[0:01] All right, we will call the meeting to

[0:03] order at 5:32. This is the review

[0:06] committee uh the charter review

[0:08] committee on August 20th. Um we will

[0:12] look at the minutes from last meeting

[0:15] which was August 6th. So you've had a

[0:17] chance to review those. I will entertain

[0:20] a motion for acceptance if there are no

[0:22] other comments.

[0:23] >> I'd make a motion to approve the August

[0:25] 6 minutes. Second.

[0:27] >> Thank you. All those in favor? I

[0:30] >> I

[0:30] >> All those opposed.

[0:33] >> All right, those minutes are approved.

[0:36] Moving on to item number three, which is

[0:38] the discussion of the prior provisions

[0:40] that we reviewed or the provisions that

[0:42] we reviewed at the prior meeting. Um,

[0:45] Miss Wall has given us all of those

[0:47] corrections based on our commentary.

[0:50] Is there any discussion? Do we want to

[0:52] go through each one of these or is there

[0:54] any discussion on any of this? I I

[0:57] personally thought it looked good but

[0:58] open for discussion on

[0:59] >> why don't we just go one by one just to

[1:01] make sure. Okay.

[1:03] >> Um so section 38 that was originally one

[1:07] where um I had prevented prevented

[1:10] presented samples from multiple

[1:12] communities around us. Um and you had

[1:15] given feedback on um structure and

[1:19] language. Um the one question I had was

[1:22] whether B um for the action for removal

[1:28] reflected our conversation. It looked

[1:30] like what I had in my notes, but I just

[1:32] wanted to make sure that was that I

[1:35] picked the right one.

[1:42] So with that then um should we consider

[1:45] this quote unquote final until the

[1:48] public hearing

[1:51] >> type situation?

[1:53] >> I thought it I thought it reflected what

[1:54] we discussed in kind of the consensus a

[1:57] everybody kind of had a little bit to

[1:58] add in so I think it it reflected that.

[2:01] Um anyone else?

[2:04] >> I'd agree with that statement.

[2:06] >> Okay. And um going back for the record,

[2:08] Miss Wiggins had let us know that she

[2:10] will be late to the meeting. So just so

[2:11] that's on the minutes, we will uh bring

[2:14] her in when she arrives. Um yeah, so 38.

[2:18] Okay, we will put that one in the report

[2:20] for the public hearing.

[2:21] >> Okay.

[2:22] >> Um next was section 4-1 definitions. Um

[2:27] there essentially the underlying point

[2:30] of the revisions was to add motions to

[2:33] it. Um and then some additional language

[2:37] that was generally found in um some of

[2:40] the other charters around us which is

[2:42] that we are superseding the law of the

[2:45] state by having motions essentially.

[2:55] Any thoughts, comments? Should we

[2:58] consider this one ready for the public

[3:00] hearing?

[3:00] >> Yes.

[3:01] >> I thought it was good.

[3:02] >> Okay.

[3:04] Um, next on

[3:08] the first reading

[3:12] and apparently in my lateness late

[3:15] nightness the I did not put the red line

[3:18] in or in the color. Um, so essentially

[3:20] what we were doing with um the first

[3:23] reading was making it clear that it only

[3:27] moves to a second

[3:30] reading if it's passed at the first

[3:32] reading. Um, and then also we took out

[3:36] the specific

[3:40] publication

[3:41] of being in the newspaper.

[3:45] Um and then I think I also simply just

[3:47] said it will be published according to

[3:49] 46. That way all the publication

[3:52] um requirements are in one section as

[3:54] opposed to being repeated

[3:56] in each section in which publication is

[3:59] being used.

[4:05] » Looks good to me.

[4:07] >> Okay, we will put that one ready for the

[4:10] public hearing then. Um again in

[4:14] publication the question was um about

[4:17] publishing in the newspaper and so we

[4:20] removed that from the requirement and

[4:23] now the requirement will be publication

[4:26] on the website and social media accounts

[4:29] and then posted at the municipal

[4:31] building and two other public buildings

[4:32] within the city. Um, the reason I added

[4:35] the social media accounts is that the

[4:38] actual statute says website and social

[4:42] media accounts, there's no

[4:45] difference in, you know, what has to be

[4:49] posted on the social media accounts. So,

[4:51] and since that is often more checked

[4:53] than the city's website, um, I went

[4:56] ahead and put that in there. However,

[4:59] this is a charter and you certainly do

[5:01] not have to have that requirement in

[5:03] there if you would prefer to keep it at

[5:05] the web page and the two the municipal

[5:09] building and two other public records.

[5:12] >> Who manages our social media? Is it the

[5:14] same individual as the websites?

[5:17] >> Uh, our communications manager Rich

[5:18] Hopkins.

[5:20] >> And that duty would continue on. So,

[5:21] he's in charge of Rich is in charge of

[5:23] the website and social media.

[5:24] >> That is correct. Yes.

[5:25] >> Microphone. Is your microphone on?

[5:28] >> Mine?

[5:29] >> Yeah.

[5:29] >> Yes.

[5:29] >> Okay. Didn't look like it from here.

[5:31] Sorry.

[5:33] >> Thank you.

[5:36] >> I mean, social media is not going away,

[5:38] right? So, I think if we put that in

[5:40] there, I don't think it's overly

[5:42] restrictive because that's not I mean, I

[5:45] think that's

[5:47] going to be around for a while.

[5:49] >> It It's not identifying any particular

[5:51] social media account

[5:52] >> like a newspaper, right? [laughter]

[5:54] >> It's a MySpace account.

[5:56] nor is it requiring the city to form any

[6:00] new social media accounts. So, whatever

[6:03] they have, they have.

[6:07] >> I think that's fine as long as that's

[6:09] attainable

[6:11] >> to what we're already doing. That's not

[6:13] added work, right?

[6:15] >> I don't believe so, but we can confirm

[6:17] that. He currently puts on the video

[6:20] from the council meeting, but then it

[6:21] also does a brief summary of what

[6:23] actually the meeting and it goes a

[6:25] little bit more detail of what it it has

[6:28] the entire meeting, what council voted

[6:30] on and so forth. So, it's a little bit

[6:32] more than just the legislative summaries

[6:34] that I post at the three buildings.

[6:36] >> Okay.

[6:39] » And is also posted on our website as

[6:41] well.

[6:42] >> Wonderful. So with that, any comments,

[6:47] changes, anything on 4.6?

[6:52] >> Think we're good.

[6:52] >> Okay.

[6:56] » Yeah.

[6:58] >> I'm just just a comment on 4-3. I think

[7:02] we've clarified

[7:04] as far as

[7:06] what is done after the first reading,

[7:09] but I know that the question has come up

[7:12] if an ordinance fails or is not approved

[7:15] at the first reading, does it still get

[7:18] that second reading or not?

[7:21] >> No. So, that's covered by the if

[7:22] approved at its first reading by

[7:24] council, a summary shall be published

[7:27] and then placed on the agenda for the

[7:29] next council. So if it doesn't pass,

[7:31] it's not placed on the agenda.

[7:33] >> Okay. So the two separate readings would

[7:36] be

[7:38] would not be required then.

[7:40] >> Correct. Because it did not pass the

[7:42] first.

[7:43] >> Okay.

[7:44] Um

[7:46] I don't know if it would help but for

[7:49] future people down the road, future

[7:51] councils and city leadership

[7:54] to add a sentence. If not approved, it

[7:57] would not move to a second reading or

[7:59] would that not be appropriate?

[8:03] >> I don't it's up to the committee. I

[8:06] personally don't feel that that sentence

[8:08] is needed because

[8:11] one, it's logical to me that if it

[8:14] doesn't pass the first reading, it

[8:16] wouldn't go to the second reading.

[8:18] But I also was raised kind of in city

[8:21] government. So perhaps I have a

[8:26] unique perspective on that.

[8:31] >> We'll also note for the record, Miss

[8:32] Wiggins has arrived.

[8:36] » I think we talked about that momentarily

[8:38] last week, didn't we? That it wouldn't

[8:40] go to second if it wasn't passed.

[8:43] >> Clearly, there's been a question at some

[8:45] point that has been raised, though.

[8:47] >> Yeah. One of one of the debates that

[8:49] I've heard on a couple occasions is that

[8:52] the first statement there is that every

[8:55] ordinance is given two separate readings

[8:57] by council on two separate days. So, one

[9:00] of the

[9:02] um I want to say conflicts or one of the

[9:05] debates that council has heard is you've

[9:09] got to pass it the first time to get it

[9:11] to the second reading because it

[9:12] requires two readings. The way it's

[9:15] written now, it is clear that it's not

[9:17] going to get a second reading if it

[9:20] doesn't pass. But because the first

[9:23] statement has it's given two separate

[9:25] readings, the debate is okay. If it

[9:29] doesn't pass, does it even get another

[9:30] reading? I don't know.

[9:32] >> I think this is an easy fix now that I

[9:34] see where you're going.

[9:36] >> A slight revision to that first

[9:38] sentence. Um, taking out the word given.

[9:42] um

[9:45] and going more towards the overall

[9:48] requires two separate readings before

[9:50] formal enactment or formal adoption.

[9:54] So why don't I um work on that sentence

[9:59] a little bit for the next meeting

[10:01] >> clarify that point so that there is no

[10:04] question on the given aspect um and

[10:09] we'll just remove that topic from the

[10:12] >> I think that's a great catch the the

[10:15] lawyers love this catch [laughter]

[10:17] >> this is great it seems very that sent

[10:20] now I'm thinking to myself that sentence

[10:21] seemed clear like Oh,

[10:24] >> the first one reading it all together

[10:26] that we have

[10:26] >> Yeah.

[10:27] that's awesome. Thank you for

[10:30] that.

[10:33] >> It's from experience.

[10:35] [laughter]

[10:37] » Um, okay. So, I will bring that one back

[10:40] at our September 10th

[10:44] meeting

[10:46] >> or whatever the actual date is. If we're trying to get some of these and

[10:50] this one included on there prior to the

[10:54] public hearing,

[10:56] would it be helpful to spitball the

[10:58] language now?

[10:59] >> Oh, no. The public hearing is not till

[11:01] October. We're going to have gone

[11:02] through all these by the public hearing.

[11:04] >> Okay.

[11:04] >> The only ones that you guys may not have

[11:07] done a quote unquote second review of

[11:10] are the ones that are the week before

[11:12] the public hearing. If there are changes

[11:14] to that, the review may just be when I

[11:16] get it, when you review it prior to the

[11:18] public hearing.

[11:19] >> All right. Thank you.

[11:20] >> No problem.

[11:23] >> Um, and so that now takes us to

[11:27] article 9 and the initiative and

[11:31] referendum.

[11:32] Um,

[11:34] there is a lot here. I will tell you

[11:38] that I do not have old or new fully

[11:41] memorized. and off the top of my head.

[11:43] So, I will be working through it with

[11:45] you um as well. Um,

[11:50] essentially the one that has been

[11:53] proposed is the one from

[11:57] Clayton, I believe, that was recently

[11:59] revised and adopted by Clayton and has

[12:03] kind of been viewed as a good starting

[12:08] point or clear in what the processes are

[12:12] um, in that. So, I don't know if you

[12:16] want to actually look at the current one

[12:19] and see and kind of walk through what it

[12:21] requires right now before looking at the

[12:23] new one or if you want to look at the

[12:26] new language

[12:28] and just start from there. What would be

[12:31] the committee's

[12:32] preference?

[12:36] I mean, I have a preference, but I don't

[12:37] want to speak for everyone. I would I

[12:40] would think we would just start from the

[12:42] red and move forward from there. But

[12:44] what is the consensus?

[12:48] >> I was thinking look at the old language

[12:50] and what we think is wrong with it and

[12:53] whether we're confused by it, if you

[12:55] will. Um but okay, I I will not argue

[12:58] either way.

[12:59] >> Mr. Durham, do you have a

[13:01] >> I think using the existing language as a

[13:05] starting point is all

[13:07] >> Mr. Blank. state.

[13:10] >> It's such a substantial rewrite I almost

[13:13] >> unless we have questions about how

[13:14] things used to work would move on to the

[13:16] red.

[13:17] >> Okay.

[13:18] >> Mr. Atkins,

[13:19] >> I

[13:21] reviewed [clears throat] some of it and

[13:22] I I did find a few things that didn't

[13:25] make sense to to me and I was in the

[13:28] original language. So,

[13:30] >> where would you prefer to start?

[13:32] >> I I think go through the original

[13:34] language and then

[13:36] >> All right. Consensus has it. We'll start

[13:37] at the original.

[13:39] >> Um, city manager Al House had the

[13:42] suggestion that maybe we go section old

[13:44] new by that way. They line up fairly

[13:48] close but not exactly, but um, we can go

[13:52] from there. Um, so first of all, just as

[13:55] our little 12th grade civics reminder,

[13:58] an initiative is a piece of legislation

[14:01] that is brought by the people and that

[14:04] says, "We want this on the ballot

[14:06] because you're not passing it. We want

[14:08] to pass it." Um, a referendum is a piece

[14:12] of legislation that council has passed

[14:16] that the electorate says, "We don't like

[14:18] it. We want it off."

[14:21] So section 9-1 is about initiatives and

[14:27] essentially the original language says

[14:29] that the electors have the power to

[14:32] propose any ordinance and to adopt or

[14:34] reject the same at the polls and that it

[14:37] is initiated by submitting to council

[14:39] through a petition signed by qualified

[14:42] electors equal to a number at least 15%

[14:46] of the number voting in the last general

[14:48] election. Um, as some background, it is

[14:52] typical to use actual turnout to

[14:57] determine the number of people signing

[14:59] petitions in a situation like this as

[15:02] opposed to the whole electorate. Because

[15:06] practically speaking, if you based 15%

[15:09] of the whole electorate, you would never

[15:12] get a petition on the ballot.

[15:16] The

[15:18] new language makes it clear or even more

[15:23] clear than the original language that it

[15:26] is only ordinances

[15:28] um that are subject to referendum and

[15:30] initiative. And this is where it doesn't

[15:32] match up exactly because we didn't talk

[15:34] about referendums yet. Um,

[15:40] and

[15:43] so is let me back up and say it this

[15:45] way. Um, ordinances are subject to

[15:49] referendum as permitted by the

[15:52] constitution, the state of Ohio, or the

[15:55] charter. So if though the charter says

[15:59] an issue is not referendum,

[16:03] is that a word? or able to be put on by

[16:06] initiative, it overrides the other

[16:10] two ways or places where it could say it

[16:13] could be on the ballot. Um because

[16:15] again, charter home rule, we've said

[16:17] great, no thanks. Um,

[16:21] also the others like the state of Ohio

[16:24] laws cannot expand what the charter says

[16:28] or be used to interpret what the charter

[16:30] says whether or not something may be

[16:32] eligible for initiative or referendum.

[16:35] So that's the new language. So

[16:37] essentially it's basically saying

[16:40] charter controls what can be put on as

[16:43] an initiative or um

[16:48] referendum

[16:53] going down to section 9.2 to catch up a

[16:56] little bit. Um

[16:58] council

[17:01] may

[17:03] submit any ordinance to a vote of the

[17:06] people

[17:08] by a vote of four members.

[17:14] The ordinance is not subject to

[17:16] initiative. So in other words,

[17:20] if

[17:22] council would say we want to on their on

[17:26] their own

[17:28] decision, we want the vote the electors

[17:31] to vote on this.

[17:33] The people cannot do an initiative of a

[17:38] exact same kind of question or so there

[17:41] can't be competing

[17:43] ordinances on the ballot by initiative.

[17:46] So that's just once council's voted by

[17:50] four to do it, then somebody can't start

[17:53] their own initiative out there that

[17:55] changes the language a little bit.

[17:56] Right.

[17:57] >> Right.

[17:59] >> Um,

[18:01] of course, the electors would be the one

[18:02] that would determine what could go on.

[18:05] Um,

[18:07] it's in this section where it says that

[18:10] within that the petition must be

[18:12] submitted within 30 days of the passage

[18:14] of the ordinance.

[18:16] that matches up with the fact that an

[18:18] ordinance does not take effect for 30

[18:21] days. So basically within the time frame

[18:24] between passage and effective date,

[18:27] that's when the people can organize and

[18:33] file the petition for the referendum.

[18:37] Um

[18:40] I'm just going to jump ahead to 9.2.1

[18:43] for a minute.

[18:45] This section is not really reflected in

[18:49] the new language about zoning.

[18:58] If it's an ordinance, it can still be by

[19:00] referendum, but there's not a section on

[19:03] zoning in the new language.

[19:06] Um, I'm going to go ahead and do 9.3

[19:12] and then jump back over to

[19:13] >> What's the reason for that? Is there

[19:15] just no need for it to be separate?

[19:18] >> Um, it's again to in my personal opinion

[19:24] if

[19:25] changes are made by ordinance then they

[19:28] are already a eligible for referendum.

[19:32] any other change in zoning that would be

[19:35] by um other legislation such as um

[19:41] a variance or something like that

[19:45] which isn't even really by legislation.

[19:47] Um you don't want that up for the vote.

[19:50] So I don't know that there really should

[19:52] be special rules for zoning.

[19:56] you

[19:57] >> there's there's certain instances where

[20:01] um planning commission or board of

[20:03] zoning appeals can just make the

[20:06] judgment. It's not a a referral to

[20:09] council. So I think in th is that what

[20:11] you're trying to say is that in those

[20:13] cases those shouldn't be up for

[20:16] referendum.

[20:17] >> Yeah.

[20:20] >> Anytime that it's a referral to council

[20:23] that's when it's an ordinance.

[20:26] So any change to the zoning code has to

[20:29] occur by ordinance.

[20:31] So if the issue

[20:34] are there others I don't know about.

[20:36] Okay. You just reacted a little bit.

[20:38] Okay. Okay. [laughter] Okay.

[20:39] >> Okay. Um so because it's an ordinance,

[20:43] it's able to be referendum and so really

[20:47] it's kind of duplicative and setting up

[20:51] potentially a conflict. In my opinion,

[20:55] >> I think there are times that it's more

[20:56] administrative in nature of, you know,

[20:59] record a record plaid or some, you know,

[21:01] record a a plan or something like that

[21:03] where it doesn't again go across

[21:05] council's desk. So, I think they're

[21:07] trying to avoid that being up for

[21:09] debate.

[21:12] I will note last year we experienced

[21:16] some confusion

[21:18] between um zoning and ordinances when it

[21:23] came to a planned unit development and a

[21:26] planned unit development is passed by

[21:28] ordinance.

[21:30] So that is a circumstance where it would

[21:32] it could be subject to a referendum,

[21:35] but because the zoning section was in

[21:37] there, it became a little bit diluted

[21:40] and murky with how it was interpreted

[21:43] and there were different interpretations

[21:45] from that. So I agree with the law

[21:47] director if this section is taken out,

[21:49] it would abolish that confusion.

[21:54] There's also aspects on the PUDS where

[21:59] the first part is passed by ordinance

[22:01] and is clearly eligible for referendum.

[22:05] Other parts down the road related to

[22:07] that PUD are passed by um legislation.

[22:12] And so then it becomes a question of

[22:15] wait a minute, if this original vote was

[22:19] ref able to be referendum, why aren't

[22:21] these other votes related to that PUB

[22:25] able to be referendum? I don't know if

[22:28] those are real words. We're just going

[22:30] to go with that's proper English at the

[22:32] moment. Um, and so again, that section

[22:36] is partly what's creating that chaos

[22:38] when it comes to things like PUDS. So,

[22:41] it takes the whole plan's been approved

[22:43] and now people are trying to pull parts

[22:45] out to Okay, that makes perfect sense.

[22:48] Okay.

[22:50] >> Um, I'm just again I'm going to go ahead

[22:52] and do 93 because I think doing the flow

[22:54] a little bit and then going to the new.

[22:57] Um, so under the current charter

[23:00] provision, um, I'm going to ignore the

[23:03] fact they have to be uniform in size,

[23:05] but essentially you present your

[23:08] petition to the clerk of council. Um,

[23:12] there needs to be what's called a

[23:14] committee of the petitioners and it can

[23:16] be no more than five. And um,

[23:20] >> why is that? the petition or the

[23:23] committee

[23:23] >> the committee

[23:24] >> so that there is a point person point

[23:29] group that is saying we are taking this

[23:32] on and we are responsible for it

[23:35] happening. Otherwise, you very well

[23:38] could have five different groups

[23:42] bringing a set of petitions for the

[23:45] exact same item and

[23:48] you know five people might be working in

[23:50] two of the three groups and just to

[23:53] create some organization.

[23:58] Um

[24:00] just like with other petitions, there

[24:02] has to be an affidavit of the circul

[24:04] circulator that they circulated the

[24:06] certificate certificate um the petition

[24:09] and got the signatures.

[24:12] Jumping to the new

[24:15] um here it says no less than three and

[24:18] no more than five. So we're putting a

[24:21] minimum number on that committee. Um and

[24:25] again

[24:26] they file a proposed ordinance or the

[24:29] referred ordinance um to the city

[24:33] manager. Now

[24:36] I guess I should have jumped to 94. That

[24:38] is fairly similar to

[24:42] what we have in the original which is in

[24:46] 94. Um it's just referring to the clerk

[24:48] of council which is the city manager as

[24:51] opposed to just referring to the city

[24:53] manager. Um

[24:57] we in and this language is a direct

[25:01] clarification from some confusion that

[25:03] happened in that incident that the city

[25:06] manager referred to. um the city will

[25:10] provide the petition under the new

[25:12] language so that what is provided they

[25:16] know they can rely on. Um they will then

[25:20] obtain the appropriate number of valid

[25:22] signatures for the petition which again

[25:25] is 15%

[25:27] just like the original language of the

[25:30] number of electors who voted at the last

[25:32] general election held for the office of

[25:34] governor in the municipal corporation.

[25:37] So we're being very specific what last

[25:40] election is being referred to.

[25:44] Um, and then for

[25:49] I'm sorry, that's for initiatives. For

[25:51] referendums, it would take 10%.

[25:53] So, you're switching out that number.

[25:57] The logic behind that is that you want

[26:00] to show more buyin from the electorate

[26:03] that the

[26:06] item being put on the ballot by the

[26:08] electorate is wanted by the electorate.

[26:12] The referendum number can be is

[26:15] sometimes considered to be a lower

[26:17] percentage because it's more the

[26:21] electorate saying wait a minute

[26:24] we want to review what you guys have

[26:26] done.

[26:28] Do those percentage have to be

[26:30] different?

[26:31] No. You could make them both 15%.

[26:35] I would not vary from the 15%. It's kind

[26:38] of a solid

[26:40] uniform number that's used for these

[26:43] situations. But that is one item for you

[26:46] all to consider is whether it should be

[26:49] lower for a referendum than an

[26:51] initiative.

[26:55] Um

[26:58] once the number of

[27:02] s signatures have been acquired then it

[27:05] gets filed with the board of elections

[27:08] as well as with the city manager.

[27:11] Um note again that in the new language

[27:16] the 30 days is

[27:20] for a referendum.

[27:22] The filing has to occur to the board of

[27:24] elections within the 30 days. So again,

[27:28] it matches that when it takes effect,

[27:31] they have to have the petition filed.

[27:34] Um

[27:36] then the board of elections does their

[27:38] review regarding the required and valid

[27:40] signatures and the city managers to

[27:43] notify the petitioners whether or not

[27:45] they were able to meet the standard.

[27:51] with that

[27:54] um once it's filed with the board of

[27:55] elections, it will be suspended from

[27:58] taking effect. So, in other words, the

[28:01] ordinance passed will not take effect

[28:04] until the vote occurs.

[28:06] Um or

[28:08] the board of elections determines the

[28:10] petition was insufficient, the petition

[28:13] is withdrawn, council can still repeal

[28:16] the ordinance.

[28:18] um and then after the vote.

[28:22] So, let's kind of stop there for a

[28:24] second and talk about each of those

[28:27] items. Um

[28:32] you may say,

[28:34] why would they withdraw the petition?

[28:38] It very well may be that there's, for

[28:42] lack of a better term, negotiations

[28:44] going on between council and the

[28:48] community members about what the issues

[28:51] are. And so council may be agreeing to

[28:54] take steps to amend or otherwise address

[28:58] what the issues are in that. Um, it very

[29:03] well may also be that while they've

[29:07] gotten the correct number of signatures,

[29:10] they're facing a lot of opposition

[29:13] from the rest of the community or

[29:16] they're realizing the rest of the

[29:17] community does not agree and agree to

[29:20] pull it. So there does it happen often?

[29:26] No. But there are times it could

[29:28] [snorts]

[29:29] and you want that avenue so that you

[29:31] don't have to have something go to a

[29:32] vote that no one wants to go to a vote.

[29:40] Um I'm going to stop there.

[29:44] Thoughts, questions up to that point or

[29:48] do you guys want to keep going and then

[29:50] do it all at once? I thought it might be

[29:52] helpful to just kind of break for a

[29:53] minute and digest. I think this is a

[29:57] good pause to check in.

[30:02] » Sir,

[30:03] >> I've got a few

[30:04] >> go

[30:05] >> questions on this. So,

[30:06] >> if that's all right with Madam Chair.

[30:08] Absolutely. Please. By all means.

[30:10] >> Um,

[30:15] saving some of the other portions for

[30:17] later. Um it's very well written this

[30:21] section

[30:24] and this will be a question that is now

[30:25] but also revisited later but

[30:28] coming from the board elections pers

[30:30] perspective why do we not refer or is

[30:32] there a reason not to refer to the

[30:34] revised code for the guidance on how to

[30:39] initiate and conduct both the

[30:41] referendums and the initiatives. I would

[30:45] say the thought process is that home

[30:48] rule

[30:50] so that you're not going back and forth

[30:52] between the charter and the revised code

[30:56] and trying to figure out what melds and

[30:59] doesn't meld when you're on the

[31:01] petitioners committee and even for the

[31:04] city trying to maneuver this. I think we

[31:07] want it all in one location so that

[31:10] there isn't confusion about what is and

[31:13] is not required. Does this part of the

[31:15] charter change that type of situation?

[31:21] See? All right. Um, the other question I

[31:24] had is on the petitions. Who is

[31:26] reviewing them for sufficiency? Not only

[31:29] as to number but to form because the BOE

[31:32] has in here the requirement to review it

[31:35] for sufficiency of signatures. But then

[31:38] in 93 has the requirement to also review

[31:40] it for just sufficiency.

[31:42] >> I believe it's all the BOE. So if the

[31:44] all the BOE then is the BOE required

[31:47] then to use only the charter and if

[31:49] there's a conflict between the charter

[31:51] and the revised code at a county

[31:52] government level where do where does the

[31:54] BOE fall this

[31:56] >> in that decision because that that comes

[31:58] up uh the BOE can't certify

[32:02] >> the BOE can certify to the charter that

[32:04] it complies with the charter.

[32:05] >> Yeah,

[32:05] >> that's that would be their job there.

[32:07] >> It would have to be entirely in this

[32:09] then. So you're asking the board not

[32:11] only to certify the number but now for

[32:14] the sufficiency of the petitions.

[32:16] >> Correct.

[32:17] >> Even if that petition is missing

[32:18] something that a revised code would

[32:20] otherwise require.

[32:20] >> The revised code that would not but it

[32:23] would not be required here because it's

[32:24] not in the charter.

[32:29] » This happens. I mean I know where you're

[32:30] going from. Logically it's odd to us.

[32:33] >> We had it happen. Yeah.

[32:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um due to the number of

[32:37] charter cities in the general area,

[32:41] this happens quite a bit where there is

[32:44] confusion at the BOE.

[32:47] Oops. We probably should have certified

[32:49] that because it complies with the

[32:51] charter or vice versa. Um so they are

[32:55] familiar with the concept. It wouldn't

[32:58] be new to them. But what I'm hearing

[33:00] from you is if we're not going to

[33:03] reference the

[33:06] OC that we put more detail so that they

[33:11] have a checklist kind of of what to

[33:13] certify against.

[33:17] » I think a requirement that no offense

[33:19] Kurt the city manager's office is the

[33:21] one or some and the council is the one

[33:24] that is certifying the form the

[33:25] petitions. the BOE is only being asked

[33:27] to certify the number would clarify that

[33:30] easily because we're already a very long

[33:33] article on this, longer than a lot of

[33:35] our almost every single neighboring

[33:38] jurisdiction.

[33:39] >> Um, so

[33:41] I would not put the city manager

[33:45] certifying the form. You want a neutral

[33:48] party certifying. So, I would take it

[33:51] out of the city manager and out of the

[33:55] law director or anyone in Vanelia

[33:58] certifying it.

[34:00] >> I think I may have been mis mis

[34:02] let me rephrase that if you will.

[34:04] Certifying the form of the a form of the

[34:06] petitions prior to their submitting

[34:09] them.

[34:09] >> Yes. So, the form

[34:10] >> is already done. The form is already

[34:12] clear.

[34:12] >> Correct.

[34:13] >> Uh and at that point

[34:15] >> only the

[34:17] board of elections is certifying the

[34:18] number. correct. They technically would

[34:22] certify that it's correct, but the form

[34:24] given out by the city manager should

[34:28] be the form is is what I'm

[34:32] >> think so.

[34:32] >> Yes, we're on the same page there. Yes.

[34:34] Yes. I didn't understand what you

[34:36] were saying. Yeah. Um the form that is

[34:39] handed out by the city um should have

[34:44] all the nuts and bolts of the form if

[34:49] it's going to come from the city. Yes.

[34:52] And I think we can clarify that a little

[34:55] bit in here

[34:58] without adding length.

[35:01] I have general heartburn whenever asking

[35:04] the outside agency who has to b you know

[35:06] is bound by the OC to certify something

[35:09] that may be in conflict with the OC if

[35:11] it's not carefully done

[35:14] >> understood

[35:15] >> it will cause conflict in heart

[35:17] >> and then go to common police court

[35:21] >> we won't

[35:22] >> no sure um does that do you think making

[35:27] it clear that

[35:30] the form term handed out from the city

[35:32] manager shall comply with all aspects of

[35:36] the charter or something along those

[35:38] lines.

[35:39] >> I'd like to personally see something up

[35:40] in 92 in the middle there or the very

[35:42] first paragraph where the petition uh

[35:45] that the forms provided by the the city

[35:48] manager conform to the charter but also

[35:51] to the OC uh so that there's not a

[35:53] conflict there. But then also under 93A

[35:57] where it says uh um there's a final

[36:01] termination of insufficiency u identify

[36:04] whether or not we're asking

[36:04] insufficiency of the form or

[36:06] insufficiency of the number of of

[36:08] signatures

[36:09] and would recommend we do only the

[36:11] number of signatures. That way we're not

[36:13] asking the BOE to also get in conflict

[36:15] with this city and the council to say,

[36:18] "Well, your petitions aren't valid for

[36:20] this other reason over here, which by

[36:23] the way, we'll give grounds to whomever

[36:24] is challenging it to bring a lawsuit."

[36:28] >> Correct.

[36:30] >> But if it's if it's simply the number of

[36:32] signatures,

[36:34] that's a it's a that's a straightforward

[36:37] direct ask.

[36:42] Let's

[36:44] We're obviously going to look at this

[36:45] again next week or two weeks from now.

[36:48] So, let me play with it a little bit.

[36:50] Um, let me talk to the city manager a

[36:53] little bit because I know there have

[36:55] been some issues in this community in

[36:58] the past and so I want to make sure I

[37:01] fully understand what those were so that

[37:04] we don't have that problem.

[37:06] >> Thank Sorry to take up that much time.

[37:12] Um, anything else kind of up through

[37:15] 93?

[37:22] I feel like we need a dry erase board.

[37:24] Just map everything out.

[37:29] Um, okay. So,

[37:32] over in the picking up from 95

[37:39] um in the old language

[37:43] at the next

[37:45] meeting

[37:47] and this is part of the reason why the

[37:49] old language is confusing. We're back on

[37:52] initiative in the middle of what had

[37:54] been kind of about referendums but about

[37:57] both. But um if there is an initiative,

[38:01] council is to consider it within 30

[38:03] days. Um

[38:06] there can be public hearings, they can

[38:09] reject the ordinance or pass it in a

[38:12] different form. Um

[38:15] and then that that committee of

[38:17] petitioners

[38:20] can be required

[38:22] to

[38:24] can be asked whether or not a modified

[38:28] ordinance that was passed by council

[38:31] should be put on the ballot.

[38:33] Um

[38:37] 96, if there is a referendum, the

[38:40] ordinance does not take effect.

[38:44] And then 97 addresses essentially what's

[38:49] on the ballot. Um the vote is either for

[38:53] the ordinance or against the ordinance

[38:57] and then we have the election results.

[39:00] So, going back to the new language,

[39:06] if a petition has been deemed sufficient

[39:09] by the board of elections,

[39:11] um, council is to determine whether or

[39:14] not all of the requirements under the

[39:16] law and the charter have been met. And

[39:19] if those requirements have not met, the

[39:22] petitioners committee has 21 days to

[39:25] resolve the deficiencies or cure the

[39:28] deficiencies.

[39:30] Um,

[39:32] presuming they are curable.

[39:34] >> So, does that 30-day window

[39:39] the 30-day window then they have 21

[39:42] days? Like those kind of stack on top of

[39:44] each other, right? Okay.

[39:45] >> Yes. Yes. Now, [clears throat]

[39:49] If

[39:51] let's say the petitioner committee

[39:54] [snorts]

[39:55] steams right through and gets what they

[39:57] think are the number of signatures

[39:59] within 14 days. It's not like you're

[40:01] waiting till

[40:04] we get to 30 days to continue. So they

[40:07] stack but they also run Yep.

[40:08] >> consecutive. Okay.

[40:11] Um

[40:12] if they are cured

[40:16] then council is to

[40:19] uh acknowledge the validity of the

[40:21] petition and file that within the board

[40:24] of elections.

[40:26] At that point, then council is to take

[40:30] the appropriate action to place the

[40:34] measure on the ballot.

[40:40] B just makes it very clear that council

[40:43] at any time can reconsider its prior

[40:45] actions and either modify or repeal the

[40:49] ordinance that's been brought up for

[40:50] referendum.

[40:52] if

[40:54] the council passes a proposed ordinance

[40:57] and so this would be a referendum or I'm

[40:59] sorry an initiative issue without

[41:02] changes in substance

[41:04] um

[41:06] and which the peti the petitioner

[41:08] committee essentially is their sounding

[41:11] board on the initiative. So if they pres

[41:14] if the petitioners committee presents

[41:16] something and council says great idea

[41:20] but what about this would work better

[41:22] and the petitioners committee agrees

[41:25] then council can proceed with passing

[41:27] that

[41:29] um amended ordinance or yeah amended

[41:33] initiative.

[41:34] It can also repeal the referred

[41:36] ordinance

[41:38] after notice. Um,

[41:42] if they I apologize. If they take either

[41:44] of those actions, then a notice of

[41:46] withdrawal is filed with the board of

[41:47] elections essentially. So, if council

[41:50] takes care of the initiative by passing

[41:52] something or appeal or repealing the

[41:57] referendum item, then it come gets taken

[42:01] off the ballot.

[42:05] They also um can take such action as to

[42:09] simply just p place it on the ballot

[42:13] and then it takes a resolution

[42:17] to file the notice of withdrawal or the

[42:20] acknowledgement of validity. The reason

[42:22] it takes a resolution

[42:24] is if it was an ordinance, that

[42:26] ordinance would be open to referendum.

[42:30] So you could get into a cycle

[42:33] of referendums on one issue.

[42:37] Um so that's why it's very clear that step is by resolution.

[42:46] Um

[42:48] it's then held at the next regular

[42:50] municipal election

[42:53] which can't be more than or less than 75

[42:56] days or more than a year later.

[42:59] And um

[43:03] council can request a special election

[43:05] in order to comply with that section.

[43:11] It can an initiative or referendum may

[43:14] be withdrawn

[43:16] prior to the fifth day preceding the day

[43:19] scheduled for the election.

[43:25] And at that point it shall have no

[43:26] further force in effect essentially.

[43:30] So,

[43:31] let's break that those two down just

[43:34] slightly.

[43:36] Um,

[43:42] to me, that time frame for the vote

[43:45] makes sense just because if we're in an

[43:48] off-year cycle or something like that,

[43:51] there aren't a lot of election dates

[43:54] necessarily held in the state of Ohio.

[43:57] So it avo at attempts to avoid having to

[43:59] have a special election.

[44:04] It also avoids

[44:07] something being passed right before

[44:11] an election that's already scheduled and

[44:13] people scrambling to try and get it on

[44:15] without the electorate really being

[44:17] aware it's on the ballot. So I think

[44:20] that time frame makes logical sense even

[44:25] though it seems kind of a long time to

[44:27] go before a vote on a initiative or a

[44:30] referendum.

[44:34] the withdrawal of the petition.

[44:37] Um

[44:41] I believe and I did not check this even

[44:45] if it's withdrawn I believe the city the

[44:48] city would still have to share in its

[44:51] cost or its portion of the cost for that

[44:56] ballot item even if it's withdrawn.

[45:01] So,

[45:04] the side of me that says, "Hey,

[45:08] getting it off the ballot as much as

[45:12] possible is great.

[45:14] Five days may seem a little short to me

[45:18] or close to the election to me because

[45:23] if I'm correct, the city's going to bear

[45:26] the cost. It's let's say there's five

[45:28] other things on the ballot. it's one6

[45:31] cost of holding that election.

[45:34] Um, and if it's a special election,

[45:38] they're bearing the whole cost of that

[45:39] special election and you've withdrawn

[45:41] something 5 days before.

[45:45] Um, so I view that as a potential for

[45:48] creating confusion. That said, I do not

[45:52] know or have an idea what would be

[45:57] a better time frame. I just see that as

[46:00] being a

[46:06] potentially concerning issue that could

[46:09] lead to other concerns

[46:12] type of thing.

[46:22] What's the significance? Why five days

[46:24] out? Did that just count out right with

[46:26] the 21 and 14 days? That's what I don't

[46:29] know where the five came from. Um,

[46:34] Clayton, Clayton or Union, whichever one

[46:37] this comes from, one of those over

[46:38] there. Um, that's just how that was the

[46:42] time frame they had in there and I left

[46:44] it since we were using it as the model.

[46:51] » But in order to avoid the cost, isn't it

[46:53] like more than 30 days prior?

[46:56] >> Mhm. So if anything's running late,

[47:00] light's late, right?

[47:01] >> Yeah.

[47:02] >> 10 days, five days, doesn't matter.

[47:04] >> Yeah. I mean, you'd either have to make

[47:05] it a significantly long to take it off

[47:09] the ballot prior to the election or

[47:12] you're kind of stuck with this issue.

[47:14] Yeah.

[47:16] And at that point, if you're kind of

[47:17] stuck with the issue, I get the five

[47:19] days. You're close, but

[47:22] you're off. So it's that

[47:25] >> I feel like it'd have to be 60 days if

[47:27] you were going to try to avoid the cost

[47:29] because there would be like mail in you

[47:32] know there's a huge leadin time

[47:36] for the ballot

[47:37] >> 70 days

[47:39] >> seven I want to confirm that but seven

[47:41] days for a secretary of state to get

[47:42] certify the ballots the board boards of

[47:44] elections we have to have everything

[47:45] done well before then

[47:48] >> yeah

[47:49] so probably the five is yeah That seems

[47:53] Yeah.

[47:54] >> Yeah.

[47:57] >> Okay. Um

[48:00] just some general provisions and I'm

[48:03] just going with the new at this point.

[48:06] Um

[48:11] there should be notice of the initiative

[48:12] or referendum as required by the

[48:15] charter. So that publication on the

[48:18] website, the social media, presuming

[48:20] that gets adopted, and the two public

[48:23] buildings, um, emergency ordinances

[48:26] cannot be used to repeal or amend an

[48:30] ordinance enacted by initiative or

[48:32] reenact an init an ordinance that has

[48:34] been repealed by referendum. So there's

[48:36] no getting around what happened.

[48:40] um they can use a non-emergency

[48:42] ordinance to repeal or amend an

[48:44] ordinance enacted by initiative. Um but

[48:48] it takes five council members, not the

[48:51] normal four.

[48:53] And again, they can reenact something

[48:55] that was repealed by referendum with a

[48:58] vote of five. [snorts]

[49:03] If the county board of elections does

[49:05] not take any function as requested,

[49:09] then the clerk of council may do so.

[49:15] Um,

[49:19] and then 96 essentially says if the

[49:22] charter silent, it goes back to the Ohio

[49:24] Revised Code or the Ohio election laws.

[49:30] creates a confusion

[49:32] if but again goal is not to

[49:35] >> could do what's what Ketering and Tip

[49:37] City do and just say go to the RC

[49:40] >> you could

[49:42] >> but

[49:47] » so how often has this or has it ever

[49:50] occurred I find it amazing that we have

[49:53] oh five of you can undo what your

[49:55] elector just voted in that

[49:58] >> it seems like a giant wast waste of

[50:00] time, a giant waste of money, and a good

[50:02] way to get yourself unelected next

[50:04] round. But why would we do that if

[50:08] threearters of Vanelia just because

[50:10] council doesn't like it, if the voters

[50:12] like it, that's kind of what you're up

[50:14] in this seat for?

[50:15] Um, I'm going to say exactly what you

[50:18] just said because if [clears throat]

[50:21] they

[50:23] you can't you have to have just because

[50:26] the voters voted a law in does not mean

[50:31] that it can't be un

[50:36] it's not then written in stone never to

[50:39] be adjusted again. So, there's got to be

[50:42] a way that it's undone.

[50:45] Um, I'm going to be kind of flip or

[50:49] sarcastic with my example. Um,

[50:53] you could have the electorate

[50:56] put an [clears throat] initiative that

[50:58] would violate federal housing law.

[51:03] Council's got to do something to undo it

[51:05] because that could affect their the

[51:07] grants that the city receives, things

[51:09] like that. Um that's the I you know the

[51:15] dramatic example. Um but exactly what

[51:19] you said would you know theoretically if

[51:21] the city felt strongly about whatever

[51:25] was passed by initiative and council

[51:29] repealed it then the public can recall.

[51:34] the public can take referend or um take

[51:38] action at the next election.

[51:42] To answer your question about how many

[51:44] times has initiative or referendums ever

[51:46] been done, I do not recall in my adult

[51:50] life Tip City ever having one. I do not

[51:54] recall in my entire life, [snorts] I

[51:57] just wasn't as paying as much attention

[51:59] Tip City ever having one. May there's a

[52:02] vague memory of discussion of one, but I

[52:05] don't recall on tip and I don't think of

[52:06] any I don't have a good feel for

[52:09] Vanelia, but I'm not aware of

[52:12] anything in Vanelia.

[52:14] >> I think when we looked last year

[52:16] historically, the last one was in 2002

[52:19] if I'm recalling correctly. Last

[52:21] initiative.

[52:26] I know that

[52:30] I I don't know exactly the date, but

[52:33] when I checked in our record archive and

[52:36] what is on our um retention schedule,

[52:40] we did not have it because you're only

[52:43] supposed to keep it for five years. So,

[52:45] there were but I had to do some digging,

[52:48] but I think that's approximately the

[52:51] date, the year.

[52:53] >> So, it's rare there. There's a lot, this

[52:56] is one of those areas that there's a lot

[52:58] sometimes of we're going to do it,

[53:02] but then that's part of the reason for

[53:04] the petition committee is who's going to

[53:07] take the lead? Who's going to do it? And

[53:09] so it kind of fizzles out over time.

[53:13] >> What if because this this section caused

[53:15] me a lot of heartburn as well for the

[53:16] same reason. Uh what if we did what some

[53:20] other cities have done and [snorts]

[53:23] put in there that the issue cannot be

[53:26] revisited for say two years for example

[53:29] >> and that would be

[53:30] >> but we could also to to preserve the

[53:34] intent and the will of the voters. But

[53:36] then at the same time to make sure that

[53:38] we don't violate

[53:40] a superseding law of some sort, we put

[53:43] in there that it is that that um that

[53:46] two-year restriction would be waved uh

[53:51] in matters where the

[53:54] >> public health

[53:56] >> well

[53:57] matters that's uh cause conflict for a

[54:01] direct conflict to state or federal law.

[54:05] Uh so if if they if we change the law by

[54:07] voters and they said something that

[54:10] clearly violates housing law, federal

[54:12] housing law is absolutely discriminatory

[54:14] in every sense of the word. Well,

[54:16] council can then come in and say, "Okay,

[54:18] this should not have passed. I don't

[54:19] know what everyone was thinking. We'll

[54:20] be subject to, you know, recall later

[54:22] on, but we need to do something so we

[54:24] don't violate federal law." In that

[54:27] case, we could w Yeah. put in quick

[54:29] language to wave

[54:31] >> that restricted period.

[54:34] >> If we

[54:34] >> I think that makes sense.

[54:36] >> Yeah.

[54:37] >> But shouldn't something that extreme

[54:39] have been stopped by the BOE?

[54:42] >> N really conflicts with federal law?

[54:46] Okay.

[54:46] >> BOE does not judge what is put on the

[54:49] ballot. They just judge whether or not

[54:51] it's

[54:52] >> got signatures and backing,

[54:54] >> the sufficiency of the petitions. Got

[54:56] you. Got you. And I suppose there a as I

[55:00] asked the question and started thinking

[55:02] about it, it could be five years down

[55:04] the line line that council wants to

[55:06] because something's changed in the

[55:08] world. But yeah, maybe you you put a

[55:11] year or twoear hold on it.

[55:12] >> We find out it didn't work and instead

[55:13] of have everyone to go through the whole

[55:15] process again, okay,

[55:17] we have to live with consequences of

[55:19] revotes for a couple years. Is it when

[55:22] you since you did some research um was

[55:25] it normally two because I would have

[55:26] gone with one

[55:29] >> I mean there are different ones but two

[55:30] seem to be the one that was

[55:31] >> kind of consistent

[55:32] >> in the middle of council term also

[55:34] didn't put you in the middle of an

[55:35] election year uh for a general election

[55:38] that would cause other problems if that

[55:40] resolution itself were then

[55:43] not that if that were then challenged

[55:45] and how would we go back and do that and

[55:47] so you're not calling for special

[55:48] election in a general ginatorial

[55:50] presidential

[55:51] So

[55:54] >> I mean the math makes sense. I from a

[55:59] whatever perspective I have at the

[56:01] moment I would have probably said one

[56:05] but again I get the math part.

[56:12] By the way, my goal with this tonight

[56:15] was to do work our way through have a

[56:18] lot of conversation about it and then be

[56:21] given direction on those kind of things

[56:24] to talk about it next week, two weeks as

[56:28] well. Um, and recognizing this is

[56:31] probably going to come up a third, like

[56:34] take two or three of these meetings to

[56:36] really

[56:39] nail down what Vanelia should look like.

[56:47] » Is the language that's in section 95 of

[56:49] the proposed red redlettered, is that

[56:53] common in other city charters or just

[56:57] Clayton's?

[56:58] >> Yeah. So,

[57:00] the initiative and referendum sections

[57:03] really vary on the level of detail. Um,

[57:07] I do not recall seeing it in the other

[57:10] ones that I looked at, but

[57:15] this is definitely um

[57:19] more detailed in the other sections than

[57:22] a lot of them are.

[57:26] that I hope that made sense.

[57:33] » Where did you pull this?

[57:35] >> Clayton

[57:38] >> or Union.

[57:39] >> It's Clayton. Thank you. It's or as I

[57:42] think of it, one of those two over

[57:43] there.

[57:59] So let me ask this. Having heard the

[58:05] conversation,

[58:07] I think I know the direction

[58:11] you're thinking. Um there are also some

[58:14] things that have raised in my mind based

[58:17] on your conversations that could be

[58:19] cleaned up a little bit as well. um or

[58:22] at least I need to think about cleaning

[58:24] up a little bit as well. Do you think

[58:27] we're at the point for me to just make

[58:31] those revisions to present it the next

[58:34] time or do you think there's other

[58:36] discussion?

[58:41] I'm good with that plan. Others

[58:45] » I'm good with that plan. Does everybody

[58:48] else have any other commentary?

[58:51] Nothing.

[58:53] >> So, you'd send us a new version out and

[58:55] then we could add our comments back in.

[58:57] Okay. Yeah. I need to digest a little.

[59:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. And this is exactly

[59:02] originally we were going to do this last

[59:03] just because

[59:05] it's a lot and then I realized we're

[59:08] going to need two or three meetings to

[59:10] really handle this.

[59:15] Okay. Um

[59:18] that takes us to

[59:21] starting on September 5th 5th 10th

[59:28] um items which were pretty

[59:30] straightforward and I do apologize again

[59:33] about getting them out to you late last

[59:35] night. Um but they're not meaty. They're

[59:39] kind of straightforward. So um and again

[59:44] we can talk about them next time as well

[59:47] if need be. Um the first one is article

[59:51] 55 5-1 the appointment and

[59:53] qualifications for the city manager. Um

[59:57] this one

[1:00:00] apparently I forgot to take out the word

[1:00:02] removed removal. Um, essentially just

[1:00:04] clarifying that his appointment is until

[1:00:09] he's removed pursuant to the charter

[1:00:11] requirements or

[1:00:14] resigns.

[1:00:16] And the word removal should be marked

[1:00:18] out before removed. That was just a

[1:00:20] grammatical change I was making.

[1:00:27] » I don't think we let him resign.

[1:00:34] It it's really interesting looking at

[1:00:38] surrounding charters um how detailed

[1:00:42] this can get. Um I would say this is one

[1:00:46] that to me

[1:00:48] being clear but not

[1:00:52] specific makes a lot more sense.

[1:01:01] any or were you were you okay with that

[1:01:03] one?

[1:01:05] None. Okay. Um the next one on salary of

[1:01:10] the city manager is just to make it

[1:01:12] clear that that's a resolution, not an

[1:01:14] ordinance. It's currently required to be

[1:01:16] an ordinance.

[1:01:18] >> We striking the word ordinance.

[1:01:20] >> We are. What happened to my strikeouts?

[1:01:23] The additions got added but not the

[1:01:29] Okay. Next is removal of the city

[1:01:34] manager.

[1:01:35] Um, again, this is one where I'm looking

[1:01:39] for feedback as to how we may want to

[1:01:43] um proceed.

[1:01:46] So

[1:01:50] council

[1:01:53] can take action to remove the city

[1:01:55] manager

[1:01:57] 30 days prior to that. They're to notify

[1:01:59] the city manager of their intent, state

[1:02:03] the cause,

[1:02:05] immediately suspend him or her, and then

[1:02:09] appoint someone to take on those duties.

[1:02:12] After that notice, the city manager may

[1:02:15] request an appearance and they should re

[1:02:18] grant that request within two weeks

[1:02:20] after it's received. After full

[1:02:23] consideration, council may declare the

[1:02:25] city manager removed.

[1:02:27] Um

[1:02:29] action resulting in suspension or

[1:02:31] removal shall be by resolution requiring

[1:02:34] five members vote and it's final.

[1:02:40] It's not the structure is there or I

[1:02:44] should say there is a structure there.

[1:02:46] However, when you look at

[1:02:51] union and tip again, there's just a lot

[1:02:55] more clarity over certain things. So in

[1:02:59] union

[1:03:01] it breaks it out between a probation

[1:03:03] period or I'm calling it a probation

[1:03:05] period of six months and after that um

[1:03:10] if it's after 6 months the manager may

[1:03:13] demand written charges and the right to

[1:03:15] be heard at a public meeting

[1:03:17] and then um

[1:03:20] council may suspend the manager during

[1:03:24] that period. Um

[1:03:27] it is in it is clear that it is the

[1:03:30] intention of the city that the charter

[1:03:33] vests all authority in the council as

[1:03:36] far as the removal.

[1:03:38] Um

[1:03:42] so not necessarily a lot more detail

[1:03:45] than what Vanelia has but just very

[1:03:53] straight and to the point.

[1:03:56] Um, TIP, as we have seen in many of

[1:03:59] their provisions,

[1:04:01] um, lays out a very specific, you've got

[1:04:05] a preliminary ordinance,

[1:04:08] um, which states the reasons for

[1:04:10] removal. So, it's all public action,

[1:04:12] public record, um, which may suspend the

[1:04:15] municipal manager. Then five days after

[1:04:18] that, the manager may file a written

[1:04:20] request for the public hearing, which

[1:04:22] then is held within 15 to 30 days later.

[1:04:27] Um, council then may adopt a final

[1:04:30] ordinance of removal, which is again

[1:04:33] majority plus one. And um,

[1:04:38] again, it's clear that someone is

[1:04:40] appointed to fulfill their duties.

[1:04:48] Really the question in some ways is

[1:04:52] you know TIP has the structure of it's

[1:04:55] very clear there is a vote there is a

[1:04:57] suspension there is the right to be

[1:04:59] heard there's a second vote

[1:05:07] the way Vanelas is currently written

[1:05:11] it says should removal become come

[1:05:14] necessary council 30 days before the

[1:05:17] effective date will notify the manager

[1:05:19] of such intent. It's not clear how

[1:05:24] if they if they've taken a vote is that,

[1:05:28] you know, a public action. Is it we

[1:05:30] think this may be the case, so hey,

[1:05:32] we're giving you 30 days notice. That's

[1:05:34] where it becomes a little

[1:05:39] vague.

[1:05:44] Now

[1:05:46] I who like rules and like checklists

[1:05:49] like the two vote situation.

[1:05:52] What tips doesn't have is it doesn't

[1:05:55] have the nimleness

[1:05:57] when there is a

[1:06:04] dramatic

[1:06:05] emergency type of situation happening

[1:06:10] i.e. stealing from the city or

[1:06:12] something. Um but you call a special

[1:06:16] meeting, you take a vote. So there is

[1:06:18] nimleness in there. If there is

[1:06:21] something like that, you just have to

[1:06:22] wait 24 hours.

[1:06:30] Let me ask a question on this because I

[1:06:32] do I'm like you. I like the vote, but I

[1:06:35] also

[1:06:37] marked that when conduct is you like

[1:06:40] stealing from the city, we there should

[1:06:42] be a way to take care of it immediately.

[1:06:46] But if that's the case, we have and his

[1:06:50] or her salary for two months. If you're

[1:06:53] stealing from the city, I still have to

[1:06:54] pay you for two months.

[1:06:58] I'm used to at will and they can remove

[1:07:01] me tomorrow.

[1:07:03] >> So, yeah. So, theoretically using my

[1:07:06] dramatic stealing from the city,

[1:07:11] that would probably be something that

[1:07:13] would be

[1:07:15] addressed. Um, but again, it's not

[1:07:19] necessarily going to be 2 months because

[1:07:21] if you have a special meeting 24 hours

[1:07:24] later, you're looking at 30 days at most

[1:07:27] that the person would still be employed.

[1:07:30] So, we're not necessarily bound by any

[1:07:33] of the

[1:07:35] language and tips or that concept if we

[1:07:38] didn't want to go that way. So, we can

[1:07:40] pick and choose. Did that address your

[1:07:42] question?

[1:07:44] >> I think so. I just I just think we

[1:07:47] shouldn't write into law. I mean, we've

[1:07:50] had people removed fairly quickly, and

[1:07:53] I'd hate for in law for us to be paying

[1:07:56] somebody additional salary when they

[1:07:59] didn't work out within a 90-day period

[1:08:01] or within six months even. So,

[1:08:04] >> I forgot that the two months was in ours

[1:08:06] in Vander. No, I agree with you on that.

[1:08:09] have that in there

[1:08:11] >> because it kind of points to I got to

[1:08:13] pay no matter what happens.

[1:08:15] >> One one of the things that we would want

[1:08:17] the charter to be

[1:08:20] specific enough yet vague enough that

[1:08:23] there could be a suspension without pay.

[1:08:30] But we also

[1:08:32] in

[1:08:36] we don't want it so vague that you also

[1:08:39] have

[1:08:40] because as I tell clients when you're

[1:08:43] writing an operating agreement you're

[1:08:45] not writing for your current

[1:08:46] relationship. You're writing for the

[1:08:47] relationship down the road. We also want

[1:08:51] to write it there where there is some

[1:08:54] protection for the city manager from a

[1:08:59] not aggressive a um what's that word

[1:09:02] starts with an a

[1:09:04] >> vindictive

[1:09:04] >> well that works too vindictive council.

[1:09:07] Yeah. So we we want flexibility for the

[1:09:10] city but we also want protections for

[1:09:12] the city manager

[1:09:13] >> and we want to be able to hire the next

[1:09:15] one.

[1:09:15] >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:09:19] What about a suspension with pay until

[1:09:22] the hearing?

[1:09:24] It's almost like a probable cause

[1:09:26] finding.

[1:09:27] >> I think at that point, um, it's not

[1:09:31] necessarily the hearing, it would be

[1:09:32] whatever that final action is.

[1:09:35] Um, and I think instead of saying

[1:09:41] with pay, with or without pay, so that

[1:09:44] again council's not forced to pay

[1:09:47] somebody who's stealing from the city.

[1:10:00] I like the way Tip works it out. I think

[1:10:03] it is uh works out with the notices, the

[1:10:06] requirements. It protects both the

[1:10:08] council and the city manager. Neither

[1:10:11] one's going to get a windfall if he's

[1:10:13] steal if he or she's stealing from the

[1:10:15] city.

[1:10:17] The charges are going to get the money

[1:10:19] back as well. Uh so

[1:10:25] I like the way they've done it.

[1:10:34] more of an overarching question. You you

[1:10:36] kind of pointed out early on that our

[1:10:39] current charter is very vague in every

[1:10:42] section and some of these others i.e.

[1:10:46] tip city is very descriptive. If we

[1:10:49] start putting in some of these more

[1:10:52] descriptive sections, does that start to

[1:10:56] do we need to do that for all of the

[1:10:58] sections to be more cohesive or is that

[1:11:00] okay that we kind of have it pieced out?

[1:11:03] Do you see what I'm saying?

[1:11:04] >> I think the sections where we are

[1:11:06] getting more detailed are ones that

[1:11:08] require more detail.

[1:11:10] >> That's fair.

[1:11:10] >> And kind of stand out. That said, it

[1:11:13] could be putting the charter on a path

[1:11:16] that when this is done again in five

[1:11:18] years,

[1:11:20] it keeps going in that more detailed

[1:11:23] direction.

[1:11:24] >> Got it.

[1:11:27] Then yes, I agree that city's version is good.

[1:11:31] >> I see what you're saying. We don't want

[1:11:33] to hamstring council with here's

[1:11:34] everything and you're just, you know,

[1:11:37] formulaically doing the jobs up here.

[1:11:39] So,

[1:11:42] Yeah, I mean I and I guess just

[1:11:43] cohesiveness of the document of you know

[1:11:47] some some sections are one sentence

[1:11:49] others now we're adding abs and c's to

[1:11:52] every you know which we don't currently

[1:11:54] have. I think this is very valid. I just

[1:11:57] from a big picture standpoint want to

[1:11:59] make sure that by using neighboring

[1:12:01] communities language that we're not

[1:12:04] creating a bigger issue I guess.

[1:12:06] >> No. And you'll see like in the

[1:12:08] referendum one, I didn't know how to

[1:12:11] structure part of it because it didn't

[1:12:13] [clears throat] the structure didn't fit

[1:12:14] within the Vandelia structure. So, I've

[1:12:17] got some

[1:12:18] work to do on that. Um

[1:12:22] I think for this situation where it

[1:12:27] it's essentially creating the due

[1:12:28] process.

[1:12:30] >> I agree. Yeah.

[1:12:31] >> For both sides, it makes sense. I don't

[1:12:34] have to necessarily structure it with

[1:12:36] the A, B, C, and D. That's a lawyer

[1:12:38] thing. That's a

[1:12:39] >> I think it's a clarity thing.

[1:12:40] >> I personally think it's very nice and

[1:12:42] neat and clear.

[1:12:44] >> And so, you know, when you do read our

[1:12:45] sections, it's all one paragraph and it

[1:12:47] kind of gets jumbled together and you

[1:12:49] have to kind of really

[1:12:50] >> think through what they're saying,

[1:12:51] whereas this is very clear what the

[1:12:53] intention is. I'm not in disagreement.

[1:12:55] Very much this person.

[1:12:57] >> Yeah. So, it's one of those things where

[1:12:58] I could actually take what we talk

[1:13:00] about, smash it into one paragraph, and

[1:13:04] it will look like the rest of Vandelius,

[1:13:06] and it would be the same impression of

[1:13:09] vagueness in some situations. So, that's

[1:13:12] why I don't think we're necessarily

[1:13:15] making it inconsistent. It's just part

[1:13:18] of how it's also presented.

[1:13:20] >> Yeah. No, I I I think I understand where

[1:13:22] you're going. certainly need more

[1:13:25] >> detail um because we have had situations

[1:13:27] that the detail the lack of detail has

[1:13:30] left

[1:13:31] >> Fandelia in a precarious situation and

[1:13:33] so I do think this is important I just

[1:13:35] want to make sure big picture that we're

[1:13:36] not

[1:13:37] >> yeah piecing together and now our

[1:13:40] document is

[1:13:42] not where it start

[1:13:47] I know exactly where you're going yes

[1:13:49] >> um

[1:13:49] >> well are there sections we should go

[1:13:51] back and look at separation ating

[1:13:53] paragraphs, too.

[1:13:54] >> That would still require a ballot

[1:13:56] initiative. So, if we're not making

[1:13:58] substantive changes, we don't want to

[1:14:00] mess with

[1:14:03] the section.

[1:14:04] >> Okay.

[1:14:04] >> Because um

[1:14:07] Brookville Brookville hadn't done it in

[1:14:09] how long?

[1:14:13] » 15 plus years. And I think they had

[1:14:16] 50ome. Yeah, there were a lot

[1:14:19] >> charter recommendations to council,

[1:14:22] which obviously

[1:14:24] counville's

[1:14:26] council is not going to put 50 on the

[1:14:28] ballot all at once. Um, so we don't want

[1:14:31] to necessarily if we're making a

[1:14:33] substantive change, yes, we can do that.

[1:14:37] If we're not, we just want to

[1:14:39] >> leave alone. We do still have like the

[1:14:41] abs and cs. So that's not outlandish

[1:14:43] that we're adding that in. I just

[1:14:45] devil's advocate. Just want to make sure

[1:14:47] we're considering that.

[1:14:52] » So, what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm

[1:14:55] wrong, use tips as the guidelines and go

[1:15:00] from there. Okay.

[1:15:03] Um, next is, and don't think we're

[1:15:07] getting September 10th off, everybody.

[1:15:09] We're just going to move up other ones

[1:15:11] that we were going to consider. um

[1:15:15] the planning commission and actually we

[1:15:18] might as well look at 71 and 74 together

[1:15:22] because they're similar situations.

[1:15:25] Um right now

[1:15:28] both the planning commission and the BZA

[1:15:32] have a rollover problem. All right now

[1:15:36] four of the five planning commission

[1:15:37] seats are full. There is a vacancy.

[1:15:41] All four roll off at the same time.

[1:15:44] There is no staggered seat right now at

[1:15:48] the planning commission. Um the BZA is a

[1:15:51] little bit better. There is a vacant

[1:15:53] seat. Three roll off simultaneously as

[1:15:57] required by the charter and then there's

[1:16:00] one loan person and then the vacant

[1:16:02] seat. So I didn't want to go into a lot

[1:16:06] of detail because

[1:16:09] that would have become very convoluted

[1:16:12] and complicated to fix the planning

[1:16:14] commission

[1:16:16] immediately after passing the charter.

[1:16:18] So my solution was to say okay going

[1:16:22] forward there will be five planning

[1:16:24] commission um members. I do have some

[1:16:27] cleanup language that I noticed a bit um

[1:16:30] that I'll tell you about in a minute.

[1:16:31] Um, but there'll be five members

[1:16:33] appointed by council and they will be

[1:16:38] serving three-year staggered terms.

[1:16:41] And then at the end, I just said to

[1:16:44] create the staggered terms, council may

[1:16:46] appoint members for a term of less than

[1:16:48] three years. So that way, while it's not

[1:16:52] ideal that we're dealing with this in

[1:16:54] 28, is that when you guys roll off

[1:16:58] in 28? in 28 they can deal with, okay,

[1:17:02] this person's getting appointed for one

[1:17:03] year, this person's getting appointed

[1:17:05] for two years, as opposed to trying to

[1:17:08] lay out how that was going to work now

[1:17:11] because we theoretically could have two

[1:17:14] vacancies at that time. Um hopefully

[1:17:18] not, but that's always a possibility.

[1:17:20] So, um, it also avoided having to go

[1:17:25] have conversations with current

[1:17:28] commission members or BCA members

[1:17:29] saying, "Do you mind if we cut your

[1:17:31] term? We hope you come back, but can we

[1:17:34] cut your term?" type of thing. So, um, I

[1:17:37] thought that was the better way to

[1:17:39] address that. Um the correction I needed

[1:17:42] to point out was I think we needed to um

[1:17:47] make it clear that

[1:17:50] the and between council and the city

[1:17:52] manager is not about the appointment but

[1:17:56] the fact that the city manager is the

[1:17:58] exeicio member of the planning

[1:18:01] commission. So I think the easiest fix

[1:18:03] to that is either to list the city

[1:18:06] manager first to say there shall be a

[1:18:09] planning commission with the city

[1:18:10] manager as an exeicio member and

[1:18:15] five electors appointed by council or

[1:18:17] just make that a separate sentence.

[1:18:21] So that's an easy fix but wanted to

[1:18:25] bring that to your attention. I have a

[1:18:27] question. As the deputy clerk of council

[1:18:29] who sends the um BCA and planning

[1:18:32] commission members that are coming off,

[1:18:34] they're their terms are expiring. How

[1:18:37] was that going to work then as far as

[1:18:39] staggering the terms? Is that set by

[1:18:41] council then?

[1:18:43] >> Yeah. So, so what would happen is at

[1:18:46] that point, I'm just planning

[1:18:48] commission's the easiest one to use

[1:18:49] since they all roll off together. Um

[1:18:52] there would be a notice essentially of

[1:18:55] your term is expiring.

[1:18:59] Um

[1:19:00] council will will have already figured

[1:19:03] out what the staggered terms would look

[1:19:04] like and then we theoretically would ask

[1:19:07] them are you open to filling one of

[1:19:09] these seats. I would expect there would

[1:19:13] be an explanation at a meeting prior to

[1:19:15] that to explain what is going on and why

[1:19:18] as well.

[1:19:20] So typically these members are then

[1:19:22] voted in at the June meeting because the

[1:19:25] 30th is when

[1:19:28] >> June is when all their terms expire. So

[1:19:31] we're saying maybe like the May meeting

[1:19:34] there's a study session and then that's

[1:19:36] when council determine does it have to

[1:19:38] be done by legislation?

[1:19:39] >> No. So what would hap this this isn't

[1:19:42] going to just be an one situation. there

[1:19:45] would be sitting down like we would

[1:19:47] present to council what the seats are.

[1:19:50] Um I would expect that much like now you

[1:19:54] would advertise there is a seat for one

[1:19:57] year, there's a seat for two years,

[1:19:59] there's a seat for three years and the

[1:20:01] public could again apply for whatever

[1:20:03] seat they would want to do in addition

[1:20:06] to

[1:20:08] those currently on it.

[1:20:13] And that's for like the vacancies.

[1:20:15] >> Mhm.

[1:20:15] >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

[1:20:17] >> Like for the vacancy that's there now,

[1:20:19] if you got an applicant for that vacancy

[1:20:22] now, um theoretically council could go

[1:20:25] ahead in order to help start that

[1:20:27] because otherwise we'd have five um

[1:20:31] rolling off simultaneously. Um go ahead

[1:20:34] and make that a one-year

[1:20:37] appointment.

[1:20:40] Now th does this leaves that ability to

[1:20:43] stagger those terms. If 10 years down

[1:20:45] the road, four of them leave town

[1:20:48] altogether they move away. You now have

[1:20:51] to restart your staggering.

[1:20:52] >> You don't have to restart the staggering

[1:20:53] because it's now clear that they're

[1:20:56] filling a vacant

[1:20:57] >> vacant. Okay.

[1:20:58] >> That the vacancy is to fill the term

[1:21:00] >> as opposed to starting a new three-year

[1:21:02] term. I think that's how that it got off

[1:21:05] was

[1:21:07] um they

[1:21:08] >> people either people left it once or it

[1:21:11] was just one of those things of when

[1:21:13] people started they just started a

[1:21:15] three-year term as opposed to filling a

[1:21:18] vacancy.

[1:21:29] That said, um, city manager and Miss

[1:21:34] Schwarz, if as you think about this, you

[1:21:37] think it's a logistical

[1:21:39] nightmare, let me know and we'll figure

[1:21:42] it out. A better better way of doing it,

[1:21:44] too.

[1:21:44] >> No, I don't think so. As long as as long

[1:21:47] as it's clear to council that that's you

[1:21:49] know we're doing we're staggering the

[1:21:50] terms one to two to three years and then

[1:21:52] how we are identifying the current

[1:21:55] members that if they want to seek

[1:21:58] reappoint

[1:21:59] which which ones are going to take the

[1:22:01] one to two to three

[1:22:02] >> I I think we can make it

[1:22:04] >> I think so. Yes.

[1:22:05] >> Yeah.

[1:22:09] So that's

[1:22:12] Oh yeah, nominations.

[1:22:15] This is an interesting one when you

[1:22:17] start looking at it. So this is about

[1:22:20] what the number of signatures it takes

[1:22:22] to get on the ballot for council or

[1:22:25] mayor. Um,

[1:22:28] currently we have 75 as the requirement.

[1:22:31] You'll notice that was adopted in 2015.

[1:22:34] I do not know what it was before. Um

[1:22:38] the question was ra

[1:22:40] >> it was a percentage.

[1:22:41] >> Oh okay it was a do you remember what

[1:22:43] the percentage was? Okay. Um the

[1:22:46] question has was raised. I do not know

[1:22:49] where the question raised came from

[1:22:51] about whether or not 75 should be

[1:22:53] higher.

[1:22:54] Um so in just looking at

[1:22:59] communities around us tip only requires

[1:23:02] 25. Um, I thought unions was interesting

[1:23:06] in the fact that they have a different

[1:23:08] number for mayor than they do council.

[1:23:12] Um, but 50 seems to be

[1:23:16] pretty consistent

[1:23:18] um of a number. So, Vanelia is already

[1:23:22] higher. Again, this is one of those

[1:23:25] where really doesn't matter what the

[1:23:27] surrounding communities do. It's just

[1:23:28] whatever Vanelia wants to do. I was just

[1:23:31] using it as a

[1:23:33] guide a mile marker for people. Um, I

[1:23:39] have no real

[1:23:43] thoughts on this. Um,

[1:23:47] I would say my one thought that I would

[1:23:52] I think is a little odd is that if an

[1:23:55] elector signs more than the maximum

[1:23:57] petitions, his or her signature shall be

[1:23:59] boyed except for the ones filed first.

[1:24:04] My perspective is if someone wants to

[1:24:06] run and they ask me to sign the

[1:24:08] petition, I'm going to sign it because

[1:24:09] if they think they should run and would

[1:24:11] do a good job, they should be on the

[1:24:12] ballot and let the people decide. That's

[1:24:14] how I was raised. That's not necessarily

[1:24:17] the view of everyone else. But you're

[1:24:19] putting on the going back to um Mr.

[1:24:23] Blaine's thought you're putting a kind

[1:24:25] of an onus on the board of elections to

[1:24:27] count. Oh, we've seen that signature

[1:24:30] >> twice previously.

[1:24:32] >> We had that issue happen. I think it

[1:24:34] [clears throat] was city of Dayton and

[1:24:36] uh it wasn't clear which one was filed

[1:24:37] first or signed first and the city had

[1:24:39] to go back and redo and it was a

[1:24:41] nightmare to say the least. So,

[1:24:44] >> so I would suggest taking that language

[1:24:47] out. Um

[1:24:49] >> what does it serve? Does it stop

[1:24:52] anything? Is there like if there's three

[1:24:55] seats open and I sign four of them, that

[1:24:58] just means I want the choice of all four

[1:24:59] of them when I go to vote. So, does it

[1:25:03] serve anything that you're aware of or

[1:25:05] you're aware of?

[1:25:06] >> To me, what it does is it essentially

[1:25:09] says that you as an elector,

[1:25:13] there are three seats. So,

[1:25:15] theoretically, you should only be

[1:25:17] looking you should only be supporting

[1:25:20] three people. It makes the concept that

[1:25:23] if you sign a petition, you are

[1:25:24] supporting that person for election.

[1:25:27] That's not how I personally view

[1:25:29] petitions. That's not how a lot of

[1:25:30] people view petitions. It's more about,

[1:25:34] hey, can you get the signatures to get

[1:25:35] on the ballot? There are a lot of people

[1:25:38] though that will not sign a petition if

[1:25:40] they're not planning to vote for them.

[1:25:42] So, that's where that that clearly comes

[1:25:44] from that mindset.

[1:25:47] >> There's no purpose. I mean it's a race

[1:25:49] to the u the bee at that point and it's

[1:25:53] [snorts] it's almost impossible to say

[1:25:55] you know Eric signed you know four

[1:25:57] petitions but which four filed first and

[1:26:00] three f

[1:26:01] >> yeah I I agree it's

[1:26:05] please remove it that's my

[1:26:07] >> I would vote to take that out okay

[1:26:11] >> I think 75 is fine I don't know that we

[1:26:13] need to lower it I I think 75 is easily

[1:26:16] attainable I don't know if we need to

[1:26:19] increase it though. I

[1:26:22] >> think it takes some work to get 75

[1:26:24] signatures. It does. It's It's not easy.

[1:26:27] >> It's not. And usually for the purposes

[1:26:29] we're talking about, you get way more

[1:26:31] than that. But I mean, we've had very um

[1:26:35] healthy

[1:26:37] elections with a lot of people that have

[1:26:40] come to the table and put their their

[1:26:42] name in the ring and they have gotten

[1:26:44] the required signatures. So I think I

[1:26:46] think 75 is fair.

[1:26:48] >> Yeah,

[1:26:48] >> I wouldn't lower it, but I also don't

[1:26:50] know that we need to increase.

[1:26:54] >> I think I don't know where that question

[1:26:56] came from, especially seeing the

[1:26:58] benchmarking from the other communities.

[1:27:02] >> Well, I would say the 75 also

[1:27:05] forces you as a voter to know that that

[1:27:08] person talked to other people in the

[1:27:10] community. Absolutely.

[1:27:11] >> Because before you sign it, you're

[1:27:13] going,

[1:27:13] >> "What? Why do you want to run? What are

[1:27:15] you standing for? It's a few more people

[1:27:18] that heard their voice. So, when it came

[1:27:21] to election day, they're slightly more

[1:27:23] educated than the postcard that went

[1:27:25] out.

[1:27:27] >> So, I Yeah, I 75 I've never gone to try

[1:27:31] and canvas 75 signatures in Vanelia, but

[1:27:34] if it's not killer,

[1:27:35] >> then [clears throat] why why change

[1:27:37] that? I would change the

[1:27:39] >> You can't sign more than because I'm not

[1:27:41] counting. If somebody asked me and I

[1:27:43] think they'd be good. [clears throat]

[1:27:43] I'm going to count.

[1:27:45] >> Well, yeah. If somebody files later, but

[1:27:47] you already signed your three, but you

[1:27:48] really like number four and now you

[1:27:51] can't support them. That seems

[1:27:53] >> And practically speaking, they're

[1:27:55] getting more than 75 signatures. My

[1:27:57] guess is they're probably aiming for 100

[1:27:58] to 125. Yes.

[1:28:00] >> I think the general rule is three, you

[1:28:01] know, no more. Do we want to put in

[1:28:03] there something like they're, you know,

[1:28:04] that caps how many they can submit?

[1:28:07] >> Oh, is that why this is 50 to 100? So,

[1:28:10] the union is capped. you have to have 50

[1:28:13] but don't get any more than 100. Is that

[1:28:15] why that says 50 to 100 signatures?

[1:28:17] >> My guess is that's there because of the

[1:28:19] whole situation that a lot of times um

[1:28:24] using Butler Township and Vanelia,

[1:28:27] someone may not realize that they're a

[1:28:29] Butler Township resident, not a Vanelia

[1:28:31] resident, and so they've signed the

[1:28:32] petition, their vote doesn't or their

[1:28:35] ballot doesn't their signature doesn't

[1:28:37] count towards the petition. So, the

[1:28:39] range is probably just, hey, if you've

[1:28:42] gotten 55, but five of yours gets

[1:28:45] knocked off, you're fine. If you've

[1:28:47] gotten a hundred and five of yours get

[1:28:49] knocked off, you're fine.

[1:28:51] >> Yeah.

[1:28:51] >> So, I don't know that it's actually a

[1:28:53] cap. I think they're just saying the

[1:28:55] petition has to have that number

[1:28:57] >> of valid signatures.

[1:28:59] >> And does have that requirement on there.

[1:29:01] You know, you must have x amount, but

[1:29:02] not more than three times x amount.

[1:29:04] >> Yeah.

[1:29:04] >> Submitted.

[1:29:06] >> And it's pretty standard. I think school

[1:29:08] board is the same thing. 75.

[1:29:13] » Okay. So 75 leave but

[1:29:19] take out the maximum number you can

[1:29:22] sign. Okay.

[1:29:26] That is all for the evening.

[1:29:31] Um

[1:29:34] I will circulate an updated

[1:29:39] referendum and initiative separately

[1:29:42] from the next packet just so you can

[1:29:46] continue to consider research. Um if you

[1:29:52] in your as you are researching any

[1:29:54] thoughts um not that you have to but if

[1:29:57] you want to read other charters um and

[1:30:00] you have an idea please feel free to

[1:30:02] call me and let me know um and I can

[1:30:06] work that in or put it in notes for the

[1:30:08] next meeting as well.

[1:30:11] >> Thank you everyone for your time

[1:30:12] tonight. I will accept a motion for

[1:30:14] adjournment if there's no other

[1:30:16] comments.

[1:30:17] >> So moved.

[1:30:19] >> Second. Second. All those in favor? I.

[1:30:21] All those opposed. We are adjourned at

[1:30:23] 7:02.

Charter Review 2026 08 20

Transcript