MINUTES OF MEETING
2008 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 13, 2008
***********************************************************************
Members Present: Thompson, Lazzaro, McGovern, O’Donnell, Rodgers, Snyder, Urban, Smith
Absent: Bartolozzi
Presence Noted: Mayor Pamela Bobst
Andrew Bemer, Law Director ************************************************************************
Mr. Thompson opened the March 13, 2008 meeting of the 2008 Charter Review Commission at 7:04 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall.
Mr. Thompson asked if anyone has comments on the Minutes of the March 3, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
MOTION: Moved by Mr. Urban, seconded by multiple members, to approve the Minutes of the March 3, 2008 Charter Review Commission meeting.
8 Ayes – 0 Nays PASSED
Mr. Thompson said they will begin tonight’s meeting with the selection of the Secretary. They received 2 resumes from applicants this week and all members said they had an opportunity to review those resumes.
MOTION: Mrs. McGovern moved to select Kate Straub to serve
as Secretary because she works for the City and it would serve this Commission
best because of her contacts in the City.
Seconded by Mr. Urban, who added that the other applicant does not live
in the City of
8 Ayes – 0 Nays PASSED
Mr. Thompson explained that the Commission will review certain Articles each week and the discussion leader will present their summary. The purpose of these initial weeks is to do a quick run-through of the Articles and invite the appropriate City personnel to be present for the discussion. If they determine that there is further discussion needed on specific articles, then the item will be moved to the master list and key people will be invited back to discuss it in more depth.
Mr. Thompson explained that they would be discussing Articles I, II and X of the Charter tonight and that these will be presented by Mrs. McGovern. Having been a member of the Charter Review Commission in 2002, Mrs. McGovern will also be able to give this Commission an idea of what they will be doing during this review process.
ARTICLE I – MUNICIPAL POWERS
Mrs. McGovern said that the purpose of a Charter is to tell
the world what
Mr. Bemer added that the Charter is the foundation of all
the enabling laws of our City and the opening paragraph is the critical aspect. Everything that follows in the Charter and
everything that is passed by City Council is really based on that opening
paragraph. When we became a
Mr. Thompson thanked Mr. Bemer for making that point, and said one of the very important things regarding this process is making sure that the Charter of Rocky River is consistent with current general laws. Mr. Bemer will be able to give us the insight needed to determine what the general laws are and their effect on the Charter Review.
ARTICLE II – THE MAYOR
Mrs. McGovern said that 48 of the municipalities in the
County have Charters. The National Civic
League says that for communities having over 10,000 citizens, the best type of
Municipal Government is the Council–Mayor type, which means a strong Council
and weak Mayor. She pointed out that
The length of the term for our Mayor is 2 years. Mrs. McGovern said that 6 years ago the Charter Review Commission presented an amendment to the Charter proposing 4 year terms, but it did not pass. She pointed out that many other communities have 4 year terms for the Mayor and 2 year terms for the Council, so the terms do not have to be the same. When the Mayor joins them tonight, Mrs. McGovern said she would like to ask her opinion about proposing 4 year terms again.
Regarding Article II, Section II of the Charter, Qualifications of Mayor, Mr. Bemer said the last sentence refers to the Mayor holding dual public office in the City of Rocky River. The concept is whether there should be an avoidance of any public official, and certainly the Mayor, of serving two public masters. That has always been the debate. Mr. Bemer said it is up to this Charter Review Commission to determine whether that is a good idea or not. It was mentioned that the way the Charter reads, the Mayor may not hold another public office in the City of Rocky River or on the Board of Education for Rocky River or Fairview Park, while Mayor.
Mayor Bobst entered Council Chambers and joined the Charter Review Commission meeting at approximately 7:25 p.m. Mrs. McGovern continued to review Sections II through IV of Article II. Regarding Section IV, Vacancy and Absence in Office of Mayor, Mr. Thompson pointed out that this was one of the items subject to a proposed Charter Amendment 6 years ago. Mr. Lazzaro said he would like to highlight the subject of temporary absence, specifically the definition of “temporary” for later discussion.
Regarding Article II, Section 5(a)(2), the Mayor’s duty of
“control over all departments and divisions except those reserved by this
Charter to Council or its officers and employees,” Mrs. McGovern explained that
there was a Charter amendment that passed 6 years ago. The Parks and Recreation Board was initially
set up in
Mr. Thompson acknowledged Mayor Bobst and invited her to provide her input on Article II. Mrs. McGovern asked Mayor Bobst if she is in favor of a 4 year Mayoral term. Mayor Bobst said she would like to speak to both sides of that issue.
Mayor Bobst said that the residents want to be able to vote for their Mayor every 2 years. A 4 year term is seen as the removal of an opportunity to have a vote, as well as a voice. Rocky River is a very successful community and it functions very well so the question is why would we change the terms of office either by staggering them or lengthening them when the community is well served by those short terms? Because of the high level of accountability for the Mayor and City Council it is important for them to follow through with what they say they will do.
Mayor Bobst said that in the last 2 years she has been in office, one of her areas of focus is to look at initiating long term plans. For instance, one of the first things she asked for as Mayor was a comprehensive sewer maintenance and rehabilitation plan. Long term, it is approximately a 20 year plan, and is estimated to cost about $55-60 Million. With a 2 year Mayoral term, the amount of projects they will be able to get started as they implement that long term plan will be very limited. She can see that having 4 years would enable that plan to be implemented to a greater extent. The Mayor said she comes from a research background in Public Health and Healthcare where there is a model of assessment planning, implementation and evaluation. There are times, in a 2 year period, you cannot accomplish all of that and make the necessary adjustments to have a successful plan. However, she understands where the residents are in terms of voting on this issue when it comes to a Charter Amendment, as well as voting every 2 years for an elected official.
The Mayor highlighted some of the other long term things
they are working on that require more than a 2 year period to implement for
continuity with Council and with the Administration. She mentioned that they are updating the
entire Development Code. In addition,
she said how we prepare for potential natural or manmade disasters in terms of
safety and preparedness also requires a long term plan for assessment,
implementation and evaluation. It seems
as though there is new information every month on how we should put that plan
together and coordinate it with other levels of government and other communities
to implement it successfully. The Mayor
said her focus has been to put in place some plans so if she were not in that
seat, a subsequent Mayor could pick up that document and know where we have
been, where we need to go and allow for the allocation of funds and resources
to accomplish it. Mayor Bobst explained
that in the Westshore Council of Governments, which is made up of
Mr. O’Donnell addressed Mayor Bobst saying that every two years they are spending excessive amounts of time campaigning when that time might otherwise be better spent in the City. Mayor Bobst said that one of the things she has been very clear on is that campaigning is something that must be kept quite separate from City Hall. She had a very busy campaign in the fall with a lot of evening events, coffees, and door-to-door campaigning, but it was all kept separate. She said that when it is managed, everyone understands it is part of the territory. It is not a distraction from City Hall, but perhaps the greatest burden is on the candidate’s family.
Mr. Lazzaro asked the Mayor to speak to the cost for the City to run an election every 2 years. Mayor Bobst said it is about $25-27,000, but since we have gone back to paper ballots she would have to confirm that amount. Depending on whether there is a city-wide primary or just a primary in a specific Ward, that dollar amount would change. Mr. Lazzaro asked the Mayor to confirm that the City, rather than the Board of Elections, bears all of the costs for City elections. Mayor Bobst confirmed that. Mr. Lazzaro said the reason he asked that question is for the potential cost savings to the City.
Mrs. McGovern asked the Mayor if she feels she is overburdened with duties. Mayor Bobst said she does not feel overburdened because of her excellent staff. She said they do very well in serving the residents of the City. Mr. Rodgers asked whether there would be any logistical or expense benefit to the community if they were to move the Mayor Election to even years as opposed to odd years. Mr. Bemer said there is a state law that says all municipal elections must be in odd years. That is an example how we cannot contradict state law.
Mr. O’Donnell said there is currently a line item veto for anything to do with appropriating money. The Mayor pointed out that during her 13 years of involvement with the City, it has never been used. Mr. O’Donnell asked for confirmation that every Bill is either signed as is or is objected to, and then sent back to the Council for Review. Mayor Bobst said that a Bill can also be amended. She said there has never been a situation where a piece of legislation has been passed and the Mayor has either vetoed it or sent it back to Council. There is a history of a very collaborative process here and any issues that may have surrounded a Bill were resolved prior to the passage of the Ordinance.
Mr. Rodgers asked the Mayor for any comments or input regarding the minimum 1 year residency requirement for the Mayor. He said that some of the surrounding communities have longer requirements and he wonders if she feels 1 year of residency is sufficient. Mayor Bobst said there are residency requirements for every appointed office in the City and most of them are 1 year. She said she can understand the thought that there should be an additional requirement for the Mayor’s position. However, Mayor Bobst said she feels that would be reflected in an election. If there were a candidate who was involved in the community for an extended period of time versus an individual with a very short residency, she feels that fact would be viewed as part of the campaign and handled by the election process. However, she said she would support a longer residency requirement.
Mr. Urban asked about the part of Article II that states
that if the Mayor were called to active Military service she would have to
resign as Mayor. The Mayor said there is
no example of that happening in Rocky River, but in Lyndhurst, a Councilman was
called to active duty twice. She said it
was a matter of brief discussion 6 years ago.
Mrs. McGovern said these are remnants from the time when people were drafted. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Bemer to explain what
Mr. Thompson said he feels this also has to do with the point brought up earlier by Mr. Lazzaro regarding temporary absence. In this regard, Mr. Lazzaro asked the Mayor what she thinks the definition of “temporary absence” is, and to also clarify the term “inaccessible” in light of today’s technology. Mayor Bobst said she and Mayor Knoble talked about this on a couple of occasions. He was rarely inaccessible. The only time a Mayor has been inaccessible by at least a phone call, is when they are under anesthesia during surgery. It is rare that there is any necessary City business that does not take place prior to such surgery and after. Because of today’s technology, Mayors are always accessible, so this has not been utilized. Mr. Lazzaro said it might help to consider defining “temporary” better and gave some examples of how he feels the term “temporary” is vague. Mr. Snyder said he understands what Mr. Lazzaro is saying, but he does not want to turn the Charter into the Revised Code by starting to define everything in it. He said some things will have to be subject to interpretation or the Charter will become bigger and bigger over the years. The Mayor said if she were to define temporary absence, it would be an absence in which a Mayor cannot perform his or her duties as prescribed by the Charter or the Administrative Code. Because there are many things a Mayor is able to do with the use of technology, it would refer to those situations when he or she cannot perform the duties as Mayor.
Referring to their earlier discussion about whether the
Mayor can hold other public office outside of the City, Mr. O’Donnell said that
Article II, Section II seems to restrict the Mayor from holding other office
within the City and perhaps also within the Fairview Park School Board. Mayor Bobst said that it would not qualify
for the Fairview Park School Board because a person would have to be a resident
of Fairview Park. Mr. O’Donnell asked
the Mayor if she thinks a provision in the Charter restricting the Mayor from
holding public office in any other City might be something we should
consider. Mayor Bobst said she believes
the issue is not public office, but public employment. She said to restrict public employment in
another city would be to possibly restrict individuals who live here, work
elsewhere and hold public employment.
This occurred with a Council member who accepted a position with the
Lottery Commission. It was evaluated as
not being public employment. Mr.
O’Donnell asked if there would be any benefit to looking at a provision to make
it broader than the current restriction of public employment just in
Mr. Thompson asked the Commission if they feel that looking
at this more closely would give them the opportunity to alleviate some conflict
of interest issues for the Mayor. He
said that we would obviously like the Mayor to have the interests of the City
of Rocky River first and foremost, and currently, we are just limiting the
additional service issue to Rocky River.
Mr. Rodgers asked Mr. Bemer why it is specific to
Mr. O’Donnell asked Mayor Bobst if she would clarify for him
the way legislation is passed in
Referring to Section 5, concerning the Mayor’s power to remove any officer or employee of the City, Mr. Lazzaro asked the Mayor for her thoughts on oversight with regard to this. The Mayor said the strong Mayor form of government speaks to the appointment authority of the Mayor. In our Charter, the Mayor may appoint all the Boards and Commissions, with no review of Council. The Charter Review Commission is an exception to this in that they are fully Council’s responsibility. She said that putting oversight to that Section would be counter to our strong Mayor form of government.
In her final comment, Mayor Bobst said that the Mayor’s judicial powers are very limited and there is a lot of discussion at the State level on Mayor’s Courts. Because we house a multi-jurisdictional municipal court, the last thing we would want to see established in the communities utilizing the Court would be Mayor’s Courts because the financial implications would be devastating. The Mayor said there is a separation between the 3 branches of government, and Mayor’s Courts should be eliminated. It makes sense in some communities to implement these, but our community and the surrounding suburbs would not be likely candidates for Mayor’s Courts.
Discussion was had regarding the Mayor’s attendance at future meetings to participate in discussions pertaining to each Article and which additional guests would be invited to speak on specific Sections. Mrs. McGovern asked the Law director when the amendments have to be delivered to him in order to get them on the ballot in November. Mr. Bemer said he would encourage this Commission to finish their Charter review by the end of May.
ARTICLE X – GENERAL
Mrs. McGovern reviewed Article X. Regarding Section I, Conflict of Interest; Personal Financial Interest, Mr. Bemer said there is a lot of case law on this and he used the example of the prosecution of Bill Knoble when asked how this Section is enforced. A conflict of interest could be in the form of undue influence in a contract or having a personal interest in a contract. A criminal court makes the determination of whether prosecution should result.
When asked whether Section 6 – Open Meetings, is in sync with State law, Mr. Bemer responded that this section is done very well and is in line with State law. Open meetings is the reverence that the public is given to ensure that everything is done in public. It was pointed out by Mr. Thompson that as a result of the Charter Review Commission Meetings 6 years ago, there were no changes made to Article X.
Mr. O’Donnell said he observed in Article X that the last paragraph in Section 6(1) appears to be repeated twice. It was determined that one seems to focus on item (1) having to do with a Motion and a vote to hold and the other time it appears seems to pertain to items (2) through (6). It was determined that discussion about these paragraphs would not be added to the master list for further discussion.
Reference was made to a spelling error in Article II, Section 5(a)(11), which reads “Keep the Council full advised…” when it should read “fully”. Mr. Bemer said any spelling error change they wish to make to the Charter must be taken to vote. It was determined that this particular spelling error would not be moved to the master list for further discussion.
Mrs. McGovern added that in the next few weeks, this Commission will develop a master list of items they feel need more in depth discussion. They will review further those items that are placed on the master list. It was determined that they would go back over each Article they reviewed tonight and identify which items should be added to the master list.
The Commission determined by informal vote, each item receiving at least 3 votes in favor by Commission members, that the following items should be added to the master list for further discussion:
A schedule of topics and discussion leaders was developed and will serve as a guideline for the meetings in the coming weeks. Following that series of meetings, they will go over the master list of items for further discussion and invite specific guests to provide input during those discussions.
March 20, 2008
ARTICLE III – COUNCIL
Discussion Leader: Linda Bartolozzi, William Lazzaro
March 27, 2008
ARTICLE IV – ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Discussion Leaders: John Urban and Mike O’Donnell
ARTICLE VI – BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Discussion Leader: Greg Thompson
April 3, 2008
ARTICLE VII - FINANCES
Discussion Leaders: John Urban and Mike O’Donnell
April 10, 2008
ARTICLE IX – NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
Discussion Leaders: Laurence Snyder and Larry Rodgers
April 17, 2008
ARTICLE V – CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Discussion Leader – Bernice McGovern
ARTICLE VIII – INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL
Discussion Leader – Christopher Smith
It was discussed that although the public is welcome at the initial 6 meetings of the Charter Review Commission, public comment will not be heard at those meeting. Since the matters will be discussed at a later date, the public will be welcome to comment then. The Commission will determine at a later date whether pubic comment will be heard at the beginning or the end of the meetings.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Date GREG THOMAS, Co-Chairperson
LINDA BARTOLOZZI, Co-Chairperson
Kate Straub, Secretary