Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook

 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New City Charter???
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

New City Charter???
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: New City Charter???
    Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 6:26am

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. ” Abraham Lincoln

If these scoundrels are afraid or ashamed to discuss The People’s business in front of The People’s TV cameras for broadcast to the largest audience of The People possible, perhaps it is time.

It is no longer 1913. Middletown, and Middletown’s lawmakers, must move out of the “olde tymes” and into the 21st century. Perhaps it is time for a new “charter committee” (and NOT the same old people who are on every other board, commission, committee and panel, and who represent no one but the local power structure) to update our city charter and require our city council to broadcast their discussions.

In fact, perhaps it is time for WE, THE PEOPLE, to do it ourselves, independent from city hall. Perhaps it is time to write a NEW city charter, suitable for modern times and placed on a ballot by referendum.

We have the power.

We have the right.

We probably even have the duty!!!

I am willing to take a shot at writing it, and posting it here for everyone’s consideration.

Any thoughts???
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
rem 1187 View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Jan 25 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 30 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rem 1187 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 9:33am
I would be interested in seeing some of your thoughts. A long as you don't put the monkey picture on the cover!
Back to Top
TudorBrown View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Aug 24 2009
Location: Highlands D.
Status: Offline
Points: 265 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TudorBrown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 1:40pm
Mr. Presta as a child...
Back to Top
Kelly View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Aug 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 47 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kelly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 2:27pm
Mike, I sat in on the last charter go-round meeting which led to a Journal column about  what  was a clearly stage crafted event. My favorite quote of was from Mike Scorti who commented just before the vote was taken to recommend  the elimination of the ward system. Scorti, who is one of the most well connected citizens in town said, "I just don't understand why we need this ward system anyway and I have to ask what does it do for me?" And then there  was the Less Landen move that put both issues of reducing the size of council from 7 to 5 and the elimination of the Ward system on the same  ballot..... Therefor if you voted to reduce the size of council you were voting to kill the ward system and visa-versa. I'd like to see the city charter debate re-visited and put to a vote without the blatant manipulation of the city attorney.
Back to Top
Kelly View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Aug 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 47 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kelly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 2:31pm
I just posted (at 2:27) the last comment on the city charter issue and was identified as "Kelly"
The post did not come from "Kelly" but from Merrell Wood ............
Back to Top
Vivian Moon View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council


Joined: May 16 2008
Location: Middletown, Ohi
Status: Offline
Points: 4187 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivian Moon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 4:10pm
I would agree the #1 issue is the Wards
Back to Top
rem 1187 View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant


Joined: Jan 25 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 30 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rem 1187 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 10 2011 at 4:49pm
What's the issue?
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 11 2011 at 4:39am

Originally posted by Kelly Kelly wrote:

Mike, I sat in on the last charter go-round meeting which led to a Journal column about what was a clearly stage crafted event. My favorite quote of was from Mike Scorti who commented just before the vote was taken to recommend the elimination of the ward system. Scorti, who is one of the most well connected citizens in town said, "I just don't understand why we need this ward system anyway and I have to ask what does it do for me?"
I also sat in on a couple of the Charter Committee meetings. The Scorti comments that I remember most were the ones wherein he indicated that they shouldn’t even have to let the people vote on important issues, such issues should be left up to people like him. 　

Originally posted by Kelly Kelly wrote:

And then there was the Less Landen move that put both issues of reducing the size of council from 7 to 5 and the elimination of the Ward system on the same ballot..... Therefor if you voted to reduce the size of council you were voting to kill the ward system and visa-versa. I'd like to see the city charter debate re-visited and put to a vote without the blatant manipulation of the city attorney.
I agree!!! I spoke with many people who were FOR one issue and AGAINST the other. Landen did what he was told to do, as usual. This is just one of the many reasons that he should be fired. It is illegal to include more than one question or subject on a piece of legislation before Council. He certainly should have known better than to do so with Charter amendments. The man is unfit for public service and should be summarily discharged in favor of Ms. Mills.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 11 2011 at 8:01am

WAIT!!! That’s it!!! Landen screwed up!!!  (Again.)  The legislation presented to council was flawed and illegal, ergo the ballet issue was null and void!!!

Here is the relevant section from the City Charter copied and pasted exactly:

ARTICLE IV

LEGISLATION

SECTION 2. FORM OF LEGISLATION.

Each ordinance or resolution shall be in written or printed form, and shall not contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly stated in the title, provided, however, that a general appropriation ordinance may contain the various subjects and accounts for which money is appropriated.

The number of Council members and whether Council members are elected by Ward or “at large” are TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS!!!
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 11 2011 at 11:24am
Mike, I may be wrong, but I believe the proper argument to be made is whether the Ohio Revised Code or Administrative Code, has specificity associated with ballot language and your argument, it was flawed legally, to have two subjects or decisions to be made by a voter, on a ballot, which would have made it unconstitutional by Ohio law, to have the outcome of the vote rendered "legally" correct.
 
I don't have the answer as I have not swam through either ORC nor OAC, but that's the starting point. Then, if found the ballot wasincorrect (which I assume the Butler Cty Board of Voter Registration would have reviewed), which I recall Landem stating he ran this by a Columbus voting law expert (attorney), it would be thrown out.
 
So, how is this attacked? i assume the premise is the ward system should stay and the ballot language contained two elements that were misleading. Do you have:
 
i) a constitutional challenge?
ii) an opportunity for a referendum to have it placed back on the ballot in a future election to maintain the ward structure?
iii) a violation of the city ordinance as written, which a ruling on Declaratory Judgment could be made?
 
I don't have the answer, but from your reasoning, this would be an approach or direction to follow. As for ordinance and one "subject", is subject specific to this case, the ward system, and as such, it could be argued it was one subject, the ward, and it was correct as written, as it was based upon the ward---numbers within the ward as representatives and also "at large".
 
To me, your stronger position should be a ballot challenge as it was written in regard that many might say yes, to keeping numbers the same, but not to elimination of the ard system, than combining the two into language that forced a result that the voter really did not intend.   
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 11 2011 at 6:04pm

Acclaro,

While you may be correct, that is too complicated of a legal argument for me to make if I proceed with this on a “pro se” basis. Rather than challenge this under election law, the ORC, or the administrative code, it seems to me that it would be much more simple and clear cut to challenge under the provisions of our own City Charter. That is to say that it was improper legislation (according to Article IV, Section 2, shown above) and therefore should never have been submitted to the electors in the first place under the following section of our charter:

ARTICLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 5. CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

At least once every ten (10) years after January 1, 1973, City Council shall appoint a committee of electors of the City as the Charter Review Committee. Such committee shall appoint its Chairman and may name other electors to assist in such review.

Such Committee shall review and recommend to City Council any alterations, revisions, and amendments to this Charter as in its judgment seem advisable. City Council, at its discretion, may submit to the electors any such proposed alterations, revisions or amendments to the Charter.

The members shall serve without compensation unless otherwise provided by ordinance. This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the electors of the City from initiating Charter amendments at any time as otherwise provided by law.

Council can only “submit to the electors” by passing a piece of legislation. If the piece of legislation (the ballot issue) was improper, than any succeeding action is likewise improper.

Those are issues that an individual whose legal education has been self-inflicted can get his arms around.

The question now is:

What is the proper pleading and what is the correct venue???
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 11 2011 at 7:13pm
I was WRONG!!!
 
I have gone back and taken another look at the language of the resolution, and to challenge it based on the argument I just outlined above is almost certainly a loser, at least in my view.

Landen did a better job than I had remembered.
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
middletownscouter View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Oct 11 2010
Location: Sunset Park
Status: Offline
Points: 501 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote middletownscouter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2011 at 9:32am
(I am not a lawyer, so everything that follows is based on what I've read of the city ordinances, ohio revised code and other google searches to help understand what some of that stuff actually means.)

If you want to reverse one of the two decisions made in that vote, your best bet would likely be through a popular referendum (which just repeals the law and takes it back to the old way) or a direct initiative (which would replace the old law with a new one).

Both are allowed under Article VI Section 1 of the city ordinances:

http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/council/ordinances2009.pdf

Quote
ARTICLE VI
INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL

SECTION 1. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
     The initiative and referendum powers are reserved to the people of the City on all questions which City Council is authorized to control by legislative action. Such powers shall be exercised in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Ohio.
(Amended 11-8-1949; 11-7-2000)

The applicable section of the Ohio Revised Code would be section 731. Don't have time right now to read through it thoroughly but I think that referendum would not be applicable as a brief scan of the ORC appears that has to be done within 30 days of the legislation being passed and it also appears to only cover items that the council approves, not items voted on by the public.

So a direct initiative would be the way to go in this case. You'd have to write a new piece of legislation that overrides the previous item enacted and makes the changes you'd want to see, and then get signatures on a petition by the voters in Middletown - the number is 10% of the amount that voted for Governor in the last general election. From the brief reading I did, it looks like if all that was done and done kosher to the ORC, it would have to be placed on the ballot at the next election cycle (at least 90 days out) and that it would not be subject to alteration by City Council or be subject to a mayoral veto.

But there's probably a lot of other stuff in ORC section 731 that also pertains that I didn't read through, so before starting I'd suggest getting familiar with that first.

http://66.161.141.164/orc/731

Good luck!
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2011 at 3:35pm
I believe as a matter of opinion only, its simpy too late. May be some wiggle room here, but council would have to modify what they did a year ago, and get on ballot again. DOUBTFUL.
 
But (and there's always a but isn't there), as MP would say, the re-boundries of the wards may be something to evaluate as a basis for eliminating the ward system (population). I don't think population was given consideration when the ward was eliminated.
 
731.01 Members of legislative authority.

(A) Except as provided in divisions (B) and (D) of this section, the legislative power of each city shall be vested in, and exercised by, a legislative authority, composed of not fewer than seven members, four of whom shall be elected by wards and three of whom shall be elected by electors of the city at large. For the first twenty thousand inhabitants in any city, in addition to the original five thousand, there shall be two additional members of such legislative authority, elected by wards, and for every fifteen thousand inhabitants thereafter there shall be one additional member similarly elected. The total number of members of such legislative authority shall not exceed seventeen.

(B) The legislative power of a city may be vested in, and exercised by, a legislative authority composed of not fewer than five nor more than seventeen members, to be determined in the manner provided in this division, and in lieu of the number required in division (A) of this section. Under the alternative plan for the composition of the legislative authority, the number of members shall be fixed in a resolution which may be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative authority, or by the people through an initiative petition in accordance with section 731.28 of the Revised Code. Such a resolution passed by the legislative authority shall not be subject to veto by the mayor, need not be published, and shall be immediately effective for purposes of placing such issue on the ballot. The resolution shall be submitted to the electors at the next general or primary election occurring not less than seventy-five days after its passage by the legislative authority, or the certification of the text of a resolution proposed by initiative petition to the board of elections. The resolution shall specify the total number of members, the number to be elected from the city at large, and the number to be elected from wards. Members may all be elected from the city at large or all elected from wards, or some may be elected from the city at large and the remainder elected from wards, as determined by the resolution. A resolution that changes the total number of members shall specify the method by which the change in number is to take effect, but no reduction in the number of members shall terminate the term of an incumbent. When the number of members elected from wards is changed, new ward boundaries shall be determined as provided in section 731.06 of the Revised Code.

(C) The number of members of the legislative authority determined under an alternative plan for the composition of the legislative authority under division (B) of this section may be changed or abandoned by a resolution submitted to the electors in the same manner as provided in division (B) of this section for a resolution to institute such an alternative plan. When the alternative plan for determining the number of members of the legislative authority under division (B) of this section is abandoned, the number of members of the legislative authority shall be determined by division (A) of this section.

(D) When a city has just been incorporated from township territory pursuant to Chapter 707. of the Revised Code, the legislative authority of the city initially shall be vested in and exercised by a legislative authority composed of not fewer than seven members elected by electors of the city at large. In all subsequent elections for the city legislative authority, the members shall be elected as provided in division (A) of this section.

Effective Date: 03-02-1992
Back to Top
TonyB View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Jan 12 2011
Location: Middletown, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 631 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TonyB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2011 at 4:37pm
This is a general comment about our political system; it doesn't seem to matter what form our government takes or what it's called; the more open the discussion, the more consensus on what to do will be gained. Without an open discourse, no trust between those elected to serve the interest of the citizens and the electorate can be maintained. That was the purpose of "Sunshine Laws".
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.102 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information