CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES

MAY 4, 2009

6:00 P.M. – CONFERENCE ROOM 4 C

MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Amburgey, K. Bradshaw, T. Brickey, J. Colts, K. Ferguson, F. Gibson, W. Glover, R. Hoffman, J. Mulligan, P. Nagy, P. Nenni, Dan Picard, M. Scorti, D. Slagle, and J. Soppanish

STAFF PRESENT: Clerk Parr, Law Director Landen, David Kirsch, FOP President

MEETING: Chairman Brickey opened the meeting at 6 p.m. He advised that amended minutes from the April 20^th meeting had been distributed and he asked Clerk Parr to go over the changes.

Clerk Parr explained two typos had been brought to her attention. On page one she had typed that Mr. Nagy suggested the number of signatures on the nomination petition be 250. That was incorrect. Mr. Nagy suggested the number be 50. In the last paragraph on page three, Mr. Amburgey’s comments were clarified somewhat including adding the wording private sector company.

Clerk Parr advised if there were no further changes or corrections, the amended minutes could be approved as presented.

Mr. Picard also wanted modifications made in the minutes. He said toward the end of the last meeting, there were accusations made toward City Staff. Mr. Nenni’s comments about those statements being hearsay need to be reflected in the minutes.

Mr. Nagy said he disagreed the statements were hearsay, he has witnesses willing to testify about special meetings, but his comments were rudely interrupted.

Mr. Picard said they are only talking about amendments to the minutes to reflect the comments that were made during the meeting. They weren’t talking about special meetings.

Mr. Soppanish said they are here for the Charter Review Committee. If there is any personal issues, that needs to stop. He made a motion to stop what is going on now.

Mr. Brickey explained that Dan asked a modification be made to the minutes to add Mr. Nenni’s statement about the accusations being hearsay.

Mr. Scorti moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Soppanish seconded. Motion carried with two dissenting votes.

RECEIVE AND FILE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM CITY MANAGER AND FIRE CHIEF

Mr. Landen explained that throughout the review process staff has been asked to review the Charter and let the City Manager know of any issues they would like the committee to address or review. There were two recent email messages that Clerk Parr received; one from City Manager Gilleland and another from Chief Botts. (the contents of those two e‐mail messages are inserted below) Mr. Landen advised that he has also received some correspondence from the Police Chief and those comments will be made available to the committee. Mr. Brickey asked that the minutes note that the committee members all received copies of the comments from Ms. Gilleland and Chief Botts.

(1) Ms. Gilleland’s email comments:

Les and Betsy, in reviewing the issues that the Charter Review Committee has before them, I’d like to offer additional comment on a couple of them:

•           I would strongly advise against requiring more than 2 meetings per month. In fact I’d only require 1 meeting per month in the Charter and allow for a month of summer vacation if so desired. Obviously, our calendar dictates that we meet a couple of times a month, but restricting ourselves in the Charter does not make sense. Perhaps language that requires meeting once or twice a month, unless a meeting is waived by a vote of council would accomplish the task.

•           Regarding budgets, I would prefer not to have restrictions in the Charter on budgets, balance of budgets or reserve. It reduces our flexibility. I understand the desire to place some controls, but the controls in the charter cannot be made flexible enough to meet our ever changing environment.

Thanks, Judy

(2) Ms. Gilleland’s and Chief Botts’ email comments:

From: Gilleland, Judith

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:57 PM

To: Botts, Steven M

Chief, I am forwarding your comments to Les and Betsy. I am not commenting to the Charter Review Commission one way or the other on this topic. I am not sure where this issue arose from but it did not come from me. I see no reason to change our procedures when it comes to Chief selection. The process has given me, and the City, two great Chiefs. There are pros and cons to all selection methods.

Judy

From: Botts, Steven M

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:00 PM

To: Gilleland, Judith

Subject: RE: Charter Review Committee: draft issue list

Ma’am: 

I would voice my opposition to:

Art. III – Section 8. ADMINISTRATION.

Issue: Appointment of Police and Fire Chiefs from outside organization

I understand that looking outside an organization can have its advantages. I also appreciate the product of succession planning. In the end either system can succeed or fail…I simply prefer to develop our leaders. This is especially important right now. The ability to provide upward mobility throughout the organization allows us to retain the best and brightest believing they will eventually have the opportunity to grow professionally and make us better.

I would welcome an opportunity to talk more with you and/or if you like address the charter review committee concerning this item.

Respectfully,

Steven M. Botts, Fire Chief

Mr. Landen explained that Mr. Scorti had requested information regarding compensation of council members for surrounding cities. He distributed a survey showing salaries of area council members.

3 He also distributed forms for each of the issues being reviewed. He explained for each article or issue, there are places on the forms to sign for those who agree, disagree and/or abstain. This will help him create a report at the end of the review for the committee to sign as the report and recommendations go to council.

Mr. Landen continued with the two issues that were left on the table from the last meeting. First, regarding the composition of council and how having wards affected our State representation.

He stated the apportionment of the General Assembly is set forth in Ohio’s Constitution. Creation of voting wards may have made the splitting of the city easier, but its presence did not allow things to happen that could not have happened otherwise. There is no assurance that getting rid of wards will keep the city from additional division. He talked to Greg Stype at Squire Sanders and Dempsey as well as John Gotherman, the Executive Director of the Ohio Municipal League. Mr. Stype confirmed there was no connection between voting wards and how the city got split. Mr. Gotherman’s opinion was the same. The ward lines might make it a little cleaner than following precinct lines.

Mr. Nenni stated Mr. Landen was speaking about absolute constitutional legality. He wasn’t talking about what has happened historically. He stated the practical guidelines are that you would keep the county intact and split up a township before a city. Because the ward system did split us, it was easy to split us at the state level. He asked Mr. Landen if his statement meant there is no guarantee the split will disappear if we have no wards.

Mr. Landen stated that is correct.

Mr. Amburgey said if the folks in Middletown hound the reapportionment committee, there’s nothing to say they couldn’t undo what they have done.

Mr. Nenni asked Mr. Landen if his research showed anything that requires them to split townships before cities.

Mr. Landen responded that there is an order, however somewhat convoluted. They try to keep whole counties together when possible. They take the population of Ohio divided by 99 to come up with the representation ratio. Then they try to make every district within 5% of that ratio. Mr. Landen explained that what he read shows they will split a municipality before a township. Butler County’s representation ratio is 2.9%, meaning basically, there will be 3 representatives.

Ms. Glover asked if Hamilton was kept whole.

Mr. Landen said he looked recently at a picture and it was not clear. But, yes, it looked like Hamilton was whole.

Mr. Nenni agreed and said yes Hamilton is whole and there may be other cities, but not the size of Middletown that are split into.

Mr. Soppanish asked if Mr. Landen knew whether or not the City of Dayton was run by Wards or strong Mayor.

Mr. Landen stated that Dayton has a Commission/City Manager form of government. Dayton’s Mayor is not a strong Mayor.

Mr. Ferguson added that Dayton has priority boards where basically you have a commission person over that priority board and members of the community serving on that board.

Mr. Landen told the committee to keep in mind that all cities have wards, but not all for voting purposes.

Mr. Soppanish asked how Middletown will handle bringing in territory on the east side.

Mr. Landen said those properties have been merged with other area wards as they have been annexed.

Ms. Glover added the other wards expand or adjust to keep the populations comparable.

Mr. Les answered yes. Most of the territory that the City has brought in so far has been undeveloped open territory. The biggest area of people is in Renaissance area.

Mr. Scorti said his question was the same, why do we have wards?

Mr. Landen stated the reason was concerns over representation of the entire community.

Mr. Scorti said so far he has not been convinced that a ward has done him any good.

Ms. Glover said it hasn’t hurt or helped Mr. Scorti, but for others it has.

Mr. Brickey asked for a thumbs‐up on how many are in favor to continue with the ward system.

Mr. Nagy asked if there would be discussion about the transition if changed.

Mr. Landen said there will have to be a transition period. This round of issues won’t get on the ballot until the election in November. His suggestion, if you eliminate the wards, it’s not going to happen for four years. There will be four people elected this year to ward seats. Changes in the composition won’t happen for four years.

Mr. Brickey reminded the committee they are making a recommendation to council. It is up to Council what will go on the ballot. He asked the committee who is in favor of discontinuing the ward system. There were ten thumbs‐up.

Mr. Amburgey said he is in favor of it going before the voters again. His vote is that he’s not for or against it. His vote is to put the recommendation before council and put it before the voters again.

Mr. Brickey asked how many are in favor of bringing the vote to the people to vote on this issue again.

Mr. Landen explained that the committee would be recommending a change.

Ms. Glover said the number of members is the question. The next issue the committee is voting on is the number.

Mr. Landen explained we’re looking for the minutes to reflect the voting here is that you’d like to see this on the ballot again.

Mr. Soppanish said the votes should be put on record. The way whoever votes, needs to be put on record.

Mr. Landen said the committee would have the opportunity to sign off on the issues whether they agree, disagree or abstain.

MOTION: Mr. Amburgey moved to recommend to City Council that they place on the ballot the abolishment of the ward system in the City of Middletown for purposes of selecting City Council members. Mr. Scorti seconded.

Mr. Soppanish again asked that this vote be put on the record.

Mr. Ferguson said the committee’s job is to make the recommendation. He asked why member’s names have to be recorded in votes.

Mr. Soppanish felt it was important to know how members voted, especially those that might be running for office.

Mr. Slagle recommended the committee have a roll call vote.

Mr. Brickey asked for the roll to be called on the motion. Ayes: Amburgey, Bradshaw, Brickey, Colts, Ferguson, Gibson, Hoffman, Mulligan, Nagy, Nenni, Picard, Scorti, and Slagle. Nays: Glover and Soppanish.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Slagle said it would simplify the system if Council were reduced to five members, four members at‐large and the Mayor.

Mr. Nagy asked about the suggested time‐frame. If approved by the voters, it would happen in four years?

Mr. Landen said there would be a normal at‐large election in two years. Citizens would elect a Mayor and two at‐large council members in 2011. Then in 2013, two more at‐large members would be elected. The terms would be staggered. That’s the way he would write the language.

Ms. Glover said to stick to the numbers and don’t say at‐large.

Mr. Landen explained the committee is treating this as two issues: are there a ward system and how many members are there. Is this one recommendation for five members; a mayor and four at‐large? Or are they two separate recommendations that go on the ballot together?

Ms. Glover explained if merged into one recommendation, you are not giving the council much wriggle room. If you want to get rid of the wards and have four council members and a mayor, council has the opportunity to nix it all.

There was much discussion about recommending five council members.

MOTION: Mr. Scorti moved that the council that exists today be downsized to five members including the

Mayor. Mr. Hoffman seconded. Ayes: Amburgey, Bradshaw, Brickey, Colts, Ferguson, Gibson, Hoffman,

Mulligan, Nagy, Nenni, Picard, Scorti, and Slagle. Nays: Glover and Soppanish.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Landen commented about the way this will be written. Are these two separate issues on the ballot or a combined issue on ballot? He also said keep in mind council can change it. He was trying to get a feel on how to write the ballot language.

Mr. Slagle asked wouldn’t this be a serious problem if two issues are on the ballot and one passes and one doesn’t.

Mr. Landen said if the committee keeps them separate, they will have at least three or more scenarios. The simple answer to Mr. Slagle’s question was yes. If the committee is recommending a reversal of the last ballot language, it is a council back to four at‐large and a Mayor.

Mr. Scorti said he wants four elected citywide council members and a mayor.

Ms. Glover explained when you put that on the ballot as one issue, if it gets voted down, you have no chance of reducing the number of seats.

Mr. Hoffman said in the stages and during the process, the committee has to present to council a recommendation. If presented as one issue, going from seven to five and the ward issue, what if council says we are not going to address this.

Mr. Landen asked if Mr. Hoffman was asking if the committee could make a secondary recommendation.

Mr. Hoffman said don’t hogtie council to one issue. Are we indeed looking at the ward system, the wards and the number of members? They can shoot down the recommendation to reduce the numbers if they want to keep the ward system.

Mr. Landen said council has the luxury of taking everything the committee does and ripping it apart. Do you have the ability as a committee to give them more than this, sure you do. You can report your druthers are this, but if you don’t do that we recommend this.

Mr. Hoffman suggested submitting to council and let them decide. Send council a heads up on the discussion.

Mr. Nenni said don’t underestimate the political implication of this committee. He didn’t want to give council a long list of options.

Mr. Landen said they already have that luxury. The minutes will make it clear that the committee discussed sending multiple options to council.

Mr. Scorti said he doesn’t want those options in there. He wants to streamline government.

Mr. Landen stated the base recommendation is for one issue, 4 at large and a directly elected Mayor.

Mr. Nagy suggested putting it in that very wording and bringing it back to the next meeting.

ART II. Section 6. SPECIAL MEETINGS

Mr. Nagy proposed additional wording to Section 6 – Special Meetings and Section 7 – Meetings Open to the Public. He felt the additional statements would give more clarification and would address the perception of the public who are not aware of sunshine law requirements.

Under Art. II. Section 6, Mr. Nagy recommended the following two sentences be added:

Other matters may be discussed but no decision may be made nor legislation passed on such matters.

The provisions of Ohio Code Section 121:22 and the provisions of this charter shall be applicable to “nondecision making” committees, boards, agencies or instrumentality’s of the public bodies of the city.

(Mansfield Charter)

Mr. Brickey asked Mr. Landen if Section 6 and 7 are covered by the Sunshine Law.

Mr. Landen answered affirmatively.

Mr. Gibson commented if we have council that violates the Sunshine Laws, they have to pay the consequences.

Mr. Nenni said he wasn’t sure this wording had anything to do with special meetings. Mansfield is saying if you’re on Park Board, or other committees, you’re subject to the Sunshine Law.

Mr. Landen reported the Sunshine Law applies to any decision making body of municipal government. The Supreme Court has defined decision making bodies. Even a bunch of people that might not have decision making powers, the Supreme Court still said they were a public body. It is much broader than just Civil Service, Board of Health, Library Board of Trustees, etc. Basically, any commission or body appointed by council is a body covered by Sunshine Laws.

Mr. Nagy stated that Section 6 discusses special meetings. Special meetings are non decision making meetings.

Mr. Landen responded not necessarily. City Council is authorized to have as many meeting as it wants. It is required to meet twice a month. Any meeting set by Council at or before the next scheduled meeting, is a regular meeting of council. Special meetings are those meetings called on very short notice or emergency meetings. The last memorable special meeting for him was when a previous City Manager, Ron Olson, submitted his letter of resignation. There were a couple of council members that decided they wanted him to stay. Those two called for a special meeting and discussed putting in front of Mr. Olson a package for him to stay. The one real limitation on special meetings is the fact that the subject matter has to be listed on the notice and that’s the only thing that can be discussed in a special meeting. Regarding non decision making bodies, boards, etc., Mr. Landen thinks that the Supreme Court has done what Mansfield did in their Charter.

Mr. Nagy asked when the Finance Subcommittee met about thirteen days ago, was that subject to Sunshine Laws?

Mr. Landen answered affirmatively.

Mr. Gibson said then this is more to educate the public than to guide the council people.

Mr. Nagy said questions are constantly being raised about these meetings. They have to be conducted within certain guidelines.

Mr. Landen advised when council sub committees began to crop up, the Law Department sent out a reminder to council that these are public bodies and the Sunshine Laws apply to them in all ways. All the City staff liaisons know that as well.

Mr. Scorti asked what we are trying to pass.

Mr. Nagy responded simply to say that special meetings are subject to Sunshine Laws.

Mr. Picard asked if they wanted to burden the charter with every law that’s out there. Unless they adopt the entire Ohio Revised Code, he didn’t think this was necessary wording.

Mr. Nagy said not everyone is a lawyer.

Ms. Glover said she thinks it’s just making a recommendation to send to council.

Mr. Landen said the language regarding non‐decision making bodies would fit better in Section 7.

Mr. Nagy withdrew his suggestion.

NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED IN SECTION 6.

Article II. Section 7. MEETINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Mr. Nagy said he wanted to address two things here; one referring to citizens’ comments and the other putting statements in the record if they want to get it on the record. He said there had been some discussion regarding raising the compensation of council. If that was going to be done, we could list here some other benefit we could get for the citizens for the additional compensation. Also, the committee had discussion about two meetings per month. He suggested taking a quarterly meeting and making it a citizen comments council meeting.

Mr. Nenni stated this appears to be a way to eliminate citizen comments. There is no requirement to have quarterly meetings. It doesn’t say that you have to have quarterly meetings.

Mr. Scorti asked how many issues were being discussed.

Mr. Brickey said don’t the citizens have the opportunity to do this at regular meetings.

Ms. Glover answered yes, under citizen comments.

Mr. Gibson said he would never run for council. He doesn’t have any problem picking up the phone and calling council members or walking into the City Manager’s office at anytime, with an appointment of course. The communication lines have to remain open. He said you’d just have a circus with the same handful of people. He stated you couldn’t pay him enough money to sit in those council meetings.

Mr. Nagy responded he’s not so sure it’s always the citizens. He related to the long discussions about Sun Coke.

Mr. Soppanish said he thinks things do get done under citizen comments. You can’t put that burden on council to make that decision that night. It takes time, but things do get done.

Ms. Glover also said things do get done through citizen comments. Citizens do have the opportunity to address council at the regularly scheduled council meetings.

Mr. Amburgey told Mr. Gibson never say never. In December 2006, he came downtown and popped off his mouth and was appointed to fill a vacancy on council. He didn’t do that until he had witnessed fourteen months of the most incredible zoo that was his city government functioning. He had had it. It was laughable.

Mr. Scorti added he watched Council go to each of the four wards for meetings. TV Middletown filmed those meetings with four staff people there. It was the same sixteen people or so at each meeting.

Mr. Brickey asked if anyone saw the need for the additional language and changes to Art. II, Section 7.

Mr. Gibson moved to leave Section 7 as is. Mr. Amburgey seconded. Thumbs‐up count was 14 to one.

NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED IN SECTION 7.

Art. II – Section 8. RIGHT OF PETITION.

Mr. Landen said the issue raised was calling for an action or response from City Council within thirty days and recordation of the same. Currently, the Charter allows persons to file petitions but there is no requirement to do anything with a petition.

Discussion ensued.

Mr. Brickey asked if they need to allow council latitude of responding how they see fit.

Mr. Nenni moved for no change. Thumbs‐up vote was 14 to one.

NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED FOR SECTION 8.

Art. II. Section 11. ANNUAL REPORT.

There was discussion regarding submission of the annual report in a form other than written. After some discussion about electronic files and printed files, the majority of the committee agreed there should be a printed copy at the library, the report can be made in electronic format and copies made available on request.

The time nearing 8 p.m., Mr. Brickey stated this was a good stopping point.

Mr. Scorti said he wanted to give the committee some food for thought on the next issue which is compensation of council. He said he wants to see the pay reduced to only expenses, gas expenses for mileage to get to the meetings. He stated no public official should run for office for monetary reasons. Maybe the City could get the right people to run if there was no compensation.

Mr. Landen asked all not to forget to review the issues they have and get any comments to him. The first ten minutes or so of the next meeting will be discussion of the comments going to council.

At 7:57 p.m. the meeting adjourned.