Personnel Advisory & Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Charter Review Commission. The date is Wednesday, 01/29/2025. The time is 07:02PM. I'll start with a roll call. Mister Hall? Present. Mister Trainer? Present. Miss Norman? Here. Miss Villarney? Here. Miss McCoy? Here. Mister Hoover? Here. Miss

Griffith? Here.

And I think mister Ryan was scheduled to be absent, but even without you and quorum, and also note for the record that solicitor Pittsburgh is present as well. Next item on the agenda would be approval of minutes. But mister Pitchford, if you could swear in mister Hoover since he was not here at the meeting a couple weeks ago.

Would you please raise your right hand and repeat after me? I, John Hoover

I, John Hoover.

Do solemnly swear

Do solemnly swear

that I will support the constitution of The United States

That I will support the constitution of The United States.

The constitution of the state of Ohio.

Constitution of the state of Ohio.

And the charter and codified ordinances of the city of Hudson.

And the charter and codified ordinances of the city of Hudson.

And that I will faithfully.

And I will faithfully.

Honestly and impartially

Honestly and impartially.

Discharge the duties as a member

Discharge the duties as a member

the Charter Review Commission

the Charter Review Commission

for the city of Hudson

the city of Hudson. Hudson.

County Of Summit

County of Summit

State of Ohio State of Ohio. During my continuance in set office.

During my continuance in set

office. Thank you. Welcome aboard. Next item three a on the agenda is approval of minutes. We have the minutes of our previous Charter Review Commission meeting on January 9. You should have all received it via email and had a chance to it at your leisure. Do I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

Is there a second?

I second.

So motion was by miss Griffith, seconded by miss Villarney to approve the minutes as prepared. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Objection. Chair, I've

been stating as well since I wasn't present. Okay. I was gonna do abstentions after that. But none opposed and abstentions. So, you know, it'll be easier. I'm just gonna do a roll call motion just to be done. So miss Griffith?

Yes.

Mister Hubert? Abstain. Miss McCoy? Yes. Miss Billery? Yes. Miss Norman? Abstain. Mister Trainer?

Yes. Mister

Hall? Yes. And myself? Yes. So that is six votes yes, none opposed, and two abstentions. The abstentions were mister Uber and miss Norman, and which carries. Next item four is correspondence commissioner comments. The only thing I have noted that we received after we received the packets were separate comments from council member Sutton that were emailed out to us yesterday. Do any other commissioners have any other correspondence or comments to report before we move on? No.

Next is item five, which is public comments. We have two parts to the agenda of public comments. One before we do things and one after we do things. So this is item five. Is there anyone who'd like to address the commission, mister Sutton?

Hi. Excuse me. For the record, Scott of Sutton, 2243 Ravenna Street. But I am here in my capacity tonight as councilman for Ward 3. I as chair noted, I had sent out an email with just everything I've sort of collected from myself and residents and council over the last five years since the last one.

I'm not gonna read it verbatim because you have it digitally, but I I thought I'd breeze through and just gonna give you a couple thoughts on it. So the very first one, this one actually is from me and I actually do think I I'm gonna put a plea out that I actually think this is something you guys should really discuss. We have this weird little loophole of the board of elections doesn't give us our certificate of election until middle to late December, but we get sworn in in early December. And it creates this strange situation of terms technically expiring or people not technically having things from the board of elections that you're supposed to have before you take a seat. Asking around to some of my peers, looks like most of the other communities are doing January swear ins, sort of starting the new year with a swear in.

So food for thought. It is a little it was a little strange. My my very first time having never been through the election process swearing in and then a couple weeks later getting something from the board of elections that says, congratulations. Here's your official documentation that says you were elected. So the the second one, this is also from me and some residents that I've talked to as well.

It's kind of a movement's the wrong word, but it's a it's a there's some growing interest around the concept of ranked choice voting and it's a different style of voting. So instead of just saying, this is my favorite person out of all the choices, you rank all the choices. So if there were four choices, you'd rank them one through four. And the idea is that if nobody gets to 50%, the one with the least amount is eliminated and whoever voted for them, their votes go to their second choice. And you do that again until somebody eventually gets to 50%.

So the idea is that in order to win the election, somebody will get to 50%. It's sometimes called an instant runoff election. So rather than holding runoff elections, you can do it electronically instantly. I gave you an actual real world example of of a situation here in Hudson. I took all the names out because it's not important who the names are.

But in that situation, somebody took the seat with only 30% 38% of the vote. So it it is a situation that has occurred here in Hudson and I think it's worth discussing. I know STOW is also gonna be discussing this a lot in the next couple months with their charter review and I noted that Cleveland Heights and Lakewood has their charter review actually recommended that they add ranked choice voting as an option. Next one on the list, I've had some residents comment about the form of government, a strong mayor versus a strong council. I just wanna go on the record as saying I'm in full support of our current form of government.

I really think the the the manager council mayor works quite well. It allows for some continuation across election cycles and it's it's leveraging career professionals rather than some of our peer communities where the administration is headed up by an elected official who's a resident. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it means that they may not bring career professional to the job. They may not know how to run a public works department or things like that. The next one, Emergency Spending Authority, we had a discussion at council a couple months ago about this.

I believe missus Pawalski might have been the one who brought this one up. The long and short is our charter limits the manager to spend 25,000 without a council approval. And the concern was what happens if there's an emergency? Can the manager spend anything they want in an emergency? Are they limited to the 25?

My personal opinion is it's not an issue. A, I don't think any council would hold a manager over the fire for doing something in emergency to rectify an emergency but more importantly, Ohio does actually allow us to call emergency meetings. Typically, need twenty four hour notice but there are actually carve outs for this is an emergency, life liberty or life property, etcetera etcetera. You can call an emergency meeting and I think everybody on council would show up in their pajama pants to to make whatever approval is necessary to, you know, fix a collapsed road or something. So my personal opinion, I I don't think it's a problem.

But again, I'm gonna give you guys everything I've heard and I'll let you guys argue about those later. The next one, I'm not even gonna comment on it just that beyond that people have mentioned it which is the the pay for council and the mayor. Obviously, I have an ethical conflict with that so no comments. The last two around boards. The there's been some discussion, some of this came from residents, some of this came from board members but the the idea that some boards are emblazoned

in

our charter, I think Planning Commission, BCBA, a few a tree commission and other boards are created by council. And some of the some of the boards have actually said, well, we'd love to be a chartered board and have, you know, more power and more duties. My personal opinion, I actually think we have too many boards in the city. I've tried to carve that list down and make it smaller. An interesting idea I'd heard was the idea of sort of expiring boards unless the Charter Review Commission decides to elevate them to chartered boards.

Technically, there'd be nothing preventing the council from just immediately reestablishing the board but it does create a nice dialogue every five years about the various boards. So that's an idea. And then the last one is I think some of you may have actually discussions or or mentioned this to me but the idea of a residency requirement on various boards, right now it's a two years before you can serve on the board. I personally feel that's appropriate. I think I think I would like to see that folks are vested in the community before they're on the boards.

I can kind of buy the argument that some of the boards might have a little more a little more flexibility but something like a planning, a BCBA, anything like that, absolutely. I think you have to stick with the two. I personally would like to see it stay on all of them but just food for thought. That's all I had. I didn't know if you had any questions, chair, or if you just wanted me to make a statement and be done.

Any questions, Taylor?

I'm sorry. Yeah. Go ahead.

Could could you what for the boards and commissions to be chartered versus defined by council, what's the difference?

Literally, in the charter, some of the boards are spelled out. It'll be it'll have this many members, their powers are this, they I don't know if the meeting schedule is defined, but the the powers and duties are clearly defined. Other boards, EAC is a good example, that's completely at the whim of council. So council created that board. Some of them we've trying to think what's a good example of one that's not even codified.

Military and veterans is codified. So that was a new one and we actually we put that into the codified ordinances so it would take a vote of council to get rid of it. But there are other boards where council president can just establish a board and it it exists until council president decides it doesn't exist. Okay. And so we we do have a couple different levels of boards.

Yeah. So

our port is chartered and some of those are chartered as you look in here. That's the difference. Okay. Yep. I understand. Tree Commission.

I had a question as well.

For your point about the two

year residency requirement, think the language says two years preceding appointment. It it wasn't immediately clear to me whether that and I'm just asking your thoughts on what you've spelled out here. Is that you know, the we revive we review the two years. Is that consecutive years, total years, current years? I'm just thinking of somebody who may have lived in Hudson a year or skipped a couple years and come back. What are your thoughts with regard to how many years total and kind of how those year stack up?

Yeah. We've had some discussions about that of, you know, what happens if I lived here for eight years and then I moved away and then I came back and and it always comes down to how long were they gone? How long you know, what it's such a it's so sticky. There's no there's no good way to really put some definitive rules around it because the problem you have is let's say somebody lived here for eight years as a child, moved away for thirty years and then came back. Well, do they really understand the community enough to jump right into of those boards? But, yeah, I that's for you guys to debate. Sure. Just some food for thought.

And a follow-up to that, with regard to the feedback you received, have you ever seen feedback about different residence requirements by board or is it just collectively across all boards?

Right now, it's collective, but that was one of the the discussions I've had with residents is, well, you know, maybe planning commission requires two years, but maybe military only requires six months or something. That's certainly something you guys can debate.

Question about the ranked choice. So say a community wants to go ahead with it, council approves it. Mhmm. Do we know the board of election has the capacity to facilitate that?

Yeah. So I I've actually talked with a few folks who are in the ranked choice movement in in the area and they've they've had conversations with the board of elections. The software that Summit County uses is capable of it. They have not purchased the upgrade to do it because nobody in Summit County currently does rank choice. But the vendor they use for their machine tabulation, it's just like a software upgrade that they have to purchase from them.

Any other questions for mister Sutton? Maybe you wanna follow-up

to the ranked choice voting.

Mhmm.

So if there's four candidates, six candidates, and the the voter only selects three

Mhmm.

It still factors into the the math.

Correct. Yeah. They they the term that they use for that is expired. There's there's the potential for a ballot to become expired if somebody didn't pick all six or didn't rank all six choices.

Okay.

So they would they'd work through their first three and if all three of those got eliminated, that ballot

Doesn't really count?

Yeah. I I hate to say that doesn't count because that's such a bad way of saying it but there's nowhere else put that ballot. So it kinda goes into this pile that they call the expired pile and it just doesn't count for anyone.

Mister Sutton, one more I'm sorry. One more follow-up to the ranked choice. So in an instant like this, it sounds like many of us may not be familiar with the process or we've met never been a part of it. So you're educating us right now.

Yeah.

What does that look like to the public? I mean, we'd have to essentially if we put this into place, we'd have to communicate, we'd have to educate on how to cast a vote, how Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And well, technically, be up to the county on how the county implements it.

Sure.

I've seen it done two ways. So one one form is they give you four questions. I'm using the example of four candidates. They give you four questions and you just, you know, who's your first choice, who's your second choice, who's your third. Technically, could fill the same bubble out for the same person, all four. You would get expired if that that ballot would be expired if that person didn't didn't carry forward. Mhmm. The other way is they've done it sort of like a six column or four columns, you know, fill one bubble in each column. That unfortunately wouldn't be up to the city to decide that's a county thing. It's it's gonna come down to how their software and their machines produce that that ballot that looks like that.

Great. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions? Thank you, mister Sun.

Thanks for listening.

These comments will be added to the the chart that we've that has been built for us already. Any other comments? Mister Foster?

Chris Foster, 7303 Waltersbrook. So I have a few items that I would like to suggest as well. The first item is section three dot o three, which we'll sit on for the second item as well. Under three dot o three, it's the section of the charter that refers to the duties of the council president. The council president oddly is not named the liaison to city staff, and so my suggestion would be that the president council being the liaison to city staff shall remain informed of communications between members of council and the city staff by fellow council members.

There's no specified duties of the council president since we've taken away the ability for the council president, the mayor, and the city manager to set the agenda at workshops. That used to be one of the responsibilities of the council president. We now do those in public workshops, so that that so there's a lot more transparency in the process. But it has always been the case where the council president is liaison to city staff. Unfortunately, in recent years, we've experienced the fact that some council members say, well, it doesn't exist in the charter, I don't need to inform you of anything.

And so at least two council members have never emailed me about anything. I never get carbon copied on any communication they have with staff whatsoever. It's actually gotten to the point where when one of our committees actually requested input from me, it happened to be the environmental awareness committee. The environmental awareness committee asked me for a list of goals for the next year because I used to be liaison for them at one point, and I forwarded those goals. That council member insisted on blocking that input to the board and commission so that they were not in receipt of my recommendations for the next year because they were the liaison of the board and commission.

And the only way I found out about that was through public records request. So it's it's got a little silly and ridiculous, you know, that you can't just carbon copy the council president to keep them informed. It's not that the council president is looking to exert any authority. Every single member of council has the right to interface with with the city manager, certainly not direct city staff. And in that one particular case with the EAC, there was not only direction but intimidation of a staff member to ensure that those documents never went on to the EAC.

So I think it's important that the responsibilities of the council president be documented at least in some way that allow the council president to be clarified as the liaison to city staff. Item number two, current language under section three dot o three, the council the president of council may appoint committees of council to advise the council on any function of the municipal government. My suggested change would be that the president of council may appoint committees council to advise the council on any functions of the municipal government for a period of up to five years at which the committee shall dissolve unless extended by ordinance or charter. We have a lot of boards and committees and if council presidents just create them at will, they exist forever until you go through the process of dissolution. If a board or committee is so significant, so paramount to this community, that in the period of a five year window, it should become a charter committee.

If it's not a charter committee at that point, it really should cease to exist so that we can focus on charter committee responsibilities. Those are the committees that truly matter to this body over time. And so I'd like to put at least a sunset on how long a council president can create a committee for. Currently within the power, if any council president believed that the committee was important to the community, they can literally recreate it with a motion, and that committee can continue to exist. That currently exists.

So there's no reason that, you know, the committee should exist in perpetuity if the community doesn't feel that it's significant enough to be a charter. Item three, section three dot one zero, salaries. This is a minor one, but, you know, I believe it should be changed. So delete the sentence starting with any compensation, the mayor shall be fixed not less than one hundred and twenty days immediately preceding the date of the next municipal election and shall not change during the term for which the mayor was elected. And modify that sentence to read, the compensation of every officer, the mayor, or employee of the municipality as fixed by council shall shall be subject at all times to power of counsel to provide otherwise by ordinance or resolution and may be changed at any time at the discretion of counsel.

There's no reason that the mayor's compensation should be fixed during a window when counsel can change their own compensation, it will. And to tell you the truth in this case, I had wanted to change the salary of the mayor and unfortunately, I submitted that item to workshop within about eighty three days of the election. So I was seven days late, and now the mayor is, without the ability to have any comp compensatory change for the next four years. Seems a little ridiculous. The mayor is actually the least compensated person in the entire city council and mayor.

So it's and he is on salary. Council members are paid based on the number of meetings that they attend. Anyway, item number four, sections 7.01, 7.03 and potentially some additions. Elections for any administrative body that is the recipient of tax revenues as a source of funding shall be required to be held at the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd years in a manner consistent with public elections. We, as a council, forward levies for bodies that are property tax levies for bodies that are not elected at the regular municipal elections.

For instance, library. Library has no absentee ballots. They have no early voting. They are recipients of roughly 33% of the property taxes that the city garner from the property tax bills that we pay every six months. And I believe that if city council is forwarding that levy to a ballot, that the people responsible for managing that money should also be on the ballot.

So I believe that the library should be on a regular ballot in November right along with every other board member, council member, mayor, and everybody else. And if the library chooses to not accept public funds, then they should feel free to have their election anytime they want. But if it's property tax and council's putting that levy on the ballot, they should probably be on the ballot too. Number five, a suggestion, term limits. I guess section three dot one four would probably be where it would go.

Members of council may not serve more than twelve consecutive years regardless of ward or at large designation without a minimum of two year cool down between prior service and new service. Alternatively, you could limit to three full terms, period, without eligibility to run for future office. This just goes back to my fundamental belief that the government always works best when people are moved in and out, and having somebody on council for nineteen years is probably not in the best interest of city council. So number six, this is my last one. I'm sorry, there are so many.

Section 9.01. It was a little bit that's just one example because this example will exist in multiple boards and commissions. This happens to be on the planning commission. No member of planning commissions shall serve for more than three consecutive four year terms. The three year designation exists in several boards and people have actually been able to sidestep that.

In the past, we've had people serve the Planning Commission for two full terms and then move to BCBA and then move back to the Planning Commission for two more terms. And so they've actually served four terms. However, the way the language reads, if you serve three consecutive terms, you are not permitted to serve on that border commission ever again. Understand how that's going? So if you're it says, if you serve three consecutive terms, you're ineligible.

But if you serve two two terms on a board and switch to another board, you can go back to that original board for multiple terms. So I just think you need to it needs to be one way or the other. Right? There's either gonna be a cool down between the terms that you serve on a border commission or you limit it to three period, one or the other. It needs to be consistent. That same language exists both in appointments for BCBA, Architectural Historic Border Review, Planning Commission and multiple other places. That's

it. Thank you, mister Faster. A couple quick questions just for clarification. First, are we gonna get what you what you just read off to us in writing if

possible? Yes.

We can add it to the chart.

I will email it to

you.

Second, when you mentioned when you talked about 3.1 o salaries, you're you basically want the you're asking for council flexibility for both the mayor and the council. Is that

Currently, it's already in there for council, but there needs to be flexibility for the mayor.

Okay. And then when I was looking the next two, 07/17/2003, I heard what you were saying about the levy elections, and I was listening, but I didn't see where it was mentioned in either of those two sections.

Was I It wasn't mentioned. So my point is it needs to

be added. Okay.

It needs to be added that city council cannot forward a levy to a ballot if the purpose or the beneficiary of that levy is not also publicly elected. A regular municipal election.

So is there a limitation in there that you see that limits it just to publicly elected?

I mean, current currently, the only the only ballot item levy that we forward is for the library. You know, I I can't imagine the circumstance where we would allow other levies, you know, for other bodies. Like, I can't even imagine that. You know, but I would think that the fact that most people believe that library is a public institution, that's publicly funded, most people are not aware of exactly how the members of the library are elected. They're elected based on the available space within the library.

They're elected during a very finite window. There is no absentee ballot. There is no, thirty day window for early voting. It is limited to do you have time this afternoon to come into the library and jam yourself in there and cast a vote? We probably shouldn't be forwarding property tax levies based on that kind of election.

Okay. And then lastly, when you were talking about nine point o one, but basically, generally, the the term limitation verification for the boards and commissions, were you suggesting a preference for either a total limitation or a or or just pointing out the discrepancy in?

If if I were to suggest my own preference, it would be that you cannot serve more than three terms, period. Kind of the same thing for counsel. Three terms. I mean, that's twelve years.

Consecutive or not.

Period. Okay. Ever. To follow-up and clarify Now, you know, you you you guys can argue whether that's right or wrong. I mean, I know I've heard the member the members of League of Women's Voters have taken a position on term limits in small communities.

Their position is that term limits are counterproductive. They believe that in a small community continuity is a more significant issue. So I'll argue the counterpoint here. I understand that continuity important, but I also think that a term of twelve years with most boards and commissions having roughly seven members, you're going to have overlapping continuity. And what I've seen over the years is that allowing a couple individuals to have an overwhelming voice on one border commission is counterproductive to the interest of the community.

Can I follow-up on that and clarify? Do you mean twelve years or three terms on any commission or could you

Honestly, say support? So you would support if

you were on architecture and then you moved to a different commission and did twelve years, twelve years? That would be in bounds according to your

proposal? Okay.

Yeah. Because, you know, each border commission is so vastly different. Understand. Yeah.

A clarifying question as well. You're referring to only commit this being an issue with commissions and boards. You don't know I'm trying to quickly go through the the verbiage here. You don't know if that that also exists other places outside of boards and commissions?

That that exists in codified ordinances on the EAC. That exists exists in charter on the planning commission, BCBA, architectural and historic order review, multiple other boards. I'm just pointing out that one because it's the same example in every single one of them.

Thank you. Yeah.

And just to clarify for everyone for context, the five years ago, the language for every charter board and commission was changed to be consistent because they were kind of all over the all over the map.

So if if it if it is up that

the commission wishes to make a change and make it consistent, that can be done as well. You can have the discussion once. And then in addition, I was going to ask I had forgotten to mention before mister Sutton sat down that because he mentioned charter versus non charter boards and commissions. Five years ago, a a good comprehensive cheat sheet was put together with a list of every there's, like, 23. There might be more now with the military that was added, and there might there's another, I think, the tax incentive was combined

with something else. But if that list I don't know if

it fits on a single piece of paper,

but if that could be pulled up and and included for

everyone just so you could see it it it it shows what it is, how many members they have, whether it's created by the charter or by ordinance,

and it gives you a good eye a good idea without having to read through

the book or figure it out for yourself.

The ones that most people hear are the ones that are charters. So park, planning commission, BCBA, architects and historic border review, tree commission. I think cemetery is as well.

Yes. It is.

So you know? And then a number of the other ones may be required by the county. So tax incentive, tax review, I I believe they're required by the county, but many of the others are simply council created.

So the end Any other questions for mister Foster?

I have some questions, mister chair. Going back to the topic related to the the tax levies going on to the ballot, is would you just refresh my recollection on park board? Don't they have a piece of the tax pie as well?

They do.

And it and so how would you distinguish the library from the park board? The park board isn't up on the ballot, but they are appointed by elected officials. So would you see the tax or see the library board being a similar situation? You're not actually suggesting we have the county issued ballot have the library board members on? Am I right? Or are you suggesting that?

I am suggesting that. Okay. Yeah. So the park board is actually not able to spend money. The park board has allocated money. The park board's ability to spend money is based on council's discretion. The council is elected. So the park board cannot decide to put in a pickleball and authorize, you know, $1,700,000. That has to go through council, and that's an elected body.

But they can come up with a pickleball idea and say, hey, we should do pickleball and council they can either convince you or not is what you're saying.

Correct.

Okay. And so how would you would that be a similar distinction with cemetery board? And and the the thing I'm mindful of is that on a year to year basis, Cemetery Board is primarily a self sustaining agency. It's selling a product, but the product that it has is land, and they are running out of land and will if this is a city service, it's gonna be continued. So they would be similar in your mind to the park board since they don't have the authority to actually go out and buy land for a new cemetery, they would have to come to council and say, hey. Would you give us this gift of land because we need it for the the deceased?

Yeah. Multiple different tiers. So park board has actually allocated a certain amount of money into the park budget. It's an enterprise fund, but they it still requires council's approval. Right. The cemetery board is actually even kind of a step below that. City council approves a budget to allocate additional dollars into the cemetery board on an annualized basis. And so the cemetery board is in fact subsidized by a city council vote. Okay. So

Okay. And so and so going back then to the question related to the library board, would it be a reasonable alternative to have that board appointed by council as opposed to run I'm imagining an election system here where we for council, I know that the the election budget can run over 5 figures, which is the cost of what plastic signs on stakes cost. But by the same token, we are a small community and we we put a lot of money into that effort. How much how much more political signage can we handle for the library board? Is that something have do you think council would be open to having the library board stocked with a representative of or two, or the council would be willing to to to appoint that board?

And what's the mechanism by which that would happen?

I don't have the right to speak on behalf of all of council. I don't know where their heads would be on that. I my position is this. And and, you know, not everybody's on social media, but you probably all got your property taxes recently. So I got mine yesterday or the day before.

And I pay 350, $380 a year to the library and historical society. You multiply that by 8,000 households within the community and you're looking at 2,400,000. Right? We're consistently hearing that the tax burden on residents is very high. I think that if you're going to benefit from the taxes, if you're going to run some division for the city, that you are elected.

Whether that means that council has the ability to appoint a library board or whether the library board has a liaison from council and or need to be elected or that at least their elections allow for a thirty day window where it's not a three hour window on a random afternoon where you can walk in there. It just doesn't seem appropriate given the $2,500,000 that are garnered from property taxes that council authorizes.

No. I I'm understanding fully what your concern is on that. I just wanted to plumb your thoughts on all the ways that the that cat could be skinned that might so we sorta know what we're what we're playing with in in that Right. Thing. So I appreciate that feedback.

I know it's a tough one, but I think it's important.

Yeah. Any other questions for mister Foster? Just also for context regarding the library, it is a separate

separate creature of state. It's an

there's different ways that communities can can create libraries. There's municipal libraries. There's county libraries. What Hudson has is what's called an association library, which is completely separate, and there really aren't that many of them out there. And that's why the the members of the library board are elected by members of the association once a year,

and the members of the association are people who have library library cards who have to show up at a meeting in March.

But the tax is everybody there.

Well, yes. But they in order to put something while they're a creature of the state, they don't have the authority to place something on the ballot.

So they have they used to go through they they never had some

they never had property taxes until a certain point in time. And at first, I can't remember if they affiliated with the township because it covered before merger, which covered a larger area. They could also ask the school district to put something on the ballot in the school district's taxing district since it covers the larger Hudson area, not just the not just what's now the city. But they chose, at some point after merger, when they started talking about building a new library, to place something on the ballot and affiliate with the pre pre merger with the township and after merger with the city. Changing it, I'm not sure how that would work.

That would be something the solicitor would have to weigh in on, but that's just a little bit of how it got to where it is today. It's separate in much the same way that the park board used to be separate before merger, and it was made after merger where they were appointed by the council, and then it was even folded in farther where it became part of the city fully about four or five years after after merger. So anything else from mister Foster?

Good description.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Any other public comments? Hearing none, we move on to item six, scheduled presentations, which we have none. It brings us to item seven at 07:43PM, reminding us of our nine Showing alarm. He's set for 3PM. Okay. 07:43 reminding us of our 9PM adjourned time which we can adjust if needed. So in terms of review of charter articles, what I had suggested at the last meeting is that we start with

things that most likely aren't gonna matter to people, most likely aren't gonna require any changes, and then you'll start out with a great sense of accomplishment and

thinking about how easy this is. So I just went through and named a couple articles at the beginning and a couple at the end where I thought the least amount of issues might be. And just thinking ahead so I don't forget about it after this on the agenda is approval of our meeting schedule along with additional public comments if any. So please don't let me forget the schedule before we're done. But if we whether you are in the packet or or you have your I guess the the sections aren't in the the packet during your month.

But if you start everyone off here, I have article one written, but before article one, there is a preamble,

and that is technically part

of the charter as well. So I'll I'll just read that in the absence of anything anything else. We, the people of the municipality of Hudson, Ohio, in order to secure home rule and preserve the character of the community, do adopt the following charter for the government of the community. That is the preamble. Does anyone have

any comments or suggested changes?

Alright. We then move on to article one, which is name and boundaries. Do you wanna take turns reading, or shall continue?

Mister Hall, section one dot zero one name. The present municipality shall continue to be a body polite, politic, and corporate under the name of Hudson, Ohio. Section 1.02, boundaries. The the municipality shall retain the same boundaries as the present municipality with powers and authority to change its boundaries and annex other territory and contingents thereto in the

same manner authorized by the general laws of Ohio. K. Any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding 01 or 1.02? I have

one question for our counsel. Is there any knowledge of any changes of the state of Ohio laws that would affect this section?

No. Not to my knowledge.

There are no suggested changes. And just for reference, section 1.01 after merger, the first name of the the city at a merger was the City Of Hudson Village. And it was changed in, like, February or 2000 just to be the City Of Hudson. Just so you you think nobody would ever change it, but it actually has been changed.

And I don't wanna back you up too much, but while I don't necessarily wanna advocate for changes to the preamble, I I wonder if preserving the character of the community is really the function of this document. I I would say maybe because we have a planning commission it is. But do we have higher aspirations than just the character of the community?

There is a I think council adopt a

mission statement that it has. I've I've seen that in literature, but I haven't seen that.

And I don't know if if there's if it's a statutory requirement in a charter, mister Pitchford, to have a preamble say anything or if you're required to say those things when or say anything or not say something

when you're adopting a jury.

Yeah. I don't wear a body case law that would require a preamble, but certainly not suggesting that we remove it.

Because, Norman, do you have any suggestions that you don't think

that's I would just just off the top of my head, I really didn't prepare Mhmm. A comment on that, and it was it just hit me in the because I think I need to admit that I probably skip over that most of the time. Because I'm like, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Whatever the preamble says. But it it would seem like to me that ordering the affairs of government or, providing for the orderly administration of municipal government or I mean, that's what this is really about. It's really about ordering the terms office for mayor, for council, for the chartered boards and commissions, for the orderly and effective conduction of the business of the city. And it's something that was a character of the community?

Yeah. I think probably one thought might be

that with things like the architecture review board being chartered in here and some of the parks and and that tree commission, that might be what they're talking about

of the character of

the community. But I agree. I mean, you know, you could stop and secure home rule for me and I'd be good.

I I can go there with you too. I can

go there.

We wanna protect our local government so that our home rule is what carries the day. So I

Well, all also, I think we need to remember that we're trying to maintain the community that we love.

Yep.

So we don't get wanna get too carried away with putting things in a preamble that we're not going to be able to maintain or uphold. And this kind of does cover that. We love the community. We wanna follow the law. We wanna maintain the character of the community's historical aspects, the parks.

So, you know Sure too. The character being the history and the yeah.

So I also read it as, like, the character being, like, the and not, like, the moral character, but, like, the character of the people working for the city. Right? Like the I don't wanna say morality, but like, you know, what you can do and can't do is like kind of the character of what the people within these walls has worked with. That's how I read it, but that doesn't mean it's right. But now that you say that, I also see that side of it.

My only observation was going to be that the there are things that the city can do because it has a charter to preserve the character of the community that it can't do or that it couldn't do if it didn't have a charter. We couldn't have there are there are certain ways that you you could have a planning commission without a charter, but it couldn't be the way we have it. We it it would be statutory. It would mean this many members, those would be the terms. There's no term limits and whatnot.

It's it's don't we we wouldn't get to kinda set things out our way, and it's those boards and commissions and and bodies that are responsible for it. But I do see I mean, I I almost thought I'm not not reading

it, but I think it's a good exercise because it it shows just it's yes.

It is one sentence. It just shows it

shows with one sentence. It makes you think. So maybe if you have

So I I guess what I would to to sort of synthesize all the comments. I'm I'm not opposed to the character of the community. I'm just not sure that it is the primary or secondary motivation here. I would propose adding the words after after home rule that and effective to add and effective administration of municipal of affairs and preserve the character of the community do adopt the following. That gives us the three and and it seems like to me those are in the correct order. That home rule first, we're gonna make these decisions for ourselves, and we're stating stating that in the opening paragraph.

Could I make could I make suggestions? Sure. Since you just brought it up.

Yes.

And I I appreciate your ability to to craft and draft on the fly. Mhmm. But would you be able to take the time put in writing and have it edited the chart? And we can certainly come back to it.

That will be great. I will do that. Thank you.

Revisiting on article one sections one point o one and one point o two, were there any no changes? No no comments? No suggestions at this point in time? And we can come back to these as we go.

We are in fact a municipality. Right? I mean, that is what we are officially okay.

So let's just

check double check that. Yeah.

Okay. Article two. It has two sections. Miss Griffith, would you like to read 2.01?

Sure. Section 2.01 form of government. The form of government established by the charter shall be known as mayor dash council dash manager. The representative branch shall consist of the council and mayor select excuse me, elected by the voters of the municipality and shall possess respectively the legislative and judicial powers specified in this charter. The council shall appoint a city manager who will be the chief administrative officer of the municipality.

The municipality shall have only one excuse me, shall have only such other officers as are provided for in this charter or in ordinances enacted here under. It was amended in 11/07/2000.

Any comments or questions on that section from anyone? One of mister Sun's comments related to the form of government that was he was relaying

supportive of that.

Right. He was relaying to us comments from residents and questions raised by residents. We can always come back

to these at all, and you'll

see you'll you'll hear me at some point being a broken record reminding us of what we said before going back and ask him one more time. But hearing no suggested changes on that. Mister Hoover, would you like to read section 2.02 powers? Sure.

The municipality shall have all the powers general or special, governmental or proprietary that may now or hereafter lawfully be disaster exercised by municipal corporations under the constitution and general laws of the state of Ohio. Powers of this municipality shall be exercised in the manner prescribed in this charter or to the extent that the manner is not prescribed herein in such manner as the council may determine. The powers of the municipality may also be exercised except as contrary intent or implication appear in this charter or in the enactments of the council in such manner as may now or hereafter be provided by the general laws of the state of Ohio. The enumeration of particular powers by this charter should not be held or deemed to be exclusive, but in addition to the powers enumerated herein or implied hereby or appropriate to the exercise thereof. The municipality shall have and may exercise all other powers which under the constitution and laws of Ohio, it would be competent for this charter specifically to enumerate.

Ate.

Questions or

comments about that?

That's the first big legal paragraph we've seen. So Does that answer your solicitor? Is that

Questions regarding what it means?

Is that pretty common language? Is there I don't know if we're able to ask if there are recommendations to modernize legal language because the less complicated, the better,

I suppose. No. I I would I would say that I'm very comfortable with this language. It is rather all encompassing. And you have to understand that the charter kind of is our constitution, right, at the local level. And essentially, it says if if it's not provided for in the charter, then the council can provide for it or codifieds. And where it's not provided for otherwise in the charter or the codifieds, the state constitution and Ohio State law applies. To me, it's it's comprehensive, and there's nothing in here that I think that we that should be drawn in the narrow lane. I think I think this fits exactly where home rule charter communities should be in in Ohio's

framework. Thank you. Any other questions regarding that section? Going back one second. I can't remember who I'd asked. Are we are we a municipality? I just wanted to to clarify for context. In the state of Ohio, land is either incorporated or unincorporated. If it's unincorporated, it is a township.

If it is incorporated, it is a municipality.

There's two types of municipalities. There are villages, which have a population under 5,000, and a city, which is a municipality which has a population of 5,000 or above. You became the the village became a city in the early nineties and then merged and became an even bigger city. But rather than having the term village or the in some charters when they're first adopted, they'll say village. And then thirty years later, when there's more population, have to go

back and change the word.

If you use the word municipality, it it means any incorporated municipality. We were skipping on to later in the charter, the other articles that I flagged and my thoughts were out. Yes. So next would be article 12. I recall these are all pretty short.

I'm not really okay. Article 12 is initiative, referendum, and recall. Miss McCoy, would you like to read section 12 o one initiative? Initiative? Sure.

The electors of this municipality shall have the power to propose ordinances and resolutions by initiative petition. Except as provided in this section, procedures for proposing ordinances and resolutions by initiative petition should be in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and laws of Ohio now or hereafter in effect. An an initiative petition has been determined sufficient by the finance director and prior to submission to the board of elections of such proposed ordinance or resolutions for the approval or rejection of the electors of this municipality, the finance director shall forthwith submit such proposed initiative, ordinance, or resolution to council, and the council shall consider proposed initiative or or ordinance or resolution. If the council fails to adopt if the proposed initiative ordinance or resolution without any change in substance within thirty days after it receives a proposed initiative ordinance or resolution from the finance director, the finance director shall submit the proposed ordinance or resolutions to the board of elections.

So just for context, this section, normally, the council would be the creator of laws and ordinances. This gives the electors the ability the people the ability in absence of council doing something to propose by initiative. We we want this to be done and it puts a position puts a process in place to do that. You don't have to have that as a community. I don't recall. I know it's been amended several times. One was the use of the term finance director. It used to be clerk of council, and it was changed to be consistent several years ago. But it's usually a decision by a community to have it in, but I just wanna let you know I don't believe you have to have it. Have to have it in.

Does anybody have any questions or comments about that section, mister Huber?

I think you just answered at least one of them. I was curious why the finance director would be responsible for that. Is it just to take weight off the city manager's shoulders?

The the pre as I recall, the premerger council or the premerger charter mentioned the the clerk treasurer of the of the village. And then afterwards, they made it I can't remember if they left it as the treasurer, then they did away with the position of treasurer, made the made the position of the finance director. There's also a clerk of counsel. In many places, these things are submitted to the clerk of counsel who certifies them, like, charter amendments and things like

that. But that's what I know about it.

And then the second question as far as initiative, if I understand this correctly, is counsel's role sort of, like, initiative comes to them and they they either, like, pass an ordinance that is desirous of the people that drew the initiative thereby sort of, like, settling before it kinda goes to trial by elections in some way of putting it. It's like, that's sort of their role. There's, like, we will accept this now or let the people decide in November.

Right. Usually, initiatives are preceded they might be preceded by people talking to council members saying, hey. We'd like you to adopt this ordinance. And they don't get any response, so they don't get any traction with that. So it's it's something that sometimes comes in response to council not doing something. It's kind of like a stopgap that enables the people to do something without having to wait for an election to put in place new council members to do what they want them to do.

But at this point, council can't when an issue comes in, they can't be like, we're not passing this.

I don't I don't

believe so because their only role

is to put it on

the ballot. Correct? Correct.

And it looks like if they don't Well act, then it gets sent to the board of elections?

If they fail to adopt it. But they only adopt. Petition. And there's a whole process set out in the higher revised code that applies for all those municipalities that don't have charters. But there's a there's a kind of a set of default rules for a lot of these issues, and there's a process to to have an initiative to create a a codified ordinance.

And there's certain forms, and the board of elections has specified, you know, ways it has to be filled out and so on here. And it's interesting. The finance director, I I have a theory as to why it was selected. It's neither right or wrong, but you are correct that it is it is typically the clerk of council. I'm wondering, and I was gonna ask this question if you know, in communities where they don't have a charter, there's a provision in IRBIS code that you can have your court of counsel and then your treasurer because those separate offices in communities, and there's also provision where that you can merge those two offices.

And then that title, once they're merged, is called fiscal officer. Right? So the treasurer and the court of council, one person serves that role as the fiscal officer. I'm wondering if when they didn't do this, they they picked the the finance director who, frankly, in my opinion, has a much different role, you know, here in, you know, in Hudson than the

clerk of council. You know? If we didn't

have any other changes to make to the to to the the charter, any other ideas, you know, I might recommend, yeah, why don't we change that to the the court of council? Because that's in most communities, that's where it is lodged. Right? So if I did I answer your your question? That that's my observation on the on finance director. It is not something that needs to be changed. It's it's fine the way the way it is, but it's interesting.

So do we have any history on how this has played out in Hudson's? Yeah. I mean, have we ever had an initiative that actually went to the ballot?

Initiative wasn't even in the charter, I don't believe, until maybe o five. O five? Yeah.

And so then the secondary question would be, how does our finance director feel about being the recipient of the of the initiative petitions as compared to our clerk of counsel who's present and may have an opinion about about that that role. I'm I'm just curious. I don't know if the question got

asked five years ago. The clerk of council is a much

more logical role for that because

the recipient of documents Mhmm. And it

it is a holdover

from the pre

not only premerger, but pre city when when in Hudson was actually a village. Municipal part of Hudson was actually

a village. This this discussion is good because I I had an observation that I wasn't necessarily totally confident with, I like where this is headed because when you go back and you actually look at section 6.03, it doesn't necessarily describe this additional responsibility to it. So it looks like there is a gap here that we would need to address either. I I would propose that it's not the gap does not exist in the initiative section. It actually exists in the roles and responsibilities section, a section like and along with section 6.03, which then it would maybe bounce back over to initiative once we're describing the roles and the who's responsible these types

of things. Unless you were to change it to clerk of counsel, in which case you wouldn't need

to change never have to go back in

the first place. Yeah. That's a good that's a good decision for you. So it's maybe something

to think about as we see finance director sprinkled because I'm pretty sure it

is in several places Yeah. Which may or may not be appropriate. Yeah. Is that the only comment or issue or question about this section? K. Section 12.2 referendum. Miss Hilary, were you

next? Sure.

The electors of this municipality shall have the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance or resolution enacted by council that is eligible for referendum under the laws of the state of Ohio, except as provided in this section, the procedures by which the electors of this municipality shall have the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance or resolution enacted by council shall be in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and laws of the state of Ohio now or hereafter in effect. In a referendum, petition has been determined sufficient by the finance director and prior to the finance director's certification of the board of elections for submission of such ordinance or resolution to the electors of this municipality, the finance director shall forthwith submit such referendum petition to counsel, and the counsel shall have thirty days to reconsider the referred ordinance or resolution by voting its repeal. If council fails to repeal the referred ordinance or resolution within thirty days after it receives the referred ordinance or resolution from the finance director, finance director shall submit the ordinance or or resolution to the board of elections.

So to sum it up in a nutshell, while 12 o one was the people have a power to get counsel to do something, section 12 o two is that people have the power to challenge something that counsel has done. So I do see at least four references to the finance director here, same kind of a thing. Yeah. Any any questions or comments or suggestions about this section?

So then then what you're proposing is possibly changing the finance director to the clerk of council.

Possibly. K. Wherever it's referenced. I see four places in this section and four in the previous, but we can come back to that if you need me. But generally, o one is about the electors have the ability to create an initiative. And o two is if the electors don't like an initiative, we

can challenge. Exactly. Okay. Perfect.

Then the procedures are great. You just write that.

Yeah. They're pretty stupid.

Too easy.

And then I know. I know.

I gotta be careful. I'm gonna

get snapped. We'll move on to section 12 o three recall which is the last the people's last chance if options one and two don't work. So Right. Miss Norman.

The elector shall have the power to remove from office by a recall election any elected officer of the municipality. If an elected officer shall have served six months of the term, a form of petition demanding the officer's removal may be filed with the clerk of counsel, who shall note thereon the name and address of the person filing the petition and the date of such filing, and deliver to such person a receipt and attach a copy thereof to the petition. This petition may be circulated in separate parts, but the parts shall be bound together and filed as one instrument. Each part shall contain the name and office of the person whose removal is sought, and a statement in not more than 200 words of the grounds for the removal. Such petition shall be signed by at least that number of electors, which equals 25% of the total number of electors who voted at the most recent gubernatorial election in the applicable area of the municipality from which the elected officer was elected.

Within ten days after the day on which the petition has been filed, the clerk of counsel shall determine whether or not it meets the requirements hereof. If the clerk of counsel shall find the petition insufficient, the clerk shall promptly certify the particulars in which the petition is defective, deliver a copy of the certificate to the person who filed the petition, and make a record of such delivery. The petitioner has a period of twenty days after delivery of said certificate to make the petition sufficient. If the clerk of counsel shall find the petition sufficient, the clerk shall promptly so certified to the council. Shall deliver a copy of such certificate to the officer whose removal is sought.

And shall make a record of such delivery. If such officer does not resign within five days after the delivery of the certificate the council shall fix the day for holding a recall election. Not less than sixty days nor more than seventy five days after the date of such delivery. At such recall election this question shall be placed upon the ballot shall naming the officer be allowed to continue as naming the office. With provisions being made on the ballot for voting affirmatively or negatively on the question.

If a majority of the votes cast at such election are affirmative, such officers shall remain in office. If majority of the votes cast are negative, such officer shall be considered removed, and the office shall be declared vacant. Such vacancy shall be filed as provided in this charter. I'm sorry. Shall be filled as provided in this charter. The officer removed by such recall election shall not be eligible for appointment to the vacancy created. Come I got the long one? Any

comments, questions, suggestions on that section, mister Hoover? I have

a question. So it's particularly the sense about the total number of electors voted the most recent controlling election in the Apple area municipality. Where I'm reading is that correct where, say, the mayor and at large candidates, there would be a bigger lift to recall them

because Yeah. This was actually

like, a specific ward.

This was actually changed, I believe, back in 2020. I remember the discussion that so you have people who are elected from the four wards, the the four councilmen, and then you have the three at large council persons and the mayor are all elected citywide. So the 25% would be measured on either the of the particular how that particular ward voted in the previous gubernatorial election or and that would be in each of the four wards for the four different council persons or in the case of the four elected citywide of the citywide. So you're correct. Used to just say 25% of the total number who voted in the recent gubernatorial election, but it didn't say.

So that would mean, would you need 25% of the whole citywide to say you needed say you needed a thousand signatures citywide, but there's really only 900 people who voted in the previous ward election, you'd need a thousand signatures. It wouldn't even be possible. So it was done to make the the petition threshold all in one sentence applicable to the two different categories of elected officials. Does that

make sense?

Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, comments?

The only comment I would make is that certainly that section uses clerk of counsel and not the finance director. So there definitely seems to be some inconsistency.

Yeah.

Add to the referendum section. Will call. And the initiatives. Yeah.

The first two used finance directors, second one used

Third one. Third one was clerical. Third one. Council. So Yeah. Finance director was in

o one and o two. Okay. That's all it was. Just for my impression of common sense, it would make sense to have it be clerk of council across the board. Agree. I'll get back to it.

I have a question related to sufficiency of the petition. And I was really trying to internalize it as I read, but I didn't I know that the Ohio revised code has specific regulations about color of the typeface related to certain items, the pieces of information that are required from the signatories, and I'm not sure how our clerk of counsel determines that a petition is sufficient or insufficient. Like, what's the standard? And I did not see that we are following specifically Ohio revised code for a recall. And I'm I'm thinking I'm thinking in this situation, we we have had someone attempt a recall in the last decade of an elected official.

It did not proceed to the clerk of counsel to the best of my knowledge. Those those signatures were never turned in. But I'm wondering how the clerk would know whether those signatures and the correct number maybe the number is easy to find out. We can ask board of elections how many people voted in Ward 1 in the last gubernatorial election. And then we take We do the math and find out what 25% is and count how many signatures are on the petition.

But when you are collecting signatures as an elected official, the board of elections is a very specific need for your legal signature. You can't sign it differently from how you sign in when you go to vote. If it's illegible, it's important for the candidate to write in the printed, in pencil, the name of the of the signature that they just got. The address is required. The date is required and the county of residence. Is that how do how does the clerk know this? How does the clerk make this decision? Mister Pittsford.

So the there is case law on these these topics, not necessarily out of Hudson, right, but on this the general processes for initiatives and particularly, run on written up. So those tend to be the ones that are most hotly contested, right, where they're rebuking their their counsel. And they are typically the subject of what's called a Right? So it's a lawsuit that any of the the individual with the petition files and the the legal standard really is does the official. Right?

In this instance, it would be the clerk of counsel, I guess, maybe depending on whether under his finance director, if we're gonna use the referendum example, have a legal duty, you know, to do whatever the act is that they are being asked to do. And then it becomes a legal question as to the sufficiency. Right? So the sufficiency is exactly what you described, whether or not all of the the basic elements that are in the revised code as for petitions and has have been interpreted whether through the secretary of state's directives or case law as to whether or those are sufficient. There are cases that challenge the you know, the the clerk of counsel's decision whether it was sufficient or not.

But it it's a writ of mandamus lawsuit, and it's a it's a legal standard, and it's a case by case basis.

Okay. So theoretically speaking, if we are silent on what is sufficient for a recall petition, and all we get is a list of names. The clerk of counsel is able to go through and determine that if she can recognize the name and look it up and find out if it's a person who lives in Hudson, that it counts and certify it. Or she could say, I'm sorry. All you gave me was chicken scratch of signatures. I can't read any of them. I can't count them. I'm rejecting this recall petition because I can't read it. Is that is that absent our specification of what she's looking for?

So I I think you hit on an interesting note and this happens in case law and in cases that I deal with every day. And what you're looking at here is when you compare one the the first two sections and then with the recall section, you'll see that the first you have and call out, the Ohio law applies. Right. And then the under the recall, it doesn't. Right. And so what does that mean? Right? What was what were the voters? Right? What were the accounts whoever proposed it, what were they intending?

Because there's they the municipality is deemed to have purposely chosen its words. And so I don't I don't wanna go out on a limb right now and and express a legal opinion as to what might be sufficient, but I could easily see someone making an argument that this the standards are much lower for a recall than they are for a petition and initiative.

And I and I can appreciate that. And I think too, you know, we don't wanna we would not wanna set up the citizens to be in a hard position in order to make their voices heard. And if you have if you're within striking distance of the right number of recall signatures, maybe maybe the elected official needs to pay attention to that and not worry about whether the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. I I don't know.

I I would not take that position.

Not that Well, and I'm yeah. I I I could I could be convinced easily either way.

I think threshold is is something that would be mandatory, much more that you would you would want to stick to. What is sufficient, right, as far as process and form, would be an even better word, between a recall petition and a referendum petition, I think you could make an argument that those are different. Because and and I don't bet and I don't know if when we say this was amended or revised in 2020 and even in 2010. I'd be interested to see I've not done the comparison, but my guess is that this language is taken from somewhere else. It's certainly not taken out of the, you know, the the foreign language that you see. It may be out of revised code, but I

I doubt it. Okay. Okay. Great.

Well, we we could check if you're interested.

It would seem to read to me that part of the sufficiency is getting this 25% signatures. No? Is is that not what they're implying? Is that that would make it sufficient? But clearly not saying not adding the the Ohio law part is a is a flaw in my mind, and adding that to that third section would probably be appropriate.

Yeah. I I think I think the danger we have is that I ran into this long ago when I practiced law, is that people with great intentions can be a little bit inartful in rallying the troops Oh, 100%. Behind a cause and collecting signatures. And and they put a lot of effort into collecting a signature. And that signature may be illegible, we don't actually know who the person is.

But then we also have it connected to an address that gives us some sense of this is a resident and an elector with a vested interest. And to have to go back and redo that or to have a clerk of counsel as as I have seen in other long ago in galaxies far away, other counties of Ohio, you know, where a clerk would say, I'm not accepting your petition because you didn't include the date that the person signed. All of it gone. That's that's a lot of power to put in the clerks and and you can look at it from both sides. If you have a bunch of rogue people trying to oust a particular individual, now the clerk complains because it's insufficient and they see that as protectionism for the elected official.

Conversely if the clerk says this is insufficient because you didn't even include an address. Now it looks like they're trying to help on the other side. So so it would be I think helpful. Though we may not have a lot of history on this, to have a little bit of clarity about what we're expecting for sufficiency.

I would fully expect all of those technicalities to be issues that related to sufficiency. All of the cases surrounding sufficiency relate to whether they got the date right, whether the the address is correct. I can't even recall a case where it was the number of signatures. Right? You can invalidate whether it's a valid signature, and then you could fall below the threshold. But I that would be a particular issue that would be contested, but I I think the the form is absolutely what the sufficiency is is all about.

Yes, sir.

And I have also done a while you were talking, I looked at the high revised code. Some of provisions do match our charter. Some of them do not. The threshold in Hudson is 25%. And as I'm reading this correctly really quickly, the threshold at the state level for municipalities is just 10%.

Mister Stritchford, would it be possible for you to suggest some sort of language for paragraph two of section 12 o three that would sorry. Paragraph three of section 12 o three that would

I don't wanna say quantify, but add

something some sort of reference quantifiable reference

point so that the clerk of counsel's authority is not is is less subject to question. Again, yes. I I could do that.

In the revised section, it does talk about there's a sentence. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws, which is kind of what I was talking about. They think it's it's everything in all those things that you would wanna look at, and our charter provision doesn't have that language at all. And I also wanted to point out the other distinction, 10%, but also in the last municipal election, whereas on the charter here is the gubernatorial. Right?

Municipal or an odd number here is gubernatorial or every four years in whatever cycle that is, in in even number of years. So it's they're they clearly made a decision. It's a policy decision. I don't know if it means much, but it's a well, frankly

It's higher.

Actually, it's higher. Right? Typically, gubernatorial is higher, not only the percentage, but your gubernatorial turnout is always gonna be higher than your municipality

now. Yeah. And that would seem what they did. They wanted to make the recall barrier higher than the other two by just stating state law. Yes. And then said, okay. We wanna beef up. Again, that was the intent. I don't know if that's right.

But the argument of taking out the sentence that says the sufficiency shall be determined by general law, that really puts us in a unchartered unchartered no no pun intended. Right? Unchartered waters.

I I think my observation is that with only the limitation of the total number of signatures, you you could have inconsistency between petitions. If they if you don't have, like, a second qualifying factor for it, which it sounds like at the state level, there may be not not necessarily a qualifying factor that we could lean against, but I do support at least referencing the Ohio revised code or sub or or the board of elections code or something like that because just the number of signatures seems to almost create inconsistency across provisions. Yeah.

I think having it say general reference to general election laws Yeah.

Whatever you said would be very helpful. Is it is it not am I not correct that mechanically when someone submits a petition like that, that the clerk of counsel is not sitting there doing the review herself or himself. It's literally the

if it if we're subject to general election laws,

you go down the board of elections, say, I need a petition in the form to recall an elected official. And they have them there where

they can provide it to you.

And they're pretty standard. That's right. And then if they're submitted, I know this for other types of petitions, you could submit them to the board of elections, and they review them for sufficiency, and they tell you whether or not they they they meet the requirement. Is that mechanically, is

that how it would work?

Mechanically, pulling a pulling a petition, there are multiple types of petitions. As you say, right, the initiative referendum, there are recall petitions that have been created and exist. You can go down and get one. Again, because the language is slightly different here, it would be a really a a almost a subjective determination here. And what you typically see is the clerk of counsel in these in these cases that I've read, you know, will call the solicitor and say what what does the case law say is sufficient?

And then, you know, with the solicitor's review, they go through it and they these are all the things that are required and then say, you know but, again, it it is interesting. I'm not committing one way or the other, but it's interesting that we have a reference and we can very easily see a court, like, you know, go in a different direction. I guess the piece of language is is clearly different.

Just a clarifying com question here. Are you suggesting that we if if we were to add in this I think it's the third paragraph here where it says the if the clerk of counsel shall find the petition sufficient, if we were to add something and I'm gonna just very high high level paraphrase. If the clerk were to reference or connect with the board of elections and find the petition sufficient. This this reads that the clerk is the sole person that finds the petition sufficient. So you would be suggesting there'll be an additional

additional asset asset available. Available? Just thinking out loud just in the in the first sentence, it's where the clerk's authority is established to determine. Okay. And if if it's but it doesn't say how that determination was made.

So if it's if it's an additional sentence, it said the chair the clerk shall be guided by the provisions of Ohio election laws or something.

Right. Whether or not it meets the requirements hereof and the general requirements of Ohio's general law or something to that

effect. Yeah. Right?

That's in that goes out and grabs the other Ohio election law precedent. It gives us more predictability, you know, in what is sufficient and what is not. I I am not suggesting that we change who the who the petitions are submitted to. I wouldn't add anybody. That only makes it more complicated and subject to more dispute. Right? You know, let's let's make it the clerk of council and council president great. What if they don't like each other? Right?

I mean, yeah. Sure. Right?

And what what if they disagree? What's the tiebreaker? I mean, there's all kinds of problems there, but it it should be the clerk of council. It's an administrative decision, which is also why the writ of enemas will lie, meaning it'll it'll be effective because it's a you have a duty if the law it's it's not a it's not in their discretion. Right? It's not the clerk of counsel's discretion discretion whether or not they're sufficient. It's it either is or it isn't sufficient. We make it we may disagree about it, but a court will decide as a matter of law is sufficient or not. And and it you should leave it with one person.

Do you have enough to go on to

See, if if I'm picking up, I mean, it's it's really simple. Mean, it's just a couple of words adding in. If I'm picking up everybody's general sense, yes, we want to put in put back in Ohio law as it relates to elections. Whatever the language is in the

other constitution and laws of

the state of Ohio now or hereafter in effect. Yes. Yeah.

The general election laws the Ohio constitution and Ohio general election. I would suggest that we do that. K. But we we may I'll I'll look at it

and come

back on it. Alright. And before I forget, I wrote it down a few times ago. As I recall from

we had miss Elizabeth working with us last time, and she had a clerk's group that she could email and get quick easy responses to. Would it be possible if you could see if you could solicit from other clerks sample preambles from charters and maybe provide those either to the group or at least to miss Norman as

she's putting together her thoughts to bring back.

I can do that. And

then certainly, mister Pinchford, if you know many as well that

you wanna pass along, that'd be great.

Okay. Anything else on article 12 section 12 o three. Moving on. Article 13 amendments to charter. That's us. That's why we're here. Mister Trainer, could you lead us through section 13 o one methods and procedure? Sure.

Section 13 o one methods and procedure. The council may, by the affirmative vote of five or more of its members, submit to the electors any proposed amendment or amendments to this charter or upon petition in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and laws of Ohio, now or hereafter in effect, signed by not less than 10% of the electors of the municipality, setting forth any proposed amendment or amendments to this charter. The council shall forthwith submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the electors in accordance in each instance with the provisions of the constitution. If any such proposed amendment or amendments shall be approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, it or they shall become part of this charter except that if two or more inconsistent proposed amendments on the same subject shall be submitted at the same election, only the one of such amendments receiving the largest affirmative vote, not less than a majority, shall become a part of the charter.

Questions, comments, or suggestions about 13 o one? Section 13 o two, Charter Review Commission. I'll take that one. Not later than the month of January 2000 and at least each fifth year thereafter in the month of January. The council shall appoint a commission of an odd number of members, not less than seven, but not more than 11 qualified electors of the new municipality to be known as a charter review commission and not holding other public office to serve without compensation.

The term of the commission shall end on the day of the next general election. Each member shall have been a resident of the municipality or a territory annexed thereto for two years preceding the appointment and shall continue to remain a resident during the member's term. In the event of a vacancy, council may appoint a qualified elector to fill the unexpired term. There shall always be a minimum number of seven members of the commission. The commission shall select its own chairperson and secretary and adopt its own rules for the conduct of its business.

The commission shall recommend to the council not less than one hundred twenty days prior to the next general election following its appointments. Any revisions and amendments to this charter as in its judgment seem advisable, and the council shall submit the same to the electors of the next general election. Meetings shall be open to the public except as may be provided by state. Any questions, comments, or sections? Or suggestions about section 13 o two. Mister Huber?

For the purposes of this, how is public office defined? Is that just elected officials or is that city staff, people on board and commissions?

Mister Pinchford? Where is that?

In 13 o two. I'm not aware

of that. To bottom of the page 20 public office?

Area one. So it's it's not a unique question that has come up in other contexts here within the city in the last couple of years. And city council has chosen to define the phrase public office. And it is because any public office could be you could be a professor at Penn State, right, and then you would be ineligible, for example, right, because

the public public office appointed

or if you're a police officer or or whatever. And I I don't the council made a policy decision that was necessary to consent. And for purposes of qualifications, I don't know if we applied to the Charter Commission, but I think for all boards and commissions, I had to go back and look to see if it applies other elsewhere. Just holding office with the city. Right? You're just an employee of the city.

An elected official? Sort of like said like

No. No. Any any any anyone who is works for the city.

Oh, okay.

Is that unclear or treated differently in other places? Or

Yeah. Public office is what I described. It's it's any public office, compensated or not compensated. If you work for any and then it it could also be interpreted to be, you know, you work for the federal government. It could be what does that mean? Public.

So we should we should clarify and say within the city of Hudson? Is that what we're seeing?

Well, I was thinking clarify as well. I was gonna just say at public office as defined by city council because what I'm understanding is mister preferred saying is they've they've defined it.

I'm trying to pull it up right now if I can see our exact line.

I can agree. There's clarity here, but

I just We do not need to as a legal matter, we don't we do not need to make them talk to each other. In words, you don't need to have the charter referred to the codifieds. You can only have

the codifieds referred to charter

and say Okay. As, you know, for all intents and purposes or, you know, for all purposes under court and local laws within the definition. Yeah.

Or,

I mean, is it since it's it's up to council's interpretation,

could it be in not holding other public office deemed incompatible by council?

I think we excluded elected office is what I

think we did. But I mean, deemed they're basically, it's what you're saying is that council has an interpretation, which is fine. So if the to cement that

and to enable

that and to create to remove any perceived Lack of clarity? Would it be would it be helpful to say after and not holding public other public office not holding other public office deemed incompatible by the council.

Don't think that's necessary. Okay. Alright.

Does anyone else have any other comments or suggestions, questions on that section? Okay.

I'm just gonna call to our attention that the two years appears here as well as as we were talking earlier. I think it was mister Sutton who brought up the residence requirements. So when we get to that discussion, gotta remember this part.

And that the language there, I believe, is repeated consistently throughout per 2020. So if you wanna change it, it could be changed throughout. Next is article 14. That's really easy.

There

was if I recall, when merger was approved in 1990 the 1993, early nineteen ninety four, the

Sure. Conditional I just I found the definition just to clarify for everyone on the public office. Yep. It is in the context of eligibility for service on any city board commission, which would include this board, this commission, or any committee under the charter or the codified ordinances, is public office shall meet only service as a city employee. So they withdrew it very

narrowly. Capital City.

Yeah. Okay.

So for this meeting this meeting Hudson City.

Yeah. Well, in my mind, the fact that it says public office in the charter and then council has clarified that further in the codified ordinances that both teams funded. I agree. I agree. So article 14, there were a number of sections that were put in here after merger. And when one of the provisions was in '95, there was to be a Charter Review Commission, they met and it was the first post merger Charter Review Commission. They met, removed all these and but once you

remove something it's it's like it's too removed, guess.

It's still on the mark. You

You can't just like wipe it away. So

any questions about everything from article 14 that is not there? K. Article 15, same sort of thing, merger. Conflict between the conditions of merger and charter that was repealed because the conditions of merger no longer exist. They've all been incorporated into the charter. That brings us to article 16, which is general provisions. Mister Hall, would you like to take us through 16 o one effective date of charter?

Yeah. Section 16 o one effective date of charter. For the purpose of nominating and electing officers of this municipality and fixing the compensation of those to be elected in 1957, this charter shall be in effect from their and after the date of its approval by the electors and for all other purposes. The charter shall be in effect on and after the January 1958.

Any questions? Since history.

Section you wanna do the other two too? 16 o two, effective partial invalid invalidity? Yeah. The determination that any part of this

chart is invalid shall not invalidate or impair the force or effect of any part hereof, except the extent such part is wholly dependent for its operation upon the part declared invalid.

16 o three effective charter upon existing laws and rights.

The adoption of this charter shall not affect any preexisting rights of the municipality nor any rights, reliability, or pending suit or prosecution either on behalf of or the or against the municipality or any officer thereof nor any franchise granted by the municipality, nor pending proceedings for the authorization of public improvements for the levy of assessments therefore, except as a contrary intent appears herein, all paths of the council of the municipality shall continue in effect until lawfully amended or appealed. Any

questions or comments for any of the sections in article 16? It's not explanatory. Okay. That will bring us to our item eight, is our second public comment section. Does anybody wish to any additional public comments for the commission?

Hearing none, we move to item nine, which is action items for the next meeting. Before we get a schedule, if you don't know on the the chart that was passed out, there have already been a number of comments and suggestions submitted. Not too many, but several. And then we got several more tonight, some in writing before, some we'll get afterwards.

It seems like we have a

lot of comments already on article three and article four. That's the council and the mayor. I can't recall if I think that the manager had some comments too. Those would be covered in articles five and six, the manager finances. Would anyone have any objection? I I would prefer not to start reviewing sections where we're gonna get a lot of suggestions and maybe give a little more time on articles three through six. Would anyone have any objections with starting with article seven at the next meeting?

No. Okay.

And maybe we'll put on we won't get we might get through, you know, two articles, but maybe article seven and eight. I I don't I would not I would prefer not to start article nine.

The only thing I just thought, mister chair, related to article eight Yeah. We heard representations from council members this evening about their desire related to merging the multi boards and commissions in the city. And I was just thinking, you know, it'd be interesting to me to know and to hear from tree commission members and park board members to know why if we still have justification for keeping those separate. I I have not been a part of either one of those, and I don't know I don't know how they came to be separate entities, and I don't know why they still are. And I wonder if it would be helpful for us to if if we're going to tackle the next meeting, be sure that we invite them to give them opportunity to to inform us on that.

Sure. If we can certainly, if

we could send a specific mention out to and Trade Commission.

And just for context, Park Board precedes the city. It was a completely separate entity even before merger and was affiliated served the entire township, the city and the the village and the township at that time. Tree Commission did not even exist until after merger. At first, it was created as a a council created board, and then it was put into the charter. I can't remember if it was in I think it was put in in 2000.

But was created as a council as a council commission back in '94 or '95 after merger, but not as part of the charter and then was added to the charter later. But certainly, we can call and get those. But so article seven and eight, start next time, see how we go from there? Yeah.

I have one quick question. Just for clarification, and it may not be possible.

I see, you know, these these notations of amended and the dates.

Yep. Is there anywhere that you would have the ability to access, you know, those amendments just to have continuity in in context to what the changes were? Absolutely. I don't know if we could do that in a way that we would all have the access, like, at these meetings or individually. It would just be I feel like it'd be helpful to see, like, hey. What was the change?

What there would be, there'd be an ordinance from 20 and an ordinance from 15 and Yeah.

An ordinance from 10. And what it would show is section by section what the proposed changes were. Sometimes you kinda have to read them in sequence by section and if you wanna find what the changes are. Yeah.

And I'm I'm not trying to complicate things or muddy the water. I just I just think that the historical context would be high where you have available.

I think in your package, we have the last last go around. That was That's for 20. So we could go back and look at the fifteen and and ten. If we wanna go back further, we could

I got one. I don't think we would need to go back further. Maybe even just one iteration would be helpful. That that's all. 19. 15? Yeah. Wanna add 15? Yep. K. Alright.

Alright. Where did I what did I do that? It was okay. What the next item on the agenda is the meeting schedule. So item nine a is the draft meeting schedule to give everybody for recap, miss Wheeler was kind enough to send out a noodle bowl with 24 different Wednesdays between unfortunately, between now and our due date.

And everybody was kind enough within a couple of days to provide their responses. Of those twenty days, 14 of those dates and and when we got all the responses, I went through them and first of all filtered out all of them where the solicitor would be available and would be here with us since we need a mirror. And from that, there were 14 quorum is five out of nine. There were 14 of the 24 dates where five or more were available. One had only five, one had six, three dates had seven, seven had eight, and two had all nine available.

So it's like I said last time, it's like herding cats

to try to get

I hear all at once. So I started mapping them out and tried to do as many as I could with trying to front load and not have us be stuck at the end with a bunch of weekly meetings and try and stick with the ones that had at least seven or more and try and keep the meetings at least two weeks apart. So they're what I came up with was a schedule here that until you get to the very end and I was thinking with that June 25 meeting, that's and hopefully, that's if we need it, and hopefully, we won't. But we're on our second meeting, but this would be after tonight. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight more dates that would be including last meeting in this, that'd be a total of 10.

I think in 2020, I looked back and we had I can't remember if we had 12 or 10 in 2015. Yeah. Six. And and before that, it was like six or eight. So I don't think we're gonna get to twelve again, but

okay. You

know? So if you have any questions about it, please let me know. But I would need if you're okay with it, I would need a motion to approve the meeting schedule.

I'll it.

So mister Hoover moved to approve the meeting schedule. Miss Griffith moved, seconded that motion. We roll call mister Hoover? Yes. Miss McCoy? Yes. Miss Fiddleri? Yes. Miss Norman? Yes. Mister Trainer? Yes. Mister Hall? Yes. Myself? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Miss Normant, motions. Is there a second? Second. Second is Griffith. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 08:49PM ahead of our deadline. Thank you all. Thank you.

Thank

you. Thank you.