MINUTES OF MEETING
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 17, 2008
***********************************************************************
Members Present: Bartolozzi, Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, O’Donnell, Manoloff
Absent: Snyder, Rodgers, Urban
Presence Noted: Mayor Pamela Bobst
Andrew Bemer, Law Director
Chief Donald Wagner, Rocky River Police Department
Chief Chris Flynn, Rocky River Fire Department
Lt. Kevin Bednarski, Rocky River Fire Department
Lt. George Kraus, Rocky River Fire Department and President, Int’l Assoc. of Fire Fighters Local 659
Lt. Terry Hudec, Executive Staff Assistant to Chief Wagner
Chris Klym, Chairman, Civil Service Commission
Sue Whitman, Human Resource Director, City of Rocky River and Secretary to the Civil Service Commission
************************************************************************
Mrs. Bartolozzi. opened the April 17, 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 10, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
MOTION: Moved by Mrs. McGovern, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell, to approve the Minutes of the April 10, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
4 Ayes – 0 Nays – 2 Abstain (Bartolozzi, Manoloff)
Not Passed
The Commission will reaffirm the April 10, 2008 Charter Review Commission Meeting Minutes at next week’s meeting due to lack of a quorum.
Mrs. Bartolozzi introduced the new member to the 2008 Charter Review Commission, Rick Manoloff, who was sworn in by Council President, Jim Moran, earlier this week.
ARTICLE V – CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mrs. McGovern summarized Section 1 – Membership. She said our Charter differs from some other
City Charters that say they want to do everything in their City their own way,
but they won’t deviate too far from the State.
Mrs. McGovern said that in
Mrs. McGovern said we have a whole list of methods and rules
for how the City runs the elections in Civil Service. She said she thinks it is probably pretty
consistent with
Mrs. McGovern invited comments regarding Section 1 and 2 of
Article V. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Bemer
to confirm that those subsections are contrary to Ohio Law. Mr. Bemer said that by Ohio Revised Code, the
probation period is not to exceed 1 year on new hires, and 6 months on
promotions. The City of
Mrs. McGovern said that she misspoke earlier. The way she understood from other areas she researched, is that a Charter could make a blanket statement, saying that however they do it by city or township law will supersede the Ohio Revised Code. Mr. Bemer said that with respect to Civil Service Commission, that is not a correct assessment. There must be a high degree of specificity.
Mr. Thompson asked why we have a 2 year probation period when State law provides for 1 year. He asked if a 2 year probationary period is necessary. He invited comments from those in attendance tonight.
Donald Wagner, Chief of Police for Rocky River Police Department, said that the 2 year probation period has been in effect here for a number of years and it has worked very well. He said that a student may go off to school for his OPOTA certification for the required 650 hours, which is about 3 ½ to 4 months. With that amount of time, plus his days off and vacation days, there is very little time in a 1 year period to get a close and careful look at that person. Chief Wagner said he strongly recommends that the probationary period be left at 2 years because 1 year is not long enough.
Rocky River Fire Chief, Chris Flynn, came forward to say
that the 2 year probationary period works very well for the Fire Department
also. He said there is the possibility
that someone could be hired with no fire or paramedic training at all. That person then goes off for 240 hours of
fire school training, which lasts about 6 weeks, and there is no possible way
to evaluate him at that point. An
additional full year of college is required for a paramedic certificate in the
State of
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that since it seems a desirable combination to be a fire fighter and a paramedic, maybe they should consider making that a requirement. Chief Flynn said they have visited that subject several times in Civil Service Commission meetings. They can offer a person bonus entrance points for entering as a fully trained fire fighter or paramedic. He said what they have found is that without having to make a rule that says a person can’t sign up if they are not a paramedic or not a firefighter, the reality is that those who don’t have the training are being knocked out of the box by those who are signing up fully trained. He said that without having to go to a restrictive rule, they are accomplishing it by means of offering bonus points.
Mr. Manoloff said that as he understands it, the State default is 1 year and our Charter clearly and expressly states an exception to that and sets forth a 2 year probationary period. He said he is curious to know what the arguments in favor of a 1 year probationary period are. Chief Wagner said that is a very old rule and the amount of training new hires get is much more than it was a few years ago, so 1 year is just not enough. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if the 1 year requirement could be in place because it is encompassing smaller township communities with small police and fire departments where it would be a burden for them if they made it 2 years. Chief Wagner said he does not know why an extra year of training would be a burden at all. There were no arguments presented in favor of a 1 year probationary period.
Mr. Thompson asked if the City has ever been challenged on Article V, Section 2(a) or (b). Chief Wagner said there was a case about 20 years ago when they were challenged. Mr. Bemer said a new member of the Police Department did not succeed in becoming a full staff policeman and challenged that fact. The result of that challenge was the determination that the 2 year probationary period according to our Charter, was deemed to be a proper exercise of local authority. Chief Flynn said they had an employee in the Fire Division who was dismissed in about the 23rd month but that dismissal was never challenged.
Mr. Lazzaro said that the word “may” in Section (a) insinuates that as a group, the Civil Service Commission can choose not to go to the 2 years if they don’t want to, which he feels is a great flexibility.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Bemer if it is his opinion that (a) and (b) give us clearly expressed language that should remain. Mr. Bemer said he thinks it does. Mr. Bemer then introduced the members of the Rocky River Police Department, Fire Department and Civil Service Commission that are present tonight.
Mrs. McGovern continued by reviewing Section 2A, Additional Powers and Duties. The Mayor came forward and said she is pleased to see so many members of the Civil Service Commission present tonight. Mayor Bobst others have already addressed the Commission members with regard to the appointment of the Police Chief and Fire Chief and she would like to share her perspective on that.
Mayor Bobst said that pages 50 and 51 of the Ohio Municipal League Guides that each Commission member received speak very clearly about the nature and purpose of Charters. She said it is important to look at all of those entities that contribute to the decision making process. These include the Charter, the Ordinances, the rules and protocols set forth by the Civil Service Commission, Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Ohio Revised Code that guides the entire process. She feels there may be something that is more appropriately placed in Ordinances or in the rules of the Commission, as opposed to being placed in the Charter. She said that Senate Bill 218 is currently in Committee, which provides for mayoral authority and alternative procedures for the appointment of Police and Fire Chiefs. The Mayor said she finds it interesting that the State is reviewing the same matter that has already been brought to this Commission’s attention and she will be provide the Commission with a copy of the analysis and summary of Senate Bill 218.
Through her work with the Police and Fire Department, the Mayor said it is clear that they all want the same thing. They are looking for the most highly qualified candidate to fill the two Chief’s positions. She said her views, however, differ from others’ this Commission has heard from in how we go about doing that. She does not believe it is accomplished unilaterally by the appointment of the mayor. The level of autonomy that Civil Service provides is an important layer between the Police Chief and the Mayor in terms of enforcement, and there is also enforcement provided by the Fire Chief.
Mayor Bobst said that with the goal of finding and seating the most qualified individual, you go about that by making the Chief the most desirable position within those 2 departments, through compensation, benefits, and other amenities. Career development such as administrative, skill and leadership development to include an ongoing performance management system that looks at various efforts of individuals along with providing feedback, is key. Most importantly, the Mayor said that once that is all completed, effective testing that is directly related to the skills required for the Chief’s position is necessary. The Mayor said she firmly believes that the appointment is the last resort.
Mayor Bobst continued by saying that there may be instances where there are not a sufficient number of qualified candidates. In that case, Section 2A of the Charter indicates the 3 highest candidates, but she would like the Commission to consider adding wording such as, “….the three (3) highest candidates with a passing score of ______.” She would like it to include some minimum standard that is currently not included in the Charter. In addition, to provide strength and clarity to this Section, the Mayor suggested this topic go to the Commission’s Master List for further discussion and they work together to look at all of the ways some language about the number of qualified candidates receiving the passing grade could be incorporated, whether through Ordinances or through the rules or protocol of the Civil Service Commission. She said this Section does not state how many, it merely says the 3 highest scoring candidates. It does not indicate that there should be at least 2 or at least 3 candidates with a passing score. She said she thinks they all need to consider what would be done in the very unlikely event there would not be a qualified candidate who takes the test or who receives a passing score. There is currently no provision for what we would do and the Mayor said she feels the Charter should give us some direction in that very unlikely situation.
Mr. O’Donnell asked if the 3 highest candidates is enough or whether it should be changed to the 5 highest candidates. Chief Wagner said you can’t say the 5 highest because you have to look at how many people are eligible within the department to take the test. The Mayor said it comes down to how many are taking the test and that they all must meet a certain specified minimum test score. Mr. Bemer pointed out that Ohio Revised Code says that the highest certified candidate gets promoted, which is an example of the deviation according to the specific terms in our Charter. It provides for the 3 candidates and some discretion with the appointing authority of the Mayor to be able to choose 1 of those 3. Mr. Bemer said the big debate is whether the Chief of Police or the Fire Chief should be pure appointees outside of Civil Service, as other directors are, or whether they should be contained within the merit system of Civil Service.
Mr. O’Donnell asked the Mayor if she is concerned about a situation where none of the 3 candidates would receive a passing score, in which case she would have a list of 3 people to choose from for the position of Chief, none of whom passed the test. Mayor Bobst said that is her concern. Mr. Thompson asked if there has ever been a situation in the past where they had trouble getting the 3 candidates. The Mayor said that they have had that situation and that there are several individuals in this room who could speak to that issue.
Mayor Bobst said she finds it interesting that some of the concern that is expressed about this issue is about an appointment of the mayor and the ability to remove an appointed individual. She said there are currently protocols and procedures for the reprimand and removal of a Chief through Civil Service.
Mr. Thompson invited comment from those in the
audience. Mr. Christopher Klym, Chairman
of the Civil Service Commission, came forward and said he was on the 1996
Charter Review Commission, so he knows first hand the importance of this
Commission’s job. He said there were
recent promotional examinations with the Fire Department and some entry level
positions being filled in the Police Department. Regarding passing grades, he said there was
the addition of some language added to the Ohio Civil Service laws in the
summer of 2007. Prior to these changes,
it just said that the individuals take the examination, get their scores, and then
they are all lined up with the top scorer getting in. He said it still says the top scorer gets in,
but it says that only those individuals with passing scores are lined up. Prior to that it did not say a passing score
was a requirement for consideration. Mr.
Klym said he feels that the Commission should strongly consider adding “passing
score” to this provision.
Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Klym to confirm that as it stands today, in order to promote someone in our Police and Fire Departments other than for the position of Chief, a passing score is a requirement. However, to be the Chief, a passing score is not a requirement. Mr. Klym said that if you are looking at just the top 3 individuals based upon the Charter, then that would be correct. The Statutes for the other promotions say you do have to have a passing score.
Lieutenant Terry Hudec came forward and said he has been with the Rocky River Police Department for 35 years. He said he agrees with the Mayor that the chances of not having a highly qualified candidate would be very rare. He said the problems in the Police Department involve compensation and benefits and for that reason, the job may not be desirable. Lieutenant Hudec said that when someone starts out, there are always aspirations of striving to the top job of Police Chief. There are so many opportunities along the way that a person may want to take advantage of, but he said that the one thing that does not change is the continuing education, training, and professional development in place for everyone in the Department. The officers of this Department are highly educated and most have college degrees when they are hired. Prior to their first promotion to Sergeant, an officer will have taken numerous professional classes and read countless books, and the development will continue throughout his career. Lieutenant Hudec said that the opportunity to be Police Chief for those who decide they want it should not be taken away from them. The cream will rise to the top. He said that as opposed to someone from the outside, the one thing that the officer who wants to be Police Chief brings to the table is a sense of ownership. They will have spent their career in this Department and the City will have seen fit to reward their accomplishments and they will be eager to lead a good department to even better things. Lieutenant Hudec said that no outsider will bring that to the Department. He thinks the system has worked very well and asked the Commission to keep it the way it is.
Mr. O’Donnell invited the Chiefs to comment on the topic of making the Chief’s position appointed as opposed to working their way through the Civil Service Commission. Chief Wagner came forward and said that Lieutenant Hudec is absolutely correct when he said that an officer works their way up through the Department and it would be very hard on morale if the Chief were to come from the outside and be appointed. He said it is important to keep a certain distance between the Chief and the Administration because there are certain things that occur over time where the Chief needs to say to the Administration or the Administration needs to say to the Chief that this is what we are going to do and it is the right thing to do. He said he has never seen it happen here, but one of the original reasons the Civil Service Commission was formed decades ago was because of corruption and patronage. By having the Civil Service Commission, those problems are basically eliminated. Chief Wagner said that it is possible for a mayor to appoint somebody who is their friend or someone they may have issues with or reasons to bring them in. However remote that seems, it is one of the reasons Civil Service was established in the first place.
Regarding the issue of whether there are 2, 3 or 4 people
available, Chief Wagner said you do not have to stop at the lieutenant level if
you don’t find someone who passes.
However, because everybody has college degrees and they are very smart,
unless the passing score is set at 95%, everyone who takes the test will pass
it and he thinks the selection should come from that grouping. He said if, however, they all would happen to
fail the test then State law allows them to go to the Sergeant level for a
candidate. In instances where someone is
brought in from the outside, Chief Wagner said there is a tendency for that
person to stay only 3 to 5 years. He
said that person does not know the City and by the time they learn it, they will
have received a bid from another City for a few more bucks and they will leave. He said you only have to look to the City of
Mr. Thompson asked if Chief Wagner is aware of any other city that has had to deal with not having 3 passing grades. Chief Wagner said he has never seen it happen because the people that have reached the rank of Lieutenant or Captain are very bright people. He said there is no reason that they would not be able to find a qualified candidate in the Rocky River Police Department. Mayor Bobst added that the appointment of the Chief in terms of morale and staff development is the antithesis of wanting to appoint. A mayor has a lot of influence and to think that an appointment creates the best candidate for the position is not so.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that if they needed to go to the second tier to find a candidate because the Captains or Lieutenants were not interested in applying for the Chief’s position or did not qualify, they indicated it would be detrimental to the morale of the whole department for the mayor to appoint. She asked if there would be some detrimental effect to the morale of the Department if a Sergeant came up and was now in charge of the Lieutenants who he was previously subordinate to. Chief Wagner said it may impact morale on a short term basis with some people, but he said they have some Sergeants in the Department who could be Chief tomorrow.
Chief Wagner explained an unusual situation that is coming up in January of 2011. At that time, he said there will be thousands of policemen from the State of Ohio retiring from the DROP program. He said there are 6 or 7 in this Department, including himself, who are in the DROP program. The City will need to prepare for that. It will cause some problems in terms of promotions and who will be eligible. He said there is State law that covers promotions, and under State law, it only takes 2 to be competitive, so if you were going to say that it has to be the top 3 or the top 4, you would be overriding that. If 2 people take it and 1 passes and 1 doesn’t then that is who you have. He said that if appointments by the mayor are allowed, then it must be made very difficult for the mayor to step in, as opposed to being very easy. He said the worst thing possible for a department is to appoint Chiefs who stay for a very short time and then leave. Soon, the department will see a Chief come in and figure he is only good for about 2 or 3 years. The department will pay attention to only about half of what he says, and do about a third of it, until the Chief is gone.
Mr. O’Donnell asked Chief Wagner if he agrees that the Charter should contain a passing score. Chief Wagner said a passing score is fine and the Civil Service Commission should set it, but as long as the passing score continues to be reasonable, everyone will pass the test. He said people spend hours and hours preparing for the tests and many times a point or less will separate scores. He said most of them look for promotions so they will be able to make decisions and try to improve the community.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Klym if he thinks that the second part of Section 2A that was changed from 30 individuals to 50 individuals who achieve the highest scores is a good number. Mr. Klym said that has worked out well for them. In just the last 2 months, there were openings in the Police and the Fire Departments. The Chiefs interviewed applicants and determined which ones will be qualified to move on for additional polygraph and background testing before they determined who will be on the certified list. When the openings came available, they had to go down the certified list quite a way because the lists are good for 2 years and many individuals on the list have taken jobs in other cities. He thinks that the provision for 50 individuals works quite well.
Chief Flynn said he would like to offer one item to think about when considering appointment versus promotion from within. He used an example of why the Fire Chief must be removed from the administration. The example demonstrated that a Fire Chief who is appointed, because of possible influence by someone in administration, may turn his back on something that a Chief who is promoted from within, in accordance with the Civil Service, wouldn’t. He said he does not feel there should be any change made to the language of how the Police and Fire Chief are selected. He said they just did a promotional exam and there were 3 competitors who wanted to be promoted to Captain and another 7 competitors who were fire fighters and wanted to be promoted to Lieutenant. They tested 10 people and all 10 passed.
Chief Flynn said that in the City of Cleveland, the Fire
Chief is promoted from within Civil Service and the Police Chief is appointed
by the Mayor. He said in the last 11
years, there have been only 2 Fire Chiefs in the City of
The remainder of Article V, Section 3, Job Classification was reviewed and there was no discussion or suggestions for change.
In summary, it was determined that the topics to be added to the Master List for further discussion are as follows:
1. Discussion of adding language specifying a “passing score” and procedures if there are not 3 qualified candidates in Article V., Section 2A
The Charter Review Commission decided that since they are finished with their initial review of each Article in the Charter, they would now focus on the Master List that has been created and discuss each item to decide whether it should be added to the final ballot list. At the beginning of each meeting, those who were not in attendance for the discussion at the previous meeting will have the opportunity to request further discussion of an item that was removed in their absence. Those who will not be attending a meeting are encouraged to forward their thoughts on a discussion item to another Commission member who will express those at the next meeting.
MASTER LIST DISCUSSION.
Master List Item #1. Adding a preamble to the Charter for the purpose of establishing goals of the Charter.
The Commission began the Master List discussion with item number 1, regarding adding a preamble to the Charter. Mr. Lazzaro said that he thinks a mission statement is always good. However, with a lack of a mission statement to even look at, he said he is hesitant to add one. Mr. Thompson said he would be in favor of adding a preamble, and brought a copy of the City of Westlake’s Preamble to their Charter. He read it aloud for the Commission. Mr. Lazzaro said that it is very similar to the first paragraph of our Charter that says “The City of Rocky River will have the powers of local self government…” Mr. O’Donnell said he does not think that adding a mission statement to the Charter is a bad idea.
The vote taken regarding Master List Item No. 1. Adding a Preamble to the Charter resulted in the following:
1 Aye – 4 Nays (Bartolozzi, Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, Manoloff)
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
The following 3 items were discussed simultaneously because they all have to do with 4 year terms:
Master List Item #2. Amending the Mayor’s term to 4 years in Article II, Section 1;
Master List Item #6. Amending the term of office for Council Members to 4 years in Article III, Section 2; and
Master List Item #11. Amending the term of office for the Law Director to 4 years in Article IV, Section 2.
The Mayor came forward regarding this issue and said when this was placed on the ballot it was voted down with about 73% of our residents saying they do not want to change the length of term for the Mayor. Some of the arguments she suggested for not changing the term are that in a 2 year term there is a high level of accountability and to change it to 4 years would be eliminating someone’s voice or vote. Also, she said that we are seen as a very successful community so why would we change something as dramatic as the term of office for the Mayor?
On the other side of this, Mayor Bobst said that there have been several long term things that she has initiated in her administration, such as the Comprehensive Sewer Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan, the Detroit Road Streetscaping Plan, the establishment a corporate corridor on Center Ridge Rd., and the Waste Water Treatment Plant Capital Improvement Plan. These are long term initiatives that are very important to the community. She can understand why someone would want to change the term to 4 years in order to get some of these things off the ground.
Mayor Bobst said it would be difficult for elected officials who are currently in the position to advocate for 4 year terms because it would seem very self serving. She is not sure that there is another group that would take this on and say they want their elected officials to serve for more than 2 years. Mayor Bobst said if this issue goes back on the ballot, she is not sure how it would gain momentum and interest. Mrs. McGovern said there was an organized committee against any of the 4 year terms last time. The Mayor said she does not remember the organized opposition, although she does remember that there were some committees formed on some of the Charter Amendments. Mr. O’Donnell said that although terms are only 2 years, we see the terms of our Mayors have been very long because they do such a great job so they are able to stay in office.
Mr. Lazzaro said that on the other side of the coin, there was discussion of potential cost savings with all of the 4 year terms. However, he said in order to get any of that benefit, they would all have to go to 4 year terms and all be elected at the same time. The date of the election would also have to change. The Mayor said that all of those things would have to fall in line, and then the provision for what you do in the event you have someone who cannot fulfill the term and how you would appoint someone in their place would have to fall in line, as well.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that in light of the fact that those 3 Charter Amendments went to the ballot last time and were soundly defeated, she thinks that perhaps now is not the time to present them again. Mrs. McGovern said that many of the cities that have a 4 year Mayor do not have a 4 year Council and the reverse is almost non-existent. The Mayor said that the fact that we have elections every 2 years creates such an important dialogue for the most pressing issues in our community. Running every 2 years is a lot of work but it is very exhilarating and something a candidate receives a lot of enjoyment from because they are out in the community talking about issues that are critical to them. To engage in that important dialogue, the Mayor said, is key to the vibrancy and strength of our community. Mrs. Bartolozzi said those in council who are elected and if they do a good job, 9 times out of 10 times they will be re-elected without any competition. She said that 2 year terms have been good for the City and have not been unduly burdensome on anyone interested in running for public office.
The Commission decided to vote on whether the term of office for the Mayor, Council Members and Law Director should be increased to 4 years, which are Master List items 2, 6 and 11.
Regarding Item No. 2, amending the term of the Mayor to 4 years, the vote was as follows:
0 Ayes – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Regarding Item No. 6, amending the term of Council Members to 4 years, the vote was as follows:
0 Ayes – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Regarding Item No. 11, amending the term of the Mayor to 4 years, the vote was as follows:
0 Ayes – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Master List Item #3. - Discussing qualifications of Mayor, including military service and residency requirements, in Article II, Section 2.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Bemer to provide some information for the next meeting regarding what the Federal law says to this item. Mr. Bemer said he would bring information and discussion for this item to next week’s meeting.
Master List Item #4. Further defining “temporary absence” in Article II, Section 4(a).
Mr. Lazzaro said he feels very strongly about defining the term “temporary.” He said it is vague and we go to great lengths about 1 month in military service and 60 days here and 40 days there. Mayor Bobst addressed Mr. Lazzaro and said that she feels the measure may be the inability to perform the duties, as opposed to the length of the temporary absence. She said that with today’s technological advances, the likelihood that a mayor would not be accessible or would not be able to perform their duties is slim. She repeated the story she shared with the Commission about when former Mayor Knoble called to tell her he was having surgery and he wanted her to be aware that for that time, he would be inaccessible and would not be able to perform his duties. When a Mayor vacations, the technology in hand is a very powerful tool and a Mayor is able to perform those duties. Mr. Lazzaro said that if there was ever a case where the Mayor traveled to Africa for a week or a month, it may be different. Mrs. McGovern said that performance of duty is spelled out, and may make the time not as important. Mayor Bobst said if you look at the removal section, if a Mayor is not performing their duties because they are absent, then that section of the Charter would be in force.
A vote was taken to further define “temporary absence” in Article II, Section 4(a).
1 Aye – 5 Nays (Thompson, Bartolozzi, O’Donnell, McGovern, Manoloff)
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Master List Item #5. Discussion of when the Charter prevails, Article III, Section 1.
Mr. Bemer said that this section is an example of home rule authority and the specific control of a self governing Charter Community. The Charter prevails in any matters of local police, sanitary and other regulations concerning local control. He said there has been tremendous volume of case law since 1972 on this matter. Law Director Bemer said the intention here is referring to matters that home rule authority controls, which are only local regulations and not matters of general law. He said he is sure that the drafters intended this to be the essence of home rule authority, so any general law that addresses local regulations shall be superseded by the Charter. Based on that, Mr. O’Donnell said he does not see any need to change. It was determined that any change would be a matter of clean-up and it could be confusing to the voters to put it on the ballot merely for clean-up purposes.
A vote was taken to make a change regarding when the Charter prevails in Article II, Section 1.
0 Aye – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
It was decided they would not discuss any more Master List items tonight.
The Commission will continue to follow the list of Master Items at their weekly meetings, and discuss the remaining items as time permits.
The following is the complete list of Master List Items for further discussion as decided by the Commission, along with the action taken on items discussed, to date:
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MASTER LIST OF ITEMS FOR FUTHER DISCUSSION
1. Discussion
regarding adding a preamble to the Charter for the purpose of establishing
goals of the Charter.
Action Taken (4-17-08):
1 Aye – 4 Nays (Bartolozzi, Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, Manoloff)
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
2. Amending
the Mayor’s term to 4 years in Article II, Section 1.
Action Taken (4-17-08):
0 Ayes – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
3. Discussing
qualifications of Mayor, including military service and residency requirements,
in Article II, Section 2.
Action Taken (4-17-08):
Tabled for more information from law
Director Bemer
4. Further defining “temporary absence” in Article II, Section 4(a).
Action Taken (4-17-08):
1 Aye – 5 Nays (Thompson, Bartolozzi, O’Donnell, McGovern, Manoloff)
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
5. Discussion of when the Charter prevails, Article III, Section 1.
Action Taken(4-17-08):
0 Aye – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
6. Amending
the length of term for Council members, Article III, Section 2.
Action Taken (4-17-08):
0 Aye – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
7. Discussing qualifications of Council, including military service and residency requirements, in Article III, Section 3.
8. Procedure for posting of special meetings, Article III, Section 10.
9. Notification by Certified Mail, Article III, Section 13(3).
10. The suggestion of making the Department of Recreation and the Department of Senior Services Charter Departments, Article IV.
11. Amending the Law Director’s term to 4 years in Article IV, Section 2.
Action Taken(4-17-08):
0 Aye – 6 Nays
NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
12. Qualifications of the Law Director, Article IV, Section 2.
13. Qualifications of the Finance Director, Article IV, Section 3.
14. Discussion of adding language specifying a “passing score” and procedures if there are not 3 qualified candidates in Article V., Section 2A
15. To discuss adding the Civic Center to the list of items that are excluded from the Parks and Recreation Commission and include it under the duties of City Council in Article VI, Section 4(c)(3)
16. To discuss the budget timeline in Article VI, Section 4(c)(3) for Parks and Recreation Committee
17. Discussion of changing the name of the Design and Construction Board of Review to the Architectural Review Board in Article VI, Section 5.
18. Discussion regarding increasing the size of the Design and Construction Board of Review to five regular members in Article VI, Section 5.
19. Discussion to strike the word “construction” from of Article VI, Section 5(b).
20. Add language consistent with the State in Article VII, Sections 3.
21. Increase the expenditure limit from $15,000 to be consistent with the State in Article VII, Section 4.
22. The discussion of adding the County Board of Elections’ function with regard to Recall in Article VIII, Section 2.
23. Discussion of a revision to specify the date of primary elections to be no later than the second Tuesday of September in Article IX, Section 2.
24. 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.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Date Linda Bartolozzi, Co-Chairperson
Greg Thompson, Co-Chairperson
Kate Straub, Secretary