DRAFT
MINUTES OF MEETING
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 27, 2008
***********************************************************************
Members Present: Bartolozzi, McGovern, O’Donnell, Urban,
Absent: Thompson, Lazzaro, Rodgers, Snyder
Presence Noted: Mayor Pamela Bobst
Andrew Bemer, Law Director
Michael Thomas, Finance Director
************************************************************************
Mrs. Bartolozzi opened the March 27, 2008 meeting of the 2008 Charter Review Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Mrs. Bartolozzi pointed out that only 4 members of the Charter Review Commission are present tonight, so they will not approve the March 20, 2008 minutes until next week. Tonight they will discuss Articles IV and VII and if there is anything further that those members who are not in attendance would like to discuss, they will do so next week.
Old Business.
As a follow-up to Mr. Rodger’s question last week, Mr. Bemer said he has some information to share with the Charter Review Commission that he feels does a good job of explaining Home Rule Authority under the Ohio Constitution and how that interfaces with State Statutes. Since Mr. Rogers is not in attendance tonight, it was decided they would discuss this at the beginning of next week’s meeting.
New Business.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that Council did not have an opportunity to discuss the appointment of a ninth member of the Charter Review Commission this week.
ARTICLE IV –
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS.
Section 1 – General Provisions. Mr. O’Donnell began by saying that he had a conversation with Mayor Knoble who recommended that the Charter Review Commission consider making both the Department of Recreation, as well as the Department of Senior Services, Charter Departments. He said it was also suggested by Mayor Knoble that the second half of the last sentence in Section 1, “…subject to applicable civil service regulations, appoint and remove heads of divisions, and officers and employees within his department” be removed because it seems to be in conflict with another provision in Section 2. He thinks that the Mayor should appoint the Fire Chief and the Police Chief. Mr. O’Donnell said he feels these issues are worth discussing.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said she agrees that they should discuss the issues of Senior Services and the Department of Recreation being Charter Departments. She said there are disadvantages to doing that, but suggested they get into those when they have a larger group for a more detailed discussion. She has issues with the provision that states “Except for the Department of Law and the Department of Finance, the same person may be the director of more than one department.” In her opinion, that should be deleted because the City has grown so much and each of the 3 departments requires a lot work and responsibility. To be in charge of more than 1 department would be too much for 1 person.
Mrs. McGovern asked Mr. O’Donnell why he thinks the Department of Parks and Recreation and Senior Services should be made Charter Departments. Mr. O’Donnell said that right now, it is a vote of Council that affects them. However, if they are made Charter Departments then it would take a vote of the people, which is a much more difficult thing to garner. He said that since they are equal with every other Department in terms of the way they are funded, they should be Charter Departments.
Mr. Bemer said that they are correct that these Departments do not exist in the Charter. City Council passed an Ordinance to establish a Senior Services Department so it is part of the City’s administrative team by Ordinance. However, the Recreation Department does not exist anywhere, even though there are fees for the Director of Recreation, pools, etc.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that one disadvantage of making these Charter Departments is that if there is ever a need to abolish them for any reason it is harder to do when they are Charter Departments. If they are incorporated through the Ordinances as they are now, they can be changed and modified by Council as circumstances necessitate. Mrs. McGovern said she does not see any weight difference between a Board and a Department. Mr. Urban said a Board is an appointment subject to Council’s approval. Mr. O’Donnell said the difference is if it is in the Charter, a City-wide vote controls it. If it is in the Ordinances, a vote of Council controls it.
Mr. Bartolozzi said the way it is structured now, the Charter addresses the main functions of Government, which are Finances, Public Safety and Services, and the Law Department. To incorporate the other functions as Departments in the Charter would add things that are not essential and make them a requirement by Charter. She feels they are definite positives for the city, but because they are non-essentials, they are better orchestrated through the Ordinances. Mr. Urban said he is not in favor of expanding the Charter because if there is a financial crisis and the City needs to make cuts somewhere, they won’t be able to because they are part of the Charter. It was decided this topic should be added to the master list of items for further discussion.
Section 2. Department of Law. Mr. O’Donnell said that the Commission may want to consider reviewing the possibility of a 4 year term for the Law Director, because they are discussing the same change for the Mayor and for City Council members. It was decided this should be placed on the master list.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that the qualifications of the Law Director are not clear to her. She is not sure if the 3-year requirement of prior municipal attorney experience means that he or she must have 3 years of experience in each of the types listed or 3 years in any combination. Mr. Bemer said the provision for qualifications of the Law Director was added in 2002. Mr. Urban said that with those particular qualifications a very good candidate may not meet them, even if he or she may know more about municipal government than another candidate who meets them. Mr. Bemer said he feels that a person with 30 years of experience as a general practitioner who has had a taste of every facet of courtroom life and experience may be a better candidate than someone who meets the qualifications because he was an assistant prosecutor in a municipality for 5 years. He may know nothing about contracts, real estate land use law, employment law and employment relations.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that the qualifications that are listed for the Law Director are probably too limiting and they focus on someone who has been an advocate for the municipalities. However, someone who has been on the opposing side of the municipalities may have just as much, if not more experience, and also be qualified for the position. Therefore, she thinks we are doing ourselves a disservice by limiting the qualifications of candidates. It was decided that this should be added to the master list of items for further discussion.
Section 3. Department of Finance. Mr. Michael Thomas, Director of Finance, joined the discussion regarding this Section. He said the qualification of a Bachelor’s Degree with a major in Finance or Accounting for the Director of Finance exists because we want this person to have the highest qualifications as the City’s bookkeeper. He contrasted this with the restrictive aspect of Article VII, Section 3 of the Charter that addresses the “Custody of Funds”. He said the Charter is telling the Mayor that we want the strength of the Director to be a good accountant as opposed to someone who is an investment professional. Our Charter places restrictions on the Finance Director in terms of what investments he can make.
Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas if he believes the restriction in the Charter that says the Finance Director either has to be a C.P.A. or have a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting or Finance is overly burdensome or if that is not a problem because everyone who would be a candidate for the Director of Finance probably majored in those things. Mr. Thomas said he does not think it is overly burdensome.
Mrs. McGovern asked Mr. Thomas about the meaning of the word “warrant” as it is referred to in the second paragraph of Section 3. Mr. Thomas said that a warrant is a payment of public funds. Mrs. McGovern pointed out that this section was amended in 2002, to remove duties that are no longer performed by the Director of Finance.
Mr. Urban said there is no requirement in the Charter for the Finance Director to be bonded, but he asked Mr. Thomas if he is required to be bonded by Ordinance. Mr. Thomas said there is an Ordinance that requires him to be bonded. He said that the bond is $50,000, which is a low amount and should probably be revised to be in some sort of formula fashion.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that since Mr. Thomas is here, the Commission would skip Article IV, Section 4, Department of Public Safety-Service, and they would move to Article VII – Finances.
ARTICLE VII – FINANCES
Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas if there are any provisions in Section 3 that he feels should be changed to assist him in doing his job. Mr. Thomas said that since he has been employed here, he has heard about Section 3, Custody and Deposit of Funds being too restrictive. He said it is his guide for the management of the City’s public funds and whether it is in the Charter or whether it is an investment policy, he feels it is restrictive. However, he said because it is in the Charter, it is that much more restrictive. The phrase “…the payment of principal and interest of which the faith of the United States is pledged…” eliminates his opportunity to purchase some government sponsored enterprise securities. Securities are considered riskier because they don’t have that pledge, but what he hears from the investment community, his peers, and auditors, is that the Charter is rather restrictive. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked Mr. Thomas what the benefits would be to making the Charter less restrictive. Mr. Thomas said benefit would come in the form of higher return. He clarified that the return would be a point or less on $10 Million to $15 Million, but Mr. O’Donnell said on that large amount of money, a point in return is a significant amount. Mr. Bemer said it is giving greater discretion to the Finance Director and if we are talking about the opportunity to earn an extra point on $15 Million, we would earn another $150,000.00. Mr. Thomas said the State has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Fannie Maes and Ginny Maes.
Mr. O’Donnell said that the language says the Director of Finance may invest money in any or all of the following, but it does not say that he cannot invest in anything not listed there. Mr. Bemer said he interprets that language as a restrictive directive.
Mr. Bemer said the School Board also had very strict finance and investment principles but they were able to buy CDs on the open market, as well as other options like Fannie Maes and Ginny Maes. He said here, we are limited to U.S. Bonds, the Star Ohio process, and deposit CDs. Mr. Bemer pointed out that the Revised Code would allow Mr. Thomas to invest in the other options like the School Board can, but it is the Charter that is restricting him.
Mr. Thomas said that what is not included in the Charter is the term restriction that says you cannot have a security for more than 5 years and you must buy a security with the intention of holding it to maturity. In other words, he cannot be trading and spending his time watching the markets. He said he falls back to the Revised Code on some of the restrictions. The Charter states what is allowable, but since there are no term restrictions in it, he falls back to the Revised Code for those.
Mrs. McGovern asked Mr. Thomas to comment on the STAR Investment Pool and whether it is worthwhile because they added it to the Charter 6 years ago. Mr. Thomas said it is a money market fund run by the State Treasurer that they opened up to other governments. The City has short term money in them. He said they have an average maturity of between 40 and 90 days. He said if he doesn’t need money for more than that amount of time, it does not make sense for him to put it there. He said if he has money that the City will not need for 6 months, he will not invest it at a 48-day rate. He said it is available, and it is used, but it is a liquid fund and we go in and out of it when necessary.
Mr. Urban asked Mr. Thomas if the Charter had language allowing for investments that are consistent with the State and allowable by the Revised Code, whether that would be sufficient or whether it would be too broad. Mr. Thomas said that if this restriction were to be removed, they would fall back to Revised Code by default. In that case, he said City Council would have to adopt an investment policy that recognizes specifically what the City can do within what the Revised Code says. There is no reason for any action by Council to say what is allowable now, because it is in the Charter. Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas if he thought someone could get the City in trouble by investing in things they shouldn’t be investing in. Mr. Thomas said the Council would have to adopt a policy that is more restrictive and then they could revise policy from time to time. It was decided that this topic should be added to the master list of items for further discussion.
Mr. Urban asked if we are still receiving personal property tax. Mr. Thomas said we are receiving personal property tax, but it is being phased out. He asked where CCA fits in. Mr. Thomas said it is in our Municipal Income Tax Code.
Section 4. Public Bidding. Mrs. Bartolozzi said that there is discussion about raising the expenditure limit from $15,000.00 it to $25,000.00, which is the State’s limit. Mrs. McGovern asked if it would be possible to insert language that says the limit should be consistent with the State’s limit rather stipulating a monitary amount. The Mayor said that is what other communities do, with the exception of Fairview Park. Mr. Bemer said the State Code was increased from $15,000.00 to $25,000.00 the year after our Charter amendments were on the ballot. Mr. Urban suggested they do the same with the Custody and Deposit of Funds (Section 3), and say they should follow the State. Mr. O’Donnell asked if there is the possibility that the state will go too high, too quickly and whether it would be better to pick our own limit. Mrs. Bartolozzi said that she had a conversation with Mr. Linden today who said that the cost of repairing and purchasing new equipment has risen extraordinarily and with the amount set at $15,000.00, he is more limited as to what he can accomplish.
The Mayor said that one of the things we have been doing over the last several years that has assisted the City Administration and has created efficiencies and cost effectiveness is to consolidate all of our buying. There was a time when each department would do all of its own purchasing. We have consolidated that purchasing and now that $15,000 limit is reached very quickly. In an effort to effectively manage resources, the City uses the State cooperative purchasing program to the extent that we can and the assistance of having a greater limit would be helpful. It was clarified that a total expenditure can be up to $15,000 with one vendor and if it goes over that amount, they must go to Council for approval. It was determined this topic should go on the master list for further discussion.
The Mayor said she would forward to the Commission for their review the research that was done regarding the competitive bid limit of other communities when they discuss this issue further.
Section 5. Public Improvements and Services. It was determined that they would discuss this Section when Director Linden is present.
Section 6. Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Thomas said the restriction in this Section is that the Ordinance is due to City Council by January 31st and must be passed by April 1st. The Mayor said she likes to have a budget prepared and passed so that on the first day of January they are able to go out for bidding, do engineering, and start many of our capital projects. However, she said it would be difficult for a new mayor to have a budget to council by January 31st if he or she is not sworn in until the first of January. She said she believes that their process of getting the budget to Council in late November or early December leaves sufficient time for their full discussion, and having it in place on January 1st is a very positive and productive thing. However, to restrict this to absolute policy, would be difficult.
Mr. O’Donnell asked if any members who are leaving Council could somehow hamstring the new administration by passing something in December. Mayor Bobst said there is a lot of flexibility because supplemental budget Ordinances can be drafted by Director Thomas and presented to Council any time.
Section 7. Board of Control. Mrs. McGovern asked if the expenditure limit of $500.00 as stated in this Section is to low to require the Mayor, Director of Public Safety-Service, and the Finance Director to get together and review it. The Mayor said they review pages and pages of expenditures that are under $500.00, but she does not consider it to be too many and the amount is not too low. She said she would review them anyway as it is a good way to monitor the expenditures. Regular reviews enable them to notice an unusual amount and respond to it appropriately.
Because she joined the meeting after the Commission’s discussion of Charter Departments, Mayor Bobst said she would like to say a few words about making the Recreation Department and the Department of Senior Services Charter Departments. She said that it is extremely important to have protection for Senior Services and Recreation and City Council has provided protections for these Departments by Ordinance. We have established these departments in the existing revenue stream and there is not a high likelihood that they would be eliminated. However, we need the flexibility should there ever be a situation where we would have to prioritize. These are currently priorities that are firmly in place in our community because we have the ability to afford them. She said she does not see a need to describe them in the Charter like the three critical departments that are currently described, but she fully supports and welcomes the establishment of these departments in the Ordinances so there is an understanding about their structure and their focus.
It was determined that next week’s agenda will be to review Article VI – Boards and Commissions and Greg Thompson will lead that discussion. Invited guests will be the Chairman of each of the Boards and Commissions as well as any interested Board or Commission member, Mike Patterson, Director of Recreation, Economic Development Director, Kory Koran and Building Commissioner, Kevin Beirne. They will be invited to join the meeting at 7:30 for the discussion.
Carol Benyo, 22671 Brisco Dr., came forward to say she was Vice-Chairperson of the 1996 Charter Review Commission, so she knows about the work this Commission is doing. She said it was due to her that the CPA qualification for the Finance Director is in the Charter. She said she met with every Mayor on the west side and they each explained to her the necessity of that qualification. She said it was put on the ballot and voted in by the City, 2 to 1. She feels it is very important that they have a qualified person in this position and said today the Finance Department is in good shape. She encouraged the members of the Commission to talk to other Mayors because they welcomed her with open arms.
In summary, items added to the master list for further discussion this evening, include:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Date Linda Bartolozzi, Co-Chairperson
Kate Straub, Secretary