1
00:00:01,439 --> 00:00:03,280
All right, we will call the meeting to

2
00:00:03,280 --> 00:00:06,480
order at 5:32. This is the review

3
00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:08,720
committee uh the charter review

4
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,800
committee on August 20th. Um we will

5
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:15,120
look at the minutes from last meeting

6
00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:17,760
which was August 6th. So you've had a

7
00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:20,720
chance to review those. I will entertain

8
00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:22,800
a motion for acceptance if there are no

9
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:23,519
other comments.

10
00:00:23,519 --> 00:00:25,359
>> I'd make a motion to approve the August

11
00:00:25,359 --> 00:00:27,039
6 minutes. Second.

12
00:00:27,039 --> 00:00:30,160
>> Thank you. All those in favor? I

13
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:30,640
>> I

14
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:33,040
>> All those opposed.

15
00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:36,320
>> All right, those minutes are approved.

16
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:38,640
Moving on to item number three, which is

17
00:00:38,640 --> 00:00:40,640
the discussion of the prior provisions

18
00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:42,480
that we reviewed or the provisions that

19
00:00:42,480 --> 00:00:45,760
we reviewed at the prior meeting. Um,

20
00:00:45,760 --> 00:00:47,760
Miss Wall has given us all of those

21
00:00:47,760 --> 00:00:50,640
corrections based on our commentary.

22
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:52,480
Is there any discussion? Do we want to

23
00:00:52,480 --> 00:00:54,079
go through each one of these or is there

24
00:00:54,079 --> 00:00:57,039
any discussion on any of this? I I

25
00:00:57,039 --> 00:00:58,640
personally thought it looked good but

26
00:00:58,640 --> 00:00:59,920
open for discussion on

27
00:00:59,920 --> 00:01:01,680
>> why don't we just go one by one just to

28
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:03,120
make sure. Okay.

29
00:01:03,120 --> 00:01:07,200
>> Um so section 38 that was originally one

30
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:10,159
where um I had prevented prevented

31
00:01:10,159 --> 00:01:12,240
presented samples from multiple

32
00:01:12,240 --> 00:01:15,280
communities around us. Um and you had

33
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:19,280
given feedback on um structure and

34
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,880
language. Um the one question I had was

35
00:01:22,880 --> 00:01:28,159
whether B um for the action for removal

36
00:01:28,159 --> 00:01:30,479
reflected our conversation. It looked

37
00:01:30,479 --> 00:01:32,400
like what I had in my notes, but I just

38
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:35,200
wanted to make sure that was that I

39
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:41,990
picked the right one.

40
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,520
So with that then um should we consider

41
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:48,640
this quote unquote final until the

42
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:51,439
public hearing

43
00:01:51,439 --> 00:01:53,119
>> type situation?

44
00:01:53,119 --> 00:01:54,640
>> I thought it I thought it reflected what

45
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:57,040
we discussed in kind of the consensus a

46
00:01:57,040 --> 00:01:58,399
everybody kind of had a little bit to

47
00:01:58,399 --> 00:02:01,360
add in so I think it it reflected that.

48
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:04,719
Um anyone else?

49
00:02:04,719 --> 00:02:06,000
>> I'd agree with that statement.

50
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:08,560
>> Okay. And um going back for the record,

51
00:02:08,560 --> 00:02:10,239
Miss Wiggins had let us know that she

52
00:02:10,239 --> 00:02:11,920
will be late to the meeting. So just so

53
00:02:11,920 --> 00:02:14,800
that's on the minutes, we will uh bring

54
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:18,640
her in when she arrives. Um yeah, so 38.

55
00:02:18,640 --> 00:02:20,640
Okay, we will put that one in the report

56
00:02:20,640 --> 00:02:21,760
for the public hearing.

57
00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:22,160
>> Okay.

58
00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:27,680
>> Um next was section 4-1 definitions. Um

59
00:02:27,680 --> 00:02:30,480
there essentially the underlying point

60
00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:33,920
of the revisions was to add motions to

61
00:02:33,920 --> 00:02:37,120
it. Um and then some additional language

62
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:40,400
that was generally found in um some of

63
00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:42,319
the other charters around us which is

64
00:02:42,319 --> 00:02:45,440
that we are superseding the law of the

65
00:02:45,440 --> 00:02:55,270
state by having motions essentially.

66
00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:58,239
Any thoughts, comments? Should we

67
00:02:58,239 --> 00:03:00,000
consider this one ready for the public

68
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:00,720
hearing?

69
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:01,200
>> Yes.

70
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:02,319
>> I thought it was good.

71
00:03:02,319 --> 00:03:04,239
>> Okay.

72
00:03:04,239 --> 00:03:08,720
Um, next on

73
00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:12,949
the first reading

74
00:03:12,959 --> 00:03:15,920
and apparently in my lateness late

75
00:03:15,920 --> 00:03:18,159
nightness the I did not put the red line

76
00:03:18,159 --> 00:03:20,480
in or in the color. Um, so essentially

77
00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:23,599
what we were doing with um the first

78
00:03:23,599 --> 00:03:27,680
reading was making it clear that it only

79
00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:30,000
moves to a second

80
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:32,959
reading if it's passed at the first

81
00:03:32,959 --> 00:03:36,799
reading. Um, and then also we took out

82
00:03:36,799 --> 00:03:40,390
the specific

83
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:41,920
publication

84
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:45,360
of being in the newspaper.

85
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:47,840
Um and then I think I also simply just

86
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:49,280
said it will be published according to

87
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:52,720
46. That way all the publication

88
00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:54,640
um requirements are in one section as

89
00:03:54,640 --> 00:03:56,959
opposed to being repeated

90
00:03:56,959 --> 00:03:59,200
in each section in which publication is

91
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:05,910
being used.

92
00:04:05,920 --> 00:04:07,599
» Looks good to me.

93
00:04:07,599 --> 00:04:10,720
>> Okay, we will put that one ready for the

94
00:04:10,720 --> 00:04:14,080
public hearing then. Um again in

95
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:17,919
publication the question was um about

96
00:04:17,919 --> 00:04:20,720
publishing in the newspaper and so we

97
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:23,440
removed that from the requirement and

98
00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:26,240
now the requirement will be publication

99
00:04:26,240 --> 00:04:29,280
on the website and social media accounts

100
00:04:29,280 --> 00:04:31,040
and then posted at the municipal

101
00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:32,880
building and two other public buildings

102
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:35,759
within the city. Um, the reason I added

103
00:04:35,759 --> 00:04:38,960
the social media accounts is that the

104
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:42,320
actual statute says website and social

105
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:45,919
media accounts, there's no

106
00:04:45,919 --> 00:04:49,199
difference in, you know, what has to be

107
00:04:49,199 --> 00:04:51,199
posted on the social media accounts. So,

108
00:04:51,199 --> 00:04:53,600
and since that is often more checked

109
00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:56,320
than the city's website, um, I went

110
00:04:56,320 --> 00:04:59,199
ahead and put that in there. However,

111
00:04:59,199 --> 00:05:01,440
this is a charter and you certainly do

112
00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:03,520
not have to have that requirement in

113
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:05,840
there if you would prefer to keep it at

114
00:05:05,840 --> 00:05:09,840
the web page and the two the municipal

115
00:05:09,840 --> 00:05:12,639
building and two other public records.

116
00:05:12,639 --> 00:05:14,560
>> Who manages our social media? Is it the

117
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:17,199
same individual as the websites?

118
00:05:17,199 --> 00:05:18,960
>> Uh, our communications manager Rich

119
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:20,560
Hopkins.

120
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:21,919
>> And that duty would continue on. So,

121
00:05:21,919 --> 00:05:23,199
he's in charge of Rich is in charge of

122
00:05:23,199 --> 00:05:24,960
the website and social media.

123
00:05:24,960 --> 00:05:25,759
>> That is correct. Yes.

124
00:05:25,759 --> 00:05:28,639
>> Microphone. Is your microphone on?

125
00:05:28,639 --> 00:05:29,039
>> Mine?

126
00:05:29,039 --> 00:05:29,360
>> Yeah.

127
00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:29,759
>> Yes.

128
00:05:29,759 --> 00:05:31,440
>> Okay. Didn't look like it from here.

129
00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:33,360
Sorry.

130
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,080
>> Thank you.

131
00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:38,160
>> I mean, social media is not going away,

132
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:40,080
right? So, I think if we put that in

133
00:05:40,080 --> 00:05:42,560
there, I don't think it's overly

134
00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:45,280
restrictive because that's not I mean, I

135
00:05:45,280 --> 00:05:47,600
think that's

136
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:49,039
going to be around for a while.

137
00:05:49,039 --> 00:05:51,520
>> It It's not identifying any particular

138
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:52,560
social media account

139
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:54,560
>> like a newspaper, right? [laughter]

140
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:56,479
>> It's a MySpace account.

141
00:05:56,479 --> 00:06:00,800
nor is it requiring the city to form any

142
00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:03,840
new social media accounts. So, whatever

143
00:06:03,840 --> 00:06:07,600
they have, they have.

144
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:09,520
>> I think that's fine as long as that's

145
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:11,199
attainable

146
00:06:11,199 --> 00:06:13,440
>> to what we're already doing. That's not

147
00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:15,360
added work, right?

148
00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:17,360
>> I don't believe so, but we can confirm

149
00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:20,000
that. He currently puts on the video

150
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:21,680
from the council meeting, but then it

151
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:23,919
also does a brief summary of what

152
00:06:23,919 --> 00:06:25,440
actually the meeting and it goes a

153
00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:28,479
little bit more detail of what it it has

154
00:06:28,479 --> 00:06:30,160
the entire meeting, what council voted

155
00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:32,400
on and so forth. So, it's a little bit

156
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:34,960
more than just the legislative summaries

157
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:36,880
that I post at the three buildings.

158
00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:39,909
>> Okay.

159
00:06:39,919 --> 00:06:41,759
» And is also posted on our website as

160
00:06:41,759 --> 00:06:42,880
well.

161
00:06:42,880 --> 00:06:47,039
>> Wonderful. So with that, any comments,

162
00:06:47,039 --> 00:06:52,000
changes, anything on 4.6?

163
00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:52,960
>> Think we're good.

164
00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:56,870
>> Okay.

165
00:06:56,880 --> 00:06:58,240
» Yeah.

166
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:02,240
>> I'm just just a comment on 4-3. I think

167
00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:04,639
we've clarified

168
00:07:04,639 --> 00:07:06,720
as far as

169
00:07:06,720 --> 00:07:09,199
what is done after the first reading,

170
00:07:09,199 --> 00:07:12,080
but I know that the question has come up

171
00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:15,440
if an ordinance fails or is not approved

172
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:18,560
at the first reading, does it still get

173
00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:21,039
that second reading or not?

174
00:07:21,039 --> 00:07:22,880
>> No. So, that's covered by the if

175
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:24,720
approved at its first reading by

176
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:27,120
council, a summary shall be published

177
00:07:27,120 --> 00:07:29,440
and then placed on the agenda for the

178
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:31,599
next council. So if it doesn't pass,

179
00:07:31,599 --> 00:07:33,599
it's not placed on the agenda.

180
00:07:33,599 --> 00:07:36,319
>> Okay. So the two separate readings would

181
00:07:36,319 --> 00:07:38,720
be

182
00:07:38,720 --> 00:07:40,240
would not be required then.

183
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:42,400
>> Correct. Because it did not pass the

184
00:07:42,400 --> 00:07:43,360
first.

185
00:07:43,360 --> 00:07:44,880
>> Okay.

186
00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:46,880
Um

187
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:49,360
I don't know if it would help but for

188
00:07:49,360 --> 00:07:51,199
future people down the road, future

189
00:07:51,199 --> 00:07:54,319
councils and city leadership

190
00:07:54,319 --> 00:07:57,840
to add a sentence. If not approved, it

191
00:07:57,840 --> 00:07:59,680
would not move to a second reading or

192
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:03,360
would that not be appropriate?

193
00:08:03,360 --> 00:08:06,720
>> I don't it's up to the committee. I

194
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:08,720
personally don't feel that that sentence

195
00:08:08,720 --> 00:08:11,599
is needed because

196
00:08:11,599 --> 00:08:14,160
one, it's logical to me that if it

197
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:16,000
doesn't pass the first reading, it

198
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:18,639
wouldn't go to the second reading.

199
00:08:18,639 --> 00:08:21,599
But I also was raised kind of in city

200
00:08:21,599 --> 00:08:26,960
government. So perhaps I have a

201
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:31,199
unique perspective on that.

202
00:08:31,199 --> 00:08:32,800
>> We'll also note for the record, Miss

203
00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:36,550
Wiggins has arrived.

204
00:08:36,560 --> 00:08:38,800
» I think we talked about that momentarily

205
00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:40,479
last week, didn't we? That it wouldn't

206
00:08:40,479 --> 00:08:43,919
go to second if it wasn't passed.

207
00:08:43,919 --> 00:08:45,600
>> Clearly, there's been a question at some

208
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:47,120
point that has been raised, though.

209
00:08:47,120 --> 00:08:49,760
>> Yeah. One of one of the debates that

210
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:52,320
I've heard on a couple occasions is that

211
00:08:52,320 --> 00:08:55,120
the first statement there is that every

212
00:08:55,120 --> 00:08:57,360
ordinance is given two separate readings

213
00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:00,240
by council on two separate days. So, one

214
00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:02,399
of the

215
00:09:02,399 --> 00:09:05,600
um I want to say conflicts or one of the

216
00:09:05,600 --> 00:09:09,680
debates that council has heard is you've

217
00:09:09,680 --> 00:09:11,279
got to pass it the first time to get it

218
00:09:11,279 --> 00:09:12,880
to the second reading because it

219
00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:15,360
requires two readings. The way it's

220
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:17,519
written now, it is clear that it's not

221
00:09:17,519 --> 00:09:20,240
going to get a second reading if it

222
00:09:20,240 --> 00:09:23,200
doesn't pass. But because the first

223
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:25,680
statement has it's given two separate

224
00:09:25,680 --> 00:09:29,120
readings, the debate is okay. If it

225
00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:30,880
doesn't pass, does it even get another

226
00:09:30,880 --> 00:09:32,160
reading? I don't know.

227
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:34,240
>> I think this is an easy fix now that I

228
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:36,160
see where you're going.

229
00:09:36,160 --> 00:09:38,320
>> A slight revision to that first

230
00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:42,560
sentence. Um, taking out the word given.

231
00:09:42,560 --> 00:09:45,279
um

232
00:09:45,279 --> 00:09:48,000
and going more towards the overall

233
00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:50,640
requires two separate readings before

234
00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:54,399
formal enactment or formal adoption.

235
00:09:54,399 --> 00:09:59,200
So why don't I um work on that sentence

236
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:01,600
a little bit for the next meeting

237
00:10:01,600 --> 00:10:04,399
>> clarify that point so that there is no

238
00:10:04,399 --> 00:10:09,279
question on the given aspect um and

239
00:10:09,279 --> 00:10:12,720
we'll just remove that topic from the

240
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:15,200
>> I think that's a great catch the the

241
00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:17,680
lawyers love this catch [laughter]

242
00:10:17,680 --> 00:10:20,160
>> this is great it seems very that sent

243
00:10:20,160 --> 00:10:21,519
now I'm thinking to myself that sentence

244
00:10:21,519 --> 00:10:24,160
seemed clear like Oh,

245
00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:26,000
>> the first one reading it all together

246
00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:26,720
that we have

247
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:27,920
>> Yeah.

248
00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:30,399
that's awesome. Thank you for

249
00:10:30,399 --> 00:10:33,360
that.

250
00:10:33,360 --> 00:10:35,357
>> It's from experience.

251
00:10:35,357 --> 00:10:37,829
[laughter]

252
00:10:37,839 --> 00:10:40,480
» Um, okay. So, I will bring that one back

253
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:44,480
at our September 10th

254
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:46,079
meeting

255
00:10:46,079 --> 00:10:50,800
>> or whatever the actual date is. If we're trying to get some of these and

256
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:54,560
this one included on there prior to the

257
00:10:54,560 --> 00:10:56,399
public hearing,

258
00:10:56,399 --> 00:10:58,079
would it be helpful to spitball the

259
00:10:58,079 --> 00:10:59,519
language now?

260
00:10:59,519 --> 00:11:01,040
>> Oh, no. The public hearing is not till

261
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:02,240
October. We're going to have gone

262
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:04,160
through all these by the public hearing.

263
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:04,800
>> Okay.

264
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:07,680
>> The only ones that you guys may not have

265
00:11:07,680 --> 00:11:10,160
done a quote unquote second review of

266
00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:12,320
are the ones that are the week before

267
00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:14,480
the public hearing. If there are changes

268
00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:16,800
to that, the review may just be when I

269
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:18,720
get it, when you review it prior to the

270
00:11:18,720 --> 00:11:19,440
public hearing.

271
00:11:19,440 --> 00:11:20,240
>> All right. Thank you.

272
00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:23,279
>> No problem.

273
00:11:23,279 --> 00:11:27,839
>> Um, and so that now takes us to

274
00:11:27,839 --> 00:11:31,040
article 9 and the initiative and

275
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:32,640
referendum.

276
00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:34,240
Um,

277
00:11:34,240 --> 00:11:38,160
there is a lot here. I will tell you

278
00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:41,440
that I do not have old or new fully

279
00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:43,680
memorized. and off the top of my head.

280
00:11:43,680 --> 00:11:45,279
So, I will be working through it with

281
00:11:45,279 --> 00:11:50,640
you um as well. Um,

282
00:11:50,640 --> 00:11:53,440
essentially the one that has been

283
00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:57,200
proposed is the one from

284
00:11:57,200 --> 00:11:59,839
Clayton, I believe, that was recently

285
00:11:59,839 --> 00:12:03,440
revised and adopted by Clayton and has

286
00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:08,079
kind of been viewed as a good starting

287
00:12:08,079 --> 00:12:12,560
point or clear in what the processes are

288
00:12:12,560 --> 00:12:16,320
um, in that. So, I don't know if you

289
00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:19,680
want to actually look at the current one

290
00:12:19,680 --> 00:12:21,920
and see and kind of walk through what it

291
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:23,839
requires right now before looking at the

292
00:12:23,839 --> 00:12:26,320
new one or if you want to look at the

293
00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:28,560
new language

294
00:12:28,560 --> 00:12:31,040
and just start from there. What would be

295
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:32,800
the committee's

296
00:12:32,800 --> 00:12:36,230
preference?

297
00:12:36,240 --> 00:12:37,680
I mean, I have a preference, but I don't

298
00:12:37,680 --> 00:12:40,240
want to speak for everyone. I would I

299
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:42,079
would think we would just start from the

300
00:12:42,079 --> 00:12:44,880
red and move forward from there. But

301
00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:48,480
what is the consensus?

302
00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:50,240
>> I was thinking look at the old language

303
00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:53,279
and what we think is wrong with it and

304
00:12:53,279 --> 00:12:55,200
whether we're confused by it, if you

305
00:12:55,200 --> 00:12:58,639
will. Um but okay, I I will not argue

306
00:12:58,639 --> 00:12:59,360
either way.

307
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:01,760
>> Mr. Durham, do you have a

308
00:13:01,760 --> 00:13:05,120
>> I think using the existing language as a

309
00:13:05,120 --> 00:13:07,839
starting point is all

310
00:13:07,839 --> 00:13:10,000
>> Mr. Blank. state.

311
00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:13,600
>> It's such a substantial rewrite I almost

312
00:13:13,600 --> 00:13:14,800
>> unless we have questions about how

313
00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:16,320
things used to work would move on to the

314
00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:17,279
red.

315
00:13:17,279 --> 00:13:18,240
>> Okay.

316
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:19,440
>> Mr. Atkins,

317
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:21,040
>> I

318
00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:22,240
reviewed [clears throat] some of it and

319
00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:25,360
I I did find a few things that didn't

320
00:13:25,360 --> 00:13:28,240
make sense to to me and I was in the

321
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:30,000
original language. So,

322
00:13:30,000 --> 00:13:32,000
>> where would you prefer to start?

323
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:34,560
>> I I think go through the original

324
00:13:34,560 --> 00:13:36,000
language and then

325
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:37,600
>> All right. Consensus has it. We'll start

326
00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:39,040
at the original.

327
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:42,160
>> Um, city manager Al House had the

328
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:44,959
suggestion that maybe we go section old

329
00:13:44,959 --> 00:13:48,959
new by that way. They line up fairly

330
00:13:48,959 --> 00:13:52,639
close but not exactly, but um, we can go

331
00:13:52,639 --> 00:13:55,360
from there. Um, so first of all, just as

332
00:13:55,360 --> 00:13:58,959
our little 12th grade civics reminder,

333
00:13:58,959 --> 00:14:01,839
an initiative is a piece of legislation

334
00:14:01,839 --> 00:14:04,639
that is brought by the people and that

335
00:14:04,639 --> 00:14:06,240
says, "We want this on the ballot

336
00:14:06,240 --> 00:14:08,160
because you're not passing it. We want

337
00:14:08,160 --> 00:14:12,880
to pass it." Um, a referendum is a piece

338
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:16,320
of legislation that council has passed

339
00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:18,560
that the electorate says, "We don't like

340
00:14:18,560 --> 00:14:21,760
it. We want it off."

341
00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:27,040
So section 9-1 is about initiatives and

342
00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:29,920
essentially the original language says

343
00:14:29,920 --> 00:14:32,160
that the electors have the power to

344
00:14:32,160 --> 00:14:34,320
propose any ordinance and to adopt or

345
00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:37,279
reject the same at the polls and that it

346
00:14:37,279 --> 00:14:39,920
is initiated by submitting to council

347
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:42,240
through a petition signed by qualified

348
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:46,000
electors equal to a number at least 15%

349
00:14:46,000 --> 00:14:48,560
of the number voting in the last general

350
00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:52,560
election. Um, as some background, it is

351
00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:57,360
typical to use actual turnout to

352
00:14:57,360 --> 00:14:59,600
determine the number of people signing

353
00:14:59,600 --> 00:15:02,320
petitions in a situation like this as

354
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:06,560
opposed to the whole electorate. Because

355
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:09,600
practically speaking, if you based 15%

356
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:12,800
of the whole electorate, you would never

357
00:15:12,800 --> 00:15:16,870
get a petition on the ballot.

358
00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:18,480
The

359
00:15:18,480 --> 00:15:23,120
new language makes it clear or even more

360
00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:26,000
clear than the original language that it

361
00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:28,480
is only ordinances

362
00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:30,480
um that are subject to referendum and

363
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:32,079
initiative. And this is where it doesn't

364
00:15:32,079 --> 00:15:34,160
match up exactly because we didn't talk

365
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:40,710
about referendums yet. Um,

366
00:15:40,720 --> 00:15:43,040
and

367
00:15:43,040 --> 00:15:45,680
so is let me back up and say it this

368
00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:49,600
way. Um, ordinances are subject to

369
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:52,079
referendum as permitted by the

370
00:15:52,079 --> 00:15:55,120
constitution, the state of Ohio, or the

371
00:15:55,120 --> 00:15:59,680
charter. So if though the charter says

372
00:15:59,680 --> 00:16:03,440
an issue is not referendum,

373
00:16:03,440 --> 00:16:06,160
is that a word? or able to be put on by

374
00:16:06,160 --> 00:16:10,079
initiative, it overrides the other

375
00:16:10,079 --> 00:16:13,440
two ways or places where it could say it

376
00:16:13,440 --> 00:16:15,440
could be on the ballot. Um because

377
00:16:15,440 --> 00:16:17,680
again, charter home rule, we've said

378
00:16:17,680 --> 00:16:21,759
great, no thanks. Um,

379
00:16:21,759 --> 00:16:24,560
also the others like the state of Ohio

380
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:28,800
laws cannot expand what the charter says

381
00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:30,959
or be used to interpret what the charter

382
00:16:30,959 --> 00:16:32,959
says whether or not something may be

383
00:16:32,959 --> 00:16:35,759
eligible for initiative or referendum.

384
00:16:35,759 --> 00:16:37,519
So that's the new language. So

385
00:16:37,519 --> 00:16:40,079
essentially it's basically saying

386
00:16:40,079 --> 00:16:43,839
charter controls what can be put on as

387
00:16:43,839 --> 00:16:48,800
an initiative or um

388
00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:53,189
referendum

389
00:16:53,199 --> 00:16:56,320
going down to section 9.2 to catch up a

390
00:16:56,320 --> 00:16:58,800
little bit. Um

391
00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:01,360
council

392
00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:03,600
may

393
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:06,160
submit any ordinance to a vote of the

394
00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:08,079
people

395
00:17:08,079 --> 00:17:14,470
by a vote of four members.

396
00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:16,720
The ordinance is not subject to

397
00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:20,799
initiative. So in other words,

398
00:17:20,799 --> 00:17:22,319
if

399
00:17:22,319 --> 00:17:26,480
council would say we want to on their on

400
00:17:26,480 --> 00:17:28,640
their own

401
00:17:28,640 --> 00:17:31,600
decision, we want the vote the electors

402
00:17:31,600 --> 00:17:33,919
to vote on this.

403
00:17:33,919 --> 00:17:38,240
The people cannot do an initiative of a

404
00:17:38,240 --> 00:17:41,120
exact same kind of question or so there

405
00:17:41,120 --> 00:17:43,280
can't be competing

406
00:17:43,280 --> 00:17:46,880
ordinances on the ballot by initiative.

407
00:17:46,880 --> 00:17:50,960
So that's just once council's voted by

408
00:17:50,960 --> 00:17:53,280
four to do it, then somebody can't start

409
00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:55,280
their own initiative out there that

410
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:56,799
changes the language a little bit.

411
00:17:56,799 --> 00:17:57,200
Right.

412
00:17:57,200 --> 00:17:59,200
>> Right.

413
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:01,280
>> Um,

414
00:18:01,280 --> 00:18:02,880
of course, the electors would be the one

415
00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:05,520
that would determine what could go on.

416
00:18:05,520 --> 00:18:07,760
Um,

417
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:10,240
it's in this section where it says that

418
00:18:10,240 --> 00:18:12,559
within that the petition must be

419
00:18:12,559 --> 00:18:14,720
submitted within 30 days of the passage

420
00:18:14,720 --> 00:18:16,640
of the ordinance.

421
00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:18,640
that matches up with the fact that an

422
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:21,200
ordinance does not take effect for 30

423
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:24,799
days. So basically within the time frame

424
00:18:24,799 --> 00:18:27,600
between passage and effective date,

425
00:18:27,600 --> 00:18:33,360
that's when the people can organize and

426
00:18:33,360 --> 00:18:37,440
file the petition for the referendum.

427
00:18:37,440 --> 00:18:40,320
Um

428
00:18:40,320 --> 00:18:43,360
I'm just going to jump ahead to 9.2.1

429
00:18:43,360 --> 00:18:45,679
for a minute.

430
00:18:45,679 --> 00:18:49,600
This section is not really reflected in

431
00:18:49,600 --> 00:18:58,310
the new language about zoning.

432
00:18:58,320 --> 00:19:00,960
If it's an ordinance, it can still be by

433
00:19:00,960 --> 00:19:03,360
referendum, but there's not a section on

434
00:19:03,360 --> 00:19:06,080
zoning in the new language.

435
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:12,150
Um, I'm going to go ahead and do 9.3

436
00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:13,760
and then jump back over to

437
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:15,919
>> What's the reason for that? Is there

438
00:19:15,919 --> 00:19:18,880
just no need for it to be separate?

439
00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:24,080
>> Um, it's again to in my personal opinion

440
00:19:24,080 --> 00:19:25,919
if

441
00:19:25,919 --> 00:19:28,559
changes are made by ordinance then they

442
00:19:28,559 --> 00:19:32,559
are already a eligible for referendum.

443
00:19:32,559 --> 00:19:35,679
any other change in zoning that would be

444
00:19:35,679 --> 00:19:41,760
by um other legislation such as um

445
00:19:41,760 --> 00:19:45,039
a variance or something like that

446
00:19:45,039 --> 00:19:47,520
which isn't even really by legislation.

447
00:19:47,520 --> 00:19:50,799
Um you don't want that up for the vote.

448
00:19:50,799 --> 00:19:52,400
So I don't know that there really should

449
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:56,799
be special rules for zoning.

450
00:19:56,799 --> 00:19:57,200
you

451
00:19:57,200 --> 00:20:01,280
>> there's there's certain instances where

452
00:20:01,280 --> 00:20:03,679
um planning commission or board of

453
00:20:03,679 --> 00:20:06,400
zoning appeals can just make the

454
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:09,600
judgment. It's not a a referral to

455
00:20:09,600 --> 00:20:11,840
council. So I think in th is that what

456
00:20:11,840 --> 00:20:13,679
you're trying to say is that in those

457
00:20:13,679 --> 00:20:16,640
cases those shouldn't be up for

458
00:20:16,640 --> 00:20:17,919
referendum.

459
00:20:17,919 --> 00:20:20,320
>> Yeah.

460
00:20:20,320 --> 00:20:23,280
>> Anytime that it's a referral to council

461
00:20:23,280 --> 00:20:26,080
that's when it's an ordinance.

462
00:20:26,080 --> 00:20:29,520
So any change to the zoning code has to

463
00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:31,440
occur by ordinance.

464
00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:34,559
So if the issue

465
00:20:34,559 --> 00:20:36,640
are there others I don't know about.

466
00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:38,240
Okay. You just reacted a little bit.

467
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:39,840
Okay. Okay. [laughter] Okay.

468
00:20:39,840 --> 00:20:43,919
>> Okay. Um so because it's an ordinance,

469
00:20:43,919 --> 00:20:47,280
it's able to be referendum and so really

470
00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:51,280
it's kind of duplicative and setting up

471
00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:55,120
potentially a conflict. In my opinion,

472
00:20:55,120 --> 00:20:56,880
>> I think there are times that it's more

473
00:20:56,880 --> 00:20:59,840
administrative in nature of, you know,

474
00:20:59,840 --> 00:21:01,840
record a record plaid or some, you know,

475
00:21:01,840 --> 00:21:03,600
record a a plan or something like that

476
00:21:03,600 --> 00:21:05,919
where it doesn't again go across

477
00:21:05,919 --> 00:21:07,600
council's desk. So, I think they're

478
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:09,919
trying to avoid that being up for

479
00:21:09,919 --> 00:21:12,640
debate.

480
00:21:12,640 --> 00:21:16,480
I will note last year we experienced

481
00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:18,799
some confusion

482
00:21:18,799 --> 00:21:23,919
between um zoning and ordinances when it

483
00:21:23,919 --> 00:21:26,320
came to a planned unit development and a

484
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:28,799
planned unit development is passed by

485
00:21:28,799 --> 00:21:30,400
ordinance.

486
00:21:30,400 --> 00:21:32,720
So that is a circumstance where it would

487
00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:35,520
it could be subject to a referendum,

488
00:21:35,520 --> 00:21:37,520
but because the zoning section was in

489
00:21:37,520 --> 00:21:40,880
there, it became a little bit diluted

490
00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:43,200
and murky with how it was interpreted

491
00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:45,039
and there were different interpretations

492
00:21:45,039 --> 00:21:47,440
from that. So I agree with the law

493
00:21:47,440 --> 00:21:49,919
director if this section is taken out,

494
00:21:49,919 --> 00:21:54,320
it would abolish that confusion.

495
00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:59,440
There's also aspects on the PUDS where

496
00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:01,840
the first part is passed by ordinance

497
00:22:01,840 --> 00:22:05,200
and is clearly eligible for referendum.

498
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:07,440
Other parts down the road related to

499
00:22:07,440 --> 00:22:12,240
that PUD are passed by um legislation.

500
00:22:12,240 --> 00:22:15,360
And so then it becomes a question of

501
00:22:15,360 --> 00:22:19,200
wait a minute, if this original vote was

502
00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:21,200
ref able to be referendum, why aren't

503
00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:25,919
these other votes related to that PUB

504
00:22:25,919 --> 00:22:28,640
able to be referendum? I don't know if

505
00:22:28,640 --> 00:22:30,400
those are real words. We're just going

506
00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:32,159
to go with that's proper English at the

507
00:22:32,159 --> 00:22:36,000
moment. Um, and so again, that section

508
00:22:36,000 --> 00:22:38,720
is partly what's creating that chaos

509
00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:41,520
when it comes to things like PUDS. So,

510
00:22:41,520 --> 00:22:43,919
it takes the whole plan's been approved

511
00:22:43,919 --> 00:22:45,760
and now people are trying to pull parts

512
00:22:45,760 --> 00:22:48,320
out to Okay, that makes perfect sense.

513
00:22:48,320 --> 00:22:50,080
Okay.

514
00:22:50,080 --> 00:22:52,320
>> Um, I'm just again I'm going to go ahead

515
00:22:52,320 --> 00:22:54,559
and do 93 because I think doing the flow

516
00:22:54,559 --> 00:22:57,039
a little bit and then going to the new.

517
00:22:57,039 --> 00:23:00,159
Um, so under the current charter

518
00:23:00,159 --> 00:23:03,919
provision, um, I'm going to ignore the

519
00:23:03,919 --> 00:23:05,679
fact they have to be uniform in size,

520
00:23:05,679 --> 00:23:08,320
but essentially you present your

521
00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:12,480
petition to the clerk of council. Um,

522
00:23:12,480 --> 00:23:14,320
there needs to be what's called a

523
00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:16,320
committee of the petitioners and it can

524
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:20,080
be no more than five. And um,

525
00:23:20,080 --> 00:23:23,120
>> why is that? the petition or the

526
00:23:23,120 --> 00:23:23,600
committee

527
00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:24,480
>> the committee

528
00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:29,200
>> so that there is a point person point

529
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:32,400
group that is saying we are taking this

530
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:35,840
on and we are responsible for it

531
00:23:35,840 --> 00:23:38,880
happening. Otherwise, you very well

532
00:23:38,880 --> 00:23:42,080
could have five different groups

533
00:23:42,080 --> 00:23:45,679
bringing a set of petitions for the

534
00:23:45,679 --> 00:23:48,960
exact same item and

535
00:23:48,960 --> 00:23:50,720
you know five people might be working in

536
00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:53,200
two of the three groups and just to

537
00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:58,870
create some organization.

538
00:23:58,880 --> 00:24:00,480
Um

539
00:24:00,480 --> 00:24:02,240
just like with other petitions, there

540
00:24:02,240 --> 00:24:04,159
has to be an affidavit of the circul

541
00:24:04,159 --> 00:24:06,240
circulator that they circulated the

542
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:09,520
certificate certificate um the petition

543
00:24:09,520 --> 00:24:12,240
and got the signatures.

544
00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:15,039
Jumping to the new

545
00:24:15,039 --> 00:24:18,720
um here it says no less than three and

546
00:24:18,720 --> 00:24:21,120
no more than five. So we're putting a

547
00:24:21,120 --> 00:24:25,440
minimum number on that committee. Um and

548
00:24:25,440 --> 00:24:26,960
again

549
00:24:26,960 --> 00:24:29,760
they file a proposed ordinance or the

550
00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:33,200
referred ordinance um to the city

551
00:24:33,200 --> 00:24:36,240
manager. Now

552
00:24:36,240 --> 00:24:38,799
I guess I should have jumped to 94. That

553
00:24:38,799 --> 00:24:42,640
is fairly similar to

554
00:24:42,640 --> 00:24:46,000
what we have in the original which is in

555
00:24:46,000 --> 00:24:48,960
94. Um it's just referring to the clerk

556
00:24:48,960 --> 00:24:51,840
of council which is the city manager as

557
00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:53,279
opposed to just referring to the city

558
00:24:53,279 --> 00:24:57,830
manager. Um

559
00:24:57,840 --> 00:25:01,679
we in and this language is a direct

560
00:25:01,679 --> 00:25:03,919
clarification from some confusion that

561
00:25:03,919 --> 00:25:06,080
happened in that incident that the city

562
00:25:06,080 --> 00:25:10,640
manager referred to. um the city will

563
00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:12,640
provide the petition under the new

564
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:16,400
language so that what is provided they

565
00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:20,159
know they can rely on. Um they will then

566
00:25:20,159 --> 00:25:22,240
obtain the appropriate number of valid

567
00:25:22,240 --> 00:25:25,200
signatures for the petition which again

568
00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:27,360
is 15%

569
00:25:27,360 --> 00:25:30,080
just like the original language of the

570
00:25:30,080 --> 00:25:32,000
number of electors who voted at the last

571
00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:34,880
general election held for the office of

572
00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:37,600
governor in the municipal corporation.

573
00:25:37,600 --> 00:25:40,880
So we're being very specific what last

574
00:25:40,880 --> 00:25:44,240
election is being referred to.

575
00:25:44,240 --> 00:25:49,520
Um, and then for

576
00:25:49,520 --> 00:25:51,039
I'm sorry, that's for initiatives. For

577
00:25:51,039 --> 00:25:53,760
referendums, it would take 10%.

578
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:57,039
So, you're switching out that number.

579
00:25:57,039 --> 00:26:00,640
The logic behind that is that you want

580
00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:03,919
to show more buyin from the electorate

581
00:26:03,919 --> 00:26:06,240
that the

582
00:26:06,240 --> 00:26:08,480
item being put on the ballot by the

583
00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:12,240
electorate is wanted by the electorate.

584
00:26:12,240 --> 00:26:15,120
The referendum number can be is

585
00:26:15,120 --> 00:26:17,600
sometimes considered to be a lower

586
00:26:17,600 --> 00:26:21,120
percentage because it's more the

587
00:26:21,120 --> 00:26:24,640
electorate saying wait a minute

588
00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:26,799
we want to review what you guys have

589
00:26:26,799 --> 00:26:28,320
done.

590
00:26:28,320 --> 00:26:30,240
Do those percentage have to be

591
00:26:30,240 --> 00:26:31,760
different?

592
00:26:31,760 --> 00:26:35,360
No. You could make them both 15%.

593
00:26:35,360 --> 00:26:38,400
I would not vary from the 15%. It's kind

594
00:26:38,400 --> 00:26:40,480
of a solid

595
00:26:40,480 --> 00:26:43,039
uniform number that's used for these

596
00:26:43,039 --> 00:26:46,880
situations. But that is one item for you

597
00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:49,279
all to consider is whether it should be

598
00:26:49,279 --> 00:26:51,360
lower for a referendum than an

599
00:26:51,360 --> 00:26:55,269
initiative.

600
00:26:55,279 --> 00:26:58,000
Um

601
00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:02,159
once the number of

602
00:27:02,159 --> 00:27:05,760
s signatures have been acquired then it

603
00:27:05,760 --> 00:27:08,559
gets filed with the board of elections

604
00:27:08,559 --> 00:27:11,440
as well as with the city manager.

605
00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:16,960
Um note again that in the new language

606
00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:20,480
the 30 days is

607
00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:22,720
for a referendum.

608
00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:24,720
The filing has to occur to the board of

609
00:27:24,720 --> 00:27:28,000
elections within the 30 days. So again,

610
00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:31,360
it matches that when it takes effect,

611
00:27:31,360 --> 00:27:34,480
they have to have the petition filed.

612
00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:36,640
Um

613
00:27:36,640 --> 00:27:38,400
then the board of elections does their

614
00:27:38,400 --> 00:27:40,960
review regarding the required and valid

615
00:27:40,960 --> 00:27:43,440
signatures and the city managers to

616
00:27:43,440 --> 00:27:45,440
notify the petitioners whether or not

617
00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:51,029
they were able to meet the standard.

618
00:27:51,039 --> 00:27:54,000
with that

619
00:27:54,000 --> 00:27:55,840
um once it's filed with the board of

620
00:27:55,840 --> 00:27:58,960
elections, it will be suspended from

621
00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:01,200
taking effect. So, in other words, the

622
00:28:01,200 --> 00:28:04,080
ordinance passed will not take effect

623
00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:06,320
until the vote occurs.

624
00:28:06,320 --> 00:28:08,480
Um or

625
00:28:08,480 --> 00:28:10,880
the board of elections determines the

626
00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:13,279
petition was insufficient, the petition

627
00:28:13,279 --> 00:28:16,559
is withdrawn, council can still repeal

628
00:28:16,559 --> 00:28:18,559
the ordinance.

629
00:28:18,559 --> 00:28:22,240
um and then after the vote.

630
00:28:22,240 --> 00:28:24,399
So, let's kind of stop there for a

631
00:28:24,399 --> 00:28:27,360
second and talk about each of those

632
00:28:27,360 --> 00:28:31,990
items. Um

633
00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:34,000
you may say,

634
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:38,799
why would they withdraw the petition?

635
00:28:38,799 --> 00:28:42,320
It very well may be that there's, for

636
00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:44,880
lack of a better term, negotiations

637
00:28:44,880 --> 00:28:48,000
going on between council and the

638
00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:51,360
community members about what the issues

639
00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:54,880
are. And so council may be agreeing to

640
00:28:54,880 --> 00:28:58,880
take steps to amend or otherwise address

641
00:28:58,880 --> 00:29:03,840
what the issues are in that. Um, it very

642
00:29:03,840 --> 00:29:07,279
well may also be that while they've

643
00:29:07,279 --> 00:29:10,720
gotten the correct number of signatures,

644
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:13,679
they're facing a lot of opposition

645
00:29:13,679 --> 00:29:16,000
from the rest of the community or

646
00:29:16,000 --> 00:29:17,279
they're realizing the rest of the

647
00:29:17,279 --> 00:29:20,559
community does not agree and agree to

648
00:29:20,559 --> 00:29:26,000
pull it. So there does it happen often?

649
00:29:26,000 --> 00:29:28,520
No. But there are times it could

650
00:29:28,520 --> 00:29:29,279
[snorts]

651
00:29:29,279 --> 00:29:31,360
and you want that avenue so that you

652
00:29:31,360 --> 00:29:32,799
don't have to have something go to a

653
00:29:32,799 --> 00:29:40,230
vote that no one wants to go to a vote.

654
00:29:40,240 --> 00:29:44,240
Um I'm going to stop there.

655
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:48,799
Thoughts, questions up to that point or

656
00:29:48,799 --> 00:29:50,640
do you guys want to keep going and then

657
00:29:50,640 --> 00:29:52,559
do it all at once? I thought it might be

658
00:29:52,559 --> 00:29:53,919
helpful to just kind of break for a

659
00:29:53,919 --> 00:29:57,120
minute and digest. I think this is a

660
00:29:57,120 --> 00:30:02,950
good pause to check in.

661
00:30:02,960 --> 00:30:03,840
» Sir,

662
00:30:03,840 --> 00:30:04,720
>> I've got a few

663
00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:05,200
>> go

664
00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:06,640
>> questions on this. So,

665
00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:08,559
>> if that's all right with Madam Chair.

666
00:30:08,559 --> 00:30:10,720
Absolutely. Please. By all means.

667
00:30:10,720 --> 00:30:15,669
>> Um,

668
00:30:15,679 --> 00:30:17,440
saving some of the other portions for

669
00:30:17,440 --> 00:30:21,600
later. Um it's very well written this

670
00:30:21,600 --> 00:30:24,080
section

671
00:30:24,080 --> 00:30:25,679
and this will be a question that is now

672
00:30:25,679 --> 00:30:28,799
but also revisited later but

673
00:30:28,799 --> 00:30:30,240
coming from the board elections pers

674
00:30:30,240 --> 00:30:32,960
perspective why do we not refer or is

675
00:30:32,960 --> 00:30:34,559
there a reason not to refer to the

676
00:30:34,559 --> 00:30:39,039
revised code for the guidance on how to

677
00:30:39,039 --> 00:30:41,919
initiate and conduct both the

678
00:30:41,919 --> 00:30:45,360
referendums and the initiatives. I would

679
00:30:45,360 --> 00:30:48,399
say the thought process is that home

680
00:30:48,399 --> 00:30:50,240
rule

681
00:30:50,240 --> 00:30:52,159
so that you're not going back and forth

682
00:30:52,159 --> 00:30:56,000
between the charter and the revised code

683
00:30:56,000 --> 00:30:59,520
and trying to figure out what melds and

684
00:30:59,520 --> 00:31:01,840
doesn't meld when you're on the

685
00:31:01,840 --> 00:31:04,480
petitioners committee and even for the

686
00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:07,039
city trying to maneuver this. I think we

687
00:31:07,039 --> 00:31:10,480
want it all in one location so that

688
00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:13,919
there isn't confusion about what is and

689
00:31:13,919 --> 00:31:15,600
is not required. Does this part of the

690
00:31:15,600 --> 00:31:21,830
charter change that type of situation?

691
00:31:21,840 --> 00:31:24,559
See? All right. Um, the other question I

692
00:31:24,559 --> 00:31:26,720
had is on the petitions. Who is

693
00:31:26,720 --> 00:31:29,120
reviewing them for sufficiency? Not only

694
00:31:29,120 --> 00:31:32,799
as to number but to form because the BOE

695
00:31:32,799 --> 00:31:35,600
has in here the requirement to review it

696
00:31:35,600 --> 00:31:38,399
for sufficiency of signatures. But then

697
00:31:38,399 --> 00:31:40,799
in 93 has the requirement to also review

698
00:31:40,799 --> 00:31:42,399
it for just sufficiency.

699
00:31:42,399 --> 00:31:44,960
>> I believe it's all the BOE. So if the

700
00:31:44,960 --> 00:31:47,279
all the BOE then is the BOE required

701
00:31:47,279 --> 00:31:49,600
then to use only the charter and if

702
00:31:49,600 --> 00:31:51,039
there's a conflict between the charter

703
00:31:51,039 --> 00:31:52,799
and the revised code at a county

704
00:31:52,799 --> 00:31:54,960
government level where do where does the

705
00:31:54,960 --> 00:31:56,240
BOE fall this

706
00:31:56,240 --> 00:31:58,080
>> in that decision because that that comes

707
00:31:58,080 --> 00:32:02,080
up uh the BOE can't certify

708
00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:04,320
>> the BOE can certify to the charter that

709
00:32:04,320 --> 00:32:05,440
it complies with the charter.

710
00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:05,919
>> Yeah,

711
00:32:05,919 --> 00:32:07,760
>> that's that would be their job there.

712
00:32:07,760 --> 00:32:09,600
>> It would have to be entirely in this

713
00:32:09,600 --> 00:32:11,600
then. So you're asking the board not

714
00:32:11,600 --> 00:32:14,159
only to certify the number but now for

715
00:32:14,159 --> 00:32:16,320
the sufficiency of the petitions.

716
00:32:16,320 --> 00:32:17,120
>> Correct.

717
00:32:17,120 --> 00:32:18,640
>> Even if that petition is missing

718
00:32:18,640 --> 00:32:20,000
something that a revised code would

719
00:32:20,000 --> 00:32:20,799
otherwise require.

720
00:32:20,799 --> 00:32:23,039
>> The revised code that would not but it

721
00:32:23,039 --> 00:32:24,799
would not be required here because it's

722
00:32:24,799 --> 00:32:29,029
not in the charter.

723
00:32:29,039 --> 00:32:30,960
» This happens. I mean I know where you're

724
00:32:30,960 --> 00:32:33,679
going from. Logically it's odd to us.

725
00:32:33,679 --> 00:32:34,559
>> We had it happen. Yeah.

726
00:32:34,559 --> 00:32:37,679
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um due to the number of

727
00:32:37,679 --> 00:32:41,279
charter cities in the general area,

728
00:32:41,279 --> 00:32:44,000
this happens quite a bit where there is

729
00:32:44,000 --> 00:32:47,360
confusion at the BOE.

730
00:32:47,360 --> 00:32:49,840
Oops. We probably should have certified

731
00:32:49,840 --> 00:32:51,279
that because it complies with the

732
00:32:51,279 --> 00:32:55,200
charter or vice versa. Um so they are

733
00:32:55,200 --> 00:32:58,159
familiar with the concept. It wouldn't

734
00:32:58,159 --> 00:33:00,960
be new to them. But what I'm hearing

735
00:33:00,960 --> 00:33:03,679
from you is if we're not going to

736
00:33:03,679 --> 00:33:06,640
reference the

737
00:33:06,640 --> 00:33:11,600
OC that we put more detail so that they

738
00:33:11,600 --> 00:33:13,919
have a checklist kind of of what to

739
00:33:13,919 --> 00:33:17,909
certify against.

740
00:33:17,919 --> 00:33:19,919
» I think a requirement that no offense

741
00:33:19,919 --> 00:33:21,919
Kurt the city manager's office is the

742
00:33:21,919 --> 00:33:24,159
one or some and the council is the one

743
00:33:24,159 --> 00:33:25,760
that is certifying the form the

744
00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:27,919
petitions. the BOE is only being asked

745
00:33:27,919 --> 00:33:30,720
to certify the number would clarify that

746
00:33:30,720 --> 00:33:33,600
easily because we're already a very long

747
00:33:33,600 --> 00:33:35,679
article on this, longer than a lot of

748
00:33:35,679 --> 00:33:38,000
our almost every single neighboring

749
00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:39,120
jurisdiction.

750
00:33:39,120 --> 00:33:41,919
>> Um, so

751
00:33:41,919 --> 00:33:45,279
I would not put the city manager

752
00:33:45,279 --> 00:33:48,640
certifying the form. You want a neutral

753
00:33:48,640 --> 00:33:51,600
party certifying. So, I would take it

754
00:33:51,600 --> 00:33:55,600
out of the city manager and out of the

755
00:33:55,600 --> 00:33:58,720
law director or anyone in Vanelia

756
00:33:58,720 --> 00:34:00,000
certifying it.

757
00:34:00,000 --> 00:34:02,720
>> I think I may have been mis mis

758
00:34:02,720 --> 00:34:04,240
let me rephrase that if you will.

759
00:34:04,240 --> 00:34:06,240
Certifying the form of the a form of the

760
00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:09,200
petitions prior to their submitting

761
00:34:09,200 --> 00:34:09,599
them.

762
00:34:09,599 --> 00:34:10,720
>> Yes. So, the form

763
00:34:10,720 --> 00:34:12,240
>> is already done. The form is already

764
00:34:12,240 --> 00:34:12,639
clear.

765
00:34:12,639 --> 00:34:13,040
>> Correct.

766
00:34:13,040 --> 00:34:15,280
>> Uh and at that point

767
00:34:15,280 --> 00:34:17,200
>> only the

768
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:18,879
board of elections is certifying the

769
00:34:18,879 --> 00:34:22,480
number. correct. They technically would

770
00:34:22,480 --> 00:34:24,639
certify that it's correct, but the form

771
00:34:24,639 --> 00:34:28,639
given out by the city manager should

772
00:34:28,639 --> 00:34:32,159
be the form is is what I'm

773
00:34:32,159 --> 00:34:32,879
>> think so.

774
00:34:32,879 --> 00:34:34,720
>> Yes, we're on the same page there. Yes.

775
00:34:34,720 --> 00:34:36,560
Yes. I didn't understand what you

776
00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:39,119
were saying. Yeah. Um the form that is

777
00:34:39,119 --> 00:34:44,240
handed out by the city um should have

778
00:34:44,240 --> 00:34:49,040
all the nuts and bolts of the form if

779
00:34:49,040 --> 00:34:52,879
it's going to come from the city. Yes.

780
00:34:52,879 --> 00:34:55,520
And I think we can clarify that a little

781
00:34:55,520 --> 00:34:58,480
bit in here

782
00:34:58,480 --> 00:35:01,760
without adding length.

783
00:35:01,760 --> 00:35:04,160
I have general heartburn whenever asking

784
00:35:04,160 --> 00:35:06,640
the outside agency who has to b you know

785
00:35:06,640 --> 00:35:09,599
is bound by the OC to certify something

786
00:35:09,599 --> 00:35:11,520
that may be in conflict with the OC if

787
00:35:11,520 --> 00:35:14,720
it's not carefully done

788
00:35:14,720 --> 00:35:15,200
>> understood

789
00:35:15,200 --> 00:35:17,920
>> it will cause conflict in heart

790
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:21,119
>> and then go to common police court

791
00:35:21,119 --> 00:35:22,480
>> we won't

792
00:35:22,480 --> 00:35:27,520
>> no sure um does that do you think making

793
00:35:27,520 --> 00:35:30,400
it clear that

794
00:35:30,400 --> 00:35:32,880
the form term handed out from the city

795
00:35:32,880 --> 00:35:36,720
manager shall comply with all aspects of

796
00:35:36,720 --> 00:35:38,800
the charter or something along those

797
00:35:38,800 --> 00:35:39,359
lines.

798
00:35:39,359 --> 00:35:40,960
>> I'd like to personally see something up

799
00:35:40,960 --> 00:35:42,640
in 92 in the middle there or the very

800
00:35:42,640 --> 00:35:45,359
first paragraph where the petition uh

801
00:35:45,359 --> 00:35:48,400
that the forms provided by the the city

802
00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:51,359
manager conform to the charter but also

803
00:35:51,359 --> 00:35:53,760
to the OC uh so that there's not a

804
00:35:53,760 --> 00:35:57,920
conflict there. But then also under 93A

805
00:35:57,920 --> 00:36:01,200
where it says uh um there's a final

806
00:36:01,200 --> 00:36:04,240
termination of insufficiency u identify

807
00:36:04,240 --> 00:36:04,960
whether or not we're asking

808
00:36:04,960 --> 00:36:06,240
insufficiency of the form or

809
00:36:06,240 --> 00:36:08,000
insufficiency of the number of of

810
00:36:08,000 --> 00:36:09,520
signatures

811
00:36:09,520 --> 00:36:11,280
and would recommend we do only the

812
00:36:11,280 --> 00:36:13,200
number of signatures. That way we're not

813
00:36:13,200 --> 00:36:15,839
asking the BOE to also get in conflict

814
00:36:15,839 --> 00:36:18,640
with this city and the council to say,

815
00:36:18,640 --> 00:36:20,880
"Well, your petitions aren't valid for

816
00:36:20,880 --> 00:36:23,040
this other reason over here, which by

817
00:36:23,040 --> 00:36:24,640
the way, we'll give grounds to whomever

818
00:36:24,640 --> 00:36:28,320
is challenging it to bring a lawsuit."

819
00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:30,400
>> Correct.

820
00:36:30,400 --> 00:36:32,320
>> But if it's if it's simply the number of

821
00:36:32,320 --> 00:36:34,320
signatures,

822
00:36:34,320 --> 00:36:37,200
that's a it's a that's a straightforward

823
00:36:37,200 --> 00:36:42,630
direct ask.

824
00:36:42,640 --> 00:36:44,400
Let's

825
00:36:44,400 --> 00:36:45,760
We're obviously going to look at this

826
00:36:45,760 --> 00:36:48,400
again next week or two weeks from now.

827
00:36:48,400 --> 00:36:50,400
So, let me play with it a little bit.

828
00:36:50,400 --> 00:36:53,359
Um, let me talk to the city manager a

829
00:36:53,359 --> 00:36:55,200
little bit because I know there have

830
00:36:55,200 --> 00:36:58,640
been some issues in this community in

831
00:36:58,640 --> 00:37:01,599
the past and so I want to make sure I

832
00:37:01,599 --> 00:37:04,320
fully understand what those were so that

833
00:37:04,320 --> 00:37:06,560
we don't have that problem.

834
00:37:06,560 --> 00:37:11,990
>> Thank Sorry to take up that much time.

835
00:37:12,000 --> 00:37:15,920
Um, anything else kind of up through

836
00:37:15,920 --> 00:37:22,069
93?

837
00:37:22,079 --> 00:37:24,720
I feel like we need a dry erase board.

838
00:37:24,720 --> 00:37:29,349
Just map everything out.

839
00:37:29,359 --> 00:37:32,960
Um, okay. So,

840
00:37:32,960 --> 00:37:39,829
over in the picking up from 95

841
00:37:39,839 --> 00:37:43,520
um in the old language

842
00:37:43,520 --> 00:37:45,760
at the next

843
00:37:45,760 --> 00:37:47,359
meeting

844
00:37:47,359 --> 00:37:49,920
and this is part of the reason why the

845
00:37:49,920 --> 00:37:52,480
old language is confusing. We're back on

846
00:37:52,480 --> 00:37:54,079
initiative in the middle of what had

847
00:37:54,079 --> 00:37:57,040
been kind of about referendums but about

848
00:37:57,040 --> 00:38:01,119
both. But um if there is an initiative,

849
00:38:01,119 --> 00:38:03,200
council is to consider it within 30

850
00:38:03,200 --> 00:38:06,960
days. Um

851
00:38:06,960 --> 00:38:09,280
there can be public hearings, they can

852
00:38:09,280 --> 00:38:12,079
reject the ordinance or pass it in a

853
00:38:12,079 --> 00:38:15,599
different form. Um

854
00:38:15,599 --> 00:38:17,440
and then that that committee of

855
00:38:17,440 --> 00:38:20,630
petitioners

856
00:38:20,640 --> 00:38:22,800
can be required

857
00:38:22,800 --> 00:38:24,800
to

858
00:38:24,800 --> 00:38:28,960
can be asked whether or not a modified

859
00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:31,040
ordinance that was passed by council

860
00:38:31,040 --> 00:38:33,520
should be put on the ballot.

861
00:38:33,520 --> 00:38:37,589
Um

862
00:38:37,599 --> 00:38:40,400
96, if there is a referendum, the

863
00:38:40,400 --> 00:38:44,240
ordinance does not take effect.

864
00:38:44,240 --> 00:38:49,760
And then 97 addresses essentially what's

865
00:38:49,760 --> 00:38:53,760
on the ballot. Um the vote is either for

866
00:38:53,760 --> 00:38:57,040
the ordinance or against the ordinance

867
00:38:57,040 --> 00:39:00,640
and then we have the election results.

868
00:39:00,640 --> 00:39:06,790
So, going back to the new language,

869
00:39:06,800 --> 00:39:09,440
if a petition has been deemed sufficient

870
00:39:09,440 --> 00:39:11,680
by the board of elections,

871
00:39:11,680 --> 00:39:14,400
um, council is to determine whether or

872
00:39:14,400 --> 00:39:16,960
not all of the requirements under the

873
00:39:16,960 --> 00:39:19,520
law and the charter have been met. And

874
00:39:19,520 --> 00:39:22,000
if those requirements have not met, the

875
00:39:22,000 --> 00:39:25,680
petitioners committee has 21 days to

876
00:39:25,680 --> 00:39:28,320
resolve the deficiencies or cure the

877
00:39:28,320 --> 00:39:30,160
deficiencies.

878
00:39:30,160 --> 00:39:32,240
Um,

879
00:39:32,240 --> 00:39:34,560
presuming they are curable.

880
00:39:34,560 --> 00:39:39,670
>> So, does that 30-day window

881
00:39:39,680 --> 00:39:42,160
the 30-day window then they have 21

882
00:39:42,160 --> 00:39:44,720
days? Like those kind of stack on top of

883
00:39:44,720 --> 00:39:45,760
each other, right? Okay.

884
00:39:45,760 --> 00:39:49,599
>> Yes. Yes. Now, [clears throat]

885
00:39:49,599 --> 00:39:51,280
If

886
00:39:51,280 --> 00:39:54,052
let's say the petitioner committee

887
00:39:54,052 --> 00:39:55,599
[snorts]

888
00:39:55,599 --> 00:39:57,680
steams right through and gets what they

889
00:39:57,680 --> 00:39:59,440
think are the number of signatures

890
00:39:59,440 --> 00:40:01,920
within 14 days. It's not like you're

891
00:40:01,920 --> 00:40:04,320
waiting till

892
00:40:04,320 --> 00:40:07,359
we get to 30 days to continue. So they

893
00:40:07,359 --> 00:40:08,960
stack but they also run Yep.

894
00:40:08,960 --> 00:40:11,119
>> consecutive. Okay.

895
00:40:11,119 --> 00:40:12,720
Um

896
00:40:12,720 --> 00:40:16,160
if they are cured

897
00:40:16,160 --> 00:40:19,440
then council is to

898
00:40:19,440 --> 00:40:21,839
uh acknowledge the validity of the

899
00:40:21,839 --> 00:40:24,400
petition and file that within the board

900
00:40:24,400 --> 00:40:26,960
of elections.

901
00:40:26,960 --> 00:40:30,160
At that point, then council is to take

902
00:40:30,160 --> 00:40:34,320
the appropriate action to place the

903
00:40:34,320 --> 00:40:40,150
measure on the ballot.

904
00:40:40,160 --> 00:40:43,599
B just makes it very clear that council

905
00:40:43,599 --> 00:40:45,680
at any time can reconsider its prior

906
00:40:45,680 --> 00:40:49,280
actions and either modify or repeal the

907
00:40:49,280 --> 00:40:50,880
ordinance that's been brought up for

908
00:40:50,880 --> 00:40:52,960
referendum.

909
00:40:52,960 --> 00:40:54,640
if

910
00:40:54,640 --> 00:40:57,520
the council passes a proposed ordinance

911
00:40:57,520 --> 00:40:59,440
and so this would be a referendum or I'm

912
00:40:59,440 --> 00:41:02,319
sorry an initiative issue without

913
00:41:02,319 --> 00:41:04,720
changes in substance

914
00:41:04,720 --> 00:41:06,640
um

915
00:41:06,640 --> 00:41:08,720
and which the peti the petitioner

916
00:41:08,720 --> 00:41:11,520
committee essentially is their sounding

917
00:41:11,520 --> 00:41:14,560
board on the initiative. So if they pres

918
00:41:14,560 --> 00:41:16,400
if the petitioners committee presents

919
00:41:16,400 --> 00:41:20,160
something and council says great idea

920
00:41:20,160 --> 00:41:22,800
but what about this would work better

921
00:41:22,800 --> 00:41:25,440
and the petitioners committee agrees

922
00:41:25,440 --> 00:41:27,839
then council can proceed with passing

923
00:41:27,839 --> 00:41:29,599
that

924
00:41:29,599 --> 00:41:33,440
um amended ordinance or yeah amended

925
00:41:33,440 --> 00:41:34,960
initiative.

926
00:41:34,960 --> 00:41:36,960
It can also repeal the referred

927
00:41:36,960 --> 00:41:38,560
ordinance

928
00:41:38,560 --> 00:41:42,319
after notice. Um,

929
00:41:42,319 --> 00:41:44,640
if they I apologize. If they take either

930
00:41:44,640 --> 00:41:46,240
of those actions, then a notice of

931
00:41:46,240 --> 00:41:47,440
withdrawal is filed with the board of

932
00:41:47,440 --> 00:41:50,960
elections essentially. So, if council

933
00:41:50,960 --> 00:41:52,720
takes care of the initiative by passing

934
00:41:52,720 --> 00:41:57,119
something or appeal or repealing the

935
00:41:57,119 --> 00:42:01,440
referendum item, then it come gets taken

936
00:42:01,440 --> 00:42:05,430
off the ballot.

937
00:42:05,440 --> 00:42:09,520
They also um can take such action as to

938
00:42:09,520 --> 00:42:13,920
simply just p place it on the ballot

939
00:42:13,920 --> 00:42:17,839
and then it takes a resolution

940
00:42:17,839 --> 00:42:20,160
to file the notice of withdrawal or the

941
00:42:20,160 --> 00:42:22,160
acknowledgement of validity. The reason

942
00:42:22,160 --> 00:42:24,400
it takes a resolution

943
00:42:24,400 --> 00:42:26,400
is if it was an ordinance, that

944
00:42:26,400 --> 00:42:30,640
ordinance would be open to referendum.

945
00:42:30,640 --> 00:42:33,599
So you could get into a cycle

946
00:42:33,599 --> 00:42:37,040
of referendums on one issue.

947
00:42:37,040 --> 00:42:46,630
Um so that's why it's very clear that step is by resolution.

948
00:42:46,640 --> 00:42:48,160
Um

949
00:42:48,160 --> 00:42:50,000
it's then held at the next regular

950
00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:53,359
municipal election

951
00:42:53,359 --> 00:42:56,319
which can't be more than or less than 75

952
00:42:56,319 --> 00:42:59,680
days or more than a year later.

953
00:42:59,680 --> 00:43:03,750
And um

954
00:43:03,760 --> 00:43:05,920
council can request a special election

955
00:43:05,920 --> 00:43:11,430
in order to comply with that section.

956
00:43:11,440 --> 00:43:14,560
It can an initiative or referendum may

957
00:43:14,560 --> 00:43:16,560
be withdrawn

958
00:43:16,560 --> 00:43:19,359
prior to the fifth day preceding the day

959
00:43:19,359 --> 00:43:25,109
scheduled for the election.

960
00:43:25,119 --> 00:43:26,960
And at that point it shall have no

961
00:43:26,960 --> 00:43:30,000
further force in effect essentially.

962
00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:31,520
So,

963
00:43:31,520 --> 00:43:34,400
let's break that those two down just

964
00:43:34,400 --> 00:43:36,079
slightly.

965
00:43:36,079 --> 00:43:42,150
Um,

966
00:43:42,160 --> 00:43:45,680
to me, that time frame for the vote

967
00:43:45,680 --> 00:43:48,960
makes sense just because if we're in an

968
00:43:48,960 --> 00:43:51,520
off-year cycle or something like that,

969
00:43:51,520 --> 00:43:54,079
there aren't a lot of election dates

970
00:43:54,079 --> 00:43:57,200
necessarily held in the state of Ohio.

971
00:43:57,200 --> 00:43:59,920
So it avo at attempts to avoid having to

972
00:43:59,920 --> 00:44:04,160
have a special election.

973
00:44:04,160 --> 00:44:07,599
It also avoids

974
00:44:07,599 --> 00:44:11,040
something being passed right before

975
00:44:11,040 --> 00:44:13,119
an election that's already scheduled and

976
00:44:13,119 --> 00:44:15,359
people scrambling to try and get it on

977
00:44:15,359 --> 00:44:17,040
without the electorate really being

978
00:44:17,040 --> 00:44:20,560
aware it's on the ballot. So I think

979
00:44:20,560 --> 00:44:25,359
that time frame makes logical sense even

980
00:44:25,359 --> 00:44:27,280
though it seems kind of a long time to

981
00:44:27,280 --> 00:44:30,960
go before a vote on a initiative or a

982
00:44:30,960 --> 00:44:33,990
referendum.

983
00:44:34,000 --> 00:44:37,680
the withdrawal of the petition.

984
00:44:37,680 --> 00:44:41,829
Um

985
00:44:41,839 --> 00:44:45,839
I believe and I did not check this even

986
00:44:45,839 --> 00:44:48,720
if it's withdrawn I believe the city the

987
00:44:48,720 --> 00:44:51,599
city would still have to share in its

988
00:44:51,599 --> 00:44:56,400
cost or its portion of the cost for that

989
00:44:56,400 --> 00:45:01,359
ballot item even if it's withdrawn.

990
00:45:01,359 --> 00:45:04,470
So,

991
00:45:04,480 --> 00:45:08,720
the side of me that says, "Hey,

992
00:45:08,720 --> 00:45:12,079
getting it off the ballot as much as

993
00:45:12,079 --> 00:45:14,560
possible is great.

994
00:45:14,560 --> 00:45:18,720
Five days may seem a little short to me

995
00:45:18,720 --> 00:45:23,440
or close to the election to me because

996
00:45:23,440 --> 00:45:26,079
if I'm correct, the city's going to bear

997
00:45:26,079 --> 00:45:28,880
the cost. It's let's say there's five

998
00:45:28,880 --> 00:45:31,520
other things on the ballot. it's one6

999
00:45:31,520 --> 00:45:34,240
cost of holding that election.

1000
00:45:34,240 --> 00:45:38,160
Um, and if it's a special election,

1001
00:45:38,160 --> 00:45:39,680
they're bearing the whole cost of that

1002
00:45:39,680 --> 00:45:41,440
special election and you've withdrawn

1003
00:45:41,440 --> 00:45:45,200
something 5 days before.

1004
00:45:45,200 --> 00:45:48,240
Um, so I view that as a potential for

1005
00:45:48,240 --> 00:45:52,400
creating confusion. That said, I do not

1006
00:45:52,400 --> 00:45:57,200
know or have an idea what would be

1007
00:45:57,200 --> 00:46:00,960
a better time frame. I just see that as

1008
00:46:00,960 --> 00:46:06,309
being a

1009
00:46:06,319 --> 00:46:09,200
potentially concerning issue that could

1010
00:46:09,200 --> 00:46:12,400
lead to other concerns

1011
00:46:12,400 --> 00:46:22,230
type of thing.

1012
00:46:22,240 --> 00:46:24,240
What's the significance? Why five days

1013
00:46:24,240 --> 00:46:26,640
out? Did that just count out right with

1014
00:46:26,640 --> 00:46:29,440
the 21 and 14 days? That's what I don't

1015
00:46:29,440 --> 00:46:34,480
know where the five came from. Um,

1016
00:46:34,480 --> 00:46:37,040
Clayton, Clayton or Union, whichever one

1017
00:46:37,040 --> 00:46:38,480
this comes from, one of those over

1018
00:46:38,480 --> 00:46:42,720
there. Um, that's just how that was the

1019
00:46:42,720 --> 00:46:44,880
time frame they had in there and I left

1020
00:46:44,880 --> 00:46:51,109
it since we were using it as the model.

1021
00:46:51,119 --> 00:46:53,359
» But in order to avoid the cost, isn't it

1022
00:46:53,359 --> 00:46:56,160
like more than 30 days prior?

1023
00:46:56,160 --> 00:47:00,400
>> Mhm. So if anything's running late,

1024
00:47:00,400 --> 00:47:01,680
light's late, right?

1025
00:47:01,680 --> 00:47:02,480
>> Yeah.

1026
00:47:02,480 --> 00:47:04,160
>> 10 days, five days, doesn't matter.

1027
00:47:04,160 --> 00:47:05,839
>> Yeah. I mean, you'd either have to make

1028
00:47:05,839 --> 00:47:09,760
it a significantly long to take it off

1029
00:47:09,760 --> 00:47:12,000
the ballot prior to the election or

1030
00:47:12,000 --> 00:47:14,880
you're kind of stuck with this issue.

1031
00:47:14,880 --> 00:47:16,400
Yeah.

1032
00:47:16,400 --> 00:47:17,839
And at that point, if you're kind of

1033
00:47:17,839 --> 00:47:19,200
stuck with the issue, I get the five

1034
00:47:19,200 --> 00:47:22,560
days. You're close, but

1035
00:47:22,560 --> 00:47:25,280
you're off. So it's that

1036
00:47:25,280 --> 00:47:27,119
>> I feel like it'd have to be 60 days if

1037
00:47:27,119 --> 00:47:29,200
you were going to try to avoid the cost

1038
00:47:29,200 --> 00:47:32,319
because there would be like mail in you

1039
00:47:32,319 --> 00:47:36,079
know there's a huge leadin time

1040
00:47:36,079 --> 00:47:37,760
for the ballot

1041
00:47:37,760 --> 00:47:39,520
>> 70 days

1042
00:47:39,520 --> 00:47:41,440
>> seven I want to confirm that but seven

1043
00:47:41,440 --> 00:47:42,880
days for a secretary of state to get

1044
00:47:42,880 --> 00:47:44,560
certify the ballots the board boards of

1045
00:47:44,560 --> 00:47:45,599
elections we have to have everything

1046
00:47:45,599 --> 00:47:48,000
done well before then

1047
00:47:48,000 --> 00:47:49,920
>> yeah

1048
00:47:49,920 --> 00:47:53,760
so probably the five is yeah That seems

1049
00:47:53,760 --> 00:47:54,079
Yeah.

1050
00:47:54,079 --> 00:47:57,040
>> Yeah.

1051
00:47:57,040 --> 00:48:00,880
>> Okay. Um

1052
00:48:00,880 --> 00:48:03,760
just some general provisions and I'm

1053
00:48:03,760 --> 00:48:06,640
just going with the new at this point.

1054
00:48:06,640 --> 00:48:11,190
Um

1055
00:48:11,200 --> 00:48:12,880
there should be notice of the initiative

1056
00:48:12,880 --> 00:48:15,359
or referendum as required by the

1057
00:48:15,359 --> 00:48:18,319
charter. So that publication on the

1058
00:48:18,319 --> 00:48:20,880
website, the social media, presuming

1059
00:48:20,880 --> 00:48:23,359
that gets adopted, and the two public

1060
00:48:23,359 --> 00:48:26,800
buildings, um, emergency ordinances

1061
00:48:26,800 --> 00:48:30,160
cannot be used to repeal or amend an

1062
00:48:30,160 --> 00:48:32,800
ordinance enacted by initiative or

1063
00:48:32,800 --> 00:48:34,720
reenact an init an ordinance that has

1064
00:48:34,720 --> 00:48:36,880
been repealed by referendum. So there's

1065
00:48:36,880 --> 00:48:40,640
no getting around what happened.

1066
00:48:40,640 --> 00:48:42,640
um they can use a non-emergency

1067
00:48:42,640 --> 00:48:44,880
ordinance to repeal or amend an

1068
00:48:44,880 --> 00:48:48,880
ordinance enacted by initiative. Um but

1069
00:48:48,880 --> 00:48:51,440
it takes five council members, not the

1070
00:48:51,440 --> 00:48:53,760
normal four.

1071
00:48:53,760 --> 00:48:55,760
And again, they can reenact something

1072
00:48:55,760 --> 00:48:58,559
that was repealed by referendum with a

1073
00:48:58,559 --> 00:49:03,510
vote of five. [snorts]

1074
00:49:03,520 --> 00:49:05,760
If the county board of elections does

1075
00:49:05,760 --> 00:49:09,280
not take any function as requested,

1076
00:49:09,280 --> 00:49:15,190
then the clerk of council may do so.

1077
00:49:15,200 --> 00:49:19,510
Um,

1078
00:49:19,520 --> 00:49:22,000
and then 96 essentially says if the

1079
00:49:22,000 --> 00:49:24,079
charter silent, it goes back to the Ohio

1080
00:49:24,079 --> 00:49:29,990
Revised Code or the Ohio election laws.

1081
00:49:30,000 --> 00:49:32,160
creates a confusion

1082
00:49:32,160 --> 00:49:35,760
if but again goal is not to

1083
00:49:35,760 --> 00:49:37,839
>> could do what's what Ketering and Tip

1084
00:49:37,839 --> 00:49:40,319
City do and just say go to the RC

1085
00:49:40,319 --> 00:49:42,079
>> you could

1086
00:49:42,079 --> 00:49:47,829
>> but

1087
00:49:47,839 --> 00:49:50,880
» so how often has this or has it ever

1088
00:49:50,880 --> 00:49:53,680
occurred I find it amazing that we have

1089
00:49:53,680 --> 00:49:55,839
oh five of you can undo what your

1090
00:49:55,839 --> 00:49:58,319
elector just voted in that

1091
00:49:58,319 --> 00:50:00,000
>> it seems like a giant wast waste of

1092
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:02,480
time, a giant waste of money, and a good

1093
00:50:02,480 --> 00:50:04,160
way to get yourself unelected next

1094
00:50:04,160 --> 00:50:08,400
round. But why would we do that if

1095
00:50:08,400 --> 00:50:10,640
threearters of Vanelia just because

1096
00:50:10,640 --> 00:50:12,319
council doesn't like it, if the voters

1097
00:50:12,319 --> 00:50:14,079
like it, that's kind of what you're up

1098
00:50:14,079 --> 00:50:15,599
in this seat for?

1099
00:50:15,599 --> 00:50:18,400
Um, I'm going to say exactly what you

1100
00:50:18,400 --> 00:50:21,599
just said because if [clears throat]

1101
00:50:21,599 --> 00:50:23,839
they

1102
00:50:23,839 --> 00:50:26,640
you can't you have to have just because

1103
00:50:26,640 --> 00:50:31,920
the voters voted a law in does not mean

1104
00:50:31,920 --> 00:50:36,950
that it can't be un

1105
00:50:36,960 --> 00:50:39,040
it's not then written in stone never to

1106
00:50:39,040 --> 00:50:42,319
be adjusted again. So, there's got to be

1107
00:50:42,319 --> 00:50:45,920
a way that it's undone.

1108
00:50:45,920 --> 00:50:49,119
Um, I'm going to be kind of flip or

1109
00:50:49,119 --> 00:50:53,119
sarcastic with my example. Um,

1110
00:50:53,119 --> 00:50:56,480
you could have the electorate

1111
00:50:56,480 --> 00:50:58,319
put an [clears throat] initiative that

1112
00:50:58,319 --> 00:51:03,200
would violate federal housing law.

1113
00:51:03,200 --> 00:51:05,599
Council's got to do something to undo it

1114
00:51:05,599 --> 00:51:07,359
because that could affect their the

1115
00:51:07,359 --> 00:51:09,680
grants that the city receives, things

1116
00:51:09,680 --> 00:51:15,440
like that. Um that's the I you know the

1117
00:51:15,440 --> 00:51:19,440
dramatic example. Um but exactly what

1118
00:51:19,440 --> 00:51:21,599
you said would you know theoretically if

1119
00:51:21,599 --> 00:51:25,040
the city felt strongly about whatever

1120
00:51:25,040 --> 00:51:29,680
was passed by initiative and council

1121
00:51:29,680 --> 00:51:34,559
repealed it then the public can recall.

1122
00:51:34,559 --> 00:51:38,640
the public can take referend or um take

1123
00:51:38,640 --> 00:51:42,079
action at the next election.

1124
00:51:42,079 --> 00:51:44,640
To answer your question about how many

1125
00:51:44,640 --> 00:51:46,800
times has initiative or referendums ever

1126
00:51:46,800 --> 00:51:50,800
been done, I do not recall in my adult

1127
00:51:50,800 --> 00:51:54,400
life Tip City ever having one. I do not

1128
00:51:54,400 --> 00:51:57,040
recall in my entire life, [snorts] I

1129
00:51:57,040 --> 00:51:59,359
just wasn't as paying as much attention

1130
00:51:59,359 --> 00:52:02,079
Tip City ever having one. May there's a

1131
00:52:02,079 --> 00:52:05,280
vague memory of discussion of one, but I

1132
00:52:05,280 --> 00:52:06,880
don't recall on tip and I don't think of

1133
00:52:06,880 --> 00:52:09,359
any I don't have a good feel for

1134
00:52:09,359 --> 00:52:12,240
Vanelia, but I'm not aware of

1135
00:52:12,240 --> 00:52:14,319
anything in Vanelia.

1136
00:52:14,319 --> 00:52:16,400
>> I think when we looked last year

1137
00:52:16,400 --> 00:52:19,599
historically, the last one was in 2002

1138
00:52:19,599 --> 00:52:21,440
if I'm recalling correctly. Last

1139
00:52:21,440 --> 00:52:26,390
initiative.

1140
00:52:26,400 --> 00:52:30,800
I know that

1141
00:52:30,800 --> 00:52:33,280
I I don't know exactly the date, but

1142
00:52:33,280 --> 00:52:36,160
when I checked in our record archive and

1143
00:52:36,160 --> 00:52:40,960
what is on our um retention schedule,

1144
00:52:40,960 --> 00:52:43,680
we did not have it because you're only

1145
00:52:43,680 --> 00:52:45,760
supposed to keep it for five years. So,

1146
00:52:45,760 --> 00:52:48,880
there were but I had to do some digging,

1147
00:52:48,880 --> 00:52:51,119
but I think that's approximately the

1148
00:52:51,119 --> 00:52:53,040
date, the year.

1149
00:52:53,040 --> 00:52:56,559
>> So, it's rare there. There's a lot, this

1150
00:52:56,559 --> 00:52:58,559
is one of those areas that there's a lot

1151
00:52:58,559 --> 00:53:02,400
sometimes of we're going to do it,

1152
00:53:02,400 --> 00:53:04,640
but then that's part of the reason for

1153
00:53:04,640 --> 00:53:07,359
the petition committee is who's going to

1154
00:53:07,359 --> 00:53:09,119
take the lead? Who's going to do it? And

1155
00:53:09,119 --> 00:53:13,200
so it kind of fizzles out over time.

1156
00:53:13,200 --> 00:53:15,119
>> What if because this this section caused

1157
00:53:15,119 --> 00:53:16,960
me a lot of heartburn as well for the

1158
00:53:16,960 --> 00:53:20,640
same reason. Uh what if we did what some

1159
00:53:20,640 --> 00:53:23,760
other cities have done and [snorts]

1160
00:53:23,760 --> 00:53:26,160
put in there that the issue cannot be

1161
00:53:26,160 --> 00:53:29,599
revisited for say two years for example

1162
00:53:29,599 --> 00:53:30,559
>> and that would be

1163
00:53:30,559 --> 00:53:34,079
>> but we could also to to preserve the

1164
00:53:34,079 --> 00:53:36,559
intent and the will of the voters. But

1165
00:53:36,559 --> 00:53:38,240
then at the same time to make sure that

1166
00:53:38,240 --> 00:53:40,720
we don't violate

1167
00:53:40,720 --> 00:53:43,839
a superseding law of some sort, we put

1168
00:53:43,839 --> 00:53:46,160
in there that it is that that um that

1169
00:53:46,160 --> 00:53:51,040
two-year restriction would be waved uh

1170
00:53:51,040 --> 00:53:54,640
in matters where the

1171
00:53:54,640 --> 00:53:56,079
>> public health

1172
00:53:56,079 --> 00:53:57,680
>> well

1173
00:53:57,680 --> 00:54:01,599
matters that's uh cause conflict for a

1174
00:54:01,599 --> 00:54:05,280
direct conflict to state or federal law.

1175
00:54:05,280 --> 00:54:07,680
Uh so if if they if we change the law by

1176
00:54:07,680 --> 00:54:10,400
voters and they said something that

1177
00:54:10,400 --> 00:54:12,160
clearly violates housing law, federal

1178
00:54:12,160 --> 00:54:14,240
housing law is absolutely discriminatory

1179
00:54:14,240 --> 00:54:16,720
in every sense of the word. Well,

1180
00:54:16,720 --> 00:54:18,000
council can then come in and say, "Okay,

1181
00:54:18,000 --> 00:54:19,359
this should not have passed. I don't

1182
00:54:19,359 --> 00:54:20,880
know what everyone was thinking. We'll

1183
00:54:20,880 --> 00:54:22,559
be subject to, you know, recall later

1184
00:54:22,559 --> 00:54:24,960
on, but we need to do something so we

1185
00:54:24,960 --> 00:54:27,200
don't violate federal law." In that

1186
00:54:27,200 --> 00:54:29,119
case, we could w Yeah. put in quick

1187
00:54:29,119 --> 00:54:31,440
language to wave

1188
00:54:31,440 --> 00:54:34,400
>> that restricted period.

1189
00:54:34,400 --> 00:54:34,880
>> If we

1190
00:54:34,880 --> 00:54:36,240
>> I think that makes sense.

1191
00:54:36,240 --> 00:54:37,280
>> Yeah.

1192
00:54:37,280 --> 00:54:39,760
>> But shouldn't something that extreme

1193
00:54:39,760 --> 00:54:42,559
have been stopped by the BOE?

1194
00:54:42,559 --> 00:54:46,400
>> N really conflicts with federal law?

1195
00:54:46,400 --> 00:54:46,800
Okay.

1196
00:54:46,800 --> 00:54:49,119
>> BOE does not judge what is put on the

1197
00:54:49,119 --> 00:54:51,040
ballot. They just judge whether or not

1198
00:54:51,040 --> 00:54:52,480
it's

1199
00:54:52,480 --> 00:54:54,160
>> got signatures and backing,

1200
00:54:54,160 --> 00:54:56,400
>> the sufficiency of the petitions. Got

1201
00:54:56,400 --> 00:55:00,800
you. Got you. And I suppose there a as I

1202
00:55:00,800 --> 00:55:02,160
asked the question and started thinking

1203
00:55:02,160 --> 00:55:04,079
about it, it could be five years down

1204
00:55:04,079 --> 00:55:06,400
the line line that council wants to

1205
00:55:06,400 --> 00:55:08,160
because something's changed in the

1206
00:55:08,160 --> 00:55:11,040
world. But yeah, maybe you you put a

1207
00:55:11,040 --> 00:55:12,400
year or twoear hold on it.

1208
00:55:12,400 --> 00:55:13,680
>> We find out it didn't work and instead

1209
00:55:13,680 --> 00:55:15,280
of have everyone to go through the whole

1210
00:55:15,280 --> 00:55:17,760
process again, okay,

1211
00:55:17,760 --> 00:55:19,280
we have to live with consequences of

1212
00:55:19,280 --> 00:55:22,720
revotes for a couple years. Is it when

1213
00:55:22,720 --> 00:55:25,520
you since you did some research um was

1214
00:55:25,520 --> 00:55:26,960
it normally two because I would have

1215
00:55:26,960 --> 00:55:29,040
gone with one

1216
00:55:29,040 --> 00:55:30,720
>> I mean there are different ones but two

1217
00:55:30,720 --> 00:55:31,760
seem to be the one that was

1218
00:55:31,760 --> 00:55:32,480
>> kind of consistent

1219
00:55:32,480 --> 00:55:34,000
>> in the middle of council term also

1220
00:55:34,000 --> 00:55:35,680
didn't put you in the middle of an

1221
00:55:35,680 --> 00:55:38,000
election year uh for a general election

1222
00:55:38,000 --> 00:55:40,640
that would cause other problems if that

1223
00:55:40,640 --> 00:55:43,520
resolution itself were then

1224
00:55:43,520 --> 00:55:45,920
not that if that were then challenged

1225
00:55:45,920 --> 00:55:47,440
and how would we go back and do that and

1226
00:55:47,440 --> 00:55:48,480
so you're not calling for special

1227
00:55:48,480 --> 00:55:50,400
election in a general ginatorial

1228
00:55:50,400 --> 00:55:51,920
presidential

1229
00:55:51,920 --> 00:55:54,880
So

1230
00:55:54,880 --> 00:55:59,839
>> I mean the math makes sense. I from a

1231
00:55:59,839 --> 00:56:01,440
whatever perspective I have at the

1232
00:56:01,440 --> 00:56:05,520
moment I would have probably said one

1233
00:56:05,520 --> 00:56:12,950
but again I get the math part.

1234
00:56:12,960 --> 00:56:15,359
By the way, my goal with this tonight

1235
00:56:15,359 --> 00:56:18,400
was to do work our way through have a

1236
00:56:18,400 --> 00:56:21,040
lot of conversation about it and then be

1237
00:56:21,040 --> 00:56:24,960
given direction on those kind of things

1238
00:56:24,960 --> 00:56:28,559
to talk about it next week, two weeks as

1239
00:56:28,559 --> 00:56:31,839
well. Um, and recognizing this is

1240
00:56:31,839 --> 00:56:34,480
probably going to come up a third, like

1241
00:56:34,480 --> 00:56:36,880
take two or three of these meetings to

1242
00:56:36,880 --> 00:56:39,280
really

1243
00:56:39,280 --> 00:56:47,109
nail down what Vanelia should look like.

1244
00:56:47,119 --> 00:56:49,839
» Is the language that's in section 95 of

1245
00:56:49,839 --> 00:56:53,839
the proposed red redlettered, is that

1246
00:56:53,839 --> 00:56:57,520
common in other city charters or just

1247
00:56:57,520 --> 00:56:58,240
Clayton's?

1248
00:56:58,240 --> 00:57:00,960
>> Yeah. So,

1249
00:57:00,960 --> 00:57:03,520
the initiative and referendum sections

1250
00:57:03,520 --> 00:57:07,920
really vary on the level of detail. Um,

1251
00:57:07,920 --> 00:57:10,559
I do not recall seeing it in the other

1252
00:57:10,559 --> 00:57:15,200
ones that I looked at, but

1253
00:57:15,200 --> 00:57:19,839
this is definitely um

1254
00:57:19,839 --> 00:57:22,480
more detailed in the other sections than

1255
00:57:22,480 --> 00:57:26,549
a lot of them are.

1256
00:57:26,559 --> 00:57:33,270
that I hope that made sense.

1257
00:57:33,280 --> 00:57:35,040
» Where did you pull this?

1258
00:57:35,040 --> 00:57:38,000
>> Clayton

1259
00:57:38,000 --> 00:57:39,760
>> or Union.

1260
00:57:39,760 --> 00:57:42,160
>> It's Clayton. Thank you. It's or as I

1261
00:57:42,160 --> 00:57:43,359
think of it, one of those two over

1262
00:57:43,359 --> 00:57:59,910
there.

1263
00:57:59,920 --> 00:58:05,040
So let me ask this. Having heard the

1264
00:58:05,040 --> 00:58:07,440
conversation,

1265
00:58:07,440 --> 00:58:11,440
I think I know the direction

1266
00:58:11,440 --> 00:58:14,559
you're thinking. Um there are also some

1267
00:58:14,559 --> 00:58:17,520
things that have raised in my mind based

1268
00:58:17,520 --> 00:58:19,040
on your conversations that could be

1269
00:58:19,040 --> 00:58:22,559
cleaned up a little bit as well. um or

1270
00:58:22,559 --> 00:58:24,640
at least I need to think about cleaning

1271
00:58:24,640 --> 00:58:27,599
up a little bit as well. Do you think

1272
00:58:27,599 --> 00:58:31,680
we're at the point for me to just make

1273
00:58:31,680 --> 00:58:34,400
those revisions to present it the next

1274
00:58:34,400 --> 00:58:36,880
time or do you think there's other

1275
00:58:36,880 --> 00:58:41,270
discussion?

1276
00:58:41,280 --> 00:58:45,910
I'm good with that plan. Others

1277
00:58:45,920 --> 00:58:48,240
» I'm good with that plan. Does everybody

1278
00:58:48,240 --> 00:58:51,839
else have any other commentary?

1279
00:58:51,839 --> 00:58:53,359
Nothing.

1280
00:58:53,359 --> 00:58:55,440
>> So, you'd send us a new version out and

1281
00:58:55,440 --> 00:58:57,760
then we could add our comments back in.

1282
00:58:57,760 --> 00:59:00,079
Okay. Yeah. I need to digest a little.

1283
00:59:00,079 --> 00:59:02,400
>> Yeah. Yeah. And this is exactly

1284
00:59:02,400 --> 00:59:03,920
originally we were going to do this last

1285
00:59:03,920 --> 00:59:05,920
just because

1286
00:59:05,920 --> 00:59:08,319
it's a lot and then I realized we're

1287
00:59:08,319 --> 00:59:10,480
going to need two or three meetings to

1288
00:59:10,480 --> 00:59:15,030
really handle this.

1289
00:59:15,040 --> 00:59:18,240
Okay. Um

1290
00:59:18,240 --> 00:59:21,760
that takes us to

1291
00:59:21,760 --> 00:59:28,160
starting on September 5th 5th 10th

1292
00:59:28,160 --> 00:59:30,720
um items which were pretty

1293
00:59:30,720 --> 00:59:33,359
straightforward and I do apologize again

1294
00:59:33,359 --> 00:59:35,520
about getting them out to you late last

1295
00:59:35,520 --> 00:59:39,440
night. Um but they're not meaty. They're

1296
00:59:39,440 --> 00:59:44,400
kind of straightforward. So um and again

1297
00:59:44,400 --> 00:59:47,119
we can talk about them next time as well

1298
00:59:47,119 --> 00:59:51,040
if need be. Um the first one is article

1299
00:59:51,040 --> 00:59:53,440
55 5-1 the appointment and

1300
00:59:53,440 --> 00:59:57,440
qualifications for the city manager. Um

1301
00:59:57,440 --> 01:00:00,870
this one

1302
01:00:00,880 --> 01:00:02,480
apparently I forgot to take out the word

1303
01:00:02,480 --> 01:00:04,880
removed removal. Um, essentially just

1304
01:00:04,880 --> 01:00:09,040
clarifying that his appointment is until

1305
01:00:09,040 --> 01:00:11,359
he's removed pursuant to the charter

1306
01:00:11,359 --> 01:00:14,079
requirements or

1307
01:00:14,079 --> 01:00:16,240
resigns.

1308
01:00:16,240 --> 01:00:18,799
And the word removal should be marked

1309
01:00:18,799 --> 01:00:20,960
out before removed. That was just a

1310
01:00:20,960 --> 01:00:27,829
grammatical change I was making.

1311
01:00:27,839 --> 01:00:34,870
» I don't think we let him resign.

1312
01:00:34,880 --> 01:00:38,000
It it's really interesting looking at

1313
01:00:38,000 --> 01:00:42,079
surrounding charters um how detailed

1314
01:00:42,079 --> 01:00:46,000
this can get. Um I would say this is one

1315
01:00:46,000 --> 01:00:48,640
that to me

1316
01:00:48,640 --> 01:00:52,079
being clear but not

1317
01:00:52,079 --> 01:01:01,349
specific makes a lot more sense.

1318
01:01:01,359 --> 01:01:03,280
any or were you were you okay with that

1319
01:01:03,280 --> 01:01:05,040
one?

1320
01:01:05,040 --> 01:01:10,640
None. Okay. Um the next one on salary of

1321
01:01:10,640 --> 01:01:12,640
the city manager is just to make it

1322
01:01:12,640 --> 01:01:14,960
clear that that's a resolution, not an

1323
01:01:14,960 --> 01:01:16,799
ordinance. It's currently required to be

1324
01:01:16,799 --> 01:01:18,799
an ordinance.

1325
01:01:18,799 --> 01:01:20,000
>> We striking the word ordinance.

1326
01:01:20,000 --> 01:01:23,680
>> We are. What happened to my strikeouts?

1327
01:01:23,680 --> 01:01:29,670
The additions got added but not the

1328
01:01:29,680 --> 01:01:34,079
Okay. Next is removal of the city

1329
01:01:34,079 --> 01:01:35,680
manager.

1330
01:01:35,680 --> 01:01:39,440
Um, again, this is one where I'm looking

1331
01:01:39,440 --> 01:01:43,440
for feedback as to how we may want to

1332
01:01:43,440 --> 01:01:46,480
um proceed.

1333
01:01:46,480 --> 01:01:50,230
So

1334
01:01:50,240 --> 01:01:53,750
council

1335
01:01:53,760 --> 01:01:55,680
can take action to remove the city

1336
01:01:55,680 --> 01:01:57,200
manager

1337
01:01:57,200 --> 01:01:59,920
30 days prior to that. They're to notify

1338
01:01:59,920 --> 01:02:03,200
the city manager of their intent, state

1339
01:02:03,200 --> 01:02:05,280
the cause,

1340
01:02:05,280 --> 01:02:09,280
immediately suspend him or her, and then

1341
01:02:09,280 --> 01:02:12,319
appoint someone to take on those duties.

1342
01:02:12,319 --> 01:02:15,359
After that notice, the city manager may

1343
01:02:15,359 --> 01:02:18,720
request an appearance and they should re

1344
01:02:18,720 --> 01:02:20,559
grant that request within two weeks

1345
01:02:20,559 --> 01:02:23,280
after it's received. After full

1346
01:02:23,280 --> 01:02:25,359
consideration, council may declare the

1347
01:02:25,359 --> 01:02:27,680
city manager removed.

1348
01:02:27,680 --> 01:02:29,599
Um

1349
01:02:29,599 --> 01:02:31,599
action resulting in suspension or

1350
01:02:31,599 --> 01:02:34,720
removal shall be by resolution requiring

1351
01:02:34,720 --> 01:02:40,950
five members vote and it's final.

1352
01:02:40,960 --> 01:02:44,319
It's not the structure is there or I

1353
01:02:44,319 --> 01:02:46,799
should say there is a structure there.

1354
01:02:46,799 --> 01:02:51,599
However, when you look at

1355
01:02:51,599 --> 01:02:55,119
union and tip again, there's just a lot

1356
01:02:55,119 --> 01:02:59,599
more clarity over certain things. So in

1357
01:02:59,599 --> 01:03:01,200
union

1358
01:03:01,200 --> 01:03:03,040
it breaks it out between a probation

1359
01:03:03,040 --> 01:03:05,520
period or I'm calling it a probation

1360
01:03:05,520 --> 01:03:10,079
period of six months and after that um

1361
01:03:10,079 --> 01:03:13,680
if it's after 6 months the manager may

1362
01:03:13,680 --> 01:03:15,359
demand written charges and the right to

1363
01:03:15,359 --> 01:03:17,920
be heard at a public meeting

1364
01:03:17,920 --> 01:03:20,640
and then um

1365
01:03:20,640 --> 01:03:24,319
council may suspend the manager during

1366
01:03:24,319 --> 01:03:27,280
that period. Um

1367
01:03:27,280 --> 01:03:30,160
it is in it is clear that it is the

1368
01:03:30,160 --> 01:03:33,440
intention of the city that the charter

1369
01:03:33,440 --> 01:03:36,079
vests all authority in the council as

1370
01:03:36,079 --> 01:03:38,240
far as the removal.

1371
01:03:38,240 --> 01:03:42,470
Um

1372
01:03:42,480 --> 01:03:45,760
so not necessarily a lot more detail

1373
01:03:45,760 --> 01:03:53,109
than what Vanelia has but just very

1374
01:03:53,119 --> 01:03:56,240
straight and to the point.

1375
01:03:56,240 --> 01:03:59,680
Um, TIP, as we have seen in many of

1376
01:03:59,680 --> 01:04:01,680
their provisions,

1377
01:04:01,680 --> 01:04:05,839
um, lays out a very specific, you've got

1378
01:04:05,839 --> 01:04:08,319
a preliminary ordinance,

1379
01:04:08,319 --> 01:04:10,160
um, which states the reasons for

1380
01:04:10,160 --> 01:04:12,480
removal. So, it's all public action,

1381
01:04:12,480 --> 01:04:15,440
public record, um, which may suspend the

1382
01:04:15,440 --> 01:04:18,880
municipal manager. Then five days after

1383
01:04:18,880 --> 01:04:20,960
that, the manager may file a written

1384
01:04:20,960 --> 01:04:22,960
request for the public hearing, which

1385
01:04:22,960 --> 01:04:27,119
then is held within 15 to 30 days later.

1386
01:04:27,119 --> 01:04:30,240
Um, council then may adopt a final

1387
01:04:30,240 --> 01:04:33,440
ordinance of removal, which is again

1388
01:04:33,440 --> 01:04:38,960
majority plus one. And um,

1389
01:04:38,960 --> 01:04:40,559
again, it's clear that someone is

1390
01:04:40,559 --> 01:04:48,309
appointed to fulfill their duties.

1391
01:04:48,319 --> 01:04:52,960
Really the question in some ways is

1392
01:04:52,960 --> 01:04:55,280
you know TIP has the structure of it's

1393
01:04:55,280 --> 01:04:57,920
very clear there is a vote there is a

1394
01:04:57,920 --> 01:04:59,839
suspension there is the right to be

1395
01:04:59,839 --> 01:05:07,829
heard there's a second vote

1396
01:05:07,839 --> 01:05:11,920
the way Vanelas is currently written

1397
01:05:11,920 --> 01:05:14,480
it says should removal become come

1398
01:05:14,480 --> 01:05:17,599
necessary council 30 days before the

1399
01:05:17,599 --> 01:05:19,599
effective date will notify the manager

1400
01:05:19,599 --> 01:05:24,000
of such intent. It's not clear how

1401
01:05:24,000 --> 01:05:28,400
if they if they've taken a vote is that,

1402
01:05:28,400 --> 01:05:30,640
you know, a public action. Is it we

1403
01:05:30,640 --> 01:05:32,160
think this may be the case, so hey,

1404
01:05:32,160 --> 01:05:34,640
we're giving you 30 days notice. That's

1405
01:05:34,640 --> 01:05:39,589
where it becomes a little

1406
01:05:39,599 --> 01:05:44,710
vague.

1407
01:05:44,720 --> 01:05:46,400
Now

1408
01:05:46,400 --> 01:05:49,520
I who like rules and like checklists

1409
01:05:49,520 --> 01:05:52,640
like the two vote situation.

1410
01:05:52,640 --> 01:05:55,039
What tips doesn't have is it doesn't

1411
01:05:55,039 --> 01:05:57,280
have the nimleness

1412
01:05:57,280 --> 01:06:04,309
when there is a

1413
01:06:04,319 --> 01:06:05,920
dramatic

1414
01:06:05,920 --> 01:06:10,720
emergency type of situation happening

1415
01:06:10,720 --> 01:06:12,880
i.e. stealing from the city or

1416
01:06:12,880 --> 01:06:16,160
something. Um but you call a special

1417
01:06:16,160 --> 01:06:18,160
meeting, you take a vote. So there is

1418
01:06:18,160 --> 01:06:21,039
nimleness in there. If there is

1419
01:06:21,039 --> 01:06:22,799
something like that, you just have to

1420
01:06:22,799 --> 01:06:30,630
wait 24 hours.

1421
01:06:30,640 --> 01:06:32,640
Let me ask a question on this because I

1422
01:06:32,640 --> 01:06:35,839
do I'm like you. I like the vote, but I

1423
01:06:35,839 --> 01:06:37,599
also

1424
01:06:37,599 --> 01:06:40,880
marked that when conduct is you like

1425
01:06:40,880 --> 01:06:42,559
stealing from the city, we there should

1426
01:06:42,559 --> 01:06:46,799
be a way to take care of it immediately.

1427
01:06:46,799 --> 01:06:50,880
But if that's the case, we have and his

1428
01:06:50,880 --> 01:06:53,440
or her salary for two months. If you're

1429
01:06:53,440 --> 01:06:54,960
stealing from the city, I still have to

1430
01:06:54,960 --> 01:06:58,000
pay you for two months.

1431
01:06:58,000 --> 01:07:01,839
I'm used to at will and they can remove

1432
01:07:01,839 --> 01:07:03,680
me tomorrow.

1433
01:07:03,680 --> 01:07:06,880
>> So, yeah. So, theoretically using my

1434
01:07:06,880 --> 01:07:11,440
dramatic stealing from the city,

1435
01:07:11,440 --> 01:07:13,119
that would probably be something that

1436
01:07:13,119 --> 01:07:15,680
would be

1437
01:07:15,680 --> 01:07:19,520
addressed. Um, but again, it's not

1438
01:07:19,520 --> 01:07:21,680
necessarily going to be 2 months because

1439
01:07:21,680 --> 01:07:24,480
if you have a special meeting 24 hours

1440
01:07:24,480 --> 01:07:27,920
later, you're looking at 30 days at most

1441
01:07:27,920 --> 01:07:30,400
that the person would still be employed.

1442
01:07:30,400 --> 01:07:33,119
So, we're not necessarily bound by any

1443
01:07:33,119 --> 01:07:35,520
of the

1444
01:07:35,520 --> 01:07:38,319
language and tips or that concept if we

1445
01:07:38,319 --> 01:07:40,319
didn't want to go that way. So, we can

1446
01:07:40,319 --> 01:07:42,799
pick and choose. Did that address your

1447
01:07:42,799 --> 01:07:44,720
question?

1448
01:07:44,720 --> 01:07:47,039
>> I think so. I just I just think we

1449
01:07:47,039 --> 01:07:50,400
shouldn't write into law. I mean, we've

1450
01:07:50,400 --> 01:07:53,280
had people removed fairly quickly, and

1451
01:07:53,280 --> 01:07:56,640
I'd hate for in law for us to be paying

1452
01:07:56,640 --> 01:07:59,599
somebody additional salary when they

1453
01:07:59,599 --> 01:08:01,920
didn't work out within a 90-day period

1454
01:08:01,920 --> 01:08:04,720
or within six months even. So,

1455
01:08:04,720 --> 01:08:06,960
>> I forgot that the two months was in ours

1456
01:08:06,960 --> 01:08:09,359
in Vander. No, I agree with you on that.

1457
01:08:09,359 --> 01:08:11,039
have that in there

1458
01:08:11,039 --> 01:08:13,599
>> because it kind of points to I got to

1459
01:08:13,599 --> 01:08:15,599
pay no matter what happens.

1460
01:08:15,599 --> 01:08:17,679
>> One one of the things that we would want

1461
01:08:17,679 --> 01:08:20,640
the charter to be

1462
01:08:20,640 --> 01:08:23,679
specific enough yet vague enough that

1463
01:08:23,679 --> 01:08:30,550
there could be a suspension without pay.

1464
01:08:30,560 --> 01:08:32,880
But we also

1465
01:08:32,880 --> 01:08:36,390
in

1466
01:08:36,400 --> 01:08:39,279
we don't want it so vague that you also

1467
01:08:39,279 --> 01:08:40,960
have

1468
01:08:40,960 --> 01:08:43,920
because as I tell clients when you're

1469
01:08:43,920 --> 01:08:45,359
writing an operating agreement you're

1470
01:08:45,359 --> 01:08:46,400
not writing for your current

1471
01:08:46,400 --> 01:08:47,920
relationship. You're writing for the

1472
01:08:47,920 --> 01:08:51,520
relationship down the road. We also want

1473
01:08:51,520 --> 01:08:54,960
to write it there where there is some

1474
01:08:54,960 --> 01:08:59,440
protection for the city manager from a

1475
01:08:59,440 --> 01:09:02,319
not aggressive a um what's that word

1476
01:09:02,319 --> 01:09:04,000
starts with an a

1477
01:09:04,000 --> 01:09:04,960
>> vindictive

1478
01:09:04,960 --> 01:09:07,120
>> well that works too vindictive council.

1479
01:09:07,120 --> 01:09:10,000
Yeah. So we we want flexibility for the

1480
01:09:10,000 --> 01:09:12,560
city but we also want protections for

1481
01:09:12,560 --> 01:09:13,679
the city manager

1482
01:09:13,679 --> 01:09:15,279
>> and we want to be able to hire the next

1483
01:09:15,279 --> 01:09:15,839
one.

1484
01:09:15,839 --> 01:09:19,430
>> Yes. Yeah.

1485
01:09:19,440 --> 01:09:22,400
What about a suspension with pay until

1486
01:09:22,400 --> 01:09:24,640
the hearing?

1487
01:09:24,640 --> 01:09:26,400
It's almost like a probable cause

1488
01:09:26,400 --> 01:09:27,600
finding.

1489
01:09:27,600 --> 01:09:31,040
>> I think at that point, um, it's not

1490
01:09:31,040 --> 01:09:32,719
necessarily the hearing, it would be

1491
01:09:32,719 --> 01:09:35,839
whatever that final action is.

1492
01:09:35,839 --> 01:09:41,040
Um, and I think instead of saying

1493
01:09:41,040 --> 01:09:44,640
with pay, with or without pay, so that

1494
01:09:44,640 --> 01:09:47,520
again council's not forced to pay

1495
01:09:47,520 --> 01:10:00,070
somebody who's stealing from the city.

1496
01:10:00,080 --> 01:10:03,120
I like the way Tip works it out. I think

1497
01:10:03,120 --> 01:10:06,239
it is uh works out with the notices, the

1498
01:10:06,239 --> 01:10:08,239
requirements. It protects both the

1499
01:10:08,239 --> 01:10:11,760
council and the city manager. Neither

1500
01:10:11,760 --> 01:10:13,679
one's going to get a windfall if he's

1501
01:10:13,679 --> 01:10:15,360
steal if he or she's stealing from the

1502
01:10:15,360 --> 01:10:17,520
city.

1503
01:10:17,520 --> 01:10:19,040
The charges are going to get the money

1504
01:10:19,040 --> 01:10:25,110
back as well. Uh so

1505
01:10:25,120 --> 01:10:34,390
I like the way they've done it.

1506
01:10:34,400 --> 01:10:36,880
more of an overarching question. You you

1507
01:10:36,880 --> 01:10:39,679
kind of pointed out early on that our

1508
01:10:39,679 --> 01:10:42,480
current charter is very vague in every

1509
01:10:42,480 --> 01:10:46,239
section and some of these others i.e.

1510
01:10:46,239 --> 01:10:49,679
tip city is very descriptive. If we

1511
01:10:49,679 --> 01:10:52,239
start putting in some of these more

1512
01:10:52,239 --> 01:10:56,800
descriptive sections, does that start to

1513
01:10:56,800 --> 01:10:58,480
do we need to do that for all of the

1514
01:10:58,480 --> 01:11:00,800
sections to be more cohesive or is that

1515
01:11:00,800 --> 01:11:03,280
okay that we kind of have it pieced out?

1516
01:11:03,280 --> 01:11:04,400
Do you see what I'm saying?

1517
01:11:04,400 --> 01:11:06,159
>> I think the sections where we are

1518
01:11:06,159 --> 01:11:08,640
getting more detailed are ones that

1519
01:11:08,640 --> 01:11:10,000
require more detail.

1520
01:11:10,000 --> 01:11:10,560
>> That's fair.

1521
01:11:10,560 --> 01:11:13,360
>> And kind of stand out. That said, it

1522
01:11:13,360 --> 01:11:16,159
could be putting the charter on a path

1523
01:11:16,159 --> 01:11:18,960
that when this is done again in five

1524
01:11:18,960 --> 01:11:20,800
years,

1525
01:11:20,800 --> 01:11:23,920
it keeps going in that more detailed

1526
01:11:23,920 --> 01:11:24,640
direction.

1527
01:11:24,640 --> 01:11:27,360
>> Got it.

1528
01:11:27,360 --> 01:11:31,840
Then yes, I agree that city's version is good.

1529
01:11:31,840 --> 01:11:33,040
>> I see what you're saying. We don't want

1530
01:11:33,040 --> 01:11:34,800
to hamstring council with here's

1531
01:11:34,800 --> 01:11:37,040
everything and you're just, you know,

1532
01:11:37,040 --> 01:11:39,920
formulaically doing the jobs up here.

1533
01:11:39,920 --> 01:11:42,080
So,

1534
01:11:42,080 --> 01:11:43,679
Yeah, I mean I and I guess just

1535
01:11:43,679 --> 01:11:47,040
cohesiveness of the document of you know

1536
01:11:47,040 --> 01:11:49,280
some some sections are one sentence

1537
01:11:49,280 --> 01:11:52,480
others now we're adding abs and c's to

1538
01:11:52,480 --> 01:11:54,320
every you know which we don't currently

1539
01:11:54,320 --> 01:11:57,280
have. I think this is very valid. I just

1540
01:11:57,280 --> 01:11:59,040
from a big picture standpoint want to

1541
01:11:59,040 --> 01:12:01,679
make sure that by using neighboring

1542
01:12:01,679 --> 01:12:04,400
communities language that we're not

1543
01:12:04,400 --> 01:12:06,159
creating a bigger issue I guess.

1544
01:12:06,159 --> 01:12:08,480
>> No. And you'll see like in the

1545
01:12:08,480 --> 01:12:11,360
referendum one, I didn't know how to

1546
01:12:11,360 --> 01:12:13,530
structure part of it because it didn't

1547
01:12:13,530 --> 01:12:14,960
[clears throat] the structure didn't fit

1548
01:12:14,960 --> 01:12:17,360
within the Vandelia structure. So, I've

1549
01:12:17,360 --> 01:12:18,960
got some

1550
01:12:18,960 --> 01:12:22,000
work to do on that. Um

1551
01:12:22,000 --> 01:12:27,199
I think for this situation where it

1552
01:12:27,199 --> 01:12:28,880
it's essentially creating the due

1553
01:12:28,880 --> 01:12:30,480
process.

1554
01:12:30,480 --> 01:12:31,280
>> I agree. Yeah.

1555
01:12:31,280 --> 01:12:34,480
>> For both sides, it makes sense. I don't

1556
01:12:34,480 --> 01:12:36,000
have to necessarily structure it with

1557
01:12:36,000 --> 01:12:38,159
the A, B, C, and D. That's a lawyer

1558
01:12:38,159 --> 01:12:39,600
thing. That's a

1559
01:12:39,600 --> 01:12:40,880
>> I think it's a clarity thing.

1560
01:12:40,880 --> 01:12:42,560
>> I personally think it's very nice and

1561
01:12:42,560 --> 01:12:44,000
neat and clear.

1562
01:12:44,000 --> 01:12:45,840
>> And so, you know, when you do read our

1563
01:12:45,840 --> 01:12:47,760
sections, it's all one paragraph and it

1564
01:12:47,760 --> 01:12:49,199
kind of gets jumbled together and you

1565
01:12:49,199 --> 01:12:50,640
have to kind of really

1566
01:12:50,640 --> 01:12:51,840
>> think through what they're saying,

1567
01:12:51,840 --> 01:12:53,440
whereas this is very clear what the

1568
01:12:53,440 --> 01:12:55,520
intention is. I'm not in disagreement.

1569
01:12:55,520 --> 01:12:57,360
Very much this person.

1570
01:12:57,360 --> 01:12:58,800
>> Yeah. So, it's one of those things where

1571
01:12:58,800 --> 01:13:00,960
I could actually take what we talk

1572
01:13:00,960 --> 01:13:04,080
about, smash it into one paragraph, and

1573
01:13:04,080 --> 01:13:06,480
it will look like the rest of Vandelius,

1574
01:13:06,480 --> 01:13:09,440
and it would be the same impression of

1575
01:13:09,440 --> 01:13:12,320
vagueness in some situations. So, that's

1576
01:13:12,320 --> 01:13:15,679
why I don't think we're necessarily

1577
01:13:15,679 --> 01:13:18,480
making it inconsistent. It's just part

1578
01:13:18,480 --> 01:13:20,560
of how it's also presented.

1579
01:13:20,560 --> 01:13:22,800
>> Yeah. No, I I I think I understand where

1580
01:13:22,800 --> 01:13:25,040
you're going. certainly need more

1581
01:13:25,040 --> 01:13:27,440
>> detail um because we have had situations

1582
01:13:27,440 --> 01:13:30,080
that the detail the lack of detail has

1583
01:13:30,080 --> 01:13:31,040
left

1584
01:13:31,040 --> 01:13:33,199
>> Fandelia in a precarious situation and

1585
01:13:33,199 --> 01:13:35,199
so I do think this is important I just

1586
01:13:35,199 --> 01:13:36,719
want to make sure big picture that we're

1587
01:13:36,719 --> 01:13:37,280
not

1588
01:13:37,280 --> 01:13:40,320
>> yeah piecing together and now our

1589
01:13:40,320 --> 01:13:42,480
document is

1590
01:13:42,480 --> 01:13:47,350
not where it start

1591
01:13:47,360 --> 01:13:49,679
I know exactly where you're going yes

1592
01:13:49,679 --> 01:13:49,840
>> um

1593
01:13:49,840 --> 01:13:51,679
>> well are there sections we should go

1594
01:13:51,679 --> 01:13:53,199
back and look at separation ating

1595
01:13:53,199 --> 01:13:54,560
paragraphs, too.

1596
01:13:54,560 --> 01:13:56,480
>> That would still require a ballot

1597
01:13:56,480 --> 01:13:58,239
initiative. So, if we're not making

1598
01:13:58,239 --> 01:14:00,080
substantive changes, we don't want to

1599
01:14:00,080 --> 01:14:03,120
mess with

1600
01:14:03,120 --> 01:14:04,080
the section.

1601
01:14:04,080 --> 01:14:04,719
>> Okay.

1602
01:14:04,719 --> 01:14:07,520
>> Because um

1603
01:14:07,520 --> 01:14:09,600
Brookville Brookville hadn't done it in

1604
01:14:09,600 --> 01:14:13,350
how long?

1605
01:14:13,360 --> 01:14:16,880
» 15 plus years. And I think they had

1606
01:14:16,880 --> 01:14:19,360
50ome. Yeah, there were a lot

1607
01:14:19,360 --> 01:14:22,000
>> charter recommendations to council,

1608
01:14:22,000 --> 01:14:24,480
which obviously

1609
01:14:24,480 --> 01:14:26,239
counville's

1610
01:14:26,239 --> 01:14:28,080
council is not going to put 50 on the

1611
01:14:28,080 --> 01:14:31,920
ballot all at once. Um, so we don't want

1612
01:14:31,920 --> 01:14:33,920
to necessarily if we're making a

1613
01:14:33,920 --> 01:14:37,120
substantive change, yes, we can do that.

1614
01:14:37,120 --> 01:14:39,280
If we're not, we just want to

1615
01:14:39,280 --> 01:14:41,199
>> leave alone. We do still have like the

1616
01:14:41,199 --> 01:14:43,600
abs and cs. So that's not outlandish

1617
01:14:43,600 --> 01:14:45,920
that we're adding that in. I just

1618
01:14:45,920 --> 01:14:47,520
devil's advocate. Just want to make sure

1619
01:14:47,520 --> 01:14:52,550
we're considering that.

1620
01:14:52,560 --> 01:14:55,120
» So, what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm

1621
01:14:55,120 --> 01:15:00,400
wrong, use tips as the guidelines and go

1622
01:15:00,400 --> 01:15:03,280
from there. Okay.

1623
01:15:03,280 --> 01:15:07,520
Um, next is, and don't think we're

1624
01:15:07,520 --> 01:15:09,120
getting September 10th off, everybody.

1625
01:15:09,120 --> 01:15:11,040
We're just going to move up other ones

1626
01:15:11,040 --> 01:15:15,120
that we were going to consider. um

1627
01:15:15,120 --> 01:15:18,320
the planning commission and actually we

1628
01:15:18,320 --> 01:15:22,000
might as well look at 71 and 74 together

1629
01:15:22,000 --> 01:15:25,280
because they're similar situations.

1630
01:15:25,280 --> 01:15:28,480
Um right now

1631
01:15:28,480 --> 01:15:32,159
both the planning commission and the BZA

1632
01:15:32,159 --> 01:15:36,000
have a rollover problem. All right now

1633
01:15:36,000 --> 01:15:37,679
four of the five planning commission

1634
01:15:37,679 --> 01:15:41,600
seats are full. There is a vacancy.

1635
01:15:41,600 --> 01:15:44,960
All four roll off at the same time.

1636
01:15:44,960 --> 01:15:48,000
There is no staggered seat right now at

1637
01:15:48,000 --> 01:15:51,360
the planning commission. Um the BZA is a

1638
01:15:51,360 --> 01:15:53,679
little bit better. There is a vacant

1639
01:15:53,679 --> 01:15:57,679
seat. Three roll off simultaneously as

1640
01:15:57,679 --> 01:16:00,080
required by the charter and then there's

1641
01:16:00,080 --> 01:16:02,320
one loan person and then the vacant

1642
01:16:02,320 --> 01:16:06,640
seat. So I didn't want to go into a lot

1643
01:16:06,640 --> 01:16:09,920
of detail because

1644
01:16:09,920 --> 01:16:12,000
that would have become very convoluted

1645
01:16:12,000 --> 01:16:14,719
and complicated to fix the planning

1646
01:16:14,719 --> 01:16:16,480
commission

1647
01:16:16,480 --> 01:16:18,800
immediately after passing the charter.

1648
01:16:18,800 --> 01:16:22,239
So my solution was to say okay going

1649
01:16:22,239 --> 01:16:24,239
forward there will be five planning

1650
01:16:24,239 --> 01:16:27,040
commission um members. I do have some

1651
01:16:27,040 --> 01:16:30,239
cleanup language that I noticed a bit um

1652
01:16:30,239 --> 01:16:31,679
that I'll tell you about in a minute.

1653
01:16:31,679 --> 01:16:33,520
Um, but there'll be five members

1654
01:16:33,520 --> 01:16:38,719
appointed by council and they will be

1655
01:16:38,719 --> 01:16:41,920
serving three-year staggered terms.

1656
01:16:41,920 --> 01:16:44,640
And then at the end, I just said to

1657
01:16:44,640 --> 01:16:46,800
create the staggered terms, council may

1658
01:16:46,800 --> 01:16:48,640
appoint members for a term of less than

1659
01:16:48,640 --> 01:16:52,480
three years. So that way, while it's not

1660
01:16:52,480 --> 01:16:54,960
ideal that we're dealing with this in

1661
01:16:54,960 --> 01:16:58,320
28, is that when you guys roll off

1662
01:16:58,320 --> 01:17:02,000
in 28? in 28 they can deal with, okay,

1663
01:17:02,000 --> 01:17:03,760
this person's getting appointed for one

1664
01:17:03,760 --> 01:17:05,280
year, this person's getting appointed

1665
01:17:05,280 --> 01:17:08,480
for two years, as opposed to trying to

1666
01:17:08,480 --> 01:17:11,679
lay out how that was going to work now

1667
01:17:11,679 --> 01:17:14,400
because we theoretically could have two

1668
01:17:14,400 --> 01:17:18,320
vacancies at that time. Um hopefully

1669
01:17:18,320 --> 01:17:20,800
not, but that's always a possibility.

1670
01:17:20,800 --> 01:17:25,840
So, um, it also avoided having to go

1671
01:17:25,840 --> 01:17:28,000
have conversations with current

1672
01:17:28,000 --> 01:17:29,760
commission members or BCA members

1673
01:17:29,760 --> 01:17:31,600
saying, "Do you mind if we cut your

1674
01:17:31,600 --> 01:17:34,159
term? We hope you come back, but can we

1675
01:17:34,159 --> 01:17:37,760
cut your term?" type of thing. So, um, I

1676
01:17:37,760 --> 01:17:39,360
thought that was the better way to

1677
01:17:39,360 --> 01:17:42,880
address that. Um the correction I needed

1678
01:17:42,880 --> 01:17:47,360
to point out was I think we needed to um

1679
01:17:47,360 --> 01:17:50,239
make it clear that

1680
01:17:50,239 --> 01:17:52,640
the and between council and the city

1681
01:17:52,640 --> 01:17:56,000
manager is not about the appointment but

1682
01:17:56,000 --> 01:17:58,000
the fact that the city manager is the

1683
01:17:58,000 --> 01:18:01,199
exeicio member of the planning

1684
01:18:01,199 --> 01:18:03,840
commission. So I think the easiest fix

1685
01:18:03,840 --> 01:18:06,560
to that is either to list the city

1686
01:18:06,560 --> 01:18:09,120
manager first to say there shall be a

1687
01:18:09,120 --> 01:18:10,960
planning commission with the city

1688
01:18:10,960 --> 01:18:15,120
manager as an exeicio member and

1689
01:18:15,120 --> 01:18:17,360
five electors appointed by council or

1690
01:18:17,360 --> 01:18:21,360
just make that a separate sentence.

1691
01:18:21,360 --> 01:18:25,120
So that's an easy fix but wanted to

1692
01:18:25,120 --> 01:18:27,199
bring that to your attention. I have a

1693
01:18:27,199 --> 01:18:29,360
question. As the deputy clerk of council

1694
01:18:29,360 --> 01:18:32,719
who sends the um BCA and planning

1695
01:18:32,719 --> 01:18:34,560
commission members that are coming off,

1696
01:18:34,560 --> 01:18:37,280
they're their terms are expiring. How

1697
01:18:37,280 --> 01:18:39,120
was that going to work then as far as

1698
01:18:39,120 --> 01:18:41,679
staggering the terms? Is that set by

1699
01:18:41,679 --> 01:18:43,120
council then?

1700
01:18:43,120 --> 01:18:46,320
>> Yeah. So, so what would happen is at

1701
01:18:46,320 --> 01:18:48,000
that point, I'm just planning

1702
01:18:48,000 --> 01:18:49,280
commission's the easiest one to use

1703
01:18:49,280 --> 01:18:52,480
since they all roll off together. Um

1704
01:18:52,480 --> 01:18:55,840
there would be a notice essentially of

1705
01:18:55,840 --> 01:18:59,120
your term is expiring.

1706
01:18:59,120 --> 01:19:00,960
Um

1707
01:19:00,960 --> 01:19:03,040
council will will have already figured

1708
01:19:03,040 --> 01:19:04,960
out what the staggered terms would look

1709
01:19:04,960 --> 01:19:07,840
like and then we theoretically would ask

1710
01:19:07,840 --> 01:19:09,760
them are you open to filling one of

1711
01:19:09,760 --> 01:19:13,280
these seats. I would expect there would

1712
01:19:13,280 --> 01:19:15,679
be an explanation at a meeting prior to

1713
01:19:15,679 --> 01:19:18,719
that to explain what is going on and why

1714
01:19:18,719 --> 01:19:20,000
as well.

1715
01:19:20,000 --> 01:19:22,239
So typically these members are then

1716
01:19:22,239 --> 01:19:25,600
voted in at the June meeting because the

1717
01:19:25,600 --> 01:19:28,960
30th is when

1718
01:19:28,960 --> 01:19:31,840
>> June is when all their terms expire. So

1719
01:19:31,840 --> 01:19:34,000
we're saying maybe like the May meeting

1720
01:19:34,000 --> 01:19:36,800
there's a study session and then that's

1721
01:19:36,800 --> 01:19:38,480
when council determine does it have to

1722
01:19:38,480 --> 01:19:39,600
be done by legislation?

1723
01:19:39,600 --> 01:19:42,080
>> No. So what would hap this this isn't

1724
01:19:42,080 --> 01:19:45,360
going to just be an one situation. there

1725
01:19:45,360 --> 01:19:47,280
would be sitting down like we would

1726
01:19:47,280 --> 01:19:50,239
present to council what the seats are.

1727
01:19:50,239 --> 01:19:54,719
Um I would expect that much like now you

1728
01:19:54,719 --> 01:19:57,679
would advertise there is a seat for one

1729
01:19:57,679 --> 01:19:59,600
year, there's a seat for two years,

1730
01:19:59,600 --> 01:20:01,920
there's a seat for three years and the

1731
01:20:01,920 --> 01:20:03,840
public could again apply for whatever

1732
01:20:03,840 --> 01:20:06,880
seat they would want to do in addition

1733
01:20:06,880 --> 01:20:08,960
to

1734
01:20:08,960 --> 01:20:13,270
those currently on it.

1735
01:20:13,280 --> 01:20:15,199
And that's for like the vacancies.

1736
01:20:15,199 --> 01:20:15,840
>> Mhm.

1737
01:20:15,840 --> 01:20:17,280
>> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

1738
01:20:17,280 --> 01:20:19,280
>> Like for the vacancy that's there now,

1739
01:20:19,280 --> 01:20:22,000
if you got an applicant for that vacancy

1740
01:20:22,000 --> 01:20:25,199
now, um theoretically council could go

1741
01:20:25,199 --> 01:20:27,760
ahead in order to help start that

1742
01:20:27,760 --> 01:20:31,199
because otherwise we'd have five um

1743
01:20:31,199 --> 01:20:34,480
rolling off simultaneously. Um go ahead

1744
01:20:34,480 --> 01:20:37,199
and make that a one-year

1745
01:20:37,199 --> 01:20:40,470
appointment.

1746
01:20:40,480 --> 01:20:43,440
Now th does this leaves that ability to

1747
01:20:43,440 --> 01:20:45,840
stagger those terms. If 10 years down

1748
01:20:45,840 --> 01:20:48,480
the road, four of them leave town

1749
01:20:48,480 --> 01:20:51,360
altogether they move away. You now have

1750
01:20:51,360 --> 01:20:52,400
to restart your staggering.

1751
01:20:52,400 --> 01:20:53,840
>> You don't have to restart the staggering

1752
01:20:53,840 --> 01:20:56,000
because it's now clear that they're

1753
01:20:56,000 --> 01:20:57,280
filling a vacant

1754
01:20:57,280 --> 01:20:58,080
>> vacant. Okay.

1755
01:20:58,080 --> 01:21:00,800
>> That the vacancy is to fill the term

1756
01:21:00,800 --> 01:21:02,400
>> as opposed to starting a new three-year

1757
01:21:02,400 --> 01:21:05,760
term. I think that's how that it got off

1758
01:21:05,760 --> 01:21:07,440
was

1759
01:21:07,440 --> 01:21:08,560
um they

1760
01:21:08,560 --> 01:21:11,679
>> people either people left it once or it

1761
01:21:11,679 --> 01:21:13,440
was just one of those things of when

1762
01:21:13,440 --> 01:21:15,840
people started they just started a

1763
01:21:15,840 --> 01:21:18,640
three-year term as opposed to filling a

1764
01:21:18,640 --> 01:21:29,590
vacancy.

1765
01:21:29,600 --> 01:21:34,560
That said, um, city manager and Miss

1766
01:21:34,560 --> 01:21:37,679
Schwarz, if as you think about this, you

1767
01:21:37,679 --> 01:21:39,920
think it's a logistical

1768
01:21:39,920 --> 01:21:42,400
nightmare, let me know and we'll figure

1769
01:21:42,400 --> 01:21:44,480
it out. A better better way of doing it,

1770
01:21:44,480 --> 01:21:44,960
too.

1771
01:21:44,960 --> 01:21:47,040
>> No, I don't think so. As long as as long

1772
01:21:47,040 --> 01:21:49,440
as it's clear to council that that's you

1773
01:21:49,440 --> 01:21:50,800
know we're doing we're staggering the

1774
01:21:50,800 --> 01:21:52,880
terms one to two to three years and then

1775
01:21:52,880 --> 01:21:55,120
how we are identifying the current

1776
01:21:55,120 --> 01:21:58,080
members that if they want to seek

1777
01:21:58,080 --> 01:21:59,600
reappoint

1778
01:21:59,600 --> 01:22:01,280
which which ones are going to take the

1779
01:22:01,280 --> 01:22:02,800
one to two to three

1780
01:22:02,800 --> 01:22:04,960
>> I I think we can make it

1781
01:22:04,960 --> 01:22:05,920
>> I think so. Yes.

1782
01:22:05,920 --> 01:22:09,270
>> Yeah.

1783
01:22:09,280 --> 01:22:12,480
So that's

1784
01:22:12,480 --> 01:22:15,920
Oh yeah, nominations.

1785
01:22:15,920 --> 01:22:17,600
This is an interesting one when you

1786
01:22:17,600 --> 01:22:20,639
start looking at it. So this is about

1787
01:22:20,639 --> 01:22:22,880
what the number of signatures it takes

1788
01:22:22,880 --> 01:22:25,679
to get on the ballot for council or

1789
01:22:25,679 --> 01:22:28,719
mayor. Um,

1790
01:22:28,719 --> 01:22:31,920
currently we have 75 as the requirement.

1791
01:22:31,920 --> 01:22:34,320
You'll notice that was adopted in 2015.

1792
01:22:34,320 --> 01:22:38,960
I do not know what it was before. Um

1793
01:22:38,960 --> 01:22:40,480
the question was ra

1794
01:22:40,480 --> 01:22:41,440
>> it was a percentage.

1795
01:22:41,440 --> 01:22:43,360
>> Oh okay it was a do you remember what

1796
01:22:43,360 --> 01:22:46,719
the percentage was? Okay. Um the

1797
01:22:46,719 --> 01:22:49,040
question has was raised. I do not know

1798
01:22:49,040 --> 01:22:51,199
where the question raised came from

1799
01:22:51,199 --> 01:22:53,199
about whether or not 75 should be

1800
01:22:53,199 --> 01:22:54,960
higher.

1801
01:22:54,960 --> 01:22:59,600
Um so in just looking at

1802
01:22:59,600 --> 01:23:02,800
communities around us tip only requires

1803
01:23:02,800 --> 01:23:06,560
25. Um, I thought unions was interesting

1804
01:23:06,560 --> 01:23:08,400
in the fact that they have a different

1805
01:23:08,400 --> 01:23:12,080
number for mayor than they do council.

1806
01:23:12,080 --> 01:23:16,560
Um, but 50 seems to be

1807
01:23:16,560 --> 01:23:18,560
pretty consistent

1808
01:23:18,560 --> 01:23:22,719
um of a number. So, Vanelia is already

1809
01:23:22,719 --> 01:23:25,120
higher. Again, this is one of those

1810
01:23:25,120 --> 01:23:27,120
where really doesn't matter what the

1811
01:23:27,120 --> 01:23:28,880
surrounding communities do. It's just

1812
01:23:28,880 --> 01:23:31,199
whatever Vanelia wants to do. I was just

1813
01:23:31,199 --> 01:23:33,920
using it as a

1814
01:23:33,920 --> 01:23:39,040
guide a mile marker for people. Um, I

1815
01:23:39,040 --> 01:23:43,270
have no real

1816
01:23:43,280 --> 01:23:47,840
thoughts on this. Um,

1817
01:23:47,840 --> 01:23:52,880
I would say my one thought that I would

1818
01:23:52,880 --> 01:23:55,520
I think is a little odd is that if an

1819
01:23:55,520 --> 01:23:57,199
elector signs more than the maximum

1820
01:23:57,199 --> 01:23:59,360
petitions, his or her signature shall be

1821
01:23:59,360 --> 01:24:04,790
boyed except for the ones filed first.

1822
01:24:04,800 --> 01:24:06,880
My perspective is if someone wants to

1823
01:24:06,880 --> 01:24:08,239
run and they ask me to sign the

1824
01:24:08,239 --> 01:24:09,600
petition, I'm going to sign it because

1825
01:24:09,600 --> 01:24:11,120
if they think they should run and would

1826
01:24:11,120 --> 01:24:12,480
do a good job, they should be on the

1827
01:24:12,480 --> 01:24:14,960
ballot and let the people decide. That's

1828
01:24:14,960 --> 01:24:17,280
how I was raised. That's not necessarily

1829
01:24:17,280 --> 01:24:19,280
the view of everyone else. But you're

1830
01:24:19,280 --> 01:24:23,199
putting on the going back to um Mr.

1831
01:24:23,199 --> 01:24:25,600
Blaine's thought you're putting a kind

1832
01:24:25,600 --> 01:24:27,520
of an onus on the board of elections to

1833
01:24:27,520 --> 01:24:30,719
count. Oh, we've seen that signature

1834
01:24:30,719 --> 01:24:32,480
>> twice previously.

1835
01:24:32,480 --> 01:24:34,343
>> We had that issue happen. I think it

1836
01:24:34,343 --> 01:24:36,080
[clears throat] was city of Dayton and

1837
01:24:36,080 --> 01:24:37,760
uh it wasn't clear which one was filed

1838
01:24:37,760 --> 01:24:39,360
first or signed first and the city had

1839
01:24:39,360 --> 01:24:41,679
to go back and redo and it was a

1840
01:24:41,679 --> 01:24:44,239
nightmare to say the least. So,

1841
01:24:44,239 --> 01:24:47,520
>> so I would suggest taking that language

1842
01:24:47,520 --> 01:24:49,840
out. Um

1843
01:24:49,840 --> 01:24:52,080
>> what does it serve? Does it stop

1844
01:24:52,080 --> 01:24:55,040
anything? Is there like if there's three

1845
01:24:55,040 --> 01:24:58,000
seats open and I sign four of them, that

1846
01:24:58,000 --> 01:24:59,760
just means I want the choice of all four

1847
01:24:59,760 --> 01:25:03,360
of them when I go to vote. So, does it

1848
01:25:03,360 --> 01:25:05,520
serve anything that you're aware of or

1849
01:25:05,520 --> 01:25:06,480
you're aware of?

1850
01:25:06,480 --> 01:25:09,199
>> To me, what it does is it essentially

1851
01:25:09,199 --> 01:25:13,120
says that you as an elector,

1852
01:25:13,120 --> 01:25:15,280
there are three seats. So,

1853
01:25:15,280 --> 01:25:17,360
theoretically, you should only be

1854
01:25:17,360 --> 01:25:20,800
looking you should only be supporting

1855
01:25:20,800 --> 01:25:23,199
three people. It makes the concept that

1856
01:25:23,199 --> 01:25:24,960
if you sign a petition, you are

1857
01:25:24,960 --> 01:25:27,600
supporting that person for election.

1858
01:25:27,600 --> 01:25:29,280
That's not how I personally view

1859
01:25:29,280 --> 01:25:30,800
petitions. That's not how a lot of

1860
01:25:30,800 --> 01:25:34,159
people view petitions. It's more about,

1861
01:25:34,159 --> 01:25:35,920
hey, can you get the signatures to get

1862
01:25:35,920 --> 01:25:38,400
on the ballot? There are a lot of people

1863
01:25:38,400 --> 01:25:40,960
though that will not sign a petition if

1864
01:25:40,960 --> 01:25:42,800
they're not planning to vote for them.

1865
01:25:42,800 --> 01:25:44,960
So, that's where that that clearly comes

1866
01:25:44,960 --> 01:25:47,600
from that mindset.

1867
01:25:47,600 --> 01:25:49,440
>> There's no purpose. I mean it's a race

1868
01:25:49,440 --> 01:25:53,599
to the u the bee at that point and it's

1869
01:25:53,599 --> 01:25:55,679
[snorts] it's almost impossible to say

1870
01:25:55,679 --> 01:25:57,360
you know Eric signed you know four

1871
01:25:57,360 --> 01:26:00,480
petitions but which four filed first and

1872
01:26:00,480 --> 01:26:01,440
three f

1873
01:26:01,440 --> 01:26:05,520
>> yeah I I agree it's

1874
01:26:05,520 --> 01:26:07,760
please remove it that's my

1875
01:26:07,760 --> 01:26:11,199
>> I would vote to take that out okay

1876
01:26:11,199 --> 01:26:13,600
>> I think 75 is fine I don't know that we

1877
01:26:13,600 --> 01:26:16,719
need to lower it I I think 75 is easily

1878
01:26:16,719 --> 01:26:19,600
attainable I don't know if we need to

1879
01:26:19,600 --> 01:26:22,480
increase it though. I

1880
01:26:22,480 --> 01:26:24,719
>> think it takes some work to get 75

1881
01:26:24,719 --> 01:26:27,199
signatures. It does. It's It's not easy.

1882
01:26:27,199 --> 01:26:29,679
>> It's not. And usually for the purposes

1883
01:26:29,679 --> 01:26:31,440
we're talking about, you get way more

1884
01:26:31,440 --> 01:26:35,920
than that. But I mean, we've had very um

1885
01:26:35,920 --> 01:26:37,440
healthy

1886
01:26:37,440 --> 01:26:40,000
elections with a lot of people that have

1887
01:26:40,000 --> 01:26:42,239
come to the table and put their their

1888
01:26:42,239 --> 01:26:44,480
name in the ring and they have gotten

1889
01:26:44,480 --> 01:26:46,639
the required signatures. So I think I

1890
01:26:46,639 --> 01:26:48,480
think 75 is fair.

1891
01:26:48,480 --> 01:26:48,880
>> Yeah,

1892
01:26:48,880 --> 01:26:50,960
>> I wouldn't lower it, but I also don't

1893
01:26:50,960 --> 01:26:54,719
know that we need to increase.

1894
01:26:54,719 --> 01:26:56,400
>> I think I don't know where that question

1895
01:26:56,400 --> 01:26:58,400
came from, especially seeing the

1896
01:26:58,400 --> 01:27:02,320
benchmarking from the other communities.

1897
01:27:02,320 --> 01:27:05,760
>> Well, I would say the 75 also

1898
01:27:05,760 --> 01:27:08,239
forces you as a voter to know that that

1899
01:27:08,239 --> 01:27:10,239
person talked to other people in the

1900
01:27:10,239 --> 01:27:11,360
community. Absolutely.

1901
01:27:11,360 --> 01:27:13,120
>> Because before you sign it, you're

1902
01:27:13,120 --> 01:27:13,920
going,

1903
01:27:13,920 --> 01:27:15,760
>> "What? Why do you want to run? What are

1904
01:27:15,760 --> 01:27:18,560
you standing for? It's a few more people

1905
01:27:18,560 --> 01:27:21,679
that heard their voice. So, when it came

1906
01:27:21,679 --> 01:27:23,600
to election day, they're slightly more

1907
01:27:23,600 --> 01:27:25,440
educated than the postcard that went

1908
01:27:25,440 --> 01:27:27,280
out.

1909
01:27:27,280 --> 01:27:31,280
>> So, I Yeah, I 75 I've never gone to try

1910
01:27:31,280 --> 01:27:34,000
and canvas 75 signatures in Vanelia, but

1911
01:27:34,000 --> 01:27:35,679
if it's not killer,

1912
01:27:35,679 --> 01:27:37,280
>> then [clears throat] why why change

1913
01:27:37,280 --> 01:27:39,679
that? I would change the

1914
01:27:39,679 --> 01:27:41,679
>> You can't sign more than because I'm not

1915
01:27:41,679 --> 01:27:43,120
counting. If somebody asked me and I

1916
01:27:43,120 --> 01:27:43,920
think they'd be good. [clears throat]

1917
01:27:43,920 --> 01:27:45,280
I'm going to count.

1918
01:27:45,280 --> 01:27:47,360
>> Well, yeah. If somebody files later, but

1919
01:27:47,360 --> 01:27:48,880
you already signed your three, but you

1920
01:27:48,880 --> 01:27:51,199
really like number four and now you

1921
01:27:51,199 --> 01:27:53,280
can't support them. That seems

1922
01:27:53,280 --> 01:27:55,280
>> And practically speaking, they're

1923
01:27:55,280 --> 01:27:57,199
getting more than 75 signatures. My

1924
01:27:57,199 --> 01:27:58,960
guess is they're probably aiming for 100

1925
01:27:58,960 --> 01:28:00,480
to 125. Yes.

1926
01:28:00,480 --> 01:28:01,760
>> I think the general rule is three, you

1927
01:28:01,760 --> 01:28:03,280
know, no more. Do we want to put in

1928
01:28:03,280 --> 01:28:04,960
there something like they're, you know,

1929
01:28:04,960 --> 01:28:07,600
that caps how many they can submit?

1930
01:28:07,600 --> 01:28:10,960
>> Oh, is that why this is 50 to 100? So,

1931
01:28:10,960 --> 01:28:13,840
the union is capped. you have to have 50

1932
01:28:13,840 --> 01:28:15,679
but don't get any more than 100. Is that

1933
01:28:15,679 --> 01:28:17,679
why that says 50 to 100 signatures?

1934
01:28:17,679 --> 01:28:19,760
>> My guess is that's there because of the

1935
01:28:19,760 --> 01:28:24,800
whole situation that a lot of times um

1936
01:28:24,800 --> 01:28:27,440
using Butler Township and Vanelia,

1937
01:28:27,440 --> 01:28:29,280
someone may not realize that they're a

1938
01:28:29,280 --> 01:28:31,280
Butler Township resident, not a Vanelia

1939
01:28:31,280 --> 01:28:32,960
resident, and so they've signed the

1940
01:28:32,960 --> 01:28:35,280
petition, their vote doesn't or their

1941
01:28:35,280 --> 01:28:37,600
ballot doesn't their signature doesn't

1942
01:28:37,600 --> 01:28:39,440
count towards the petition. So, the

1943
01:28:39,440 --> 01:28:42,080
range is probably just, hey, if you've

1944
01:28:42,080 --> 01:28:45,360
gotten 55, but five of yours gets

1945
01:28:45,360 --> 01:28:47,679
knocked off, you're fine. If you've

1946
01:28:47,679 --> 01:28:49,920
gotten a hundred and five of yours get

1947
01:28:49,920 --> 01:28:51,199
knocked off, you're fine.

1948
01:28:51,199 --> 01:28:51,520
>> Yeah.

1949
01:28:51,520 --> 01:28:53,199
>> So, I don't know that it's actually a

1950
01:28:53,199 --> 01:28:55,040
cap. I think they're just saying the

1951
01:28:55,040 --> 01:28:57,600
petition has to have that number

1952
01:28:57,600 --> 01:28:59,040
>> of valid signatures.

1953
01:28:59,040 --> 01:29:01,120
>> And does have that requirement on there.

1954
01:29:01,120 --> 01:29:02,639
You know, you must have x amount, but

1955
01:29:02,639 --> 01:29:04,320
not more than three times x amount.

1956
01:29:04,320 --> 01:29:04,800
>> Yeah.

1957
01:29:04,800 --> 01:29:06,239
>> Submitted.

1958
01:29:06,239 --> 01:29:08,320
>> And it's pretty standard. I think school

1959
01:29:08,320 --> 01:29:13,750
board is the same thing. 75.

1960
01:29:13,760 --> 01:29:19,280
» Okay. So 75 leave but

1961
01:29:19,280 --> 01:29:22,320
take out the maximum number you can

1962
01:29:22,320 --> 01:29:26,709
sign. Okay.

1963
01:29:26,719 --> 01:29:31,360
That is all for the evening.

1964
01:29:31,360 --> 01:29:34,790
Um

1965
01:29:34,800 --> 01:29:39,280
I will circulate an updated

1966
01:29:39,280 --> 01:29:42,480
referendum and initiative separately

1967
01:29:42,480 --> 01:29:46,239
from the next packet just so you can

1968
01:29:46,239 --> 01:29:52,159
continue to consider research. Um if you

1969
01:29:52,159 --> 01:29:54,320
in your as you are researching any

1970
01:29:54,320 --> 01:29:57,040
thoughts um not that you have to but if

1971
01:29:57,040 --> 01:30:00,560
you want to read other charters um and

1972
01:30:00,560 --> 01:30:02,080
you have an idea please feel free to

1973
01:30:02,080 --> 01:30:06,159
call me and let me know um and I can

1974
01:30:06,159 --> 01:30:08,239
work that in or put it in notes for the

1975
01:30:08,239 --> 01:30:11,360
next meeting as well.

1976
01:30:11,360 --> 01:30:12,639
>> Thank you everyone for your time

1977
01:30:12,639 --> 01:30:14,880
tonight. I will accept a motion for

1978
01:30:14,880 --> 01:30:16,159
adjournment if there's no other

1979
01:30:16,159 --> 01:30:17,840
comments.

1980
01:30:17,840 --> 01:30:19,040
>> So moved.

1981
01:30:19,040 --> 01:30:21,760
>> Second. Second. All those in favor? I.

1982
01:30:21,760 --> 01:30:23,760
All those opposed. We are adjourned at

1983
01:30:23,760 --> 01:30:26,760
7:02.