All right, we will call the meeting to
order at 5:32. This is the review
committee uh the charter review
committee on August 20th. Um we will
look at the minutes from last meeting
which was August 6th. So you've had a
chance to review those. I will entertain
a motion for acceptance if there are no
other comments.
>> I'd make a motion to approve the August
6 minutes. Second.
>> Thank you. All those in favor? I
>> I
>> All those opposed.
>> All right, those minutes are approved.
Moving on to item number three, which is
the discussion of the prior provisions
that we reviewed or the provisions that
we reviewed at the prior meeting. Um,
Miss Wall has given us all of those
corrections based on our commentary.
Is there any discussion? Do we want to
go through each one of these or is there
any discussion on any of this? I I
personally thought it looked good but
open for discussion on
>> why don't we just go one by one just to
make sure. Okay.
>> Um so section 38 that was originally one
where um I had prevented prevented
presented samples from multiple
communities around us. Um and you had
given feedback on um structure and
language. Um the one question I had was
whether B um for the action for removal
reflected our conversation. It looked
like what I had in my notes, but I just
wanted to make sure that was that I
picked the right one.
So with that then um should we consider
this quote unquote final until the
public hearing
>> type situation?
>> I thought it I thought it reflected what
we discussed in kind of the consensus a
everybody kind of had a little bit to
add in so I think it it reflected that.
Um anyone else?
>> I'd agree with that statement.
>> Okay. And um going back for the record,
Miss Wiggins had let us know that she
will be late to the meeting. So just so
that's on the minutes, we will uh bring
her in when she arrives. Um yeah, so 38.
Okay, we will put that one in the report
for the public hearing.
>> Okay.
>> Um next was section 4-1 definitions. Um
there essentially the underlying point
of the revisions was to add motions to
it. Um and then some additional language
that was generally found in um some of
the other charters around us which is
that we are superseding the law of the
state by having motions essentially.
Any thoughts, comments? Should we
consider this one ready for the public
hearing?
>> Yes.
>> I thought it was good.
>> Okay.
Um, next on
the first reading
and apparently in my lateness late
nightness the I did not put the red line
in or in the color. Um, so essentially
what we were doing with um the first
reading was making it clear that it only
moves to a second
reading if it's passed at the first
reading. Um, and then also we took out
the specific
publication
of being in the newspaper.
Um and then I think I also simply just
said it will be published according to
46. That way all the publication
um requirements are in one section as
opposed to being repeated
in each section in which publication is
being used.
» Looks good to me.
>> Okay, we will put that one ready for the
public hearing then. Um again in
publication the question was um about
publishing in the newspaper and so we
removed that from the requirement and
now the requirement will be publication
on the website and social media accounts
and then posted at the municipal
building and two other public buildings
within the city. Um, the reason I added
the social media accounts is that the
actual statute says website and social
media accounts, there's no
difference in, you know, what has to be
posted on the social media accounts. So,
and since that is often more checked
than the city's website, um, I went
ahead and put that in there. However,
this is a charter and you certainly do
not have to have that requirement in
there if you would prefer to keep it at
the web page and the two the municipal
building and two other public records.
>> Who manages our social media? Is it the
same individual as the websites?
>> Uh, our communications manager Rich
Hopkins.
>> And that duty would continue on. So,
he's in charge of Rich is in charge of
the website and social media.
>> That is correct. Yes.
>> Microphone. Is your microphone on?
>> Mine?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Didn't look like it from here.
Sorry.
>> Thank you.
>> I mean, social media is not going away,
right? So, I think if we put that in
there, I don't think it's overly
restrictive because that's not I mean, I
think that's
going to be around for a while.
>> It It's not identifying any particular
social media account
>> like a newspaper, right? [laughter]
>> It's a MySpace account.
nor is it requiring the city to form any
new social media accounts. So, whatever
they have, they have.
>> I think that's fine as long as that's
attainable
>> to what we're already doing. That's not
added work, right?
>> I don't believe so, but we can confirm
that. He currently puts on the video
from the council meeting, but then it
also does a brief summary of what
actually the meeting and it goes a
little bit more detail of what it it has
the entire meeting, what council voted
on and so forth. So, it's a little bit
more than just the legislative summaries
that I post at the three buildings.
>> Okay.
» And is also posted on our website as
well.
>> Wonderful. So with that, any comments,
changes, anything on 4.6?
>> Think we're good.
>> Okay.
» Yeah.
>> I'm just just a comment on 4-3. I think
we've clarified
as far as
what is done after the first reading,
but I know that the question has come up
if an ordinance fails or is not approved
at the first reading, does it still get
that second reading or not?
>> No. So, that's covered by the if
approved at its first reading by
council, a summary shall be published
and then placed on the agenda for the
next council. So if it doesn't pass,
it's not placed on the agenda.
>> Okay. So the two separate readings would
be
would not be required then.
>> Correct. Because it did not pass the
first.
>> Okay.
Um
I don't know if it would help but for
future people down the road, future
councils and city leadership
to add a sentence. If not approved, it
would not move to a second reading or
would that not be appropriate?
>> I don't it's up to the committee. I
personally don't feel that that sentence
is needed because
one, it's logical to me that if it
doesn't pass the first reading, it
wouldn't go to the second reading.
But I also was raised kind of in city
government. So perhaps I have a
unique perspective on that.
>> We'll also note for the record, Miss
Wiggins has arrived.
» I think we talked about that momentarily
last week, didn't we? That it wouldn't
go to second if it wasn't passed.
>> Clearly, there's been a question at some
point that has been raised, though.
>> Yeah. One of one of the debates that
I've heard on a couple occasions is that
the first statement there is that every
ordinance is given two separate readings
by council on two separate days. So, one
of the
um I want to say conflicts or one of the
debates that council has heard is you've
got to pass it the first time to get it
to the second reading because it
requires two readings. The way it's
written now, it is clear that it's not
going to get a second reading if it
doesn't pass. But because the first
statement has it's given two separate
readings, the debate is okay. If it
doesn't pass, does it even get another
reading? I don't know.
>> I think this is an easy fix now that I
see where you're going.
>> A slight revision to that first
sentence. Um, taking out the word given.
um
and going more towards the overall
requires two separate readings before
formal enactment or formal adoption.
So why don't I um work on that sentence
a little bit for the next meeting
>> clarify that point so that there is no
question on the given aspect um and
we'll just remove that topic from the
>> I think that's a great catch the the
lawyers love this catch [laughter]
>> this is great it seems very that sent
now I'm thinking to myself that sentence
seemed clear like Oh,
>> the first one reading it all together
that we have
>> Yeah.
that's awesome. Thank you for
that.
>> It's from experience.
[laughter]
» Um, okay. So, I will bring that one back
at our September 10th
meeting
>> or whatever the actual date is. If we're trying to get some of these and
this one included on there prior to the
public hearing,
would it be helpful to spitball the
language now?
>> Oh, no. The public hearing is not till
October. We're going to have gone
through all these by the public hearing.
>> Okay.
>> The only ones that you guys may not have
done a quote unquote second review of
are the ones that are the week before
the public hearing. If there are changes
to that, the review may just be when I
get it, when you review it prior to the
public hearing.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> No problem.
>> Um, and so that now takes us to
article 9 and the initiative and
referendum.
Um,
there is a lot here. I will tell you
that I do not have old or new fully
memorized. and off the top of my head.
So, I will be working through it with
you um as well. Um,
essentially the one that has been
proposed is the one from
Clayton, I believe, that was recently
revised and adopted by Clayton and has
kind of been viewed as a good starting
point or clear in what the processes are
um, in that. So, I don't know if you
want to actually look at the current one
and see and kind of walk through what it
requires right now before looking at the
new one or if you want to look at the
new language
and just start from there. What would be
the committee's
preference?
I mean, I have a preference, but I don't
want to speak for everyone. I would I
would think we would just start from the
red and move forward from there. But
what is the consensus?
>> I was thinking look at the old language
and what we think is wrong with it and
whether we're confused by it, if you
will. Um but okay, I I will not argue
either way.
>> Mr. Durham, do you have a
>> I think using the existing language as a
starting point is all
>> Mr. Blank. state.
>> It's such a substantial rewrite I almost
>> unless we have questions about how
things used to work would move on to the
red.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Atkins,
>> I
reviewed [clears throat] some of it and
I I did find a few things that didn't
make sense to to me and I was in the
original language. So,
>> where would you prefer to start?
>> I I think go through the original
language and then
>> All right. Consensus has it. We'll start
at the original.
>> Um, city manager Al House had the
suggestion that maybe we go section old
new by that way. They line up fairly
close but not exactly, but um, we can go
from there. Um, so first of all, just as
our little 12th grade civics reminder,
an initiative is a piece of legislation
that is brought by the people and that
says, "We want this on the ballot
because you're not passing it. We want
to pass it." Um, a referendum is a piece
of legislation that council has passed
that the electorate says, "We don't like
it. We want it off."
So section 9-1 is about initiatives and
essentially the original language says
that the electors have the power to
propose any ordinance and to adopt or
reject the same at the polls and that it
is initiated by submitting to council
through a petition signed by qualified
electors equal to a number at least 15%
of the number voting in the last general
election. Um, as some background, it is
typical to use actual turnout to
determine the number of people signing
petitions in a situation like this as
opposed to the whole electorate. Because
practically speaking, if you based 15%
of the whole electorate, you would never
get a petition on the ballot.
The
new language makes it clear or even more
clear than the original language that it
is only ordinances
um that are subject to referendum and
initiative. And this is where it doesn't
match up exactly because we didn't talk
about referendums yet. Um,
and
so is let me back up and say it this
way. Um, ordinances are subject to
referendum as permitted by the
constitution, the state of Ohio, or the
charter. So if though the charter says
an issue is not referendum,
is that a word? or able to be put on by
initiative, it overrides the other
two ways or places where it could say it
could be on the ballot. Um because
again, charter home rule, we've said
great, no thanks. Um,
also the others like the state of Ohio
laws cannot expand what the charter says
or be used to interpret what the charter
says whether or not something may be
eligible for initiative or referendum.
So that's the new language. So
essentially it's basically saying
charter controls what can be put on as
an initiative or um
referendum
going down to section 9.2 to catch up a
little bit. Um
council
may
submit any ordinance to a vote of the
people
by a vote of four members.
The ordinance is not subject to
initiative. So in other words,
if
council would say we want to on their on
their own
decision, we want the vote the electors
to vote on this.
The people cannot do an initiative of a
exact same kind of question or so there
can't be competing
ordinances on the ballot by initiative.
So that's just once council's voted by
four to do it, then somebody can't start
their own initiative out there that
changes the language a little bit.
Right.
>> Right.
>> Um,
of course, the electors would be the one
that would determine what could go on.
Um,
it's in this section where it says that
within that the petition must be
submitted within 30 days of the passage
of the ordinance.
that matches up with the fact that an
ordinance does not take effect for 30
days. So basically within the time frame
between passage and effective date,
that's when the people can organize and
file the petition for the referendum.
Um
I'm just going to jump ahead to 9.2.1
for a minute.
This section is not really reflected in
the new language about zoning.
If it's an ordinance, it can still be by
referendum, but there's not a section on
zoning in the new language.
Um, I'm going to go ahead and do 9.3
and then jump back over to
>> What's the reason for that? Is there
just no need for it to be separate?
>> Um, it's again to in my personal opinion
if
changes are made by ordinance then they
are already a eligible for referendum.
any other change in zoning that would be
by um other legislation such as um
a variance or something like that
which isn't even really by legislation.
Um you don't want that up for the vote.
So I don't know that there really should
be special rules for zoning.
you
>> there's there's certain instances where
um planning commission or board of
zoning appeals can just make the
judgment. It's not a a referral to
council. So I think in th is that what
you're trying to say is that in those
cases those shouldn't be up for
referendum.
>> Yeah.
>> Anytime that it's a referral to council
that's when it's an ordinance.
So any change to the zoning code has to
occur by ordinance.
So if the issue
are there others I don't know about.
Okay. You just reacted a little bit.
Okay. Okay. [laughter] Okay.
>> Okay. Um so because it's an ordinance,
it's able to be referendum and so really
it's kind of duplicative and setting up
potentially a conflict. In my opinion,
>> I think there are times that it's more
administrative in nature of, you know,
record a record plaid or some, you know,
record a a plan or something like that
where it doesn't again go across
council's desk. So, I think they're
trying to avoid that being up for
debate.
I will note last year we experienced
some confusion
between um zoning and ordinances when it
came to a planned unit development and a
planned unit development is passed by
ordinance.
So that is a circumstance where it would
it could be subject to a referendum,
but because the zoning section was in
there, it became a little bit diluted
and murky with how it was interpreted
and there were different interpretations
from that. So I agree with the law
director if this section is taken out,
it would abolish that confusion.
There's also aspects on the PUDS where
the first part is passed by ordinance
and is clearly eligible for referendum.
Other parts down the road related to
that PUD are passed by um legislation.
And so then it becomes a question of
wait a minute, if this original vote was
ref able to be referendum, why aren't
these other votes related to that PUB
able to be referendum? I don't know if
those are real words. We're just going
to go with that's proper English at the
moment. Um, and so again, that section
is partly what's creating that chaos
when it comes to things like PUDS. So,
it takes the whole plan's been approved
and now people are trying to pull parts
out to Okay, that makes perfect sense.
Okay.
>> Um, I'm just again I'm going to go ahead
and do 93 because I think doing the flow
a little bit and then going to the new.
Um, so under the current charter
provision, um, I'm going to ignore the
fact they have to be uniform in size,
but essentially you present your
petition to the clerk of council. Um,
there needs to be what's called a
committee of the petitioners and it can
be no more than five. And um,
>> why is that? the petition or the
committee
>> the committee
>> so that there is a point person point
group that is saying we are taking this
on and we are responsible for it
happening. Otherwise, you very well
could have five different groups
bringing a set of petitions for the
exact same item and
you know five people might be working in
two of the three groups and just to
create some organization.
Um
just like with other petitions, there
has to be an affidavit of the circul
circulator that they circulated the
certificate certificate um the petition
and got the signatures.
Jumping to the new
um here it says no less than three and
no more than five. So we're putting a
minimum number on that committee. Um and
again
they file a proposed ordinance or the
referred ordinance um to the city
manager. Now
I guess I should have jumped to 94. That
is fairly similar to
what we have in the original which is in
94. Um it's just referring to the clerk
of council which is the city manager as
opposed to just referring to the city
manager. Um
we in and this language is a direct
clarification from some confusion that
happened in that incident that the city
manager referred to. um the city will
provide the petition under the new
language so that what is provided they
know they can rely on. Um they will then
obtain the appropriate number of valid
signatures for the petition which again
is 15%
just like the original language of the
number of electors who voted at the last
general election held for the office of
governor in the municipal corporation.
So we're being very specific what last
election is being referred to.
Um, and then for
I'm sorry, that's for initiatives. For
referendums, it would take 10%.
So, you're switching out that number.
The logic behind that is that you want
to show more buyin from the electorate
that the
item being put on the ballot by the
electorate is wanted by the electorate.
The referendum number can be is
sometimes considered to be a lower
percentage because it's more the
electorate saying wait a minute
we want to review what you guys have
done.
Do those percentage have to be
different?
No. You could make them both 15%.
I would not vary from the 15%. It's kind
of a solid
uniform number that's used for these
situations. But that is one item for you
all to consider is whether it should be
lower for a referendum than an
initiative.
Um
once the number of
s signatures have been acquired then it
gets filed with the board of elections
as well as with the city manager.
Um note again that in the new language
the 30 days is
for a referendum.
The filing has to occur to the board of
elections within the 30 days. So again,
it matches that when it takes effect,
they have to have the petition filed.
Um
then the board of elections does their
review regarding the required and valid
signatures and the city managers to
notify the petitioners whether or not
they were able to meet the standard.
with that
um once it's filed with the board of
elections, it will be suspended from
taking effect. So, in other words, the
ordinance passed will not take effect
until the vote occurs.
Um or
the board of elections determines the
petition was insufficient, the petition
is withdrawn, council can still repeal
the ordinance.
um and then after the vote.
So, let's kind of stop there for a
second and talk about each of those
items. Um
you may say,
why would they withdraw the petition?
It very well may be that there's, for
lack of a better term, negotiations
going on between council and the
community members about what the issues
are. And so council may be agreeing to
take steps to amend or otherwise address
what the issues are in that. Um, it very
well may also be that while they've
gotten the correct number of signatures,
they're facing a lot of opposition
from the rest of the community or
they're realizing the rest of the
community does not agree and agree to
pull it. So there does it happen often?
No. But there are times it could
[snorts]
and you want that avenue so that you
don't have to have something go to a
vote that no one wants to go to a vote.
Um I'm going to stop there.
Thoughts, questions up to that point or
do you guys want to keep going and then
do it all at once? I thought it might be
helpful to just kind of break for a
minute and digest. I think this is a
good pause to check in.
» Sir,
>> I've got a few
>> go
>> questions on this. So,
>> if that's all right with Madam Chair.
Absolutely. Please. By all means.
>> Um,
saving some of the other portions for
later. Um it's very well written this
section
and this will be a question that is now
but also revisited later but
coming from the board elections pers
perspective why do we not refer or is
there a reason not to refer to the
revised code for the guidance on how to
initiate and conduct both the
referendums and the initiatives. I would
say the thought process is that home
rule
so that you're not going back and forth
between the charter and the revised code
and trying to figure out what melds and
doesn't meld when you're on the
petitioners committee and even for the
city trying to maneuver this. I think we
want it all in one location so that
there isn't confusion about what is and
is not required. Does this part of the
charter change that type of situation?
See? All right. Um, the other question I
had is on the petitions. Who is
reviewing them for sufficiency? Not only
as to number but to form because the BOE
has in here the requirement to review it
for sufficiency of signatures. But then
in 93 has the requirement to also review
it for just sufficiency.
>> I believe it's all the BOE. So if the
all the BOE then is the BOE required
then to use only the charter and if
there's a conflict between the charter
and the revised code at a county
government level where do where does the
BOE fall this
>> in that decision because that that comes
up uh the BOE can't certify
>> the BOE can certify to the charter that
it complies with the charter.
>> Yeah,
>> that's that would be their job there.
>> It would have to be entirely in this
then. So you're asking the board not
only to certify the number but now for
the sufficiency of the petitions.
>> Correct.
>> Even if that petition is missing
something that a revised code would
otherwise require.
>> The revised code that would not but it
would not be required here because it's
not in the charter.
» This happens. I mean I know where you're
going from. Logically it's odd to us.
>> We had it happen. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um due to the number of
charter cities in the general area,
this happens quite a bit where there is
confusion at the BOE.
Oops. We probably should have certified
that because it complies with the
charter or vice versa. Um so they are
familiar with the concept. It wouldn't
be new to them. But what I'm hearing
from you is if we're not going to
reference the
OC that we put more detail so that they
have a checklist kind of of what to
certify against.
» I think a requirement that no offense
Kurt the city manager's office is the
one or some and the council is the one
that is certifying the form the
petitions. the BOE is only being asked
to certify the number would clarify that
easily because we're already a very long
article on this, longer than a lot of
our almost every single neighboring
jurisdiction.
>> Um, so
I would not put the city manager
certifying the form. You want a neutral
party certifying. So, I would take it
out of the city manager and out of the
law director or anyone in Vanelia
certifying it.
>> I think I may have been mis mis
let me rephrase that if you will.
Certifying the form of the a form of the
petitions prior to their submitting
them.
>> Yes. So, the form
>> is already done. The form is already
clear.
>> Correct.
>> Uh and at that point
>> only the
board of elections is certifying the
number. correct. They technically would
certify that it's correct, but the form
given out by the city manager should
be the form is is what I'm
>> think so.
>> Yes, we're on the same page there. Yes.
Yes. I didn't understand what you
were saying. Yeah. Um the form that is
handed out by the city um should have
all the nuts and bolts of the form if
it's going to come from the city. Yes.
And I think we can clarify that a little
bit in here
without adding length.
I have general heartburn whenever asking
the outside agency who has to b you know
is bound by the OC to certify something
that may be in conflict with the OC if
it's not carefully done
>> understood
>> it will cause conflict in heart
>> and then go to common police court
>> we won't
>> no sure um does that do you think making
it clear that
the form term handed out from the city
manager shall comply with all aspects of
the charter or something along those
lines.
>> I'd like to personally see something up
in 92 in the middle there or the very
first paragraph where the petition uh
that the forms provided by the the city
manager conform to the charter but also
to the OC uh so that there's not a
conflict there. But then also under 93A
where it says uh um there's a final
termination of insufficiency u identify
whether or not we're asking
insufficiency of the form or
insufficiency of the number of of
signatures
and would recommend we do only the
number of signatures. That way we're not
asking the BOE to also get in conflict
with this city and the council to say,
"Well, your petitions aren't valid for
this other reason over here, which by
the way, we'll give grounds to whomever
is challenging it to bring a lawsuit."
>> Correct.
>> But if it's if it's simply the number of
signatures,
that's a it's a that's a straightforward
direct ask.
Let's
We're obviously going to look at this
again next week or two weeks from now.
So, let me play with it a little bit.
Um, let me talk to the city manager a
little bit because I know there have
been some issues in this community in
the past and so I want to make sure I
fully understand what those were so that
we don't have that problem.
>> Thank Sorry to take up that much time.
Um, anything else kind of up through
93?
I feel like we need a dry erase board.
Just map everything out.
Um, okay. So,
over in the picking up from 95
um in the old language
at the next
meeting
and this is part of the reason why the
old language is confusing. We're back on
initiative in the middle of what had
been kind of about referendums but about
both. But um if there is an initiative,
council is to consider it within 30
days. Um
there can be public hearings, they can
reject the ordinance or pass it in a
different form. Um
and then that that committee of
petitioners
can be required
to
can be asked whether or not a modified
ordinance that was passed by council
should be put on the ballot.
Um
96, if there is a referendum, the
ordinance does not take effect.
And then 97 addresses essentially what's
on the ballot. Um the vote is either for
the ordinance or against the ordinance
and then we have the election results.
So, going back to the new language,
if a petition has been deemed sufficient
by the board of elections,
um, council is to determine whether or
not all of the requirements under the
law and the charter have been met. And
if those requirements have not met, the
petitioners committee has 21 days to
resolve the deficiencies or cure the
deficiencies.
Um,
presuming they are curable.
>> So, does that 30-day window
the 30-day window then they have 21
days? Like those kind of stack on top of
each other, right? Okay.
>> Yes. Yes. Now, [clears throat]
If
let's say the petitioner committee
[snorts]
steams right through and gets what they
think are the number of signatures
within 14 days. It's not like you're
waiting till
we get to 30 days to continue. So they
stack but they also run Yep.
>> consecutive. Okay.
Um
if they are cured
then council is to
uh acknowledge the validity of the
petition and file that within the board
of elections.
At that point, then council is to take
the appropriate action to place the
measure on the ballot.
B just makes it very clear that council
at any time can reconsider its prior
actions and either modify or repeal the
ordinance that's been brought up for
referendum.
if
the council passes a proposed ordinance
and so this would be a referendum or I'm
sorry an initiative issue without
changes in substance
um
and which the peti the petitioner
committee essentially is their sounding
board on the initiative. So if they pres
if the petitioners committee presents
something and council says great idea
but what about this would work better
and the petitioners committee agrees
then council can proceed with passing
that
um amended ordinance or yeah amended
initiative.
It can also repeal the referred
ordinance
after notice. Um,
if they I apologize. If they take either
of those actions, then a notice of
withdrawal is filed with the board of
elections essentially. So, if council
takes care of the initiative by passing
something or appeal or repealing the
referendum item, then it come gets taken
off the ballot.
They also um can take such action as to
simply just p place it on the ballot
and then it takes a resolution
to file the notice of withdrawal or the
acknowledgement of validity. The reason
it takes a resolution
is if it was an ordinance, that
ordinance would be open to referendum.
So you could get into a cycle
of referendums on one issue.
Um so that's why it's very clear that step is by resolution.
Um
it's then held at the next regular
municipal election
which can't be more than or less than 75
days or more than a year later.
And um
council can request a special election
in order to comply with that section.
It can an initiative or referendum may
be withdrawn
prior to the fifth day preceding the day
scheduled for the election.
And at that point it shall have no
further force in effect essentially.
So,
let's break that those two down just
slightly.
Um,
to me, that time frame for the vote
makes sense just because if we're in an
off-year cycle or something like that,
there aren't a lot of election dates
necessarily held in the state of Ohio.
So it avo at attempts to avoid having to
have a special election.
It also avoids
something being passed right before
an election that's already scheduled and
people scrambling to try and get it on
without the electorate really being
aware it's on the ballot. So I think
that time frame makes logical sense even
though it seems kind of a long time to
go before a vote on a initiative or a
referendum.
the withdrawal of the petition.
Um
I believe and I did not check this even
if it's withdrawn I believe the city the
city would still have to share in its
cost or its portion of the cost for that
ballot item even if it's withdrawn.
So,
the side of me that says, "Hey,
getting it off the ballot as much as
possible is great.
Five days may seem a little short to me
or close to the election to me because
if I'm correct, the city's going to bear
the cost. It's let's say there's five
other things on the ballot. it's one6
cost of holding that election.
Um, and if it's a special election,
they're bearing the whole cost of that
special election and you've withdrawn
something 5 days before.
Um, so I view that as a potential for
creating confusion. That said, I do not
know or have an idea what would be
a better time frame. I just see that as
being a
potentially concerning issue that could
lead to other concerns
type of thing.
What's the significance? Why five days
out? Did that just count out right with
the 21 and 14 days? That's what I don't
know where the five came from. Um,
Clayton, Clayton or Union, whichever one
this comes from, one of those over
there. Um, that's just how that was the
time frame they had in there and I left
it since we were using it as the model.
» But in order to avoid the cost, isn't it
like more than 30 days prior?
>> Mhm. So if anything's running late,
light's late, right?
>> Yeah.
>> 10 days, five days, doesn't matter.
>> Yeah. I mean, you'd either have to make
it a significantly long to take it off
the ballot prior to the election or
you're kind of stuck with this issue.
Yeah.
And at that point, if you're kind of
stuck with the issue, I get the five
days. You're close, but
you're off. So it's that
>> I feel like it'd have to be 60 days if
you were going to try to avoid the cost
because there would be like mail in you
know there's a huge leadin time
for the ballot
>> 70 days
>> seven I want to confirm that but seven
days for a secretary of state to get
certify the ballots the board boards of
elections we have to have everything
done well before then
>> yeah
so probably the five is yeah That seems
Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um
just some general provisions and I'm
just going with the new at this point.
Um
there should be notice of the initiative
or referendum as required by the
charter. So that publication on the
website, the social media, presuming
that gets adopted, and the two public
buildings, um, emergency ordinances
cannot be used to repeal or amend an
ordinance enacted by initiative or
reenact an init an ordinance that has
been repealed by referendum. So there's
no getting around what happened.
um they can use a non-emergency
ordinance to repeal or amend an
ordinance enacted by initiative. Um but
it takes five council members, not the
normal four.
And again, they can reenact something
that was repealed by referendum with a
vote of five. [snorts]
If the county board of elections does
not take any function as requested,
then the clerk of council may do so.
Um,
and then 96 essentially says if the
charter silent, it goes back to the Ohio
Revised Code or the Ohio election laws.
creates a confusion
if but again goal is not to
>> could do what's what Ketering and Tip
City do and just say go to the RC
>> you could
>> but
» so how often has this or has it ever
occurred I find it amazing that we have
oh five of you can undo what your
elector just voted in that
>> it seems like a giant wast waste of
time, a giant waste of money, and a good
way to get yourself unelected next
round. But why would we do that if
threearters of Vanelia just because
council doesn't like it, if the voters
like it, that's kind of what you're up
in this seat for?
Um, I'm going to say exactly what you
just said because if [clears throat]
they
you can't you have to have just because
the voters voted a law in does not mean
that it can't be un
it's not then written in stone never to
be adjusted again. So, there's got to be
a way that it's undone.
Um, I'm going to be kind of flip or
sarcastic with my example. Um,
you could have the electorate
put an [clears throat] initiative that
would violate federal housing law.
Council's got to do something to undo it
because that could affect their the
grants that the city receives, things
like that. Um that's the I you know the
dramatic example. Um but exactly what
you said would you know theoretically if
the city felt strongly about whatever
was passed by initiative and council
repealed it then the public can recall.
the public can take referend or um take
action at the next election.
To answer your question about how many
times has initiative or referendums ever
been done, I do not recall in my adult
life Tip City ever having one. I do not
recall in my entire life, [snorts] I
just wasn't as paying as much attention
Tip City ever having one. May there's a
vague memory of discussion of one, but I
don't recall on tip and I don't think of
any I don't have a good feel for
Vanelia, but I'm not aware of
anything in Vanelia.
>> I think when we looked last year
historically, the last one was in 2002
if I'm recalling correctly. Last
initiative.
I know that
I I don't know exactly the date, but
when I checked in our record archive and
what is on our um retention schedule,
we did not have it because you're only
supposed to keep it for five years. So,
there were but I had to do some digging,
but I think that's approximately the
date, the year.
>> So, it's rare there. There's a lot, this
is one of those areas that there's a lot
sometimes of we're going to do it,
but then that's part of the reason for
the petition committee is who's going to
take the lead? Who's going to do it? And
so it kind of fizzles out over time.
>> What if because this this section caused
me a lot of heartburn as well for the
same reason. Uh what if we did what some
other cities have done and [snorts]
put in there that the issue cannot be
revisited for say two years for example
>> and that would be
>> but we could also to to preserve the
intent and the will of the voters. But
then at the same time to make sure that
we don't violate
a superseding law of some sort, we put
in there that it is that that um that
two-year restriction would be waved uh
in matters where the
>> public health
>> well
matters that's uh cause conflict for a
direct conflict to state or federal law.
Uh so if if they if we change the law by
voters and they said something that
clearly violates housing law, federal
housing law is absolutely discriminatory
in every sense of the word. Well,
council can then come in and say, "Okay,
this should not have passed. I don't
know what everyone was thinking. We'll
be subject to, you know, recall later
on, but we need to do something so we
don't violate federal law." In that
case, we could w Yeah. put in quick
language to wave
>> that restricted period.
>> If we
>> I think that makes sense.
>> Yeah.
>> But shouldn't something that extreme
have been stopped by the BOE?
>> N really conflicts with federal law?
Okay.
>> BOE does not judge what is put on the
ballot. They just judge whether or not
it's
>> got signatures and backing,
>> the sufficiency of the petitions. Got
you. Got you. And I suppose there a as I
asked the question and started thinking
about it, it could be five years down
the line line that council wants to
because something's changed in the
world. But yeah, maybe you you put a
year or twoear hold on it.
>> We find out it didn't work and instead
of have everyone to go through the whole
process again, okay,
we have to live with consequences of
revotes for a couple years. Is it when
you since you did some research um was
it normally two because I would have
gone with one
>> I mean there are different ones but two
seem to be the one that was
>> kind of consistent
>> in the middle of council term also
didn't put you in the middle of an
election year uh for a general election
that would cause other problems if that
resolution itself were then
not that if that were then challenged
and how would we go back and do that and
so you're not calling for special
election in a general ginatorial
presidential
So
>> I mean the math makes sense. I from a
whatever perspective I have at the
moment I would have probably said one
but again I get the math part.
By the way, my goal with this tonight
was to do work our way through have a
lot of conversation about it and then be
given direction on those kind of things
to talk about it next week, two weeks as
well. Um, and recognizing this is
probably going to come up a third, like
take two or three of these meetings to
really
nail down what Vanelia should look like.
» Is the language that's in section 95 of
the proposed red redlettered, is that
common in other city charters or just
Clayton's?
>> Yeah. So,
the initiative and referendum sections
really vary on the level of detail. Um,
I do not recall seeing it in the other
ones that I looked at, but
this is definitely um
more detailed in the other sections than
a lot of them are.
that I hope that made sense.
» Where did you pull this?
>> Clayton
>> or Union.
>> It's Clayton. Thank you. It's or as I
think of it, one of those two over
there.
So let me ask this. Having heard the
conversation,
I think I know the direction
you're thinking. Um there are also some
things that have raised in my mind based
on your conversations that could be
cleaned up a little bit as well. um or
at least I need to think about cleaning
up a little bit as well. Do you think
we're at the point for me to just make
those revisions to present it the next
time or do you think there's other
discussion?
I'm good with that plan. Others
» I'm good with that plan. Does everybody
else have any other commentary?
Nothing.
>> So, you'd send us a new version out and
then we could add our comments back in.
Okay. Yeah. I need to digest a little.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And this is exactly
originally we were going to do this last
just because
it's a lot and then I realized we're
going to need two or three meetings to
really handle this.
Okay. Um
that takes us to
starting on September 5th 5th 10th
um items which were pretty
straightforward and I do apologize again
about getting them out to you late last
night. Um but they're not meaty. They're
kind of straightforward. So um and again
we can talk about them next time as well
if need be. Um the first one is article
55 5-1 the appointment and
qualifications for the city manager. Um
this one
apparently I forgot to take out the word
removed removal. Um, essentially just
clarifying that his appointment is until
he's removed pursuant to the charter
requirements or
resigns.
And the word removal should be marked
out before removed. That was just a
grammatical change I was making.
» I don't think we let him resign.
It it's really interesting looking at
surrounding charters um how detailed
this can get. Um I would say this is one
that to me
being clear but not
specific makes a lot more sense.
any or were you were you okay with that
one?
None. Okay. Um the next one on salary of
the city manager is just to make it
clear that that's a resolution, not an
ordinance. It's currently required to be
an ordinance.
>> We striking the word ordinance.
>> We are. What happened to my strikeouts?
The additions got added but not the
Okay. Next is removal of the city
manager.
Um, again, this is one where I'm looking
for feedback as to how we may want to
um proceed.
So
council
can take action to remove the city
manager
30 days prior to that. They're to notify
the city manager of their intent, state
the cause,
immediately suspend him or her, and then
appoint someone to take on those duties.
After that notice, the city manager may
request an appearance and they should re
grant that request within two weeks
after it's received. After full
consideration, council may declare the
city manager removed.
Um
action resulting in suspension or
removal shall be by resolution requiring
five members vote and it's final.
It's not the structure is there or I
should say there is a structure there.
However, when you look at
union and tip again, there's just a lot
more clarity over certain things. So in
union
it breaks it out between a probation
period or I'm calling it a probation
period of six months and after that um
if it's after 6 months the manager may
demand written charges and the right to
be heard at a public meeting
and then um
council may suspend the manager during
that period. Um
it is in it is clear that it is the
intention of the city that the charter
vests all authority in the council as
far as the removal.
Um
so not necessarily a lot more detail
than what Vanelia has but just very
straight and to the point.
Um, TIP, as we have seen in many of
their provisions,
um, lays out a very specific, you've got
a preliminary ordinance,
um, which states the reasons for
removal. So, it's all public action,
public record, um, which may suspend the
municipal manager. Then five days after
that, the manager may file a written
request for the public hearing, which
then is held within 15 to 30 days later.
Um, council then may adopt a final
ordinance of removal, which is again
majority plus one. And um,
again, it's clear that someone is
appointed to fulfill their duties.
Really the question in some ways is
you know TIP has the structure of it's
very clear there is a vote there is a
suspension there is the right to be
heard there's a second vote
the way Vanelas is currently written
it says should removal become come
necessary council 30 days before the
effective date will notify the manager
of such intent. It's not clear how
if they if they've taken a vote is that,
you know, a public action. Is it we
think this may be the case, so hey,
we're giving you 30 days notice. That's
where it becomes a little
vague.
Now
I who like rules and like checklists
like the two vote situation.
What tips doesn't have is it doesn't
have the nimleness
when there is a
dramatic
emergency type of situation happening
i.e. stealing from the city or
something. Um but you call a special
meeting, you take a vote. So there is
nimleness in there. If there is
something like that, you just have to
wait 24 hours.
Let me ask a question on this because I
do I'm like you. I like the vote, but I
also
marked that when conduct is you like
stealing from the city, we there should
be a way to take care of it immediately.
But if that's the case, we have and his
or her salary for two months. If you're
stealing from the city, I still have to
pay you for two months.
I'm used to at will and they can remove
me tomorrow.
>> So, yeah. So, theoretically using my
dramatic stealing from the city,
that would probably be something that
would be
addressed. Um, but again, it's not
necessarily going to be 2 months because
if you have a special meeting 24 hours
later, you're looking at 30 days at most
that the person would still be employed.
So, we're not necessarily bound by any
of the
language and tips or that concept if we
didn't want to go that way. So, we can
pick and choose. Did that address your
question?
>> I think so. I just I just think we
shouldn't write into law. I mean, we've
had people removed fairly quickly, and
I'd hate for in law for us to be paying
somebody additional salary when they
didn't work out within a 90-day period
or within six months even. So,
>> I forgot that the two months was in ours
in Vander. No, I agree with you on that.
have that in there
>> because it kind of points to I got to
pay no matter what happens.
>> One one of the things that we would want
the charter to be
specific enough yet vague enough that
there could be a suspension without pay.
But we also
in
we don't want it so vague that you also
have
because as I tell clients when you're
writing an operating agreement you're
not writing for your current
relationship. You're writing for the
relationship down the road. We also want
to write it there where there is some
protection for the city manager from a
not aggressive a um what's that word
starts with an a
>> vindictive
>> well that works too vindictive council.
Yeah. So we we want flexibility for the
city but we also want protections for
the city manager
>> and we want to be able to hire the next
one.
>> Yes. Yeah.
What about a suspension with pay until
the hearing?
It's almost like a probable cause
finding.
>> I think at that point, um, it's not
necessarily the hearing, it would be
whatever that final action is.
Um, and I think instead of saying
with pay, with or without pay, so that
again council's not forced to pay
somebody who's stealing from the city.
I like the way Tip works it out. I think
it is uh works out with the notices, the
requirements. It protects both the
council and the city manager. Neither
one's going to get a windfall if he's
steal if he or she's stealing from the
city.
The charges are going to get the money
back as well. Uh so
I like the way they've done it.
more of an overarching question. You you
kind of pointed out early on that our
current charter is very vague in every
section and some of these others i.e.
tip city is very descriptive. If we
start putting in some of these more
descriptive sections, does that start to
do we need to do that for all of the
sections to be more cohesive or is that
okay that we kind of have it pieced out?
Do you see what I'm saying?
>> I think the sections where we are
getting more detailed are ones that
require more detail.
>> That's fair.
>> And kind of stand out. That said, it
could be putting the charter on a path
that when this is done again in five
years,
it keeps going in that more detailed
direction.
>> Got it.
Then yes, I agree that city's version is good.
>> I see what you're saying. We don't want
to hamstring council with here's
everything and you're just, you know,
formulaically doing the jobs up here.
So,
Yeah, I mean I and I guess just
cohesiveness of the document of you know
some some sections are one sentence
others now we're adding abs and c's to
every you know which we don't currently
have. I think this is very valid. I just
from a big picture standpoint want to
make sure that by using neighboring
communities language that we're not
creating a bigger issue I guess.
>> No. And you'll see like in the
referendum one, I didn't know how to
structure part of it because it didn't
[clears throat] the structure didn't fit
within the Vandelia structure. So, I've
got some
work to do on that. Um
I think for this situation where it
it's essentially creating the due
process.
>> I agree. Yeah.
>> For both sides, it makes sense. I don't
have to necessarily structure it with
the A, B, C, and D. That's a lawyer
thing. That's a
>> I think it's a clarity thing.
>> I personally think it's very nice and
neat and clear.
>> And so, you know, when you do read our
sections, it's all one paragraph and it
kind of gets jumbled together and you
have to kind of really
>> think through what they're saying,
whereas this is very clear what the
intention is. I'm not in disagreement.
Very much this person.
>> Yeah. So, it's one of those things where
I could actually take what we talk
about, smash it into one paragraph, and
it will look like the rest of Vandelius,
and it would be the same impression of
vagueness in some situations. So, that's
why I don't think we're necessarily
making it inconsistent. It's just part
of how it's also presented.
>> Yeah. No, I I I think I understand where
you're going. certainly need more
>> detail um because we have had situations
that the detail the lack of detail has
left
>> Fandelia in a precarious situation and
so I do think this is important I just
want to make sure big picture that we're
not
>> yeah piecing together and now our
document is
not where it start
I know exactly where you're going yes
>> um
>> well are there sections we should go
back and look at separation ating
paragraphs, too.
>> That would still require a ballot
initiative. So, if we're not making
substantive changes, we don't want to
mess with
the section.
>> Okay.
>> Because um
Brookville Brookville hadn't done it in
how long?
» 15 plus years. And I think they had
50ome. Yeah, there were a lot
>> charter recommendations to council,
which obviously
counville's
council is not going to put 50 on the
ballot all at once. Um, so we don't want
to necessarily if we're making a
substantive change, yes, we can do that.
If we're not, we just want to
>> leave alone. We do still have like the
abs and cs. So that's not outlandish
that we're adding that in. I just
devil's advocate. Just want to make sure
we're considering that.
» So, what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm
wrong, use tips as the guidelines and go
from there. Okay.
Um, next is, and don't think we're
getting September 10th off, everybody.
We're just going to move up other ones
that we were going to consider. um
the planning commission and actually we
might as well look at 71 and 74 together
because they're similar situations.
Um right now
both the planning commission and the BZA
have a rollover problem. All right now
four of the five planning commission
seats are full. There is a vacancy.
All four roll off at the same time.
There is no staggered seat right now at
the planning commission. Um the BZA is a
little bit better. There is a vacant
seat. Three roll off simultaneously as
required by the charter and then there's
one loan person and then the vacant
seat. So I didn't want to go into a lot
of detail because
that would have become very convoluted
and complicated to fix the planning
commission
immediately after passing the charter.
So my solution was to say okay going
forward there will be five planning
commission um members. I do have some
cleanup language that I noticed a bit um
that I'll tell you about in a minute.
Um, but there'll be five members
appointed by council and they will be
serving three-year staggered terms.
And then at the end, I just said to
create the staggered terms, council may
appoint members for a term of less than
three years. So that way, while it's not
ideal that we're dealing with this in
28, is that when you guys roll off
in 28? in 28 they can deal with, okay,
this person's getting appointed for one
year, this person's getting appointed
for two years, as opposed to trying to
lay out how that was going to work now
because we theoretically could have two
vacancies at that time. Um hopefully
not, but that's always a possibility.
So, um, it also avoided having to go
have conversations with current
commission members or BCA members
saying, "Do you mind if we cut your
term? We hope you come back, but can we
cut your term?" type of thing. So, um, I
thought that was the better way to
address that. Um the correction I needed
to point out was I think we needed to um
make it clear that
the and between council and the city
manager is not about the appointment but
the fact that the city manager is the
exeicio member of the planning
commission. So I think the easiest fix
to that is either to list the city
manager first to say there shall be a
planning commission with the city
manager as an exeicio member and
five electors appointed by council or
just make that a separate sentence.
So that's an easy fix but wanted to
bring that to your attention. I have a
question. As the deputy clerk of council
who sends the um BCA and planning
commission members that are coming off,
they're their terms are expiring. How
was that going to work then as far as
staggering the terms? Is that set by
council then?
>> Yeah. So, so what would happen is at
that point, I'm just planning
commission's the easiest one to use
since they all roll off together. Um
there would be a notice essentially of
your term is expiring.
Um
council will will have already figured
out what the staggered terms would look
like and then we theoretically would ask
them are you open to filling one of
these seats. I would expect there would
be an explanation at a meeting prior to
that to explain what is going on and why
as well.
So typically these members are then
voted in at the June meeting because the
30th is when
>> June is when all their terms expire. So
we're saying maybe like the May meeting
there's a study session and then that's
when council determine does it have to
be done by legislation?
>> No. So what would hap this this isn't
going to just be an one situation. there
would be sitting down like we would
present to council what the seats are.
Um I would expect that much like now you
would advertise there is a seat for one
year, there's a seat for two years,
there's a seat for three years and the
public could again apply for whatever
seat they would want to do in addition
to
those currently on it.
And that's for like the vacancies.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.
>> Like for the vacancy that's there now,
if you got an applicant for that vacancy
now, um theoretically council could go
ahead in order to help start that
because otherwise we'd have five um
rolling off simultaneously. Um go ahead
and make that a one-year
appointment.
Now th does this leaves that ability to
stagger those terms. If 10 years down
the road, four of them leave town
altogether they move away. You now have
to restart your staggering.
>> You don't have to restart the staggering
because it's now clear that they're
filling a vacant
>> vacant. Okay.
>> That the vacancy is to fill the term
>> as opposed to starting a new three-year
term. I think that's how that it got off
was
um they
>> people either people left it once or it
was just one of those things of when
people started they just started a
three-year term as opposed to filling a
vacancy.
That said, um, city manager and Miss
Schwarz, if as you think about this, you
think it's a logistical
nightmare, let me know and we'll figure
it out. A better better way of doing it,
too.
>> No, I don't think so. As long as as long
as it's clear to council that that's you
know we're doing we're staggering the
terms one to two to three years and then
how we are identifying the current
members that if they want to seek
reappoint
which which ones are going to take the
one to two to three
>> I I think we can make it
>> I think so. Yes.
>> Yeah.
So that's
Oh yeah, nominations.
This is an interesting one when you
start looking at it. So this is about
what the number of signatures it takes
to get on the ballot for council or
mayor. Um,
currently we have 75 as the requirement.
You'll notice that was adopted in 2015.
I do not know what it was before. Um
the question was ra
>> it was a percentage.
>> Oh okay it was a do you remember what
the percentage was? Okay. Um the
question has was raised. I do not know
where the question raised came from
about whether or not 75 should be
higher.
Um so in just looking at
communities around us tip only requires
25. Um, I thought unions was interesting
in the fact that they have a different
number for mayor than they do council.
Um, but 50 seems to be
pretty consistent
um of a number. So, Vanelia is already
higher. Again, this is one of those
where really doesn't matter what the
surrounding communities do. It's just
whatever Vanelia wants to do. I was just
using it as a
guide a mile marker for people. Um, I
have no real
thoughts on this. Um,
I would say my one thought that I would
I think is a little odd is that if an
elector signs more than the maximum
petitions, his or her signature shall be
boyed except for the ones filed first.
My perspective is if someone wants to
run and they ask me to sign the
petition, I'm going to sign it because
if they think they should run and would
do a good job, they should be on the
ballot and let the people decide. That's
how I was raised. That's not necessarily
the view of everyone else. But you're
putting on the going back to um Mr.
Blaine's thought you're putting a kind
of an onus on the board of elections to
count. Oh, we've seen that signature
>> twice previously.
>> We had that issue happen. I think it
[clears throat] was city of Dayton and
uh it wasn't clear which one was filed
first or signed first and the city had
to go back and redo and it was a
nightmare to say the least. So,
>> so I would suggest taking that language
out. Um
>> what does it serve? Does it stop
anything? Is there like if there's three
seats open and I sign four of them, that
just means I want the choice of all four
of them when I go to vote. So, does it
serve anything that you're aware of or
you're aware of?
>> To me, what it does is it essentially
says that you as an elector,
there are three seats. So,
theoretically, you should only be
looking you should only be supporting
three people. It makes the concept that
if you sign a petition, you are
supporting that person for election.
That's not how I personally view
petitions. That's not how a lot of
people view petitions. It's more about,
hey, can you get the signatures to get
on the ballot? There are a lot of people
though that will not sign a petition if
they're not planning to vote for them.
So, that's where that that clearly comes
from that mindset.
>> There's no purpose. I mean it's a race
to the u the bee at that point and it's
[snorts] it's almost impossible to say
you know Eric signed you know four
petitions but which four filed first and
three f
>> yeah I I agree it's
please remove it that's my
>> I would vote to take that out okay
>> I think 75 is fine I don't know that we
need to lower it I I think 75 is easily
attainable I don't know if we need to
increase it though. I
>> think it takes some work to get 75
signatures. It does. It's It's not easy.
>> It's not. And usually for the purposes
we're talking about, you get way more
than that. But I mean, we've had very um
healthy
elections with a lot of people that have
come to the table and put their their
name in the ring and they have gotten
the required signatures. So I think I
think 75 is fair.
>> Yeah,
>> I wouldn't lower it, but I also don't
know that we need to increase.
>> I think I don't know where that question
came from, especially seeing the
benchmarking from the other communities.
>> Well, I would say the 75 also
forces you as a voter to know that that
person talked to other people in the
community. Absolutely.
>> Because before you sign it, you're
going,
>> "What? Why do you want to run? What are
you standing for? It's a few more people
that heard their voice. So, when it came
to election day, they're slightly more
educated than the postcard that went
out.
>> So, I Yeah, I 75 I've never gone to try
and canvas 75 signatures in Vanelia, but
if it's not killer,
>> then [clears throat] why why change
that? I would change the
>> You can't sign more than because I'm not
counting. If somebody asked me and I
think they'd be good. [clears throat]
I'm going to count.
>> Well, yeah. If somebody files later, but
you already signed your three, but you
really like number four and now you
can't support them. That seems
>> And practically speaking, they're
getting more than 75 signatures. My
guess is they're probably aiming for 100
to 125. Yes.
>> I think the general rule is three, you
know, no more. Do we want to put in
there something like they're, you know,
that caps how many they can submit?
>> Oh, is that why this is 50 to 100? So,
the union is capped. you have to have 50
but don't get any more than 100. Is that
why that says 50 to 100 signatures?
>> My guess is that's there because of the
whole situation that a lot of times um
using Butler Township and Vanelia,
someone may not realize that they're a
Butler Township resident, not a Vanelia
resident, and so they've signed the
petition, their vote doesn't or their
ballot doesn't their signature doesn't
count towards the petition. So, the
range is probably just, hey, if you've
gotten 55, but five of yours gets
knocked off, you're fine. If you've
gotten a hundred and five of yours get
knocked off, you're fine.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I don't know that it's actually a
cap. I think they're just saying the
petition has to have that number
>> of valid signatures.
>> And does have that requirement on there.
You know, you must have x amount, but
not more than three times x amount.
>> Yeah.
>> Submitted.
>> And it's pretty standard. I think school
board is the same thing. 75.
» Okay. So 75 leave but
take out the maximum number you can
sign. Okay.
That is all for the evening.
Um
I will circulate an updated
referendum and initiative separately
from the next packet just so you can
continue to consider research. Um if you
in your as you are researching any
thoughts um not that you have to but if
you want to read other charters um and
you have an idea please feel free to
call me and let me know um and I can
work that in or put it in notes for the
next meeting as well.
>> Thank you everyone for your time
tonight. I will accept a motion for
adjournment if there's no other
comments.
>> So moved.
>> Second. Second. All those in favor? I.
All those opposed. We are adjourned at
7:02.