[0:01] All right, we will call the meeting to
[0:03] order at 5:32. This is the review
[0:06] committee uh the charter review
[0:08] committee on August 20th. Um we will
[0:12] look at the minutes from last meeting
[0:15] which was August 6th. So you've had a
[0:17] chance to review those. I will entertain
[0:20] a motion for acceptance if there are no
[0:22] other comments.
[0:23] >> I'd make a motion to approve the August
[0:25] 6 minutes. Second.
[0:27] >> Thank you. All those in favor? I
[0:30] >> I
[0:30] >> All those opposed.
[0:33] >> All right, those minutes are approved.
[0:36] Moving on to item number three, which is
[0:38] the discussion of the prior provisions
[0:40] that we reviewed or the provisions that
[0:42] we reviewed at the prior meeting. Um,
[0:45] Miss Wall has given us all of those
[0:47] corrections based on our commentary.
[0:50] Is there any discussion? Do we want to
[0:52] go through each one of these or is there
[0:54] any discussion on any of this? I I
[0:57] personally thought it looked good but
[0:58] open for discussion on
[0:59] >> why don't we just go one by one just to
[1:01] make sure. Okay.
[1:03] >> Um so section 38 that was originally one
[1:07] where um I had prevented prevented
[1:10] presented samples from multiple
[1:12] communities around us. Um and you had
[1:15] given feedback on um structure and
[1:19] language. Um the one question I had was
[1:22] whether B um for the action for removal
[1:28] reflected our conversation. It looked
[1:30] like what I had in my notes, but I just
[1:32] wanted to make sure that was that I
[1:35] picked the right one.
[1:42] So with that then um should we consider
[1:45] this quote unquote final until the
[1:48] public hearing
[1:51] >> type situation?
[1:53] >> I thought it I thought it reflected what
[1:54] we discussed in kind of the consensus a
[1:57] everybody kind of had a little bit to
[1:58] add in so I think it it reflected that.
[2:01] Um anyone else?
[2:04] >> I'd agree with that statement.
[2:06] >> Okay. And um going back for the record,
[2:08] Miss Wiggins had let us know that she
[2:10] will be late to the meeting. So just so
[2:11] that's on the minutes, we will uh bring
[2:14] her in when she arrives. Um yeah, so 38.
[2:18] Okay, we will put that one in the report
[2:20] for the public hearing.
[2:21] >> Okay.
[2:22] >> Um next was section 4-1 definitions. Um
[2:27] there essentially the underlying point
[2:30] of the revisions was to add motions to
[2:33] it. Um and then some additional language
[2:37] that was generally found in um some of
[2:40] the other charters around us which is
[2:42] that we are superseding the law of the
[2:45] state by having motions essentially.
[2:55] Any thoughts, comments? Should we
[2:58] consider this one ready for the public
[3:00] hearing?
[3:00] >> Yes.
[3:01] >> I thought it was good.
[3:02] >> Okay.
[3:04] Um, next on
[3:08] the first reading
[3:12] and apparently in my lateness late
[3:15] nightness the I did not put the red line
[3:18] in or in the color. Um, so essentially
[3:20] what we were doing with um the first
[3:23] reading was making it clear that it only
[3:27] moves to a second
[3:30] reading if it's passed at the first
[3:32] reading. Um, and then also we took out
[3:36] the specific
[3:40] publication
[3:41] of being in the newspaper.
[3:45] Um and then I think I also simply just
[3:47] said it will be published according to
[3:49] 46. That way all the publication
[3:52] um requirements are in one section as
[3:54] opposed to being repeated
[3:56] in each section in which publication is
[3:59] being used.
[4:05] » Looks good to me.
[4:07] >> Okay, we will put that one ready for the
[4:10] public hearing then. Um again in
[4:14] publication the question was um about
[4:17] publishing in the newspaper and so we
[4:20] removed that from the requirement and
[4:23] now the requirement will be publication
[4:26] on the website and social media accounts
[4:29] and then posted at the municipal
[4:31] building and two other public buildings
[4:32] within the city. Um, the reason I added
[4:35] the social media accounts is that the
[4:38] actual statute says website and social
[4:42] media accounts, there's no
[4:45] difference in, you know, what has to be
[4:49] posted on the social media accounts. So,
[4:51] and since that is often more checked
[4:53] than the city's website, um, I went
[4:56] ahead and put that in there. However,
[4:59] this is a charter and you certainly do
[5:01] not have to have that requirement in
[5:03] there if you would prefer to keep it at
[5:05] the web page and the two the municipal
[5:09] building and two other public records.
[5:12] >> Who manages our social media? Is it the
[5:14] same individual as the websites?
[5:17] >> Uh, our communications manager Rich
[5:18] Hopkins.
[5:20] >> And that duty would continue on. So,
[5:21] he's in charge of Rich is in charge of
[5:23] the website and social media.
[5:24] >> That is correct. Yes.
[5:25] >> Microphone. Is your microphone on?
[5:28] >> Mine?
[5:29] >> Yeah.
[5:29] >> Yes.
[5:29] >> Okay. Didn't look like it from here.
[5:31] Sorry.
[5:33] >> Thank you.
[5:36] >> I mean, social media is not going away,
[5:38] right? So, I think if we put that in
[5:40] there, I don't think it's overly
[5:42] restrictive because that's not I mean, I
[5:45] think that's
[5:47] going to be around for a while.
[5:49] >> It It's not identifying any particular
[5:51] social media account
[5:52] >> like a newspaper, right? [laughter]
[5:54] >> It's a MySpace account.
[5:56] nor is it requiring the city to form any
[6:00] new social media accounts. So, whatever
[6:03] they have, they have.
[6:07] >> I think that's fine as long as that's
[6:09] attainable
[6:11] >> to what we're already doing. That's not
[6:13] added work, right?
[6:15] >> I don't believe so, but we can confirm
[6:17] that. He currently puts on the video
[6:20] from the council meeting, but then it
[6:21] also does a brief summary of what
[6:23] actually the meeting and it goes a
[6:25] little bit more detail of what it it has
[6:28] the entire meeting, what council voted
[6:30] on and so forth. So, it's a little bit
[6:32] more than just the legislative summaries
[6:34] that I post at the three buildings.
[6:36] >> Okay.
[6:39] » And is also posted on our website as
[6:41] well.
[6:42] >> Wonderful. So with that, any comments,
[6:47] changes, anything on 4.6?
[6:52] >> Think we're good.
[6:52] >> Okay.
[6:56] » Yeah.
[6:58] >> I'm just just a comment on 4-3. I think
[7:02] we've clarified
[7:04] as far as
[7:06] what is done after the first reading,
[7:09] but I know that the question has come up
[7:12] if an ordinance fails or is not approved
[7:15] at the first reading, does it still get
[7:18] that second reading or not?
[7:21] >> No. So, that's covered by the if
[7:22] approved at its first reading by
[7:24] council, a summary shall be published
[7:27] and then placed on the agenda for the
[7:29] next council. So if it doesn't pass,
[7:31] it's not placed on the agenda.
[7:33] >> Okay. So the two separate readings would
[7:36] be
[7:38] would not be required then.
[7:40] >> Correct. Because it did not pass the
[7:42] first.
[7:43] >> Okay.
[7:44] Um
[7:46] I don't know if it would help but for
[7:49] future people down the road, future
[7:51] councils and city leadership
[7:54] to add a sentence. If not approved, it
[7:57] would not move to a second reading or
[7:59] would that not be appropriate?
[8:03] >> I don't it's up to the committee. I
[8:06] personally don't feel that that sentence
[8:08] is needed because
[8:11] one, it's logical to me that if it
[8:14] doesn't pass the first reading, it
[8:16] wouldn't go to the second reading.
[8:18] But I also was raised kind of in city
[8:21] government. So perhaps I have a
[8:26] unique perspective on that.
[8:31] >> We'll also note for the record, Miss
[8:32] Wiggins has arrived.
[8:36] » I think we talked about that momentarily
[8:38] last week, didn't we? That it wouldn't
[8:40] go to second if it wasn't passed.
[8:43] >> Clearly, there's been a question at some
[8:45] point that has been raised, though.
[8:47] >> Yeah. One of one of the debates that
[8:49] I've heard on a couple occasions is that
[8:52] the first statement there is that every
[8:55] ordinance is given two separate readings
[8:57] by council on two separate days. So, one
[9:00] of the
[9:02] um I want to say conflicts or one of the
[9:05] debates that council has heard is you've
[9:09] got to pass it the first time to get it
[9:11] to the second reading because it
[9:12] requires two readings. The way it's
[9:15] written now, it is clear that it's not
[9:17] going to get a second reading if it
[9:20] doesn't pass. But because the first
[9:23] statement has it's given two separate
[9:25] readings, the debate is okay. If it
[9:29] doesn't pass, does it even get another
[9:30] reading? I don't know.
[9:32] >> I think this is an easy fix now that I
[9:34] see where you're going.
[9:36] >> A slight revision to that first
[9:38] sentence. Um, taking out the word given.
[9:42] um
[9:45] and going more towards the overall
[9:48] requires two separate readings before
[9:50] formal enactment or formal adoption.
[9:54] So why don't I um work on that sentence
[9:59] a little bit for the next meeting
[10:01] >> clarify that point so that there is no
[10:04] question on the given aspect um and
[10:09] we'll just remove that topic from the
[10:12] >> I think that's a great catch the the
[10:15] lawyers love this catch [laughter]
[10:17] >> this is great it seems very that sent
[10:20] now I'm thinking to myself that sentence
[10:21] seemed clear like Oh,
[10:24] >> the first one reading it all together
[10:26] that we have
[10:26] >> Yeah.
[10:27] that's awesome. Thank you for
[10:30] that.
[10:33] >> It's from experience.
[10:35] [laughter]
[10:37] » Um, okay. So, I will bring that one back
[10:40] at our September 10th
[10:44] meeting
[10:46] >> or whatever the actual date is. If we're trying to get some of these and
[10:50] this one included on there prior to the
[10:54] public hearing,
[10:56] would it be helpful to spitball the
[10:58] language now?
[10:59] >> Oh, no. The public hearing is not till
[11:01] October. We're going to have gone
[11:02] through all these by the public hearing.
[11:04] >> Okay.
[11:04] >> The only ones that you guys may not have
[11:07] done a quote unquote second review of
[11:10] are the ones that are the week before
[11:12] the public hearing. If there are changes
[11:14] to that, the review may just be when I
[11:16] get it, when you review it prior to the
[11:18] public hearing.
[11:19] >> All right. Thank you.
[11:20] >> No problem.
[11:23] >> Um, and so that now takes us to
[11:27] article 9 and the initiative and
[11:31] referendum.
[11:32] Um,
[11:34] there is a lot here. I will tell you
[11:38] that I do not have old or new fully
[11:41] memorized. and off the top of my head.
[11:43] So, I will be working through it with
[11:45] you um as well. Um,
[11:50] essentially the one that has been
[11:53] proposed is the one from
[11:57] Clayton, I believe, that was recently
[11:59] revised and adopted by Clayton and has
[12:03] kind of been viewed as a good starting
[12:08] point or clear in what the processes are
[12:12] um, in that. So, I don't know if you
[12:16] want to actually look at the current one
[12:19] and see and kind of walk through what it
[12:21] requires right now before looking at the
[12:23] new one or if you want to look at the
[12:26] new language
[12:28] and just start from there. What would be
[12:31] the committee's
[12:32] preference?
[12:36] I mean, I have a preference, but I don't
[12:37] want to speak for everyone. I would I
[12:40] would think we would just start from the
[12:42] red and move forward from there. But
[12:44] what is the consensus?
[12:48] >> I was thinking look at the old language
[12:50] and what we think is wrong with it and
[12:53] whether we're confused by it, if you
[12:55] will. Um but okay, I I will not argue
[12:58] either way.
[12:59] >> Mr. Durham, do you have a
[13:01] >> I think using the existing language as a
[13:05] starting point is all
[13:07] >> Mr. Blank. state.
[13:10] >> It's such a substantial rewrite I almost
[13:13] >> unless we have questions about how
[13:14] things used to work would move on to the
[13:16] red.
[13:17] >> Okay.
[13:18] >> Mr. Atkins,
[13:19] >> I
[13:21] reviewed [clears throat] some of it and
[13:22] I I did find a few things that didn't
[13:25] make sense to to me and I was in the
[13:28] original language. So,
[13:30] >> where would you prefer to start?
[13:32] >> I I think go through the original
[13:34] language and then
[13:36] >> All right. Consensus has it. We'll start
[13:37] at the original.
[13:39] >> Um, city manager Al House had the
[13:42] suggestion that maybe we go section old
[13:44] new by that way. They line up fairly
[13:48] close but not exactly, but um, we can go
[13:52] from there. Um, so first of all, just as
[13:55] our little 12th grade civics reminder,
[13:58] an initiative is a piece of legislation
[14:01] that is brought by the people and that
[14:04] says, "We want this on the ballot
[14:06] because you're not passing it. We want
[14:08] to pass it." Um, a referendum is a piece
[14:12] of legislation that council has passed
[14:16] that the electorate says, "We don't like
[14:18] it. We want it off."
[14:21] So section 9-1 is about initiatives and
[14:27] essentially the original language says
[14:29] that the electors have the power to
[14:32] propose any ordinance and to adopt or
[14:34] reject the same at the polls and that it
[14:37] is initiated by submitting to council
[14:39] through a petition signed by qualified
[14:42] electors equal to a number at least 15%
[14:46] of the number voting in the last general
[14:48] election. Um, as some background, it is
[14:52] typical to use actual turnout to
[14:57] determine the number of people signing
[14:59] petitions in a situation like this as
[15:02] opposed to the whole electorate. Because
[15:06] practically speaking, if you based 15%
[15:09] of the whole electorate, you would never
[15:12] get a petition on the ballot.
[15:16] The
[15:18] new language makes it clear or even more
[15:23] clear than the original language that it
[15:26] is only ordinances
[15:28] um that are subject to referendum and
[15:30] initiative. And this is where it doesn't
[15:32] match up exactly because we didn't talk
[15:34] about referendums yet. Um,
[15:40] and
[15:43] so is let me back up and say it this
[15:45] way. Um, ordinances are subject to
[15:49] referendum as permitted by the
[15:52] constitution, the state of Ohio, or the
[15:55] charter. So if though the charter says
[15:59] an issue is not referendum,
[16:03] is that a word? or able to be put on by
[16:06] initiative, it overrides the other
[16:10] two ways or places where it could say it
[16:13] could be on the ballot. Um because
[16:15] again, charter home rule, we've said
[16:17] great, no thanks. Um,
[16:21] also the others like the state of Ohio
[16:24] laws cannot expand what the charter says
[16:28] or be used to interpret what the charter
[16:30] says whether or not something may be
[16:32] eligible for initiative or referendum.
[16:35] So that's the new language. So
[16:37] essentially it's basically saying
[16:40] charter controls what can be put on as
[16:43] an initiative or um
[16:48] referendum
[16:53] going down to section 9.2 to catch up a
[16:56] little bit. Um
[16:58] council
[17:01] may
[17:03] submit any ordinance to a vote of the
[17:06] people
[17:08] by a vote of four members.
[17:14] The ordinance is not subject to
[17:16] initiative. So in other words,
[17:20] if
[17:22] council would say we want to on their on
[17:26] their own
[17:28] decision, we want the vote the electors
[17:31] to vote on this.
[17:33] The people cannot do an initiative of a
[17:38] exact same kind of question or so there
[17:41] can't be competing
[17:43] ordinances on the ballot by initiative.
[17:46] So that's just once council's voted by
[17:50] four to do it, then somebody can't start
[17:53] their own initiative out there that
[17:55] changes the language a little bit.
[17:56] Right.
[17:57] >> Right.
[17:59] >> Um,
[18:01] of course, the electors would be the one
[18:02] that would determine what could go on.
[18:05] Um,
[18:07] it's in this section where it says that
[18:10] within that the petition must be
[18:12] submitted within 30 days of the passage
[18:14] of the ordinance.
[18:16] that matches up with the fact that an
[18:18] ordinance does not take effect for 30
[18:21] days. So basically within the time frame
[18:24] between passage and effective date,
[18:27] that's when the people can organize and
[18:33] file the petition for the referendum.
[18:37] Um
[18:40] I'm just going to jump ahead to 9.2.1
[18:43] for a minute.
[18:45] This section is not really reflected in
[18:49] the new language about zoning.
[18:58] If it's an ordinance, it can still be by
[19:00] referendum, but there's not a section on
[19:03] zoning in the new language.
[19:06] Um, I'm going to go ahead and do 9.3
[19:12] and then jump back over to
[19:13] >> What's the reason for that? Is there
[19:15] just no need for it to be separate?
[19:18] >> Um, it's again to in my personal opinion
[19:24] if
[19:25] changes are made by ordinance then they
[19:28] are already a eligible for referendum.
[19:32] any other change in zoning that would be
[19:35] by um other legislation such as um
[19:41] a variance or something like that
[19:45] which isn't even really by legislation.
[19:47] Um you don't want that up for the vote.
[19:50] So I don't know that there really should
[19:52] be special rules for zoning.
[19:56] you
[19:57] >> there's there's certain instances where
[20:01] um planning commission or board of
[20:03] zoning appeals can just make the
[20:06] judgment. It's not a a referral to
[20:09] council. So I think in th is that what
[20:11] you're trying to say is that in those
[20:13] cases those shouldn't be up for
[20:16] referendum.
[20:17] >> Yeah.
[20:20] >> Anytime that it's a referral to council
[20:23] that's when it's an ordinance.
[20:26] So any change to the zoning code has to
[20:29] occur by ordinance.
[20:31] So if the issue
[20:34] are there others I don't know about.
[20:36] Okay. You just reacted a little bit.
[20:38] Okay. Okay. [laughter] Okay.
[20:39] >> Okay. Um so because it's an ordinance,
[20:43] it's able to be referendum and so really
[20:47] it's kind of duplicative and setting up
[20:51] potentially a conflict. In my opinion,
[20:55] >> I think there are times that it's more
[20:56] administrative in nature of, you know,
[20:59] record a record plaid or some, you know,
[21:01] record a a plan or something like that
[21:03] where it doesn't again go across
[21:05] council's desk. So, I think they're
[21:07] trying to avoid that being up for
[21:09] debate.
[21:12] I will note last year we experienced
[21:16] some confusion
[21:18] between um zoning and ordinances when it
[21:23] came to a planned unit development and a
[21:26] planned unit development is passed by
[21:28] ordinance.
[21:30] So that is a circumstance where it would
[21:32] it could be subject to a referendum,
[21:35] but because the zoning section was in
[21:37] there, it became a little bit diluted
[21:40] and murky with how it was interpreted
[21:43] and there were different interpretations
[21:45] from that. So I agree with the law
[21:47] director if this section is taken out,
[21:49] it would abolish that confusion.
[21:54] There's also aspects on the PUDS where
[21:59] the first part is passed by ordinance
[22:01] and is clearly eligible for referendum.
[22:05] Other parts down the road related to
[22:07] that PUD are passed by um legislation.
[22:12] And so then it becomes a question of
[22:15] wait a minute, if this original vote was
[22:19] ref able to be referendum, why aren't
[22:21] these other votes related to that PUB
[22:25] able to be referendum? I don't know if
[22:28] those are real words. We're just going
[22:30] to go with that's proper English at the
[22:32] moment. Um, and so again, that section
[22:36] is partly what's creating that chaos
[22:38] when it comes to things like PUDS. So,
[22:41] it takes the whole plan's been approved
[22:43] and now people are trying to pull parts
[22:45] out to Okay, that makes perfect sense.
[22:48] Okay.
[22:50] >> Um, I'm just again I'm going to go ahead
[22:52] and do 93 because I think doing the flow
[22:54] a little bit and then going to the new.
[22:57] Um, so under the current charter
[23:00] provision, um, I'm going to ignore the
[23:03] fact they have to be uniform in size,
[23:05] but essentially you present your
[23:08] petition to the clerk of council. Um,
[23:12] there needs to be what's called a
[23:14] committee of the petitioners and it can
[23:16] be no more than five. And um,
[23:20] >> why is that? the petition or the
[23:23] committee
[23:23] >> the committee
[23:24] >> so that there is a point person point
[23:29] group that is saying we are taking this
[23:32] on and we are responsible for it
[23:35] happening. Otherwise, you very well
[23:38] could have five different groups
[23:42] bringing a set of petitions for the
[23:45] exact same item and
[23:48] you know five people might be working in
[23:50] two of the three groups and just to
[23:53] create some organization.
[23:58] Um
[24:00] just like with other petitions, there
[24:02] has to be an affidavit of the circul
[24:04] circulator that they circulated the
[24:06] certificate certificate um the petition
[24:09] and got the signatures.
[24:12] Jumping to the new
[24:15] um here it says no less than three and
[24:18] no more than five. So we're putting a
[24:21] minimum number on that committee. Um and
[24:25] again
[24:26] they file a proposed ordinance or the
[24:29] referred ordinance um to the city
[24:33] manager. Now
[24:36] I guess I should have jumped to 94. That
[24:38] is fairly similar to
[24:42] what we have in the original which is in
[24:46] 94. Um it's just referring to the clerk
[24:48] of council which is the city manager as
[24:51] opposed to just referring to the city
[24:53] manager. Um
[24:57] we in and this language is a direct
[25:01] clarification from some confusion that
[25:03] happened in that incident that the city
[25:06] manager referred to. um the city will
[25:10] provide the petition under the new
[25:12] language so that what is provided they
[25:16] know they can rely on. Um they will then
[25:20] obtain the appropriate number of valid
[25:22] signatures for the petition which again
[25:25] is 15%
[25:27] just like the original language of the
[25:30] number of electors who voted at the last
[25:32] general election held for the office of
[25:34] governor in the municipal corporation.
[25:37] So we're being very specific what last
[25:40] election is being referred to.
[25:44] Um, and then for
[25:49] I'm sorry, that's for initiatives. For
[25:51] referendums, it would take 10%.
[25:53] So, you're switching out that number.
[25:57] The logic behind that is that you want
[26:00] to show more buyin from the electorate
[26:03] that the
[26:06] item being put on the ballot by the
[26:08] electorate is wanted by the electorate.
[26:12] The referendum number can be is
[26:15] sometimes considered to be a lower
[26:17] percentage because it's more the
[26:21] electorate saying wait a minute
[26:24] we want to review what you guys have
[26:26] done.
[26:28] Do those percentage have to be
[26:30] different?
[26:31] No. You could make them both 15%.
[26:35] I would not vary from the 15%. It's kind
[26:38] of a solid
[26:40] uniform number that's used for these
[26:43] situations. But that is one item for you
[26:46] all to consider is whether it should be
[26:49] lower for a referendum than an
[26:51] initiative.
[26:55] Um
[26:58] once the number of
[27:02] s signatures have been acquired then it
[27:05] gets filed with the board of elections
[27:08] as well as with the city manager.
[27:11] Um note again that in the new language
[27:16] the 30 days is
[27:20] for a referendum.
[27:22] The filing has to occur to the board of
[27:24] elections within the 30 days. So again,
[27:28] it matches that when it takes effect,
[27:31] they have to have the petition filed.
[27:34] Um
[27:36] then the board of elections does their
[27:38] review regarding the required and valid
[27:40] signatures and the city managers to
[27:43] notify the petitioners whether or not
[27:45] they were able to meet the standard.
[27:51] with that
[27:54] um once it's filed with the board of
[27:55] elections, it will be suspended from
[27:58] taking effect. So, in other words, the
[28:01] ordinance passed will not take effect
[28:04] until the vote occurs.
[28:06] Um or
[28:08] the board of elections determines the
[28:10] petition was insufficient, the petition
[28:13] is withdrawn, council can still repeal
[28:16] the ordinance.
[28:18] um and then after the vote.
[28:22] So, let's kind of stop there for a
[28:24] second and talk about each of those
[28:27] items. Um
[28:32] you may say,
[28:34] why would they withdraw the petition?
[28:38] It very well may be that there's, for
[28:42] lack of a better term, negotiations
[28:44] going on between council and the
[28:48] community members about what the issues
[28:51] are. And so council may be agreeing to
[28:54] take steps to amend or otherwise address
[28:58] what the issues are in that. Um, it very
[29:03] well may also be that while they've
[29:07] gotten the correct number of signatures,
[29:10] they're facing a lot of opposition
[29:13] from the rest of the community or
[29:16] they're realizing the rest of the
[29:17] community does not agree and agree to
[29:20] pull it. So there does it happen often?
[29:26] No. But there are times it could
[29:28] [snorts]
[29:29] and you want that avenue so that you
[29:31] don't have to have something go to a
[29:32] vote that no one wants to go to a vote.
[29:40] Um I'm going to stop there.
[29:44] Thoughts, questions up to that point or
[29:48] do you guys want to keep going and then
[29:50] do it all at once? I thought it might be
[29:52] helpful to just kind of break for a
[29:53] minute and digest. I think this is a
[29:57] good pause to check in.
[30:02] » Sir,
[30:03] >> I've got a few
[30:04] >> go
[30:05] >> questions on this. So,
[30:06] >> if that's all right with Madam Chair.
[30:08] Absolutely. Please. By all means.
[30:10] >> Um,
[30:15] saving some of the other portions for
[30:17] later. Um it's very well written this
[30:21] section
[30:24] and this will be a question that is now
[30:25] but also revisited later but
[30:28] coming from the board elections pers
[30:30] perspective why do we not refer or is
[30:32] there a reason not to refer to the
[30:34] revised code for the guidance on how to
[30:39] initiate and conduct both the
[30:41] referendums and the initiatives. I would
[30:45] say the thought process is that home
[30:48] rule
[30:50] so that you're not going back and forth
[30:52] between the charter and the revised code
[30:56] and trying to figure out what melds and
[30:59] doesn't meld when you're on the
[31:01] petitioners committee and even for the
[31:04] city trying to maneuver this. I think we
[31:07] want it all in one location so that
[31:10] there isn't confusion about what is and
[31:13] is not required. Does this part of the
[31:15] charter change that type of situation?
[31:21] See? All right. Um, the other question I
[31:24] had is on the petitions. Who is
[31:26] reviewing them for sufficiency? Not only
[31:29] as to number but to form because the BOE
[31:32] has in here the requirement to review it
[31:35] for sufficiency of signatures. But then
[31:38] in 93 has the requirement to also review
[31:40] it for just sufficiency.
[31:42] >> I believe it's all the BOE. So if the
[31:44] all the BOE then is the BOE required
[31:47] then to use only the charter and if
[31:49] there's a conflict between the charter
[31:51] and the revised code at a county
[31:52] government level where do where does the
[31:54] BOE fall this
[31:56] >> in that decision because that that comes
[31:58] up uh the BOE can't certify
[32:02] >> the BOE can certify to the charter that
[32:04] it complies with the charter.
[32:05] >> Yeah,
[32:05] >> that's that would be their job there.
[32:07] >> It would have to be entirely in this
[32:09] then. So you're asking the board not
[32:11] only to certify the number but now for
[32:14] the sufficiency of the petitions.
[32:16] >> Correct.
[32:17] >> Even if that petition is missing
[32:18] something that a revised code would
[32:20] otherwise require.
[32:20] >> The revised code that would not but it
[32:23] would not be required here because it's
[32:24] not in the charter.
[32:29] » This happens. I mean I know where you're
[32:30] going from. Logically it's odd to us.
[32:33] >> We had it happen. Yeah.
[32:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um due to the number of
[32:37] charter cities in the general area,
[32:41] this happens quite a bit where there is
[32:44] confusion at the BOE.
[32:47] Oops. We probably should have certified
[32:49] that because it complies with the
[32:51] charter or vice versa. Um so they are
[32:55] familiar with the concept. It wouldn't
[32:58] be new to them. But what I'm hearing
[33:00] from you is if we're not going to
[33:03] reference the
[33:06] OC that we put more detail so that they
[33:11] have a checklist kind of of what to
[33:13] certify against.
[33:17] » I think a requirement that no offense
[33:19] Kurt the city manager's office is the
[33:21] one or some and the council is the one
[33:24] that is certifying the form the
[33:25] petitions. the BOE is only being asked
[33:27] to certify the number would clarify that
[33:30] easily because we're already a very long
[33:33] article on this, longer than a lot of
[33:35] our almost every single neighboring
[33:38] jurisdiction.
[33:39] >> Um, so
[33:41] I would not put the city manager
[33:45] certifying the form. You want a neutral
[33:48] party certifying. So, I would take it
[33:51] out of the city manager and out of the
[33:55] law director or anyone in Vanelia
[33:58] certifying it.
[34:00] >> I think I may have been mis mis
[34:02] let me rephrase that if you will.
[34:04] Certifying the form of the a form of the
[34:06] petitions prior to their submitting
[34:09] them.
[34:09] >> Yes. So, the form
[34:10] >> is already done. The form is already
[34:12] clear.
[34:12] >> Correct.
[34:13] >> Uh and at that point
[34:15] >> only the
[34:17] board of elections is certifying the
[34:18] number. correct. They technically would
[34:22] certify that it's correct, but the form
[34:24] given out by the city manager should
[34:28] be the form is is what I'm
[34:32] >> think so.
[34:32] >> Yes, we're on the same page there. Yes.
[34:34] Yes. I didn't understand what you
[34:36] were saying. Yeah. Um the form that is
[34:39] handed out by the city um should have
[34:44] all the nuts and bolts of the form if
[34:49] it's going to come from the city. Yes.
[34:52] And I think we can clarify that a little
[34:55] bit in here
[34:58] without adding length.
[35:01] I have general heartburn whenever asking
[35:04] the outside agency who has to b you know
[35:06] is bound by the OC to certify something
[35:09] that may be in conflict with the OC if
[35:11] it's not carefully done
[35:14] >> understood
[35:15] >> it will cause conflict in heart
[35:17] >> and then go to common police court
[35:21] >> we won't
[35:22] >> no sure um does that do you think making
[35:27] it clear that
[35:30] the form term handed out from the city
[35:32] manager shall comply with all aspects of
[35:36] the charter or something along those
[35:38] lines.
[35:39] >> I'd like to personally see something up
[35:40] in 92 in the middle there or the very
[35:42] first paragraph where the petition uh
[35:45] that the forms provided by the the city
[35:48] manager conform to the charter but also
[35:51] to the OC uh so that there's not a
[35:53] conflict there. But then also under 93A
[35:57] where it says uh um there's a final
[36:01] termination of insufficiency u identify
[36:04] whether or not we're asking
[36:04] insufficiency of the form or
[36:06] insufficiency of the number of of
[36:08] signatures
[36:09] and would recommend we do only the
[36:11] number of signatures. That way we're not
[36:13] asking the BOE to also get in conflict
[36:15] with this city and the council to say,
[36:18] "Well, your petitions aren't valid for
[36:20] this other reason over here, which by
[36:23] the way, we'll give grounds to whomever
[36:24] is challenging it to bring a lawsuit."
[36:28] >> Correct.
[36:30] >> But if it's if it's simply the number of
[36:32] signatures,
[36:34] that's a it's a that's a straightforward
[36:37] direct ask.
[36:42] Let's
[36:44] We're obviously going to look at this
[36:45] again next week or two weeks from now.
[36:48] So, let me play with it a little bit.
[36:50] Um, let me talk to the city manager a
[36:53] little bit because I know there have
[36:55] been some issues in this community in
[36:58] the past and so I want to make sure I
[37:01] fully understand what those were so that
[37:04] we don't have that problem.
[37:06] >> Thank Sorry to take up that much time.
[37:12] Um, anything else kind of up through
[37:15] 93?
[37:22] I feel like we need a dry erase board.
[37:24] Just map everything out.
[37:29] Um, okay. So,
[37:32] over in the picking up from 95
[37:39] um in the old language
[37:43] at the next
[37:45] meeting
[37:47] and this is part of the reason why the
[37:49] old language is confusing. We're back on
[37:52] initiative in the middle of what had
[37:54] been kind of about referendums but about
[37:57] both. But um if there is an initiative,
[38:01] council is to consider it within 30
[38:03] days. Um
[38:06] there can be public hearings, they can
[38:09] reject the ordinance or pass it in a
[38:12] different form. Um
[38:15] and then that that committee of
[38:17] petitioners
[38:20] can be required
[38:22] to
[38:24] can be asked whether or not a modified
[38:28] ordinance that was passed by council
[38:31] should be put on the ballot.
[38:33] Um
[38:37] 96, if there is a referendum, the
[38:40] ordinance does not take effect.
[38:44] And then 97 addresses essentially what's
[38:49] on the ballot. Um the vote is either for
[38:53] the ordinance or against the ordinance
[38:57] and then we have the election results.
[39:00] So, going back to the new language,
[39:06] if a petition has been deemed sufficient
[39:09] by the board of elections,
[39:11] um, council is to determine whether or
[39:14] not all of the requirements under the
[39:16] law and the charter have been met. And
[39:19] if those requirements have not met, the
[39:22] petitioners committee has 21 days to
[39:25] resolve the deficiencies or cure the
[39:28] deficiencies.
[39:30] Um,
[39:32] presuming they are curable.
[39:34] >> So, does that 30-day window
[39:39] the 30-day window then they have 21
[39:42] days? Like those kind of stack on top of
[39:44] each other, right? Okay.
[39:45] >> Yes. Yes. Now, [clears throat]
[39:49] If
[39:51] let's say the petitioner committee
[39:54] [snorts]
[39:55] steams right through and gets what they
[39:57] think are the number of signatures
[39:59] within 14 days. It's not like you're
[40:01] waiting till
[40:04] we get to 30 days to continue. So they
[40:07] stack but they also run Yep.
[40:08] >> consecutive. Okay.
[40:11] Um
[40:12] if they are cured
[40:16] then council is to
[40:19] uh acknowledge the validity of the
[40:21] petition and file that within the board
[40:24] of elections.
[40:26] At that point, then council is to take
[40:30] the appropriate action to place the
[40:34] measure on the ballot.
[40:40] B just makes it very clear that council
[40:43] at any time can reconsider its prior
[40:45] actions and either modify or repeal the
[40:49] ordinance that's been brought up for
[40:50] referendum.
[40:52] if
[40:54] the council passes a proposed ordinance
[40:57] and so this would be a referendum or I'm
[40:59] sorry an initiative issue without
[41:02] changes in substance
[41:04] um
[41:06] and which the peti the petitioner
[41:08] committee essentially is their sounding
[41:11] board on the initiative. So if they pres
[41:14] if the petitioners committee presents
[41:16] something and council says great idea
[41:20] but what about this would work better
[41:22] and the petitioners committee agrees
[41:25] then council can proceed with passing
[41:27] that
[41:29] um amended ordinance or yeah amended
[41:33] initiative.
[41:34] It can also repeal the referred
[41:36] ordinance
[41:38] after notice. Um,
[41:42] if they I apologize. If they take either
[41:44] of those actions, then a notice of
[41:46] withdrawal is filed with the board of
[41:47] elections essentially. So, if council
[41:50] takes care of the initiative by passing
[41:52] something or appeal or repealing the
[41:57] referendum item, then it come gets taken
[42:01] off the ballot.
[42:05] They also um can take such action as to
[42:09] simply just p place it on the ballot
[42:13] and then it takes a resolution
[42:17] to file the notice of withdrawal or the
[42:20] acknowledgement of validity. The reason
[42:22] it takes a resolution
[42:24] is if it was an ordinance, that
[42:26] ordinance would be open to referendum.
[42:30] So you could get into a cycle
[42:33] of referendums on one issue.
[42:37] Um so that's why it's very clear that step is by resolution.
[42:46] Um
[42:48] it's then held at the next regular
[42:50] municipal election
[42:53] which can't be more than or less than 75
[42:56] days or more than a year later.
[42:59] And um
[43:03] council can request a special election
[43:05] in order to comply with that section.
[43:11] It can an initiative or referendum may
[43:14] be withdrawn
[43:16] prior to the fifth day preceding the day
[43:19] scheduled for the election.
[43:25] And at that point it shall have no
[43:26] further force in effect essentially.
[43:30] So,
[43:31] let's break that those two down just
[43:34] slightly.
[43:36] Um,
[43:42] to me, that time frame for the vote
[43:45] makes sense just because if we're in an
[43:48] off-year cycle or something like that,
[43:51] there aren't a lot of election dates
[43:54] necessarily held in the state of Ohio.
[43:57] So it avo at attempts to avoid having to
[43:59] have a special election.
[44:04] It also avoids
[44:07] something being passed right before
[44:11] an election that's already scheduled and
[44:13] people scrambling to try and get it on
[44:15] without the electorate really being
[44:17] aware it's on the ballot. So I think
[44:20] that time frame makes logical sense even
[44:25] though it seems kind of a long time to
[44:27] go before a vote on a initiative or a
[44:30] referendum.
[44:34] the withdrawal of the petition.
[44:37] Um
[44:41] I believe and I did not check this even
[44:45] if it's withdrawn I believe the city the
[44:48] city would still have to share in its
[44:51] cost or its portion of the cost for that
[44:56] ballot item even if it's withdrawn.
[45:01] So,
[45:04] the side of me that says, "Hey,
[45:08] getting it off the ballot as much as
[45:12] possible is great.
[45:14] Five days may seem a little short to me
[45:18] or close to the election to me because
[45:23] if I'm correct, the city's going to bear
[45:26] the cost. It's let's say there's five
[45:28] other things on the ballot. it's one6
[45:31] cost of holding that election.
[45:34] Um, and if it's a special election,
[45:38] they're bearing the whole cost of that
[45:39] special election and you've withdrawn
[45:41] something 5 days before.
[45:45] Um, so I view that as a potential for
[45:48] creating confusion. That said, I do not
[45:52] know or have an idea what would be
[45:57] a better time frame. I just see that as
[46:00] being a
[46:06] potentially concerning issue that could
[46:09] lead to other concerns
[46:12] type of thing.
[46:22] What's the significance? Why five days
[46:24] out? Did that just count out right with
[46:26] the 21 and 14 days? That's what I don't
[46:29] know where the five came from. Um,
[46:34] Clayton, Clayton or Union, whichever one
[46:37] this comes from, one of those over
[46:38] there. Um, that's just how that was the
[46:42] time frame they had in there and I left
[46:44] it since we were using it as the model.
[46:51] » But in order to avoid the cost, isn't it
[46:53] like more than 30 days prior?
[46:56] >> Mhm. So if anything's running late,
[47:00] light's late, right?
[47:01] >> Yeah.
[47:02] >> 10 days, five days, doesn't matter.
[47:04] >> Yeah. I mean, you'd either have to make
[47:05] it a significantly long to take it off
[47:09] the ballot prior to the election or
[47:12] you're kind of stuck with this issue.
[47:14] Yeah.
[47:16] And at that point, if you're kind of
[47:17] stuck with the issue, I get the five
[47:19] days. You're close, but
[47:22] you're off. So it's that
[47:25] >> I feel like it'd have to be 60 days if
[47:27] you were going to try to avoid the cost
[47:29] because there would be like mail in you
[47:32] know there's a huge leadin time
[47:36] for the ballot
[47:37] >> 70 days
[47:39] >> seven I want to confirm that but seven
[47:41] days for a secretary of state to get
[47:42] certify the ballots the board boards of
[47:44] elections we have to have everything
[47:45] done well before then
[47:48] >> yeah
[47:49] so probably the five is yeah That seems
[47:53] Yeah.
[47:54] >> Yeah.
[47:57] >> Okay. Um
[48:00] just some general provisions and I'm
[48:03] just going with the new at this point.
[48:06] Um
[48:11] there should be notice of the initiative
[48:12] or referendum as required by the
[48:15] charter. So that publication on the
[48:18] website, the social media, presuming
[48:20] that gets adopted, and the two public
[48:23] buildings, um, emergency ordinances
[48:26] cannot be used to repeal or amend an
[48:30] ordinance enacted by initiative or
[48:32] reenact an init an ordinance that has
[48:34] been repealed by referendum. So there's
[48:36] no getting around what happened.
[48:40] um they can use a non-emergency
[48:42] ordinance to repeal or amend an
[48:44] ordinance enacted by initiative. Um but
[48:48] it takes five council members, not the
[48:51] normal four.
[48:53] And again, they can reenact something
[48:55] that was repealed by referendum with a
[48:58] vote of five. [snorts]
[49:03] If the county board of elections does
[49:05] not take any function as requested,
[49:09] then the clerk of council may do so.
[49:15] Um,
[49:19] and then 96 essentially says if the
[49:22] charter silent, it goes back to the Ohio
[49:24] Revised Code or the Ohio election laws.
[49:30] creates a confusion
[49:32] if but again goal is not to
[49:35] >> could do what's what Ketering and Tip
[49:37] City do and just say go to the RC
[49:40] >> you could
[49:42] >> but
[49:47] » so how often has this or has it ever
[49:50] occurred I find it amazing that we have
[49:53] oh five of you can undo what your
[49:55] elector just voted in that
[49:58] >> it seems like a giant wast waste of
[50:00] time, a giant waste of money, and a good
[50:02] way to get yourself unelected next
[50:04] round. But why would we do that if
[50:08] threearters of Vanelia just because
[50:10] council doesn't like it, if the voters
[50:12] like it, that's kind of what you're up
[50:14] in this seat for?
[50:15] Um, I'm going to say exactly what you
[50:18] just said because if [clears throat]
[50:21] they
[50:23] you can't you have to have just because
[50:26] the voters voted a law in does not mean
[50:31] that it can't be un
[50:36] it's not then written in stone never to
[50:39] be adjusted again. So, there's got to be
[50:42] a way that it's undone.
[50:45] Um, I'm going to be kind of flip or
[50:49] sarcastic with my example. Um,
[50:53] you could have the electorate
[50:56] put an [clears throat] initiative that
[50:58] would violate federal housing law.
[51:03] Council's got to do something to undo it
[51:05] because that could affect their the
[51:07] grants that the city receives, things
[51:09] like that. Um that's the I you know the
[51:15] dramatic example. Um but exactly what
[51:19] you said would you know theoretically if
[51:21] the city felt strongly about whatever
[51:25] was passed by initiative and council
[51:29] repealed it then the public can recall.
[51:34] the public can take referend or um take
[51:38] action at the next election.
[51:42] To answer your question about how many
[51:44] times has initiative or referendums ever
[51:46] been done, I do not recall in my adult
[51:50] life Tip City ever having one. I do not
[51:54] recall in my entire life, [snorts] I
[51:57] just wasn't as paying as much attention
[51:59] Tip City ever having one. May there's a
[52:02] vague memory of discussion of one, but I
[52:05] don't recall on tip and I don't think of
[52:06] any I don't have a good feel for
[52:09] Vanelia, but I'm not aware of
[52:12] anything in Vanelia.
[52:14] >> I think when we looked last year
[52:16] historically, the last one was in 2002
[52:19] if I'm recalling correctly. Last
[52:21] initiative.
[52:26] I know that
[52:30] I I don't know exactly the date, but
[52:33] when I checked in our record archive and
[52:36] what is on our um retention schedule,
[52:40] we did not have it because you're only
[52:43] supposed to keep it for five years. So,
[52:45] there were but I had to do some digging,
[52:48] but I think that's approximately the
[52:51] date, the year.
[52:53] >> So, it's rare there. There's a lot, this
[52:56] is one of those areas that there's a lot
[52:58] sometimes of we're going to do it,
[53:02] but then that's part of the reason for
[53:04] the petition committee is who's going to
[53:07] take the lead? Who's going to do it? And
[53:09] so it kind of fizzles out over time.
[53:13] >> What if because this this section caused
[53:15] me a lot of heartburn as well for the
[53:16] same reason. Uh what if we did what some
[53:20] other cities have done and [snorts]
[53:23] put in there that the issue cannot be
[53:26] revisited for say two years for example
[53:29] >> and that would be
[53:30] >> but we could also to to preserve the
[53:34] intent and the will of the voters. But
[53:36] then at the same time to make sure that
[53:38] we don't violate
[53:40] a superseding law of some sort, we put
[53:43] in there that it is that that um that
[53:46] two-year restriction would be waved uh
[53:51] in matters where the
[53:54] >> public health
[53:56] >> well
[53:57] matters that's uh cause conflict for a
[54:01] direct conflict to state or federal law.
[54:05] Uh so if if they if we change the law by
[54:07] voters and they said something that
[54:10] clearly violates housing law, federal
[54:12] housing law is absolutely discriminatory
[54:14] in every sense of the word. Well,
[54:16] council can then come in and say, "Okay,
[54:18] this should not have passed. I don't
[54:19] know what everyone was thinking. We'll
[54:20] be subject to, you know, recall later
[54:22] on, but we need to do something so we
[54:24] don't violate federal law." In that
[54:27] case, we could w Yeah. put in quick
[54:29] language to wave
[54:31] >> that restricted period.
[54:34] >> If we
[54:34] >> I think that makes sense.
[54:36] >> Yeah.
[54:37] >> But shouldn't something that extreme
[54:39] have been stopped by the BOE?
[54:42] >> N really conflicts with federal law?
[54:46] Okay.
[54:46] >> BOE does not judge what is put on the
[54:49] ballot. They just judge whether or not
[54:51] it's
[54:52] >> got signatures and backing,
[54:54] >> the sufficiency of the petitions. Got
[54:56] you. Got you. And I suppose there a as I
[55:00] asked the question and started thinking
[55:02] about it, it could be five years down
[55:04] the line line that council wants to
[55:06] because something's changed in the
[55:08] world. But yeah, maybe you you put a
[55:11] year or twoear hold on it.
[55:12] >> We find out it didn't work and instead
[55:13] of have everyone to go through the whole
[55:15] process again, okay,
[55:17] we have to live with consequences of
[55:19] revotes for a couple years. Is it when
[55:22] you since you did some research um was
[55:25] it normally two because I would have
[55:26] gone with one
[55:29] >> I mean there are different ones but two
[55:30] seem to be the one that was
[55:31] >> kind of consistent
[55:32] >> in the middle of council term also
[55:34] didn't put you in the middle of an
[55:35] election year uh for a general election
[55:38] that would cause other problems if that
[55:40] resolution itself were then
[55:43] not that if that were then challenged
[55:45] and how would we go back and do that and
[55:47] so you're not calling for special
[55:48] election in a general ginatorial
[55:50] presidential
[55:51] So
[55:54] >> I mean the math makes sense. I from a
[55:59] whatever perspective I have at the
[56:01] moment I would have probably said one
[56:05] but again I get the math part.
[56:12] By the way, my goal with this tonight
[56:15] was to do work our way through have a
[56:18] lot of conversation about it and then be
[56:21] given direction on those kind of things
[56:24] to talk about it next week, two weeks as
[56:28] well. Um, and recognizing this is
[56:31] probably going to come up a third, like
[56:34] take two or three of these meetings to
[56:36] really
[56:39] nail down what Vanelia should look like.
[56:47] » Is the language that's in section 95 of
[56:49] the proposed red redlettered, is that
[56:53] common in other city charters or just
[56:57] Clayton's?
[56:58] >> Yeah. So,
[57:00] the initiative and referendum sections
[57:03] really vary on the level of detail. Um,
[57:07] I do not recall seeing it in the other
[57:10] ones that I looked at, but
[57:15] this is definitely um
[57:19] more detailed in the other sections than
[57:22] a lot of them are.
[57:26] that I hope that made sense.
[57:33] » Where did you pull this?
[57:35] >> Clayton
[57:38] >> or Union.
[57:39] >> It's Clayton. Thank you. It's or as I
[57:42] think of it, one of those two over
[57:43] there.
[57:59] So let me ask this. Having heard the
[58:05] conversation,
[58:07] I think I know the direction
[58:11] you're thinking. Um there are also some
[58:14] things that have raised in my mind based
[58:17] on your conversations that could be
[58:19] cleaned up a little bit as well. um or
[58:22] at least I need to think about cleaning
[58:24] up a little bit as well. Do you think
[58:27] we're at the point for me to just make
[58:31] those revisions to present it the next
[58:34] time or do you think there's other
[58:36] discussion?
[58:41] I'm good with that plan. Others
[58:45] » I'm good with that plan. Does everybody
[58:48] else have any other commentary?
[58:51] Nothing.
[58:53] >> So, you'd send us a new version out and
[58:55] then we could add our comments back in.
[58:57] Okay. Yeah. I need to digest a little.
[59:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. And this is exactly
[59:02] originally we were going to do this last
[59:03] just because
[59:05] it's a lot and then I realized we're
[59:08] going to need two or three meetings to
[59:10] really handle this.
[59:15] Okay. Um
[59:18] that takes us to
[59:21] starting on September 5th 5th 10th
[59:28] um items which were pretty
[59:30] straightforward and I do apologize again
[59:33] about getting them out to you late last
[59:35] night. Um but they're not meaty. They're
[59:39] kind of straightforward. So um and again
[59:44] we can talk about them next time as well
[59:47] if need be. Um the first one is article
[59:51] 55 5-1 the appointment and
[59:53] qualifications for the city manager. Um
[59:57] this one
[1:00:00] apparently I forgot to take out the word
[1:00:02] removed removal. Um, essentially just
[1:00:04] clarifying that his appointment is until
[1:00:09] he's removed pursuant to the charter
[1:00:11] requirements or
[1:00:14] resigns.
[1:00:16] And the word removal should be marked
[1:00:18] out before removed. That was just a
[1:00:20] grammatical change I was making.
[1:00:27] » I don't think we let him resign.
[1:00:34] It it's really interesting looking at
[1:00:38] surrounding charters um how detailed
[1:00:42] this can get. Um I would say this is one
[1:00:46] that to me
[1:00:48] being clear but not
[1:00:52] specific makes a lot more sense.
[1:01:01] any or were you were you okay with that
[1:01:03] one?
[1:01:05] None. Okay. Um the next one on salary of
[1:01:10] the city manager is just to make it
[1:01:12] clear that that's a resolution, not an
[1:01:14] ordinance. It's currently required to be
[1:01:16] an ordinance.
[1:01:18] >> We striking the word ordinance.
[1:01:20] >> We are. What happened to my strikeouts?
[1:01:23] The additions got added but not the
[1:01:29] Okay. Next is removal of the city
[1:01:34] manager.
[1:01:35] Um, again, this is one where I'm looking
[1:01:39] for feedback as to how we may want to
[1:01:43] um proceed.
[1:01:46] So
[1:01:50] council
[1:01:53] can take action to remove the city
[1:01:55] manager
[1:01:57] 30 days prior to that. They're to notify
[1:01:59] the city manager of their intent, state
[1:02:03] the cause,
[1:02:05] immediately suspend him or her, and then
[1:02:09] appoint someone to take on those duties.
[1:02:12] After that notice, the city manager may
[1:02:15] request an appearance and they should re
[1:02:18] grant that request within two weeks
[1:02:20] after it's received. After full
[1:02:23] consideration, council may declare the
[1:02:25] city manager removed.
[1:02:27] Um
[1:02:29] action resulting in suspension or
[1:02:31] removal shall be by resolution requiring
[1:02:34] five members vote and it's final.
[1:02:40] It's not the structure is there or I
[1:02:44] should say there is a structure there.
[1:02:46] However, when you look at
[1:02:51] union and tip again, there's just a lot
[1:02:55] more clarity over certain things. So in
[1:02:59] union
[1:03:01] it breaks it out between a probation
[1:03:03] period or I'm calling it a probation
[1:03:05] period of six months and after that um
[1:03:10] if it's after 6 months the manager may
[1:03:13] demand written charges and the right to
[1:03:15] be heard at a public meeting
[1:03:17] and then um
[1:03:20] council may suspend the manager during
[1:03:24] that period. Um
[1:03:27] it is in it is clear that it is the
[1:03:30] intention of the city that the charter
[1:03:33] vests all authority in the council as
[1:03:36] far as the removal.
[1:03:38] Um
[1:03:42] so not necessarily a lot more detail
[1:03:45] than what Vanelia has but just very
[1:03:53] straight and to the point.
[1:03:56] Um, TIP, as we have seen in many of
[1:03:59] their provisions,
[1:04:01] um, lays out a very specific, you've got
[1:04:05] a preliminary ordinance,
[1:04:08] um, which states the reasons for
[1:04:10] removal. So, it's all public action,
[1:04:12] public record, um, which may suspend the
[1:04:15] municipal manager. Then five days after
[1:04:18] that, the manager may file a written
[1:04:20] request for the public hearing, which
[1:04:22] then is held within 15 to 30 days later.
[1:04:27] Um, council then may adopt a final
[1:04:30] ordinance of removal, which is again
[1:04:33] majority plus one. And um,
[1:04:38] again, it's clear that someone is
[1:04:40] appointed to fulfill their duties.
[1:04:48] Really the question in some ways is
[1:04:52] you know TIP has the structure of it's
[1:04:55] very clear there is a vote there is a
[1:04:57] suspension there is the right to be
[1:04:59] heard there's a second vote
[1:05:07] the way Vanelas is currently written
[1:05:11] it says should removal become come
[1:05:14] necessary council 30 days before the
[1:05:17] effective date will notify the manager
[1:05:19] of such intent. It's not clear how
[1:05:24] if they if they've taken a vote is that,
[1:05:28] you know, a public action. Is it we
[1:05:30] think this may be the case, so hey,
[1:05:32] we're giving you 30 days notice. That's
[1:05:34] where it becomes a little
[1:05:39] vague.
[1:05:44] Now
[1:05:46] I who like rules and like checklists
[1:05:49] like the two vote situation.
[1:05:52] What tips doesn't have is it doesn't
[1:05:55] have the nimleness
[1:05:57] when there is a
[1:06:04] dramatic
[1:06:05] emergency type of situation happening
[1:06:10] i.e. stealing from the city or
[1:06:12] something. Um but you call a special
[1:06:16] meeting, you take a vote. So there is
[1:06:18] nimleness in there. If there is
[1:06:21] something like that, you just have to
[1:06:22] wait 24 hours.
[1:06:30] Let me ask a question on this because I
[1:06:32] do I'm like you. I like the vote, but I
[1:06:35] also
[1:06:37] marked that when conduct is you like
[1:06:40] stealing from the city, we there should
[1:06:42] be a way to take care of it immediately.
[1:06:46] But if that's the case, we have and his
[1:06:50] or her salary for two months. If you're
[1:06:53] stealing from the city, I still have to
[1:06:54] pay you for two months.
[1:06:58] I'm used to at will and they can remove
[1:07:01] me tomorrow.
[1:07:03] >> So, yeah. So, theoretically using my
[1:07:06] dramatic stealing from the city,
[1:07:11] that would probably be something that
[1:07:13] would be
[1:07:15] addressed. Um, but again, it's not
[1:07:19] necessarily going to be 2 months because
[1:07:21] if you have a special meeting 24 hours
[1:07:24] later, you're looking at 30 days at most
[1:07:27] that the person would still be employed.
[1:07:30] So, we're not necessarily bound by any
[1:07:33] of the
[1:07:35] language and tips or that concept if we
[1:07:38] didn't want to go that way. So, we can
[1:07:40] pick and choose. Did that address your
[1:07:42] question?
[1:07:44] >> I think so. I just I just think we
[1:07:47] shouldn't write into law. I mean, we've
[1:07:50] had people removed fairly quickly, and
[1:07:53] I'd hate for in law for us to be paying
[1:07:56] somebody additional salary when they
[1:07:59] didn't work out within a 90-day period
[1:08:01] or within six months even. So,
[1:08:04] >> I forgot that the two months was in ours
[1:08:06] in Vander. No, I agree with you on that.
[1:08:09] have that in there
[1:08:11] >> because it kind of points to I got to
[1:08:13] pay no matter what happens.
[1:08:15] >> One one of the things that we would want
[1:08:17] the charter to be
[1:08:20] specific enough yet vague enough that
[1:08:23] there could be a suspension without pay.
[1:08:30] But we also
[1:08:32] in
[1:08:36] we don't want it so vague that you also
[1:08:39] have
[1:08:40] because as I tell clients when you're
[1:08:43] writing an operating agreement you're
[1:08:45] not writing for your current
[1:08:46] relationship. You're writing for the
[1:08:47] relationship down the road. We also want
[1:08:51] to write it there where there is some
[1:08:54] protection for the city manager from a
[1:08:59] not aggressive a um what's that word
[1:09:02] starts with an a
[1:09:04] >> vindictive
[1:09:04] >> well that works too vindictive council.
[1:09:07] Yeah. So we we want flexibility for the
[1:09:10] city but we also want protections for
[1:09:12] the city manager
[1:09:13] >> and we want to be able to hire the next
[1:09:15] one.
[1:09:15] >> Yes. Yeah.
[1:09:19] What about a suspension with pay until
[1:09:22] the hearing?
[1:09:24] It's almost like a probable cause
[1:09:26] finding.
[1:09:27] >> I think at that point, um, it's not
[1:09:31] necessarily the hearing, it would be
[1:09:32] whatever that final action is.
[1:09:35] Um, and I think instead of saying
[1:09:41] with pay, with or without pay, so that
[1:09:44] again council's not forced to pay
[1:09:47] somebody who's stealing from the city.
[1:10:00] I like the way Tip works it out. I think
[1:10:03] it is uh works out with the notices, the
[1:10:06] requirements. It protects both the
[1:10:08] council and the city manager. Neither
[1:10:11] one's going to get a windfall if he's
[1:10:13] steal if he or she's stealing from the
[1:10:15] city.
[1:10:17] The charges are going to get the money
[1:10:19] back as well. Uh so
[1:10:25] I like the way they've done it.
[1:10:34] more of an overarching question. You you
[1:10:36] kind of pointed out early on that our
[1:10:39] current charter is very vague in every
[1:10:42] section and some of these others i.e.
[1:10:46] tip city is very descriptive. If we
[1:10:49] start putting in some of these more
[1:10:52] descriptive sections, does that start to
[1:10:56] do we need to do that for all of the
[1:10:58] sections to be more cohesive or is that
[1:11:00] okay that we kind of have it pieced out?
[1:11:03] Do you see what I'm saying?
[1:11:04] >> I think the sections where we are
[1:11:06] getting more detailed are ones that
[1:11:08] require more detail.
[1:11:10] >> That's fair.
[1:11:10] >> And kind of stand out. That said, it
[1:11:13] could be putting the charter on a path
[1:11:16] that when this is done again in five
[1:11:18] years,
[1:11:20] it keeps going in that more detailed
[1:11:23] direction.
[1:11:24] >> Got it.
[1:11:27] Then yes, I agree that city's version is good.
[1:11:31] >> I see what you're saying. We don't want
[1:11:33] to hamstring council with here's
[1:11:34] everything and you're just, you know,
[1:11:37] formulaically doing the jobs up here.
[1:11:39] So,
[1:11:42] Yeah, I mean I and I guess just
[1:11:43] cohesiveness of the document of you know
[1:11:47] some some sections are one sentence
[1:11:49] others now we're adding abs and c's to
[1:11:52] every you know which we don't currently
[1:11:54] have. I think this is very valid. I just
[1:11:57] from a big picture standpoint want to
[1:11:59] make sure that by using neighboring
[1:12:01] communities language that we're not
[1:12:04] creating a bigger issue I guess.
[1:12:06] >> No. And you'll see like in the
[1:12:08] referendum one, I didn't know how to
[1:12:11] structure part of it because it didn't
[1:12:13] [clears throat] the structure didn't fit
[1:12:14] within the Vandelia structure. So, I've
[1:12:17] got some
[1:12:18] work to do on that. Um
[1:12:22] I think for this situation where it
[1:12:27] it's essentially creating the due
[1:12:28] process.
[1:12:30] >> I agree. Yeah.
[1:12:31] >> For both sides, it makes sense. I don't
[1:12:34] have to necessarily structure it with
[1:12:36] the A, B, C, and D. That's a lawyer
[1:12:38] thing. That's a
[1:12:39] >> I think it's a clarity thing.
[1:12:40] >> I personally think it's very nice and
[1:12:42] neat and clear.
[1:12:44] >> And so, you know, when you do read our
[1:12:45] sections, it's all one paragraph and it
[1:12:47] kind of gets jumbled together and you
[1:12:49] have to kind of really
[1:12:50] >> think through what they're saying,
[1:12:51] whereas this is very clear what the
[1:12:53] intention is. I'm not in disagreement.
[1:12:55] Very much this person.
[1:12:57] >> Yeah. So, it's one of those things where
[1:12:58] I could actually take what we talk
[1:13:00] about, smash it into one paragraph, and
[1:13:04] it will look like the rest of Vandelius,
[1:13:06] and it would be the same impression of
[1:13:09] vagueness in some situations. So, that's
[1:13:12] why I don't think we're necessarily
[1:13:15] making it inconsistent. It's just part
[1:13:18] of how it's also presented.
[1:13:20] >> Yeah. No, I I I think I understand where
[1:13:22] you're going. certainly need more
[1:13:25] >> detail um because we have had situations
[1:13:27] that the detail the lack of detail has
[1:13:30] left
[1:13:31] >> Fandelia in a precarious situation and
[1:13:33] so I do think this is important I just
[1:13:35] want to make sure big picture that we're
[1:13:36] not
[1:13:37] >> yeah piecing together and now our
[1:13:40] document is
[1:13:42] not where it start
[1:13:47] I know exactly where you're going yes
[1:13:49] >> um
[1:13:49] >> well are there sections we should go
[1:13:51] back and look at separation ating
[1:13:53] paragraphs, too.
[1:13:54] >> That would still require a ballot
[1:13:56] initiative. So, if we're not making
[1:13:58] substantive changes, we don't want to
[1:14:00] mess with
[1:14:03] the section.
[1:14:04] >> Okay.
[1:14:04] >> Because um
[1:14:07] Brookville Brookville hadn't done it in
[1:14:09] how long?
[1:14:13] » 15 plus years. And I think they had
[1:14:16] 50ome. Yeah, there were a lot
[1:14:19] >> charter recommendations to council,
[1:14:22] which obviously
[1:14:24] counville's
[1:14:26] council is not going to put 50 on the
[1:14:28] ballot all at once. Um, so we don't want
[1:14:31] to necessarily if we're making a
[1:14:33] substantive change, yes, we can do that.
[1:14:37] If we're not, we just want to
[1:14:39] >> leave alone. We do still have like the
[1:14:41] abs and cs. So that's not outlandish
[1:14:43] that we're adding that in. I just
[1:14:45] devil's advocate. Just want to make sure
[1:14:47] we're considering that.
[1:14:52] » So, what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm
[1:14:55] wrong, use tips as the guidelines and go
[1:15:00] from there. Okay.
[1:15:03] Um, next is, and don't think we're
[1:15:07] getting September 10th off, everybody.
[1:15:09] We're just going to move up other ones
[1:15:11] that we were going to consider. um
[1:15:15] the planning commission and actually we
[1:15:18] might as well look at 71 and 74 together
[1:15:22] because they're similar situations.
[1:15:25] Um right now
[1:15:28] both the planning commission and the BZA
[1:15:32] have a rollover problem. All right now
[1:15:36] four of the five planning commission
[1:15:37] seats are full. There is a vacancy.
[1:15:41] All four roll off at the same time.
[1:15:44] There is no staggered seat right now at
[1:15:48] the planning commission. Um the BZA is a
[1:15:51] little bit better. There is a vacant
[1:15:53] seat. Three roll off simultaneously as
[1:15:57] required by the charter and then there's
[1:16:00] one loan person and then the vacant
[1:16:02] seat. So I didn't want to go into a lot
[1:16:06] of detail because
[1:16:09] that would have become very convoluted
[1:16:12] and complicated to fix the planning
[1:16:14] commission
[1:16:16] immediately after passing the charter.
[1:16:18] So my solution was to say okay going
[1:16:22] forward there will be five planning
[1:16:24] commission um members. I do have some
[1:16:27] cleanup language that I noticed a bit um
[1:16:30] that I'll tell you about in a minute.
[1:16:31] Um, but there'll be five members
[1:16:33] appointed by council and they will be
[1:16:38] serving three-year staggered terms.
[1:16:41] And then at the end, I just said to
[1:16:44] create the staggered terms, council may
[1:16:46] appoint members for a term of less than
[1:16:48] three years. So that way, while it's not
[1:16:52] ideal that we're dealing with this in
[1:16:54] 28, is that when you guys roll off
[1:16:58] in 28? in 28 they can deal with, okay,
[1:17:02] this person's getting appointed for one
[1:17:03] year, this person's getting appointed
[1:17:05] for two years, as opposed to trying to
[1:17:08] lay out how that was going to work now
[1:17:11] because we theoretically could have two
[1:17:14] vacancies at that time. Um hopefully
[1:17:18] not, but that's always a possibility.
[1:17:20] So, um, it also avoided having to go
[1:17:25] have conversations with current
[1:17:28] commission members or BCA members
[1:17:29] saying, "Do you mind if we cut your
[1:17:31] term? We hope you come back, but can we
[1:17:34] cut your term?" type of thing. So, um, I
[1:17:37] thought that was the better way to
[1:17:39] address that. Um the correction I needed
[1:17:42] to point out was I think we needed to um
[1:17:47] make it clear that
[1:17:50] the and between council and the city
[1:17:52] manager is not about the appointment but
[1:17:56] the fact that the city manager is the
[1:17:58] exeicio member of the planning
[1:18:01] commission. So I think the easiest fix
[1:18:03] to that is either to list the city
[1:18:06] manager first to say there shall be a
[1:18:09] planning commission with the city
[1:18:10] manager as an exeicio member and
[1:18:15] five electors appointed by council or
[1:18:17] just make that a separate sentence.
[1:18:21] So that's an easy fix but wanted to
[1:18:25] bring that to your attention. I have a
[1:18:27] question. As the deputy clerk of council
[1:18:29] who sends the um BCA and planning
[1:18:32] commission members that are coming off,
[1:18:34] they're their terms are expiring. How
[1:18:37] was that going to work then as far as
[1:18:39] staggering the terms? Is that set by
[1:18:41] council then?
[1:18:43] >> Yeah. So, so what would happen is at
[1:18:46] that point, I'm just planning
[1:18:48] commission's the easiest one to use
[1:18:49] since they all roll off together. Um
[1:18:52] there would be a notice essentially of
[1:18:55] your term is expiring.
[1:18:59] Um
[1:19:00] council will will have already figured
[1:19:03] out what the staggered terms would look
[1:19:04] like and then we theoretically would ask
[1:19:07] them are you open to filling one of
[1:19:09] these seats. I would expect there would
[1:19:13] be an explanation at a meeting prior to
[1:19:15] that to explain what is going on and why
[1:19:18] as well.
[1:19:20] So typically these members are then
[1:19:22] voted in at the June meeting because the
[1:19:25] 30th is when
[1:19:28] >> June is when all their terms expire. So
[1:19:31] we're saying maybe like the May meeting
[1:19:34] there's a study session and then that's
[1:19:36] when council determine does it have to
[1:19:38] be done by legislation?
[1:19:39] >> No. So what would hap this this isn't
[1:19:42] going to just be an one situation. there
[1:19:45] would be sitting down like we would
[1:19:47] present to council what the seats are.
[1:19:50] Um I would expect that much like now you
[1:19:54] would advertise there is a seat for one
[1:19:57] year, there's a seat for two years,
[1:19:59] there's a seat for three years and the
[1:20:01] public could again apply for whatever
[1:20:03] seat they would want to do in addition
[1:20:06] to
[1:20:08] those currently on it.
[1:20:13] And that's for like the vacancies.
[1:20:15] >> Mhm.
[1:20:15] >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.
[1:20:17] >> Like for the vacancy that's there now,
[1:20:19] if you got an applicant for that vacancy
[1:20:22] now, um theoretically council could go
[1:20:25] ahead in order to help start that
[1:20:27] because otherwise we'd have five um
[1:20:31] rolling off simultaneously. Um go ahead
[1:20:34] and make that a one-year
[1:20:37] appointment.
[1:20:40] Now th does this leaves that ability to
[1:20:43] stagger those terms. If 10 years down
[1:20:45] the road, four of them leave town
[1:20:48] altogether they move away. You now have
[1:20:51] to restart your staggering.
[1:20:52] >> You don't have to restart the staggering
[1:20:53] because it's now clear that they're
[1:20:56] filling a vacant
[1:20:57] >> vacant. Okay.
[1:20:58] >> That the vacancy is to fill the term
[1:21:00] >> as opposed to starting a new three-year
[1:21:02] term. I think that's how that it got off
[1:21:05] was
[1:21:07] um they
[1:21:08] >> people either people left it once or it
[1:21:11] was just one of those things of when
[1:21:13] people started they just started a
[1:21:15] three-year term as opposed to filling a
[1:21:18] vacancy.
[1:21:29] That said, um, city manager and Miss
[1:21:34] Schwarz, if as you think about this, you
[1:21:37] think it's a logistical
[1:21:39] nightmare, let me know and we'll figure
[1:21:42] it out. A better better way of doing it,
[1:21:44] too.
[1:21:44] >> No, I don't think so. As long as as long
[1:21:47] as it's clear to council that that's you
[1:21:49] know we're doing we're staggering the
[1:21:50] terms one to two to three years and then
[1:21:52] how we are identifying the current
[1:21:55] members that if they want to seek
[1:21:58] reappoint
[1:21:59] which which ones are going to take the
[1:22:01] one to two to three
[1:22:02] >> I I think we can make it
[1:22:04] >> I think so. Yes.
[1:22:05] >> Yeah.
[1:22:09] So that's
[1:22:12] Oh yeah, nominations.
[1:22:15] This is an interesting one when you
[1:22:17] start looking at it. So this is about
[1:22:20] what the number of signatures it takes
[1:22:22] to get on the ballot for council or
[1:22:25] mayor. Um,
[1:22:28] currently we have 75 as the requirement.
[1:22:31] You'll notice that was adopted in 2015.
[1:22:34] I do not know what it was before. Um
[1:22:38] the question was ra
[1:22:40] >> it was a percentage.
[1:22:41] >> Oh okay it was a do you remember what
[1:22:43] the percentage was? Okay. Um the
[1:22:46] question has was raised. I do not know
[1:22:49] where the question raised came from
[1:22:51] about whether or not 75 should be
[1:22:53] higher.
[1:22:54] Um so in just looking at
[1:22:59] communities around us tip only requires
[1:23:02] 25. Um, I thought unions was interesting
[1:23:06] in the fact that they have a different
[1:23:08] number for mayor than they do council.
[1:23:12] Um, but 50 seems to be
[1:23:16] pretty consistent
[1:23:18] um of a number. So, Vanelia is already
[1:23:22] higher. Again, this is one of those
[1:23:25] where really doesn't matter what the
[1:23:27] surrounding communities do. It's just
[1:23:28] whatever Vanelia wants to do. I was just
[1:23:31] using it as a
[1:23:33] guide a mile marker for people. Um, I
[1:23:39] have no real
[1:23:43] thoughts on this. Um,
[1:23:47] I would say my one thought that I would
[1:23:52] I think is a little odd is that if an
[1:23:55] elector signs more than the maximum
[1:23:57] petitions, his or her signature shall be
[1:23:59] boyed except for the ones filed first.
[1:24:04] My perspective is if someone wants to
[1:24:06] run and they ask me to sign the
[1:24:08] petition, I'm going to sign it because
[1:24:09] if they think they should run and would
[1:24:11] do a good job, they should be on the
[1:24:12] ballot and let the people decide. That's
[1:24:14] how I was raised. That's not necessarily
[1:24:17] the view of everyone else. But you're
[1:24:19] putting on the going back to um Mr.
[1:24:23] Blaine's thought you're putting a kind
[1:24:25] of an onus on the board of elections to
[1:24:27] count. Oh, we've seen that signature
[1:24:30] >> twice previously.
[1:24:32] >> We had that issue happen. I think it
[1:24:34] [clears throat] was city of Dayton and
[1:24:36] uh it wasn't clear which one was filed
[1:24:37] first or signed first and the city had
[1:24:39] to go back and redo and it was a
[1:24:41] nightmare to say the least. So,
[1:24:44] >> so I would suggest taking that language
[1:24:47] out. Um
[1:24:49] >> what does it serve? Does it stop
[1:24:52] anything? Is there like if there's three
[1:24:55] seats open and I sign four of them, that
[1:24:58] just means I want the choice of all four
[1:24:59] of them when I go to vote. So, does it
[1:25:03] serve anything that you're aware of or
[1:25:05] you're aware of?
[1:25:06] >> To me, what it does is it essentially
[1:25:09] says that you as an elector,
[1:25:13] there are three seats. So,
[1:25:15] theoretically, you should only be
[1:25:17] looking you should only be supporting
[1:25:20] three people. It makes the concept that
[1:25:23] if you sign a petition, you are
[1:25:24] supporting that person for election.
[1:25:27] That's not how I personally view
[1:25:29] petitions. That's not how a lot of
[1:25:30] people view petitions. It's more about,
[1:25:34] hey, can you get the signatures to get
[1:25:35] on the ballot? There are a lot of people
[1:25:38] though that will not sign a petition if
[1:25:40] they're not planning to vote for them.
[1:25:42] So, that's where that that clearly comes
[1:25:44] from that mindset.
[1:25:47] >> There's no purpose. I mean it's a race
[1:25:49] to the u the bee at that point and it's
[1:25:53] [snorts] it's almost impossible to say
[1:25:55] you know Eric signed you know four
[1:25:57] petitions but which four filed first and
[1:26:00] three f
[1:26:01] >> yeah I I agree it's
[1:26:05] please remove it that's my
[1:26:07] >> I would vote to take that out okay
[1:26:11] >> I think 75 is fine I don't know that we
[1:26:13] need to lower it I I think 75 is easily
[1:26:16] attainable I don't know if we need to
[1:26:19] increase it though. I
[1:26:22] >> think it takes some work to get 75
[1:26:24] signatures. It does. It's It's not easy.
[1:26:27] >> It's not. And usually for the purposes
[1:26:29] we're talking about, you get way more
[1:26:31] than that. But I mean, we've had very um
[1:26:35] healthy
[1:26:37] elections with a lot of people that have
[1:26:40] come to the table and put their their
[1:26:42] name in the ring and they have gotten
[1:26:44] the required signatures. So I think I
[1:26:46] think 75 is fair.
[1:26:48] >> Yeah,
[1:26:48] >> I wouldn't lower it, but I also don't
[1:26:50] know that we need to increase.
[1:26:54] >> I think I don't know where that question
[1:26:56] came from, especially seeing the
[1:26:58] benchmarking from the other communities.
[1:27:02] >> Well, I would say the 75 also
[1:27:05] forces you as a voter to know that that
[1:27:08] person talked to other people in the
[1:27:10] community. Absolutely.
[1:27:11] >> Because before you sign it, you're
[1:27:13] going,
[1:27:13] >> "What? Why do you want to run? What are
[1:27:15] you standing for? It's a few more people
[1:27:18] that heard their voice. So, when it came
[1:27:21] to election day, they're slightly more
[1:27:23] educated than the postcard that went
[1:27:25] out.
[1:27:27] >> So, I Yeah, I 75 I've never gone to try
[1:27:31] and canvas 75 signatures in Vanelia, but
[1:27:34] if it's not killer,
[1:27:35] >> then [clears throat] why why change
[1:27:37] that? I would change the
[1:27:39] >> You can't sign more than because I'm not
[1:27:41] counting. If somebody asked me and I
[1:27:43] think they'd be good. [clears throat]
[1:27:43] I'm going to count.
[1:27:45] >> Well, yeah. If somebody files later, but
[1:27:47] you already signed your three, but you
[1:27:48] really like number four and now you
[1:27:51] can't support them. That seems
[1:27:53] >> And practically speaking, they're
[1:27:55] getting more than 75 signatures. My
[1:27:57] guess is they're probably aiming for 100
[1:27:58] to 125. Yes.
[1:28:00] >> I think the general rule is three, you
[1:28:01] know, no more. Do we want to put in
[1:28:03] there something like they're, you know,
[1:28:04] that caps how many they can submit?
[1:28:07] >> Oh, is that why this is 50 to 100? So,
[1:28:10] the union is capped. you have to have 50
[1:28:13] but don't get any more than 100. Is that
[1:28:15] why that says 50 to 100 signatures?
[1:28:17] >> My guess is that's there because of the
[1:28:19] whole situation that a lot of times um
[1:28:24] using Butler Township and Vanelia,
[1:28:27] someone may not realize that they're a
[1:28:29] Butler Township resident, not a Vanelia
[1:28:31] resident, and so they've signed the
[1:28:32] petition, their vote doesn't or their
[1:28:35] ballot doesn't their signature doesn't
[1:28:37] count towards the petition. So, the
[1:28:39] range is probably just, hey, if you've
[1:28:42] gotten 55, but five of yours gets
[1:28:45] knocked off, you're fine. If you've
[1:28:47] gotten a hundred and five of yours get
[1:28:49] knocked off, you're fine.
[1:28:51] >> Yeah.
[1:28:51] >> So, I don't know that it's actually a
[1:28:53] cap. I think they're just saying the
[1:28:55] petition has to have that number
[1:28:57] >> of valid signatures.
[1:28:59] >> And does have that requirement on there.
[1:29:01] You know, you must have x amount, but
[1:29:02] not more than three times x amount.
[1:29:04] >> Yeah.
[1:29:04] >> Submitted.
[1:29:06] >> And it's pretty standard. I think school
[1:29:08] board is the same thing. 75.
[1:29:13] » Okay. So 75 leave but
[1:29:19] take out the maximum number you can
[1:29:22] sign. Okay.
[1:29:26] That is all for the evening.
[1:29:31] Um
[1:29:34] I will circulate an updated
[1:29:39] referendum and initiative separately
[1:29:42] from the next packet just so you can
[1:29:46] continue to consider research. Um if you
[1:29:52] in your as you are researching any
[1:29:54] thoughts um not that you have to but if
[1:29:57] you want to read other charters um and
[1:30:00] you have an idea please feel free to
[1:30:02] call me and let me know um and I can
[1:30:06] work that in or put it in notes for the
[1:30:08] next meeting as well.
[1:30:11] >> Thank you everyone for your time
[1:30:12] tonight. I will accept a motion for
[1:30:14] adjournment if there's no other
[1:30:16] comments.
[1:30:17] >> So moved.
[1:30:19] >> Second. Second. All those in favor? I.
[1:30:21] All those opposed. We are adjourned at
[1:30:23] 7:02.