CHARTER REVIEW BOARD

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2010

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows:  Mrs. Chapman, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Donathan were present.  Mr. Holstine was absent due to the birth of his baby and Mr. Gray was absent. Others present were:  Phil Hartmann and Lynda Yartin. 

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 6, 2010, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mrs. Chapman seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. McKinney, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Donathan, Mr. Kramer, and Mrs. Chapman voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

3.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS.  None.

 

4.         SCHEDULED MATTERS:

 

A.        Review and discussion of proposed Charter revisions, Article I through VII.    Mr. Hackworth stated as the final sections were fairly brief he would like to review those and then go back to the proposed revisions.  There were no objections from the Board members. 

 

B.         Review of Charter sections VIII through XI. 

 

Article VIII, Nominations, Elections and Qualifications. 

 

            Section 8.01, Effect of State Law.  There were no recommended changes. 

 

            Section 8.02, Nominations.  Mr. Hartmann stated there had been some discussion regarding Wards and if the Board determined at some point to recommend that, it could be worked into Section 8.02.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt Pickerington was a young city and some young people are getting involved in the political process.  He stated he felt it was a little early to try and get a ward system to work.  He further stated he felt that was more than the scope of this review Board because this involves a lot of political stuff, whether it is partisan or non-partisan, where the boundaries are, etc.  Mr. Kramer stated he brought up considering wards in one of the first meetings of this Board and while he doesn’t believe it is something we need to consider right now, he did feel it was something the City of Pickerington will eventually have to take a look at.  He stated Lancaster is the County Seat of Fairfield County, however, the political strength is moving toward this side of the county.  Mr. Kramer stated Lancaster is a ward system and they do not have any geographic boundaries if you look at the map that defines their boundaries, and that works for them.  He stated Pickerington is becoming divided between the older folks, the younger folks, the educated, and the labor intensive and he felt the ward system at some point will be something that would work very well.  Mr. Kramer further stated he believed that what wins elections in Pickerington is dollars and the current council members come from the newer neighborhoods of the City where there are more dollars more than from the older, established neighborhoods.  Mr. Kramer stated he did not feel this was the time to tackle this, but he did want to go on the record stating that it is something that probably needs to be looked into at some point. 

 

            Section 8.03, Elections.  There were no recommended changes to this section.

 

            Section 8.04, Qualifications.  Mr. Hackworth stated there is a requirement that you must be an elector of Pickerington for one year prior to filing for office.  He stated there is nothing in the Charter that says you must be an elector for the duration of your time in office.  Mr. Hackworth stated at one time the previous law director stated there was nothing in the Charter that states once you are elected you must remain a resident of the City.  Mr. Donathan stated he had no problem adding in language that states you must be a resident of the City during the entire time you serve in office and Mr. Kramer stated he absolutely agreed with that.  Mr. Kramer stated he understood there was a recent ruling that you could not require the City Manager or something to reside in the City.  Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, but he felt it was safe to have a residency requirement for elected officials.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would include this requirement and he might put it under the definition of “elected official,” but he would figure out the best place to add that language.  Mr. Kramer stated this section also provides that no other public office or job may be held by an elected official, and he questioned if, as an example, a councilmember was elected to the Township, would they remain in office until they take the new office.  Mr. Hartmann stated they would have to resign before they took the oath for the other office.  Mr. Kramer stated then if someone were elected to another office in November, they could continue to serve until December 31st, and Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct.  Mr. Kramer questioned what would be done in the case of a conflict and Mr. Hartmann stated they would not be able to vote on it if they were voting on something that would affect the other jurisdiction.  Mr. Kramer stated if a councilmember were elected to the office of Township Trustee, it would seem like anything he did after the election until he took office as a Trustee, there seemed like there could be a lot of conflict there.  Mr. Kramer inquired if there was any language in other charters that was more clear than just that they could not hold another elected office.  Mr. Hartmann stated he had not seen any language different than this, but you could say something such as they shall resign immediately after the election if you wished.  Mrs. Chapman clarified this would also include school boards as well.  Mr. Donathan stated he felt stating they could not hold another “job” was also very broad and questioned if there was a way that could be spelled out more clearly.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would draft some language to clarify this for the Board to review at the next meeting. 

 

            Section 8.05, Vacancies.  Mr. Hartmann stated this has been discussed at prior meetings and determined there were no further recommended changes. 

 

            Section 8.06, Removal from Office.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would review this to see if the residency requirement during term of office should be included in this section as well.  Mr. Kramer stated he felt there should be a hard number required for the vote rather than a percentage, and Mr. Hartmann stated he would make this a hard number of five.  Mr. Hartmann stated the other question that comes up would be if this person would be allowed to vote and he thought the assumption was they could. 

 

Section 8.07, Initiative, Referendum, Recall.  Mr. Hartmann stated he did not have any recommended changes to this section, however, he understood Mr. Hackworth had some concerns.  Mr. Hackworth stated one of the problems he has had in the past when he was a party to a referendum or initiative petition is that you circulate the petitions and then it is thrown out because of all kinds of technicalities.  He stated what the Charter does currently is defer to the State as far as initiatives and referendums and the problem with that is that it leaves the law director the leeway to pick away at the actual referendum.  Mr. Hartmann stated, however, if you would chose to make it much more local you would have zero guidance and provide the law director even more leeway because there would be no case law established.  He stated when you defer to the State you have an abundance of case law and that provides a check and balance should you have a rouge law director that would not certify the petitions.  Mr. Hartmann stated if it were completely local a court would completely defer to that law director if there is no case law, and there won’t be any case law because it would be your own Charter and it would have different terms than any state law would require.  Mr. Hackworth stated if you are doing an initiative or a referendum on an ordinance you need to get ten percent of the voters that voted in the last regular election, and if you want to circulate an initiative for a Charter amendment, it is ten percent of the last municipal election which is considerably lower.  Mr. Hartmann stated he wasn’t sure that the Charter requirement was a lower number and he would check on that because it seemed odd the Charter was a lower number since it is much more important.  Mr. Hackworth stated further there is a different petition for a Charter amendment and it does not have to be presented to the City prior to circulating.  Mr. Hartmann stated this is something he can look into if the Board wished.  Mrs. Yartin stated because our Charter is silent on the filing of initiative and referendum petitions, we follow the Ohio Revised Code, but our Charter is very specific on recall petitions being filed with the City Clerk.  She stated this has been very confusing at times as the ORC specifies the petitions be filed with the fiscal officer and staff was recommending that all petitions be filed with the City Clerk.  Mr. Hackworth stated he had also noticed that and he felt we should have a little more detail in our Charter rather that deferring to the State on the referendum and initiative petitions.  Mr. Hackworth inquired if Mr. Hartmann had examples of what other cities have in their charters on this issue and Mr. Hartmann stated he had provided one example from Beechwood.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would provide draft language spelling out the steps that must be taken on petitions and Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to make sure the steps for referendum, initiative, and recall petitions as well as the process for a Charter initiative.  Mr. Hackworth further stated that he felt if we spelled out the two different initiatives, the referendum, and the recall we could drop the Section (4) regarding the assistance from the law director.  Mr. Hartmann stated he felt that would be a good idea because it could put the law director in an odd position as they could be asked to make an opinion on something he has reviewed and said was okay initially.  Mr. Hackworth inquired if Mr. Hartmann could include a comment on the initiative portion about trying to use the approved petition forms from the Secretary of State if available.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would provide the draft language including that for the next meeting. 

 

Article IX, Merit System.

 

            Section 9.01, Merit System Established.  Mr. Hartmann stated his suggested language would go a little more toward what Dublin has that, “All appointments and promotions of city employees shall be made on the basis of merit and fitness demonstrated through a competitive selection process to the extent practicable and otherwise provided by Council.”  He stated that provided flexibility and is not as restrictive as your current language.  Mr. Hartmann stated basically your positions shall be made according to merit.  Mr. Hackworth stated his concern was something like the Supreme Court case with the firemen where not enough minorities were passing the exam.  Mr. Hartmann stated he did not recall the exact facts of that case, but they must have had an ordinance giving benefits to minorities and changing the scores.  He stated Pickerington does not have anything like that and certainly if Council requested to pass an ordinance like that he would advise them not to.  Mr. Kramer clarified that the intent of this section is to ensure that if there is a position available everyone has an equal shot at it, including someone who is a current city employee.   Mr. Hartmann stated the point of this is get you out of the Civil Service Code in the Revised Code and this way makes it much simpler for a City.  Mr. Kramer stated the basis of the application is to check off that you are qualified for the position and the intent is to ensure that whoever is appointed to the position has the qualifications and someone is not just put in there because they are a friend.  Mr. Hartmann stated this section is also put in to ensure that we have a merit system so someone cannot just appoint their best friend.  Mr. Kramer stated then as he understood it extra points were not given for being a veteran or a minority, and Mr. Hartmann stated that should not be in there.  Mr. Kramer stated he agreed that you should be hired based on your qualifications for the job.  Mr. Hartmann stated under the current system and the current Charter, that should not be taken into account.  He stated if you were to change to his suggested language, it could be taken into account if Council decided, by ordinance, that it should be.  He stated giving preference points for those types of things would take Council action if that is something they want to do, but right now it should not be taken into account.  He stated you cannot change that it has to be by merit, so when you were doing something that is not by merit, giving someone an advantage not based on merit, that would be in his opinion a violation of this section because you are supposed to go strictly by merit.  Mr. Kramer stated he liked the language from Dublin, however, he would prefer it was worded that all appointments and promotions were made on the basis of “qualifications” rather than “merit.”  Mr. Hartmann stated he will look to see if there are other Charters similar to that.  Mr. Donathan clarified that Mr. Kramer did not like the term “merit” and wanted a non-weighted system and Mr. Kramer stated that was correct, who was the most qualified.  Mr. Kramer stated his perception of “merit” is that you got more consideration over someone else regardless if you are qualified or not.  Mr. Hartmann stated the definition of “merit system” is “a system of employing or promoting civil service employees on the basis of ability not political affiliations or loyalties.”  Mr. Hartmann stated he felt this said what the Board wanted it to say and he did not think you wanted to take away the term “merit” because he did not feel it gave anyone an unfair advantage for any reason other than their ability to do the job.  Mr. Kramer stated if the definition of merit alludes to qualifications, then he was happy with that. 

 

            Section 9.02, Exempt Positions.  Mr. Hartmann stated based on the previous discussion he felt this should be left as it is currently written. 

 

            Section 9.03, Personnel Appeals Board.  Mr. Kramer asked for a clarification of “classified” and “unclassified” employees.  Mr. Hartmann stated classified would be the ones that are covered basically by union contract and the unclassified are the ones that you could fire because you don’t like the color of their hair.  Mr. Hartmann stated an unclassified employee can be terminated for any reason as they are employees at will.  Mr. Kramer ascertained the City has employees that are members of two unions, AFSCME and FOP. 

 

Article X, General Provisions.

 

            Section 10.01, Separability.  Mr. Hartmann stated he felt it would be more appropriate for this to be included in Article I where the general, statutory items are included.  He stated he would make that revision in the next draft for the Board. 

 

Article XI, Charter Review and Amendment. 

 

            Section 11.01, Amendment.  Mr. Hartmann stated the only suggestion he had was to allow for the correction of nonsubstantive kinds of changes and would be limited to errors of grammar, sentence construction, standardization of similar terms, and paragraph renumbering as necessary. 

 

            Section 11.02, Charter Review.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would recommend expanding this section to include wording that the review would be accomplished by a Charter Review Board at least every ten years.  He stated right now it is not clear that an independent board is appointed.  Mr. Kramer stated he also felt the composition of the review board should not include elected officials and Mr. Hartmann stated he did not know if the Board wanted to include that or not.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did not see a problem with stating that Council would appoint seven electors of the City to the Charter Review Board and that those individuals could not be elected officials and/or employees of the City.  Mr. Hartmann stated it is common to see the number of the Board members and it is not uncommon to see where they remove any elected officials.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to see the number of Board members to be appointed because during prior reviews it has been different numbers.  Mr. Kramer stated there is also no mention as to the process on how the members are appointed.  Mrs. Chapman stated she agreed that should be spelled out.  She stated the members of this Board were all interviewed, etc.; however, there was nothing that stated Council could not just pick anyone and appoint them.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would draft language that would include these recommendations. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated that completed the review of the Charter.  He stated he would like to mention that as requested Mr. Hartmann had provided some draft language regarding a line item veto.  Mr. Hackworth stated the Mayor has veto power for any ordinance and he thought a line item veto would complicate things.  Mr. Hartmann stated it would be a big change because the Mayor could go through the budget and veto certain things and it would go back to Council.  Mr. Hartmann stated it would certainly shift a lot of additional power to the Mayor when it came to budgeting.  Mr. Hackworth inquired if anyone really saw a need for this since the Mayor could veto any ordinance and he can spell out to Council what he specifically objects to.  Mr. Kramer stated if there was a veto you would hope that Council would know why he was vetoing it.  Mrs. Chapman stated she felt that would be a big change to the Charter that the residents would be asked to accept and digest.  She stated she did not know if there was that big of a problem that really needs to be addressed.  Mr. Donathan stated he supported debating the concept, not necessarily supporting the concept altogether.  He stated his concern at this point is that because it is such a big issue he would hate to see all the other necessary changes fail because of this one issue.  Mrs. Chapman stated she has not heard anything in the community where there is a push that this change needs to be made.  Mrs. Chapman stated that she did not feel the residents would go for this.  Mr. Kramer stated he did not think the magnitude of the process that goes into developing the budget is being considered.  He stated he felt there would be something very drastic for the Mayor to say he would veto certain items.  Mr. Donathan questioned aside from the yearly budget, what other types of appropriations come up and Mr. Hartmann stated there are usually appropriation changes every month but those ordinances are usually fairly short.  Mr. Hackworth stated further the appropriation ordinances address that issue only, it is not like other items are tacked on to it.  Mr. Kramer stated he understood the line item veto concept, but he just did not see any need for it.  Mrs. Chapman stated unless this was causing a big problem she just did not see a need for it right now and she did not see the need to put it into the Charter right now.  Mr. Hackworth stated it appeared that the Board members present did not favor the line item veto, but he would request it remain on the agenda for the next meeting when all members are present.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would provide something for the Board to look at next time on this issue.  Mr. Hackworth further clarified that Mr. Hartmann would provide the draft language on the initiatives, referendums, and recalls, and remove the day-to-day supervision of the Clerk by the City Manager.  Mr. Hackworth stated we have a number of positions in the City that are appointed by Council and they really work for someone else, but he was reluctant to remove that appointment from Council.  Mr. Hackworth stated for example the Finance Director as he felt that individual should be able to come to Council with financial recommendations.  Mr. Hartmann stated his belief with the City Clerk is that it should be under Council, there should not be a day-to-day supervision by the Manager as the Clerk is basically an employee of Council.  Mr. Hartmann stated you want the Clerk to be under Council so the Clerk can be independent.  He stated her job is to keep the records of Council so they City Manager should not be involved in overseeing what she is doing.   He stated he also feels the Finance Director should be accountable directly to Council and not the City Manager.  He stated these employees should be responsible directly to Council.  Mr. Donathan clarified that Mr. Hartmann would provide a draft copy of the complete Charter showing all of the recommended revisions from the Board at the next meeting.  He stated he felt it would be appropriate to make sure that Council had a chance to review the draft so they could provide any feedback to the Board before they sent the final version to Council.  Mr. Donathan then clarified that Council receives the minutes from this Board along with proposed revisions so if they had a concern they would be able to voice them to the Board.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that Council cannot make changes to the Board’s recommendations; they must forward it to the ballot as presented. 

 

B.         Review of Charter Sections VIII through XI.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have the review of the entire charge revisions at the next meeting. 

 

5.         CHAIRMAN.  Mr. Hackworth stated at the next meeting the Board would review the complete draft of the Charter with the proposed revisions.  He stated he would like to have the discussion regarding the line item veto on the agenda for the next meeting.  He stated he would also request a draft ordinance be prepared that would forward the revisions to Council. 

 

6.         OTHER BUSINESS:  Mr. Donathan stated the next meeting is scheduled for July 1st and he wondered if that would be a problem for anyone as it is just before the July 4th weekend.  All members present stated that would not create a problem. 

 

7.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Kramer moved to adjourn; Mr. Donathan seconded the motion.  Mr. McKinney, Mrs. Chapman, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Donathan, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 5-0.  The Charter Review Board adjourned at 8:55 P.M., June 3, 2010.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

_______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk