MINUTES OF MEETING
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2008
***********************************************************************
Members Present: Bartolozzi, Thompson, Lazzaro, Snyder, O’Donnell, Rodgers, Urban Manoloff
Absent: McGovern
Presence Noted: Andrew Bemer, Law Director
Fire
Chief
Police Chief Donald Wagner
Lieutenant Terry Hudec
Detective Ken Thompson
Sgt. Kelly Stillman
Detective Sgt. Carl Gulas
Sgt. David Wagner
Lt. David Bednarski
************************************************************************
Mr. Thompson opened the May 8, 2008 meeting of the 2008 Charter Review Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. He asked if anyone has any additions, corrections, or comments on the Minutes of the April 24, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
Mr. Thompson noted one change. On page 6, Master List Item No. 12, he said he is not sure what Mr. Snyder actually said, but it wouldn’t be that he would be eligible to “run” for the Supreme Court of the United States, rather he would be able to “sit” on the Supreme Court of the United States.
MOTION: Moved by Mr. Urban, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell, to approve the Minutes of the April 24, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting, as amended.
7 Ayes – 0 Nays – 1 Abstain (Urban)
Passed
Mr. Thompson said that this could be the Commission’s last night of discussing Master List items. The next step will be to for Law Director Bemer to develop language for the Ballot Items. He said that they will follow the agenda in reverse order tonight to give more people time to arrive who may be interested in these items.
MASTER LIST ITEMS
Mr. Thompson said that Master List Item No. 24 should be broken into two separate items, 24(a) and 24(b).
Master List Item No. 24(a). 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. Mr. O’Donnell said this item resulted from a letter sent by the Board of Elections to various communities requesting that they make this change. Mr. Lazzaro asked if they are specifically asking for 75 days or whether they should defer to the Board of Elections, which would ensure that if the Board of Elections changes the due date, the Charter will change along with it. Mr. O’Donnell said it is possible to provide for something like that with the Ohio Revised Code, but in this case, he is not sure what they would be tying it to if they chose to defer to the Board of Elections. He thinks it is best to keep it with a number and, if it needs to be changed, then it will come up at another Charter review. Mr. Thompson said that they asked that we specifically make the change to 75 days.
Mr. Urban moved to change the due date of a candidate’s declaration of candidacy from 60 days before the primary election to 75 days before the primary election in Article IX, Section 3 and Section 5. Mr. Rodgers seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
PASSED TO THE BALLOT LIST
Master List Item 24(b). The clarification of “same political party” in Article IX, Section 3.
Mr. O’Donnell said that they previously discussed that “same political party” means not a member of the other political party. Mr. Rodgers brought up Mr. Bemer’s explanation that the generally accepted definition was anyone who is not a member of the opposite political party. Mr. Thompson said it has always been deferred to whatever the Board of Election defines as “same political party.” Mr. O’Donnell said that our Charter requires a signatory be the same party but the Board doesn’t check signatures that way. He is not sure what this Commission could do to address that issue except to conform to what the Board says and change “same political party” to mean registered electors not of the other political party. Mr. Lazzaro said that if you change “same political party” in one place in the Charter, it would have to be changed in many other places.
Mr. Thompson said that historically, there has not been a problem with this and the Board of Elections handles the certifying of the petitions. Mrs. Bartolozzi read the discussion notes on this topic from the Minutes of the April 10, 2008 meeting. Mr. Urban said that if there was a problem, it would go to a hearing before the Board of Elections who would interpret the intent of our Charter. He suggested that it is not a problem and we should leave it alone.
Mr. Snyder moved to remove Master List Item 24(b), the clarification of “same political party” in Article IX, Section 3 from the Master List of items for further discussion and not pass such item to the Ballot List. Mr. O’Donnell seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
Removed from Master List – Item NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Master List Item No. 23. Discussion of a revision to specify the date of Primary Elections to be no later than the second Tuesday in September in Article IX, Section 2.
Mr. Thompson said this item also originated from a request from the Board of Elections and is supported by the League of Women Voters. Mr. O’Donnell said the purpose is so that all the cities have their primary elections on the same day. Mr. Urban said it significantly reduces our cost. Mr. Manoloff said the current Charter sets a date, namely the 7th Tuesday prior to each regular municipal election and read a paragraph from the letter from the The League of Women Voters, dated April 5, 2008. The paragraph stated that the League supports the Board of Elections’ recommendation that all chartered communities specify their municipal primary elections should be held on second Tuesday in September. It was determined by the Commission that the words “no later than” will not be part of the ballot language.
Mrs. Bartolozzi moved to revise Article IX, Section 2 to specify the date of primary elections shall be held on the second Tuesday in September. Mr. Manoloff seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
PASSED TO THE BALLOT LIST
Master List Item No. 22. The discussion of adding the County Board of Elections’ function with regard to Recall in Article VIII, Section 2.
Mr. O’Donnell said the Mayor was concerned because this Section suggests that the Clerk has the function of certifying when, in actuality, it is the Board of Elections who certifies. Mr. Rodgers said this Section states that the Clerk certifies to Council, which is totally different than certifying to the Board of Elections. Mrs. Bartolozzi read the discussion notes from the Minutes of the April 10, 2008 meeting. Mr. O’Donnell said that the Clerk can bring redress to obvious defects on the face of the petitions, such as an insufficient amount of signatures. Mr. Thompson said the Section is just saying that the Clerk certifies to Council and that he or she is not certifying that it is a valid petition to go on the ballot. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked if they should specify what the Board of Elections’ role in the procedure is, for clarification purposes. Mr. Urban said that the Board of Elections has their role by statute, and when it will comes to the City, the Clerk simply delivers it to Council. He thinks that this is the certification they are referring to.
Mr. Rodgers moved to remove the discussion of adding the County Board of Elections’ function with regard to Recall in Article VIII, Section 2 from the Master List of items for further discussion and not pass such item to the Ballot List. Mr. Snyder seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
Removed from Master List – Item NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Master List Item
No. 14. Discussion of adding
language specifying a “passing score” and procedures if there are not 3
qualified candidates in Article V., Section 2A.
Mr. O’Donnell said that previous discussions were whether they should require that a candidate receive a passing score in order to be considered for Fire Chief or Police Chief. He said that was universally recommended by almost everyone who spoke about it. He recalled that the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Chris Klym, said that the Ohio Revised Code currently provides for that also. Mr. Snyder invited those in attendance to speak.
Lieutenant Hudec said their main concern is for the appointment of the Police Chief to remain inside the Police Department and that the Mayor not be allowed to go outside of the Department to hire. He said they also have a concern about how the language is written regarding those who are allowed to take the test. For instance, he asked if they had only one Lieutenant, then would they then be allowed to pull from the Sergeants. Mr. Thompson said that the Commission had previously decided not to discuss the appointment of a Chief without the Civil Service process. Chief Wagner said that their concern is, if the Charter requires 3 qualified candidates, then they are worried it will be opened up to the outside to reach that number and they don’t want there to be an option to go outside of the Police Department to find a qualified candidate. He said that because a lot of them will be retiring, and if they only have 1 Lieutenant qualified to take the test, then they feel they should be allowed to go down to the Sergeant level to find two more candidates.
Mr. O’Donnell asked Chief Wagner if he is looking ahead and anticipating a problem. He said that right now, the Charter provides for 3 people and he wonders how it currently works when a spot opens up and there aren’t 3 people. Chief Wagner said that this is the first time he can remember in 35 or 40 years that they may have to go down to the Sergeants because of the DROP program. There may only be 1 Lieutenant who wants to take the test and in that case, they believe it should be open to the Sergeants. He said they are concerned that this Commission will recommend that they need 3 qualified candidates and allow them to find them outside of the City. He said that if you make it such that it has to be 3 candidates, then they are concerned there may not be 3 people that end up in the position to be promoted. However, there would be if they were allowed to pull from the Sergeants. Mr. O’Donnell clarified that the Charter already says 3 candidates.
Mrs. Bartolozzi asked what a reasonable passing score would be if they wanted to specify one in the Charter. Chief Wagner said that the passing score is set by the Civil Service Commission and sometimes it is 60% and sometimes it is 70%. He said there is no issue about a passing score. Mrs. Bartolozzi asked Chief Wagner how he would feel if they recommended that the language read that the Civil Service Commission shall certify to the Mayor those individuals with a “passing score.” Chief Wagner said that would be even better because it would be removing the 3 person requirement. There is no reason to make any change at all other than to have it read “a passing score.”
Chief Wagner repeated that they are concerned that there is a very good chance they will go outside the City for a candidate and he feels that does not make any sense. He said he has been in meetings where they discussed going outside the Police Department to find the Police Chief. Mr. Urban asked him how that would happen. Chief Wagner said it would happen if they couldn’t find 3 qualified candidates. Mr. Urban said the Charter reads that the highest 3 candidates get sent to the Mayor and he interprets that to mean if only 2 take the test, then only 2 will be sent to the Mayor.
Sgt. Stillman came forward and said
he would like to clarify what they are worried about. He said that with the DROP program happening
in 2011, the Chief and 3 Lieutenants will have to retire from the Police Department. When that happens, there will be 1 Lieutenant
left, meaning there would be only 1 qualified candidate to take the test. They are worried that the City would be able
to go outside of the
Chief Flynn came forward and said that there is nothing in the Charter that says anything about a candidate being “qualified” at this point. The worry is that something to the effect of “qualified” would be inserted. As the language reads now, the Mayor may choose from among the top 3 scorers. He said that Mayor Bobst was concerned that it did not say the top 3 “passing” scorers and wondered if the word “passing” should be defined. The reason it was never included before is because everybody knew that everybody was going to pass. As far as who can take the test, he said it is all laid out in Civil Service Law. If there are no Lieutenants then they go to Sergeants, then to patrolmen, then to probationary patrolmen. He said it is the same for the Fire Department. If there are no Captains who want to be Chief then they can go to Lieutenants. If no Lieutenants want to take the test then they go to the fireman off probation, then the probationary fireman. He said he was a Lieutenant before he was promoted to Chief because the Captains did not want to take the job of Chief. He said that the concern is whether they will put in some kind of wording that says something about “qualified” or “passing” that will handcuff the process.
Mr. O’Donnell said that the proposed changes were to add the words “with a passing score” and it seems nobody had an issue with that. He said the second proposed change, which is where some of the confusion came in, is that the Charter doesn’t really provide for what happens if you don’t have 3 candidates. In that case, the answer seems to be that it just works its way down through the ranks. He said that if they were going to address in the Charter how it would work if they didn’t have qualified candidates, they could add a provision saying something like, “…as provided in the Ohio Revised Code.” He said there is no push from this Charter Review Commission to go outside of the City to find a candidate for Police Chief. He then explained that the word “qualified” came from the agenda and is not an example of proposed wording. It is just casual language.
Mr. Thompson said that the Charter currently reads that the Civil Service Commission will certify to the Mayor the highest three (3) candidates. Mr. O’Donnell said that following that phrase, they could insert, “…with a passing score.”
Mr. Bemer said he agrees with what Chief Flynn said and that it is not necessary to specify “with a passing score” because they are all going to pass. He said there is a certain amount of integrity that goes into the process and if that is the only thing, then he would encourage the Commission not to put it on the ballot.
Regarding the situation of not having 3 candidates to present to the Mayor, Mr. Bemer said it would go to State Code if there are any areas of silence. The State Code says each must have a passing score and the test must be competitive, which means at least 2 people should be taking it.
Mrs. Bartolozzi moved to remove the discussion of adding language specifying a “passing score” and the procedures if there are not 3 qualified candidates in Article V., Section 2A from the Master List of items for further discussion and not pass such item to the Ballot List. Mr. Snyder seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
Removed from Master List – Item NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
Master List Item No. 9. Notification by Certified Mail, Article III, Section 13(3).
This item was tabled at the last meeting so Law Director Bemer could find out more information. Mr. Bemer said that he looked at the different delivery methods of the U.S. Postal Service. Like Mr. Urban mentioned, he said it is possible to get a delivery with notice. He said that under the civil rules the way litigation works starts with the filing of a complaint and service, which means the delivery of the summons and the complaint. The whole issue has to do with the Court having authority to go forward with the case by having jurisdiction over the party that is being sued and proper service to make sure due process is complied with according to the rules of civil procedure. Lawyers look at the Civil Rules to make sure a party who must respond is duly notified of a complaint against them because their own particular interest or property rights will be affected. He said he does not necessarily subscribe that providing notice to contiguous residents is a due process issue because he does not think it is necessarily a property rights issue. Mr. O’Donnell asked Mr. Bemer why he does not think it is a property rights issue for the contiguous resident. Mr. Bemer said because it is a question of what they are losing. Mr. O’Donnell said that what they are losing is the contiguous property being zoned. Mr. Bemer said that it indirectly may affect their real estate but it is not an intrinsic attack on their own particular interest. Although property value could be affected by a rezoning, he does not see it as an intrinsic attack or challenge.
Mr. Snyder said he agrees in that he feels the City is covered by doing what the Charter currently says. He said the City is making an effort to let the contiguous property owners know and that is what this Section is designed to do. Mr. O’Donnell said that the thought is to change the requirement for Certified Mail to just regular U.S. Mail. He said we are considering going to a lesser standard than what we are currently required to do in the Charter. Mr. Bemer said the problem with Certified Mail is that people don’t want to go and pick it up at the Post Office because they fear it is bad news. Mr. O’Donnell said that under the current procedure, it is alright if they don’t pick it up, but we will have the proof we made the effort. Mr. Manoloff said that the Charter provides that failure of delivery shall not invalidate any ordinance, map, or regulation which may be adopted. Mr. O’Donnell said that the Clerk of Council’s concern was the cost of Certified Mail when a condominium is involved. Since rezoning is not done on a regular basis, it was determined that the current process of Certified mail, even though it can be a cumbersome and expensive process, it is the proper way to notify contiguous neighbors and this Section shall not be amended in the Charter.
Mr. Rodgers moved to remove the discussion of notification by Certified Mail, Article III, Section 13(3), from the Master List of items for further discussion and not pass such item to the Ballot List. Mr. Lazzaro seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
Removed from Master List – Item NOT PASSED to the Ballot List
This concluded the Commission’s discussion of Master List Items, to date. However, the following discussion resulted in the addition of one more item to the Master List and ultimately, the Ballot List.
Mr. Bemer said that at the last Charter Review Commission meeting, Mr. Manoloff mentioned a couple of issues he was engaged in as part of Lakewood’s Charter Review Commission and followed up with an e-mail to Mr. Bemer. One of the issues had to do with executive session and to be sure that it complies with the Sunshine Law of open meetings. Most Charters follow that you can go into executive session to discuss pending or imminent litigation with your attorney. He said Mr. Manoloff gave him information on two conflicting District Court decisions, one from the Cincinnati District and one from Cuyahoga County. Mr. Bemer summarized those two decisions. He said that given the case law, he is not sure he would necessarily explore this any further.
Mr. Manoloff summarized the pros and cons of exploring it further. In his view the Sunshine Law is violated a lot in this respect and it creates the possibility of nullification of subsequent action taken by Council, as well as civil forfeitures and attorney fees, court costs, etc. He said the flip side is that there are not that many cases on this topic, suggesting that people just don’t see the distinction and as a result, it is a non-issue. When it does come up, as in one of the cases summarized by Mr. Bemer, the Courts try to find their way to a result. When there is a violation, the way that they seem to do this is by finding ways to show that there was no reason to call the meeting to order because it was really not a meeting in the first place. He mentioned another case where it was decided it was not a meeting because there was no discussion or deliberation between the members of council. Instead, it was a back and forth question and answer session between the lawyer and council people with no side to side discussion. Therefore, it was not a meeting and there was no reason for it to be called to order. Mr. Manoloff said that as he mentioned two weeks ago, there is a disconnect between the Sunshine Law in that you cannot talk to your lawyer about anything but you can write about it. He feels that just does not make sense.
Mr. Snyder said he is interested in what was mentioned in the second part of Mr. Manoloff’s e-mail to Mr. Bemer. Mr. Bemer said it is basically a blanket, catch-all authority to allow City Council, in consultation with the Law Director, to correct typographical errors and other matters that are irrelevant and to even eliminate from the Charter things that no longer have any applicability without having to place each change on the ballot. Mr. Manoloff referred to it as “non-substantive clean-up” of the Charter, such as typographical errors and gender specific reference. Mr. Snyder said that when they make changes that cause the renumbering of Articles, they would not have to go to a vote of the people simply to re-number it. Mr. Bemer asked the Commission if this is something they would like to place on their Master List for further discussion and possibly consider adding a provision to the Charter to allow this.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that with the focus of making the
Charter a little more user friendly and concise so that the average person
reading it can understand it, she is in favor of adding this as another item. She has discovered while reading and
interpreting the Charter that there are a number of places where language can
be improved and spelling errors corrected.
She feels that the Charter reflects the City and because of some of the
archaic language and typos, she feels it does not reflect the best of
Mrs. Bartolozzi moved to add as Master List Item No. 25, the discussion of adding language to the Charter allowing for City Council, in consultation with the Law Director, to correct spelling errors, etc., as discussed. Mr. Snyder seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
ITEM MOVED TO THE MASTER LIST
Mr. Manoloff moved to approve Master List Item No. 25, adding language to the Charter allowing for City Council, in consultation with the Law Director, to correct spelling errors, etc., as discussed. Mr. Urban seconded.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays
PASSED TO THE BALLOT LIST
Lt. Kevin Bednarski,
Lt. Bednarski said that at the recommendation of Chief Flynn, they have moved on to what they call assessment centers. There is still a written test, but in addition, candidates go through a series of oral interviews and they are placed in tactical, personnel and disciplinary situations. These interviews are all videotaped and recorded. When completed, the people who conduct the interviews review the tapes and each candidate is scored in a variety of categories. Those scores, along with the written test scores are calculated and a recommendation is made to Civil Service personnel as to which person finished first. He said this has not been done for the Chief’s position yet, but he assumes it will be used for the next Chief’s test. The test costs a lot of money because 6-8 people are brought in to conduct it and the fee pays for their room and board for a couple of days. Chief Flynn said the costs to run the recent Captains’ and Lieutenants’ assessments were close to $15,000.
At the end of the test, the group of testing personnel will
certify who they feel is the best person to be the Chief. Lt. Bednarski said that despite thousands of
dollars being spent on the assessment team’s expertise, the Charter still recommends
that the Civil Service Commission will send to the Mayor the highest 3
candidates and the Mayor slects the Chief from those 3 candidates. He said it seems to be a waste of time and
money to conduct this test and then the Mayor can say he or she does not agree
with the panel of experts and can choose a candidate other than the top
recommendation. Lt. Bednarski said he
feels that issue needs to be visited, expecially since we have a strong Mayoral
form of government in
Mrs. Bartolozzi asked Lt. Bednarski if his preferred language would be that the Mayor is required to appoint the highest scorer. Lt. Bednarski said that she is correct.
Mr. Lazzaro asked how many candidates were involved in the recent Captains and Lieutenants promotions. Lt. Bednarski said that 3 people took the test for 1 Captain’s job. When that person was promoted, it opened up a Lieutenant’s position. He said he thought that about 9 people took the test for that spot. Mr. Lazzaro asked how close the results were between the winner and the second person. Chief Flynn said that the scores for the Captains’ test were very tight and the Lieutenant scores were very close too. Mr. Lazzaro said that an argument could be that the Mayor could draw the distinction between the very close scores. Lt. Bednarski said they are concerned that the possibility could exist for the scenario where someone would score 95% and another candidate would score 60%. The Mayor could say that he or she doesn’t really like the candidate who scored 95% and instead, choose the candidate who scored 60%. Then, within a year’s time, the Mayor could be voted out of office and the City is not any better for his or her choice for Chief.
Mr. O’Donnell said that because the Chief has to work closely with the Mayor, some consideration should be given to the Mayor’s choice. Lt. Bednarski said that is correct if the idea is to politicize the position. He said they would be letting the Mayor select someone who they might only work with for 1 or 2 years as opposed to someone who a panel of experts says will be a good choice to serve as Chief for possibly a long time. Mr. O’Donnell said that a close score such as 4 hundredths of a point is basically a tie and in that case, for the Mayor to pick the number 2 candidate is not a big issue. He feels it would make sense for the Mayor to choose the person he or she would work better with.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said she feels it would be difficult to pick the Chief just because the panel of experts says that person is the best person for the job and go on that recommendation alone. Lt. Bednarski said he cannot say whether this is the best way to choose a Chief because they have never used the assessment centers for the Chief. They have only used them one time recently for the Captains’ and Lieutenants’ test. Mrs. Bartolozzi said she can see where assessment centers can provide additional beneficial information regarding interpersonal and judgment skills and she thinks the added input the centers could provide is a positive thing. She feels the ultimate choice should rest with the Mayor versus just the assessment centers.
Mr. Rodgers said in the earlier discussions it sounded like the Police and Fire Department do not want any input from anyone else regarding the decision of the Chief and they want to keep it in-house. He said from what Lt. Bednarski is saying, the Fire Department wants an independent group to make that decision based on their assessment. Chief Flynn explained the process, saying that the score for the assessment along with the candidate’s score on the written test are used to determine a candidate’s overall score. He said Lt. Bednarski’s point is, after going through both the written and assessment center testing, the Mayor can pick who he or she wants anyway. Mr. Urban said that the Mayor is picking from the top 3 scorers.
Lt. Bednarski concluded by saying that the Civil Service Commission has determined that it is worthwhile to invest that kind of money and believes that process will help determine the best candidate for a position. He feels that whether there is a tenth of a point difference or a 30 point difference, the fact that the Mayor is allowed to choose the lower scoring candidate, from a Charter standpoint, should be revisited. The object is to look for the best candidate for the City and the Mayor, who serves at the will of the people and who could be voted out of office in a short amount of time, may not be qualified to make that decision for the long term health of the City.
Mrs. Bartolozzi said that there is a certain amount of
subjectivity that enters into the process, regardless of whether it is the
Mayor who is choosing a candidate or it is the assessment center doing the
testing. She said there are many
variables and this method of testing is relatively new for the City of
Mr. Manoloff asked if much of this could be handled at the level of the Civil Service Commission by the promulgation of rules which would tie the hands of the Mayor through the operation of the Charter. He said all the Charter says is that it is the duty of the Civil Service Commission to certify to the Mayor 3 candidates in a promotional examination. However, the Civil Service Rules might further restrict, and say the Mayor must choose the top scorer. Mr. Bemer said the Civil Service Rules are the enabling process and protocol. The Charter says the Mayor can pick from the top 3 candidates for the Chief. How they get those candidates is determined by Civil Service rules. Mr. Manoloff said that he does not read Section 2A as saying that the Mayor has absolute discretion when it reads the Mayor’s powers are restricted by the regulations of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Thompson said that since the test scores are a matter of public record, if the Mayor was to pick someone for Chief who scored 70% as opposed to someone who scored 98%, there would have to be some accountability and questions answered by the Mayor as to why that choice was made.
It was determined by the Commission that the assessment center testing is premature and no change to this Section should be proposed until it is determined that such testing will be used to assess candidates for the Chief’s position. However, this conversation brings up the awareness that there could be some issues later that may want to be addressed by future Charter Review Commissions.
The next meeting will be on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at which time they will review the language drafted by Law Director Bemer for the 10 Ballot items, as follows:
1. Qualifications of Mayor, regarding military service requirements, in Article II, Section 2.
2. Qualifications
of Council, including military service requirements, in Article III, Section 3.
3. To
clarify and improve the language with regard to the qualifications of the Law
Director to reflect that a person may run for such position with 5 years of
experience as a licensed practicing attorney in Article IV, Section 2
4. To
add 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).
5. Regarding
the budget timeline for Parks and Recreation Committee, to remove the first day
of June and replace it with the appropriate language in Article VI, Section 4(c)(3).
6. To change the language to conform the investment of City funds to State Law in Article VII, Section 3.
7. Amend the expenditure limit from $15,000 to be consistent with the State in Article VII, Section 4.
8. Revision
to specify that the Primary Elections shall be held on the second Tuesday in
September in Article IX, Section 2
9. Change
the due date of a candidate’s declaration of candidacy from 60 days to 75 days before
the Primary Election in Article IX, Section 3
10. Adding language to the Charter allowing for City Council, in consultation with the Law Director, to correct spelling errors, etc., as discussed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:450 p.m.
Date Linda Bartolozzi, Co-Chairperson
Greg Thompson, Co-Chairperson
Kate Straub, Secretary