have the specific emergency requirements in our present Charter and we very seldom do that. He stated we are famous for not getting things done quickly and it really has hurt some projects. Mr. Hansley stated if this were to be adopted and we know we have something controversial it can always be tabled for another meeting, there are ways to give time for that additional public input. Mr. Hansley stated an example is our mowing contract. He stated we take bids in October so we can meet the time required for advertising, bid opening, committee action, and three readings at Council. He stated he felt this cost us time and money because we may not be getting the best prices. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to clarify that the purpose of the 30-day period before legislation is effective is to allow citizens to put together a referendum if they are in opposition to it. Mr. Wisniewski stated since the words “at least” had been removed in subsection (C) it seemed like three-fourth’s would be required rather than “at least” three-fourth’s. Mr. Hartmann stated he would put the “at least” back in. Mr. Sauer stated he is all for government that is prudent and takes it time, however, in this situation he felt two readings and thirty days, plus committee, is plenty of time. Mr. Sabatino stated he just wanted it on the record that he did not see any need to deny the citizens another chance of having input.
Mr. Sauer stated he would question in
subsection (D) regarding the amount of funds that may be expended on a matter
on the Consent Agenda, would that ordinance change with every Council, change
annually, or what. Mr. Hartmann stated
the reason this was worded this way was to provide flexibility to Council. Mr. Sauer stated his fear would be that this
would make it easy to push something through quickly. Mr. Hansley stated to avoid the amount being
changed for convenience, perhaps it should stated the amount would be set by
Council on an annual basis. Mr. Smith
stated he thought it would be appropriate to discuss this during the annual
budget process and do an annual ordinance to set the amount. Mr. Sauer stated he would suggest language be
added that the amount be set annually.
Mr. Sabatino stated in subsection (E) it
changes the vote to be a majority of council members voting. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct unless
otherwise provided for in other places in the Charter, for example, for
emergency legislation. Mr. Hartmann
stated there are hard numbers for the quorum, suspension of the rules,
etc.
Subsection (F), Mr. Hartmann stated the
emergency language requirements have not been changed substantively. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought the words
“at least” should be included in this paragraph as well.
Subsection (G), notice, Mr. Hartmann stated
this allows for the use of the website because there were not a lot newspaper
publications consistent with all of the residents and our current provision
requires the publication in one newspaper.
Mr.
Wisniewski stated he would suggest removing the URL because that could
change.
Section 2.06, Officers, Mr. Hartmann stated
the biggest change was in renaming the Council President Pro Tempore and Vice
President Pro Tempore to just President and Vice President. He stated this also allows for reorganization
at any time if five council members desired to do that. He stated the current Charter allows this to
occur only at the first meeting of the year.
Section 2.09, City Employees, Mr. Hartman
stated is not a new section, it used to be Section 4.05 of the Charter under
the Manager, and it seemed more appropriate to include it in this section. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was not in favor of
the language that stated council members may express their views and discuss
with the City Manager anything pertaining to the hiring and termination of
employees. He stated he felt council
should not have any viewpoint on city employees. Mr. Hansley stated this has been added to the
typical language in most charters, and it would normally stop after “….the City
Manager is empowered to hire or terminate.”
Mr. Hartmann stated the language about council members may express their
views is totally new language and is not in the present Charter. He stated this was new language proposed by
Mr. Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino stated had
not suggested this language, but he felt any council member should have the
right to discuss concerns about any employee with the City Manager. He stated he has no problem with this being
rewritten to remove the hiring and firing, but he felt it should state council
could discuss their views with the Manager.
Mr. Wisniewski stated there is nothing preventing Council from
discussing this, but he did not feel that should be defined in the
Charter.
Mr. Smith stated due to the late hour, he
would suggest the work session adjourn at this time and at the next work
session scheduled for May 19th, immediately following Council, pick
up with the review at Article 3.
3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, the Council Work
Session closed at 10:10 P.M., May 5, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Mitch O’Brien, Mayor