DRAFT

MINUTES OF MEETING

2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION

APRIL 10, 2008

***********************************************************************

Members Present:  Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, O’Donnell, Rodgers, Snyder

 

Absent:  Bartolozzi, Urban   

 

Presence Noted:     Mayor Pamela Bobst

                              Andrew Bemer, Law Director

                                  ************************************************************************

Mr. Thompson opened the April 10, 2008 meeting of the 2008 Charter Review Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall and asked if anyone has any additions, corrections, or comments on the Minutes of the April 3, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.

 

MOTION:  Moved by Mr. Snyder, seconded by Mrs. McGovern, to approve the Minutes of the April 3, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.

 

6 Ayes – 0 Nays       PASSED

 

Old Business.

 

Mr. Snyder said that last week Mayor Knoble suggested that this Commission may want to talk to a few people who are very familiar with the Charter.  He suggested that Mayor Martin would be a good person to talk to when he is feeling better.  Mr. Snyder said he asked his father to call Mayor Martin to see what he thought this Commission needed to change in the Charter.  Mr. Snyder said that Mayor Martin does not think anything needs to be changed in the Charter.

 

Mr. Thompson asked about whether City Council had a chance to select a ninth member of this Commission.  Mr. Bemer said they did not do so this past Monday.  Mr. Thompson said he thinks it is fine if they just have 8 members.

 

Referring to a past discussion, Mayor Bobst came forward and said that the Charter Review Commission was a few weeks ahead of everyone else.  She explained that in the newspaper this morning, there was an article about the Board of Elections’ charges for elections.

 

Mr. Thompson said that tonight they will be discussing Article VIII – Initiative, Referendum and Recall and Article IX – Nominations and Elections.  The discussion leader for Article VIII is Mr. Lazarro.

 

Mr. Lazarro began to summarize Article VIII.

 

Regarding Section 1, Initiative and Referendum, Mr. Lazarro said he noticed that it quickly defers to the Constitution or laws of Ohio.  He asked Mr. Bemer how it is decided that it goes to an election.  Mr. Bemer said that an elector can circulate a petition for a legislative action that City Council has not acted upon or refuses to act upon.  When he obtains the appropriate number of signatures, it goes to the Clerk of Council and then to the Board of Elections, where it is certified.  It then gets on the ballot. He said that the electorate has the power to step up, in place of the legislative body.  A Referendum is to undo an Ordinance that legislature has enacted using the same process, and a Recall follows the same thing.  Mr. Lazarro said that in Section 2 regarding Recall, the requirement of 25% of the electors voting in the last municipal election is discussed in great detail.  However, Initiative and Referendum did not discuss it.  He asked if that is by Ordinance or whether it is covered by the Constitution and laws of Ohio.  Mr. Bemer said that it is covered by the Constitution.

 

Section 2, Recall, was summarized next.  Mr. Lazarro referred to the provision that the Clerk shall determine whether or not the petition meets the requirements.  He said it seems to be very focused on the clerk, leaving little oversight to anyone else.  Mr. Bemer said the Clerk looks for any abnormalities, makes sure that the forms are filled out correctly and that the circulator has signed and dated the petition.  

 

Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Bemer to clarify that Section 1, Initiative and Referendum is governed by the Ohio Constitution and that Recall is strictly home rule authority, meaning it is up to the Charter government.  Mr. Bemer said it is in the Ohio Revised Code, but because we are a home rule community and a recall is a matter of local concern, it will be handled in our own local election.  It is not a matter of general, far reaching, statewide comprehensive concern.  He said our home rule authority gives us the right to self-regulation and it doesn’t matter what the Ohio Revised Code says for this limited local purpose.  He said in this instance, our Charter would prevail. 

 

Mayor Bobst said that this Section has the Clerk certifying the petitions, the electorate, etc.  In reality, she said the petition goes to the Board of Elections and those signatures are certified by the Board of Elections, but that is not what this Section says.  The Mayor said she is wondering if they need to add the Board of Elections’ function in the Charter.  She said the Clerk’s role is administrative only, checking to make sure the petitions are in conformance with our Charter.  The actual certification of those petitions is a separate process done by the Board of Elections.  She said she is amazed to see the Board of Elections’ function is not in the Charter and the fact that it says the Clerk shall find the petitions sufficient when the Clerk does not do that, is something the Commission may want to change in the Charter. 

 

Mr. Bemer said Ohio Revised Code directs that the Board of Elections certifies a petition by making sure that the people who signed it are registered voters at the address listed on the petition.  Mr. Snyder said that the Charter uses the word “sufficient” and he thinks they are saying it is the Clerk who verifies that it is legal and appears to contain all of the necessary parts.  Mr. O’Donnell said that the way he reads it, the Clerk receives the bound parts, makes sure that there is a signature on the page and that it has been filled out properly, and decides if it can be sent to the Board of Elections.  The Mayor said that Mr. O’Donnell is correct, but there is a step missing in the Charter.   In actuality, the Clerk’s role is very limited.  However, she said that perhaps it does not need to be there because it is inherent in the process.  

 

Mr. Rodgers said at the very top of page 25 of the Charter, it actually uses the term “certify” to describe what the Clerk does.  The Mayor said that the Clerk does not certify anything.  The process is that it first goes to the Clerk who determines that it meets everything that is provided for in the Charter.  It then goes to the Board of Elections who makes sure it is signed by individuals who are registered voters.  Once the Board of Elections certifies the petition, it comes back.  She said the clerk is the administrative individual that is outlined in the Charter, but there is no unilateral decision made by the Clerk of Council.  She said it is important for the Commission to be aware that there is no provision through the Clerk’s office to certify and that the process is not fully outlined in the Charter.  However, she does not know the answer to whether it needs to be or not.

 

Mrs. McGovern asked whether the word “deliver” should replace the word “certify.”  Mr. Bemer said he thinks the Clerk is saying to Council that we have a valid, viable petition that will be going to the Board of Elections.  The Mayor said that in reality, the Law Department would review the petitions to make sure they are in conformance.  The Clerk is the individual who initially receives it, Council would receive copies of it, and the Law Department would review it for its conformance with the Charter and confirm everything is in order as set forth in the Charter.   Mr. Bemer said he was approached by someone who wanted to start a petition drive to put a matter on the ballot for a Charter Amendment.  They dropped a copy of the petition form to City Hall and they were given a receipt so the petitioner has acknowledgment that we have received a copy of the petition.  This is before it is circulated and we simply acknowledged receipt and nothing beyond that.

 

Mr. Thompson said that there is obviously some overriding law over this provision because it does not say anywhere in the Charter that the petition has to go to the Board of Elections.  He said that Ohio law must be stepping in at some point and despite the fact that it does not say it in the Charter, it is still happening that way.  The question is whether that needs to be specifically spelled out in the Charter.

 

Mr. Rodgers said that the way this provision reads, there is the possibility someone could present a petition for recall with signatures on it and the Clerk could certify it to Council.  Council could then put it on a recall election ballot and someone could be recalled without the petition ever being certified by the Board of Elections because that step is not clearly defined. The Mayor said that Mr. Rodgers is correct and she thinks it should be in there because it outlines the process. 

 

Mr. Thompson suggested that they take the language out regarding the Clerk and have it say it gets submitted directly to the Board of Elections.  He said he thinks we are opening the Clerk up to liability, by charging her with determining whether a petition is sufficient or insufficient.  Mrs. McGovern said she thinks it should expressly say in this Section that a petition goes to the Board of Elections for verification of signatures.  Mr. Thompson asked why the Clerk has to be named in the administrative process.  Mayor Bobst said it has to name the Clerk because if it named an elected official, it could be the elected official being recalled.  More discussion followed regarding the process of sending petitions to the Board of Elections.  It was decided that this topic should be added to the Master List.

 

Mr. Lazarro asked Mr. Bemer if he is at liberty to provide details about the petition for a Charter Amendment he mentioned earlier.   Mr. Bemer said the context was an anti-abortion provision.

 

ARTICLE IX – NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS

 

Mr. Rodgers began by summarizing Section 1, Municipal Elections, and asked if anyone has any comments.  Mr. Bemer said it is directly out of the Ohio Constitution.  Mr. Snyder asked what elections we have other than the primary and regular elections.  Mayor Bobst said there are also Special Elections.  Mr. Bemer said that a Recall election would be an example of a Special Election.

 

Mr. Snyder discussed Section 2, Primary Elections.  He said he assumes this is where we get our authority to set our own primary date.  He said this is the section that the League of Women Voters referred to in their letter to Mayor Bobst, asking that our primary date be moved to the second Tuesday in September.  Mr. Rodgers asked for clarification that this would make the primary 8 weeks before the regular municipal election as opposed to 7 weeks.  Mayor Bobst and other Commission members agreed that the sentence Mr. Rodgers referred to could be deleted and it could specifically state the second Tuesday in September in that Section.

 

Mrs. McGovern said that 6 years ago they changed it because one of the Commission members was a recent retiree from the Board of Elections who said that the Board always has a horrible time between primary and general elections.  That is why they moved it away a couple of weeks.  However, she said if it going to be a general provision across the County, it will save everybody a lot of money.  Mr. Thompson asked if it will alleviate some of the cost to us.  Mayor Bobst said that it would substantially alleviate the cost.  To illustrate that fact, she used the example of the primary election that was held last September for Ward 3 only.  For that Ward primary the vendor’s minimum charge for the absentee ballots was $15,000.  She said that is an issue she is discussing with the Board of Elections because she feels it is a vendor issue, but nevertheless, we incurred that expense.  She contrasted that with the March 4th election where the School Board only had to pay a few thousand dollars.  That happened because there was also a County issue on the ballot and it was a statewide election, so they shared the cost.  She thinks that it is also important that they share the same date for voter turnout.  Mr. Bemer suggested and the Commission agreed that this should be added to the Master List for further discussion.

 

Mr. Rodgers continued by summarizing Section 3.  Mr. Snyder said the provision that a candidate must submit their declaration of candidacy 60 days before the primary election would be changed to 75 days.  Mayor Bobst added that Section 3 says a “…petition shall require signatures of registered electors of the same political party as the candidate…”  The way it actually happens is it includes electors of not only the same political party, but also those who are undeclared or are Independents.  There was discussion regarding the definition of political party and Mr. Bemer said the Board of Election says that the signatory is eligible to sign if they are not of the opposite political party, meaning the signatory must be of your party, or be an independent or undeclared.  Mayor Bobst said that is what the Board of Elections says, but it is not what our Charter says.  In practice, if a candidate is a Republican, then a Republican, an Independent or an undeclared can circulate the petition and also sign it, but it does not say that in the Charter.  It was decided by the Commission that this would be added to the Master List of items for further discussion.

 

Mr. Snyder continued by summarizing Section 4, Nominations of Party Candidates With and Without Primary Elections.  It was decided by the Commission that this Section does not require any changes. 

 

Mr. Rodgers summarized Section 5 and asked if anyone has anything they would like to discuss.  It was determined that since they are discussing changing the declaration of candidacy in Section 3 from 60 days prior to a primary election to 75 days, the same change would also be required in this Section.  Mr. Bemer said that because Independents are not politically affiliated, anyone of any political party may sign their petitions.

 

It was decided that no changes should be made to Section 6, General Provisions.

 

In summary, it was determined that the topics to be added to the Master List for further discussion are as follows:

 

1.  To discuss adding the County Board of Elections’ function with regard to Recall in Article VIII, Section 2.

 

2.      Discussion of a revision to specify that the date of primary elections be no later than the second Tuesday of September in Article IX, Section 2.

3.      Changing the due date of a candidate’s declaration of candidacy from 60 days before the primary election to 75 days before the primary election and the clarification of “same political party” in Article IX, Section 3 and Section 5.

 

Since they are finished early tonight, Mrs. McGovern proposed that the Commission begin discussing items on the Master List.  It was decided that since it was not included on tonight’s Agenda and the public may want to attend those discussions, they would not discuss any of those items tonight.  The secretary to the Commission was instructed to include the discussion of Master List items on the meeting Agendas going forward.

 

Mr. Thompson opened the floor up for public comment. Mr. Bill Welsh, 1050 Orchard Park, came forward and asked if the gender issue has been addressed in the Charter.  Mr. O’Donnell said the Charter provides that “he” means “he and she.”  Mr. Lazarro directed Mr. Welsh to Article X, Section 5 – Use of Gender.  Mr. Snyder said any changes regarding gender would have to go to the voters.  For that reason, Mr. Welsh agreed that changes regarding gender are not necessary.

 

The next meeting of the Charter Review Commission will be held on Thursday, April 17, 2008.   They will be discussing Article V – Civil Service Commission.  The discussion leader for that Article will be Mrs. McGovern.  It was decided that, along with the Mayor, the members of the Civil Service Commission as well as their Secretary, Sue Whitman, would be invited.  The Chiefs and members of the Police and Fire Department will also be invited to attend. 

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

Date                                                     Greg Thompson, Co-Chairperson

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                            Kate Straub, Secretary