Personnel Advisory & Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

City Hall on Terex Road. Call the roll for the, attendees. Mr. Hall? Present. Ms. Griffith? Present. Mr. Hoover? Here. Ms. McCoy?

Here.

Ms. Norman? Here. Mr. Ryan? Here. Ms. Spitaleri? Here. And Mr. Trainor? Here. And Mr. Kegler? Here. We also have Mr. Pitchford, city solicitor Mr. Bandweg, our council liaison and we also have some members of the public, manager Sheridan and, mayor Anzavino as well. Item three on our agenda is approval of minutes. You have in your packets a part of clarifying for me even if you don't get it, get the paper.

If you have it in your email, you can click on the link in the agenda, and it will go straight to the, the minutes document if you need it. If you've had a chance to take a look, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I'll to approve. Moved by Mr. Ryan. Second. Seconded by Ms. Griffith Griffith, excuse me. Right. Are I going hold the role Mr. Hall? Present. To approve the minutes?

Yes. Yes. Mr.

Trainer? Aye. Ms. Griffith? Aye. Ms. McCoy? Aye. Ms. Benillary? Yes. Ms. Norman? Yes. Mr. Hoover? Aye. Mr. Ryan? Yes. And Mr. Kegler? Yes. All in favor? Nine to zero. Item four is correspondence and commissioner comments. The only things I wanted to start with were was to if you hadn't had a chance to see it, you don't need a magnifying glass this time to look at the the list that's been enlarged and it's been rotated. So it's on larger sheet of paper. So hopefully, it'll be a little bit easier. Not quite as big as I had hoped, but it's way better than before.

Something I noticed when I was able to actually read it this time was that since the last meeting, we have already reviewed completely articles, one, two, and then 10 through 16. I just try and keep track of comments that come in between the meetings, and we did receive a few comments since the last meeting on sections that we had already reviewed. So I just wanted to draw your attention to those, and we can either, review those when we get to, reviewing the sections or we can go through them now, whatever your preference is. But the first would be on page one. It's and they all have line numbers on the left.

So it's line two, article two. It's a, written suggestion from, councilor Bandweg. That's the only additional comment that I could see in on page one. There were none on page two that I could see, and there were two on page three, lines twenty seven and twenty eight. Those are in sections five point o four from a resident, mister Merwin, and section six point o three, which I believe we're still reviewing, and that was from councilor Bandweg.

I believe there were two more on page four. Towards the end, lines forty five and forty six, these are both comments in article twelve, one in both in section 12 o one, both from a resident, mister Squires. So when we get to reviewing sections, it might be quickest if we just go to those comments first and then go to 6.03. That would be my suggestion. The only other comment that I had was, miss Griffith had brought it to my attention that we did not review the, I mentioned it, but we did not review the preamble document that Farna had prepared for us at the last meeting.

I think the way I left it was, miss Norman, since she had brought the issue to light, was gonna take a look at it and bring back some suggestions.

I wanted to ask you how you wanted to proceed on that because I wasn't sure if you wanted to loop if you wanted to get all the way through first and then loop back a second time,

if that makes sense.

I'm fine with that if everybody else is. Just

so we Okay.

We remember to come back to it.

Yes. It's on it's it's on my to do list with an open checkbox next to it, meaning I haven't done it yet.

So And it's on the list with no action. So anything that's blank in that right hand column, we will definitely be coming back to.

Okay.

Any other commissioner comments? Comments from Mr. Banway from counsel?

None this evening. Just use me as a resource as you see fit to give background from previous counsel discussions or whatever you need. That's what I'm here to try to make sure you don't have to overturn ground or rediscover things that maybe have already been discussed and you want to know what that looked like.

All right. Hearing no others, we would move on to Item five, which is our first round of public comments. It's a time for anyone who's, in attendance that the commission welcomes public comments. 'd ask that you, if you have comments, to limit your comments to five minutes, identify yourself by name and address.

Do you

have comments for us tonight?

I'm miss Sharon. Okay.

Well, welcome. Glad to glad to see you. Enjoy or sorry. Okay. Next, we'll move into well, we'd have no scheduled presentation, so we would move into review of charter articles. So we'll move this a little quicker than we did at the last meeting.

Mhmm.

So is it alright if we go back to the list at those six, seven items that we just heard? So this would be the sections that we've already reviewed, comments about those sections where we've already reviewed them and either taken no action or ask the changes be drafted. The first was on page one. It's item excuse me, line two. It's article two, section two point o one form of government.

This is a suggested change from, councilor Bandweg. Regarding mayor council form of government, I support the continuation of our form of government as is. There have been some suggestions about changing authorities or wording to more specifically note responsibilities. The current verbiage provides the framework and freedom for elected individuals in these roles to perform in their duties at the judgment of the voting residents without introducing completing or confusing authorities. I don't support prescribing detailed responsibilities, do not affect the authority of the roles, just the authorities that allow action and introduce required responsibilities.

So I don't hear that as a suggested change, it's comments. Everyone action required, and we didn't propose anything that would be contrary to that. So I'll just note that we've discussed it. Let's go to page three, I think I said. Line 27.

This is section section five point o four, which is the the mayor. This is a comment from a resident, mister James Merwin. Section five point o four powers and duties. He says, at some level, maybe all, hiring and termination of city employees should be should not be the sole responsibility of the city manager. Council should have to confirm by majority vote plus perhaps not objection by the Mayor. I don't know if I phrased that correctly. The way we left this

Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we got to Article five last time. Thought that was on the agenda for tonight.

No. You are correct. Sorry about that. That was my bad. Never mind. And I will hold off on the 6.03 since we'll be discussing that in a minute. If you go

to Page four real quick.

Line forty five and forty six were Mr. Squire's comments, both regarding Section 12.01. In 12.01, we had asked the only thing we'd asked, when we discussed it on January 29 was we asked mister Pittsford to draft something for consideration when we get back to it of, changing the, references to finance director to clerk of counsel in a couple of places, but it was that's more of like a wording change than a substantive change. Mister Squire's comments are his first comment on line 45 is wording is insufficient for a citizen to initiate a petition. When an initiative petition has been determined sufficient by the when initiative petition has been determined sufficient by the finance director should be replaced with a specific requirement replaced with specific requirements or criteria applied by the finance director.

For example, votes should be required before a petition is on the ballot. Is there a form to be completed? And I'll just read the second one since it's the same section. Allow me to expand on the comments submitted on 02/22, so this must have been on a different date. The charter provides an opportunity for citizens to modify, cancel, or change ordinances.

But if city council votes down a proposal, there is no ordinance. Thus, there is no way for citizens to express support for that proposal on a ballot, prompting city council to, reconsider. These will both strike me as legal questions maybe for mister, Pitchford. To the second one first, if someone submits an initiative, it's determined to be sufficient, but can council vote not to put it on the ballot? Yes. You may remember we were through

our conversation pretty in-depth on this topic. Had indicated that counsel does not have the discretion once the petition is deemed to be sufficient. It is viewed as a ministerial or an administrative matter. The sufficiency though is the we discussed this, whether it should be clerk of counsel as opposed to the finance director because the clerk of counsel rather is the one that handles those types of matters typically. Sufficiency But is also a mixed question of law. In fact, depending on whether or not the petition has been submitted, meets with the forms that are prescribed by Ohio election law. And there is case

law that talks about what's sufficient

and what is not. Language in the charter tracks state law on that. So instead of going through and detailing it all here, we would rely on interpretation of what case tells us and what the Ohio Secretary of State, issues by way of directive.

But back to, if someone submits an initiative and is determined to be sufficient, if I recall now, council has two options. They can either, a, pass the ordinance or b, put it on the ballot. They don't have a third option of of saying no to the ordinance. That's correct. So, the second clause of Mr. Squire's comments where it says, then there is no but if counsel votes down a proposal, there is no ordinance. Can't vote down a proposal.

Does not have the ability to reject that particular issue. Correct. All right. So

I would say regarding the line item 46 that it's not a correct question or it's that it's handled. That's the concern is not the concern is moved. That's the way I'm putting it. So I'll just start that we discussed on three point five.

But I

do have questions related to the first suggestion Mr. Squires made. We also don't have any reference in here to Ohio revised code, which also has provisions that in the event we left something out, you know, we're not defaulting back to what Ohio revised code would say if we wanted to do that, which I would think would be a prudent thing to do since we might have left something out of this process here. Does that make sense what I'm asking or sort of stating? Determining to be sufficient?

Well, it may be it may be

the question of sufficiency. It may be a procedure, in the event, there's

Well, does say in the first paragraph of 12.01, the last end of that paragraph is in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and laws of Ohio now or hereafter Sure. In

There's no cure period. Like, in in the event, the finance director, as it's worded right now Yep. Was to find that the petition was insufficient. My recollection, and I haven't looked it up for a long time, is that the Ohio revised code has a cure period that the circulators of that petition have in order like, let's just say that signatures were ruled out, and so they don't have enough signatures to make the threshold of what they need to do to get it onto the the ballot. Then the my recollection is that there's a cure period for that.

And we're not specifically creating it nor are we necessarily saying that, since we didn't talk about it, it's gonna be governed by Ohio revised code.

My reading would be and, mister Pitchford can provide a legal opinion, but my reading is that between the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second paragraph, The first paragraph, it ends by saying this all has to be done in accordance with, among other things, the laws of the state of Ohio, so they're high rise. Right. The second the second paragraph starts with when it has been determined to be sufficient. Now what's not said there is the law provides a process for determining sufficiency. And if it's not, then there's a cure period and all that other stuff, but we're just So not saying I would say I'm reading that it's it's covered under the state law thing, but, Marshall, know if something else needs to be there?

I think it's your decision whether or you think something else needs to be there, but I would agree with your interpretation that the our process as it pertains to the initiative position is according to the higher revised code in the constitution. I don't see how you could interpret it any other way.

We also on January 29, we had a question about instead of the finance director putting in clerk of counsel, changing it to clerk of counsel for the finance director in that the last line of paragraph two. Do we want to do that?

Yes. That's captured. If you guys

That's captured on the '47.

Right. Okay. Yes.

And we'll get all the recommendations. Okay. And we'll get all the things that he's Okay. Asked

So Ohio law, yes, that was the other one on.

And we captured that same concept under twelve oh three on recalls, right, saying it's sort of a similar reference to Ohio law as appropriate. And we were intending to capture almost this my recollection is this exact clause, right, in accordance with provisions of the constitution of the laws of Ohio now and here and after in effect. Got Line 48 on your chart. This is the very last one. We were going to change gubernatorial to the municipal, and then we were going to get insert that language capturing what's already exist in Ohio revised code because there was an argument to be made in that particular provision because there is a recall provision in the RISE code that this could be interpreted differently or it could be interpreted as a different and I think arguably so because there's no reference to the laws of Ohio.

So I think it's a much better argument in that provision as opposed to in this one where they specifically call it out.

Sure. No, your reasoning makes sense to me.

So Mr. Back to Mr. Squire's questions he had asked, should there be more detailed information about determining sufficiency? And I think we did discuss that, and your recommendations was that there should not.

Right. Sufficiency is already, like, clarified by case law. It's not perfect, but it's there are cases that interpret what that means.

Okay. And then he says his last second last sentence, said, for example, should votes be required before a petition is on the ballot? And I think that would be if the ordinance is not passed, if we're in 12/2001. The vote is I guess that would be a council vote. The council vote. The council the initiative submitted, it's sufficient, goes to council. Council votes. If it votes yes, it's an ordinance. Or if it votes yes, it's law. If it votes no. Well, if it doesn't vote yes, then it goes to the ballot.

And you only have 30 to do it, which is interesting because we have three reading requirement and other issues in our charter and in the law. But we only have thirty days

to do it. What's the upshot of that then? I'm sorry. I was what's the upshot of that? I mean, are we gonna be is that a would

it have to

be an emergency? What if it doesn't qualify as an emergency?

Right. It would be, well, what happened is we would have to pass it on an emergency basis. We can't do that. We could put it on the consent agenda and pass it, and then we would have to have it be on an emergency basis. Both of those things would have to happen and have it effective within thirty days. Otherwise, it would go to the voters.

So should we change the time? Not. Mean, what's the compelling reason for thirty days?

I think the the the compelling reason for thirty days is to keep the process moving. Yeah.

If in thirty days, council doesn't act, then it automatically, the finance director to be based on our recommendations, the clerk would then make it an initiative. Would be proposed for the it'd be a ballot. So the the comment here about, I think the process implied is council has a process to determine if it's an initiative that's going to make the ballot. So he's saying this resident is saying, is there a vote? Yes, there is a process. I don't know how exactly that works. Maybe this is somewhere you can enlighten us, Chris.

Even what Marshall was just saying, it's going to come to counsel. We've got thirty days if we try to That's put it on a way that we would vote if it was the kind of thing that everyone was aligned to, and this is great. That's an easy pass on consent without walking the dog on how many people it takes to override consent, etcetera.

As a matter, if there are seven members present, you have to get six votes to suspend the rules. If there are six members, you have to get five, but you would have to absolutely have at least five members support this proposal. And it's like you said, you would have to have vast support for it. Otherwise, it's going to go to the electorate. And it's there is a process, and I will tell you that this would qualify as an emergency.

Emergencies, again, we had this conversation. I think we had this conversation. Emergencies aren't always hellfire and hurricanes. It can be deadlines coming up, right? We have to the best one, I think, and the easiest example is when we're submitting a grant application and the deadline is coming up and we just found out about it. We can pass that as an emergency and make it effective release that we can get the application in. This would also, in my opinion, qualify as an emergency.

Generally try not to abuse the emergency because we want things to be in the public eye for an extended amount of time. So they have the opportunity. Like, you're not reading all the council notes every night. Right? So the longer it's out there, the more time there is for people to see it. But in this case, if there's been a petition that's been signed enough enough people, then the emergency clause is to accelerate movement that has been instigated on behalf of the people who are more or less aware because there's had to been that many signatures. Right? So it's keeping us on track as a council to take action on what the people have said. And then you'll get to, if there's overwhelming support, consent, if there's not, to the ballot.

Do we know if this has ever been used in Hudson's history? Petition? Yeah. An actual initiative petition.

Can think of a time we had a petition, but it wasn't for an ordinance.

Right. No. We had no. We had a public opinion petition, but but for an ordinance specifically.

I think it's only been in the charter since o five as I

Oh, I see. Well amended.

I could see it was added, but but I I can't remember anything. So in the question was regarding, section 12 o one. We previously discussed it on January 29. And as miss Griffiths, reminded us, we had asked that the finance director be changed to clerk of counsel in four places. We discussed it the remainder of it, and we also discussed Mr. Squire's additional comments. Does anyone feel any additional changes are needed to 12.01? Are you fine with what we decided before? No. Great.

Okay. Changes? Alright. So that brings us to the sections that we are supposed to discuss tonight. And, actually, I misspoke earlier when I said that we were going to be discussing six point o three.

We're actually gonna be discussing six point o four unless that's a typo. So we did discuss if I could direct you to sorry, to Page three on the chart, Line 28. Mr. Bandweg's comment regarding added provision for an acting Finance Director in the event of absence or disability, the Finance Director. We actually at the meeting on February 19,

we

did discuss that and we did ask the solicitor to draft that. So I would say that's we've already discussed that unless

And my some of my comments, I gave the abbreviated version that might save a little bit of time. So these are just the documentation of the comments that I made.

When you said, prioritize to ballot in administrative update segment, are you thinking maybe depending upon the number of changes we have to take the ones that are easy pick offs and group them in one valid issue?

And a rate of update as opposed to a controversial item. Okay.

All right. Well, then I will note that we discussed this we'll bring as the Solicitor to draft it.

While we're on the particular topic of six zero three, I have tonight with me prepared revisions for Section 6.03, the Finance Director, which is exactly what you're talking about. And I also have, at least in part, the beginning of recommended changes for 6.04, we started to discuss last week and is on tonight's agenda. So if you want to we can pass these around. It's a red line version, so it's easy to see what we're calling out. But while he's passing it around, the proposed revisions to 6.03 and the finance director, I recall the conversation being officially let's mimic the language that's under the city manager's acting role in the charter.

So I've done that and I've just changed the names and otherwise the language is identical.

So where this came from was Mr. Sheridan's suggestion to add a provision for an acting finance director Correct. In the in the event of a absence or inability. And this provides for that to happen, but the second sentence, it it says that the council may revoke at any time and appoint. Since the finance director just on a we're just seeing this for the first time.

But since finance director is appointed subject to the approval of council, I think it might be more appropriate. I'm just thinking out loud that if they revoke, that they would direct the manager to appoint an alternate another another person because otherwise, it puts the council in a position of appointing the person, which

I mean, I don't know

if we wanna just think about this and and come back and talk to it later when we're reviewing draft. But just as I'm seeing this first, I like the I like the first sentence where it says, the manager shall designate. But and I like the ability for the the council since it has the ability to confirm the person when they're originally appointed anyway to, in this case, have some power on the appointment of the interim or the acting. But I think that I'm just I think that if maybe the if the council says no, that to me, the direction would be then who's the manager's second choice, not who's council's first choice.

And that's and I support that. That is consistent with the appointment process. The language that we that I put to you is consistent because the city manager was appointed by city council. What you're suggesting is that because the finance director is appointed by the city manager, that the city manager should be the one who designates if council rejects that.

That would just be my suggestion. That's seeing it for the first time.

And how to prepare another version like that as well.

Any other comments from anyone else? My only question was, do we have a responsibility to judge? I don't see any definition for temporary absence. Is there a responsibility to define what that is? Is that three meetings? Is that one meeting? It could be how do you decide to begin designation practice here?

Temporary absence or disability? Yes. So temporary absences are things like going on vacation and those that kind of scenario where temporary disability is they're in hospital or

something like that.

So it's understood. We don't need to put any framework to that.

Again, it's one the scenarios where if you start to define it, start to define you actually may exclude things you don't mean to.

Yes. I think that's the third time you've had to tell me that. So that's why I don't know. Just curious. Thanks.

Any other comments from anyone? Do we have the other employees or department heads that are appointed by the manager and confirmed by counsel, police chief, I assume, fire chief?

It's a good question. Have not gone back and looked. Whether that's in the charter or it could be in the codifieds if it's not in the charter.

If there's a way of appointing an active or replacement or an acting or interim of any of the others, the event that we don't just

I agree with that. Yes. Same question. That's a good idea.

But would I am I right to think that the finance director is sort of a special position because we can't function if we can't pay money out or receive money, either one.

I think any of the any any of the department ed positions that are Mhmm. Appointed by the manager, confirmed by counsel, they're there for special reasons.

And Okay.

I mean, if we need someone to oversee the fighting of fires and the running of the police department, I would you know?

Sure. I'm just thinking that oh, sorry.

Yeah. Just to clarify, I think there is a difference in the authority and this is why I always harp on authorities. Right? Finance director has certain authorities. If there's a fire and the fire chief is not there, the lieutenant can do it without written authority, whereas spending authorities, you need to be appointed, not defer to marshal on where exactly that is, but I think there is a little nuance difference in that you can't write the check, you can't sign the paper, you're not authorized unless you're appointed. Whereas firefighting, you can just go fight like, the lieutenants are gonna firefight without.

And that gets to miss Norman's question. Yeah.

Right. So so those those offices that I think you would be the juror addressing on this would be like the director of public safety under eight point o two and the city solicitor. Those are specific, individuals, right, who were appointed by the city manager with the concurrence of counsel. But it doesn't say it doesn't say police chief because that falls under director of public safety, if that makes sense. And and I'm I'm open to having that conversation about director of public safety, and it looks like city solicitor is the only other one.

Kinda feels like a tangent.

Mr. Kagler?

Mr. Sheridan?

Real quick. The Police Chief, Fire Chief and Director of EMS shall be appointed by the City Manager upon concurrence of a majority of the members of council, that's an eight zero two. The Clerk of Council is also appointed by me in concurrence with City Council and then the solicitor. Those are and I'm the Director of Public Safety. That's both roles. Currently under City Manager, I'm the Director of Public Safety. So and then the City Manager Are is also

there acting provision appointing acting provisions for any of the other positions?

No. I just have backups.

If this is an issue for this position, it might also be an issue for the other positions as well.

Only adding Citi No.

It has the full capability. It's not an authority appointed to sign contracts or so it's a chain of command issue, like who's second, who's next, but it's not a legal authority.

Because with the finance director, there's a fiduciary responsibility, where with the other roles, it really is more about the capabilities of the backup.

That's the way I interpret it,

the chain of command.

That's how I

interpret it, too. Alright.

So where do we want to leave this? Have Mr. Itchford tweak it?

So, yeah, I I think so. The the, language is completely consistent with section five zero six, which is about appointing the acting city manager. And so, we would at least have consistency between those two provisions, which is good.

So good, Sarah. Yeah. Yeah.

Do we

leave it way it is? Or

No. To add mister Pitchford's suggested backup thing.

Okay. Alright.

What about what, pardon, mister Kagler was saying? So as the second sentence reads, the council may revoke the designation, designation, and then the council may may appoint. Mister Kaler was suggesting, which I I agree with. The council may revoke, but perhaps then the city manager needs to reappoint. I I would agree council. Yeah.

I agree. I just think it needs to be

with

with concurrence concurrence. Of counsel. Right. Right. Kind of just redoing the process Right.

Every time until we Right. Land on one. Agree. Yeah. Fair enough.

Right. So the so the last sentence, it becomes split. The first half, we keep. The council may revoke such designation. Right? We keep that, and then it would go back to the manager to appoint another Concurrence concurrence from the council. Mhmm. Yeah.

Okay.

Any other comments about that section?

Alright. So

that brings us to section article six, section 6.4, item seven a on the agenda, which is a either continuation of what we started, probably shouldn't have started at the end of the last meeting. My fault. And we've already read the section, so I it's very long. I wouldn't suggest reading it again unless somebody is driving for that. But, we have for that section six point o three or no?

Six point o four. Have received one, two, three, four suggestions, and we did discuss them all. We've already discussed removing references to the newspaper. It doesn't mean the city can't do it, but it's not going to be a requirement. And I'm on Line 33.

Moving up, we talked about the $25,000 threshold and it was I believe the consensus was left to leave it as it is. Moving up to Line Item 31. Discuss that section, that's where we stopped. So I'll go up to Line 30 above that. That was about the threshold as well, and we discussed that and made no changes.

So the section that we did not discuss was or not the section we didn't didn't discuss. The comment that we didn't discuss was no. We did discuss it. Was miss Gowalski's, comments on line 31, and it was regarding placing and removing items placing items on and removing items from agenda. Comments about the threshold.

There were comments about emergencies. You know, I think now that I'm recalling, I think we did discuss this, and I I thought we were getting to the point of consensus that we did not see a reason to change something. Regarding that. Yeah. Correct.

That's what

I recall. The one comment I remember was the remote. Yeah. Oh, that's right. Concern about quorum was that council could meet remotely to provide, emergency authorization. Enabling enabling. Yeah. Declaring the emergency.

Okay. So we yeah. There were four total areas of discussion. The newspaper, which we talked about, the threshold, which we left the way it was, the emergency, which we discussed, and it related to the virtual meetings issue. And I thought we were getting to the point, that mister, Banweig mentioned where, asking asking the solicitor to draft something that would provide for the the council to have the ability to have emergency meetings in the event of no. That's not nope. Remote meetings,

to vote remotely on approving. Emergency. Emergency. For an emergency.

And I think it was getting late. I'm not getting it all right. It was getting late. So we're

But but within, like, twelve hours, and then they can convene. We talked about that. I made that note. Right. But then it was, okay. What if somebody is out of town and you need them to be able to vote? Is there a need for us to have that optionality built in here? Could they not do that today? Would they have to meet in person? Twelve twelve hours and one minute, they could get together in person the way it is right now. But if three of them are on spring break and they can't get a quorum, would that currently, they'd not be able to meet until everybody got back in town to make good

Not on quorum, which would be a

they would

not be able to meet. Think the trick is how do you define emergency different than every other place that we've defined emergency in our in our code. That's something that we struggled with we came up with this issue on a council last year. So how do you define emergency? Because I could see and abuse isn't the right word, but you could see that, that would be a regular occurrence.

Everybody could be dialing in remotely. And again, that's not necessarily wrong if you don't want it to be, right? If you want your council members to be able to participate remotely, then let's ask the electorate. It's a policy decision about do we want people in the room or not? I think someone said that it's a Macedonia.

Yeah. They actually prescribed only two instances where you could do that either in the health or weather emergencies. To this day, they haven't had to do it. But it's more like after the state made it so you had to be back in person. Like, well, we want to have that option so we can make that choice ourselves whether there's an outbreak in city hall or council, they can do it remotely or if there's blizzards. Thankfully, it hasn't happened yet, but those are only two options you have for meeting remotely.

Mr. Chairman, I think we also after discussing all the virtual options and thoughts around that, Mr. Ryan made the point that what's the problem at hand. And I think were we coming to consensus as well that we might not have a problem to solve. So maybe the virtual wasn't necessary.

Mr. Ryan

brought to our attention the difference between, I think, the terms you used were the mitigation and the fix.

Yes.

And, I can't remember which you used for which, but one of them was getting the problem fixed or sorry. Getting the problem taken care of. That's the Mitigation. Mitigation. And then the other is, coming back afterwards and cleaning up the authorization and everything like that. Correct. I I frankly am of the mind that if on the one chance in a million where an emergency happens that's over a certain expenditure amount and a certain number of council members can't be accessible for whatever reason, I frankly think that's why we have the have the city manager hired with the qualifications to make the decisions to take care of things.

Figure it out.

And there is a threshold for expenditure. Yeah. But the council also has the ability to approve expenditures then for now if the city manager makes the commitment for the expenditure before it's authorized by council. And that would be, in my opinion, a perfect way to do a perfect reason to do that. And the the consequence would be I mean, the city manager would be exceeding his or her authority if they said, well, I need to spend 50,000 for this, and I need to do it today before they meet tomorrow.

And then council would meet the next day, and they either, a, approve then for now what the city manager did or b, said, what the heck were you thinking of? We need a new city manager. And if if you have the the person in place who's qualified to make the decisions, I think you have to kind of trust that things are going to happen. And if if it's not, you trust the council to take care of things. I'm frankly, I I I hear the concern, and I remember the the hole in 303 in front of McDonald's when whenever this happened or whatever it was.

And I remember the discussion and the concern, but I frankly don't believe it's worth modifying the charter to provide a way to deal with that one situation that I've heard in the past forty years that I've lived here.

Yes. And I think there's always going to be exceptions. And if we try to capture every single exception, like this will look like the yellow pages. Maybe that's a bad reference because they're not around anymore.

But it would look like

Scott may have them still.

I do.

A whole bunch

of them. Yeah.

So does anyone believe any changes made in that?

I think as is. As is.

Reference of the last paragraph of

Six point o four.

I

mean, it's the it's the whole paragraph, but it's on the next on my next page. Oh. So I just wanna be sure that

I Yes. Already made the newspaper change, and we're suggesting that's the only change we have.

That's the only change. Okay.

I agree with just want be sure I

was on the So I will know that we're in 6.04.

Mr. Chair, I do have one very non substantial change. The first sentence, it just bugs me. Enter into contracts in behalf of the municipality. Should be like on behalf or is in behalf of I thought maybe it was just the typo in here, but it's both in the print and online version. I don't know if that needs to go to like the polls or something.

It's still a typo, but it's a typo that went past everybody over I thought

the same thing when I made this up. I'm like, I would put on there as well, but I wasn't going to go and put that out there unless anybody else. We

weren't making other changes to the section, I'd say, let it for the next one. But since we are, I would suggest that's a good correction to assert as well.

Cool. And just if anybody has any questions on the version you have in front of you, why I added the sentence or the phrase and subject to the requirements of this section. That clarifies a debate on the interpretation of that first sentence or whether or not really and it applies to the last clause, like unless otherwise provided by an ordinance of counsel. So does that mean that the city manager can we pass how to find ordinance and they raise it to $75,000 does that mean that the rest of these charter doesn't apply? So what I'm doing is tying the first sentence to the rest of those requirements for anything above the seven or above 25,000, the rest of it applies.

But that's the purpose of why I put that in there. We talked about it, but we didn't talk about what that language meant.

That because the except as otherwise may be provided by counsel, there was some question among counsel whether that applied to everything in the section or not?

Right. So when the topic originally came up about the emergency, one of the arguments was, well, all we have to do is pass an ordinance and we can do it. And the counter that was, well, the rest of the the rest of that paragraph says just the opposite. And so does which would control the ordinance or the rest of the paragraph of the charter? By adding the requirement and the subject to the requirements of the rest of the section, ties it and on it. Yes. Okay.

So this would be the first draft of that change. So we'd also be adding on the second line, that end on?

Yes. I made that change as well.

And then I'm in your strike through is kind of in the middle. One of those buys is gonna need to go away either Yep.

In the middle or not.

It appeared at the end. Period at the very end.

Oh, I

have the section.

It's not there.

No. Good. Which is in the it is the version.

It is in the print version. We're gonna

blame that on Mr. Mark. Pittsburgh. When you took out the amendment. Yeah.

Yes. Again. We're just like it on public record. Okay.

Now we move on to Before we move on,

I do have another topic on this that has been the subject of some administrative questions. And I don't I did not bring the language and I didn't put it in here tonight. But in conversations with the administration, we wanted to raise the topic. Sometimes there is a scenario where there's a in the phraseology we use is there's only one source or a sole source to procure something. And so when you want to go out for a bid on something, but there's only really a sole source, can we just dispense with the advertising and so on if there's really it's just just been determined there's a sole source.

There have been and it doesn't happen all the time, but I would tell you that it happens several times a year where the sole source issue has been brought by the administration and they want to be able but it costs, let's say, dollars 50,000 to buy a piece of equipment, but there's only one person that makes it in the world. So it doesn't make any sense because it doesn't fit into any of the other categories. Can we add the category of purchasing an asset or a product that is where there is a sole source provider? So as a concept, we don't have to decide it tonight, but it was something else that the administration and I have been discussing and it came up even again today.

Is there a specific example?

Microsoft. We don't have a choice. We have to use Microsoft. Correct. That's a good example.

So if I've done this

professionally and when I've done it in in my career, we've had an approved list of souls so in in the event of, like, a Microsoft, it would be an approved list of IT provider for this reason. Microsoft is our only option. And then through so that it's it's available. Anyone can see here's all the sole source. Here's why. Here's the subject of what we're purchasing from them. And it's just a little bit more transparent rather than just, well, it's sole source because we said it is, and it's hard to find.

Yeah. I would agree because it's so I've been in supply chain for Yeah. Thirty years. And whenever I hear sole source, my first statement is, is it really? I know it's question, but Halliburton? Is it

really really a sole source?

Yeah. Because it's it's especially now, the real question is, okay. Well, how hard did you look? You know? Is it, oh, they're the sole source in the 15 mile radius? So that's where I mean, sometimes there are like, you know, you look at certain chemicals and and certain pieces of equipment. There truly are only there is only one source, but it's that that's one where and I don't wanna litigate it to death, but it's there there almost needs to be a second set of eyes to verify that that really is truly the only sole source.

So is this an issue this an issue for just for when it exceeds the $25,000 threshold and the bidding process is triggered?

Yes. Okay. So this would only apply to something that's above $25,000 My intention is that it will still go to city council for approval and consideration. It's just that you don't have to do the bidding or it's not an emergency, those kinds of things, to try to kind of carve that out. Like right now, we can pass it on an emergency basis, but we're trying to be intellectually honest about it. What's an emergency on a sole source matter of unless we really are up against the deadline or something like that?

I mean, since the example has been given, if it is actually in the event that it's in excess of the threshold, it's something where the city manager would normally be going through the bidding process and then bringing the bid award to the council. The expense even if there's no bidding process, the expenditure would still go to council because it's over the threshold. Yes. So is there how about if, since you've given some thought to it, bringing back a sentence to an insert at the end that would say something to the effect of the city manager may inform counsel that in certain circumstances where the city manager determines that the availability of a product or services is only from a sole source, the manager shall inform the council of the reasons bypassing the bidding process like Just

a point of clarification. So when I see this as a procurement question, a buying question, is this only as it relates to an emergency or in general?

Any general.

In In My general? Comment about emergency is that that's a way to pass it anyway. Could if you read the language of the charter here, if it really is a sole source, we still get around the sole source rule. I just don't think that's intellectually Yes.

Okay. And I appreciate because even the machinery

Legally, technically, it's still permissible, but I don't think it captures the spirit is a better way to say

Do you really feel you need to add a $75,000 limit to that per se?

Not putting $75,000 This is on all everything above $25,000 if it's a sole source. If it's below we're keeping the parameters of everything below 25 is within the city manager's discretion. Everything above 25,000 is Okay.

We kids unless you have an emergency. And the way you would then nominate Microsoft as an emergency in order to get passed.

I could really rewrite this because it's clunky, right? I mean, we could probably, if we were to use subparts, for example, right? The first sentence is everything above 25,000 and then second is unless, and then we could ABCD because that's probably a better way to read it because the sentences here are clunky. If we wanted a full rewrite, it might be easier to understand. We wouldn't be struggling with this question as much, think.

Think it also I would

think it we want to go that far and rewrite the whole paragraph as opposed to where we're just doing the surgical tweaks right now. It functions, but it would be is it better? Yes, it's better.

Do we

want to rewrite it? I

would support it just because of what we've had five five comments on it alone. Like, that's, I think, the most out of any section. It would be interesting to just see it in a new format like you'd suggested. And then I had just one clarification. So the sole source piece that you've brought up, can I get into just a high level, like how much what's the net savings on that? Is that what's the real reasoning for it? Would it save a month? Or would it save It's

not a savings question. It's really

It's a I think it's

a time line. There's no bidders. There's we're only going to get one response. Why would we

I'm just asking for the why here. Like I understand, I think, but I just wanted to make sure I

was clear. There was not an advantage. You wouldn't need this process. The advantage, if I'm reading into it, is that we're saving time rather than going through the process, shooting out for bids when we know there's only one. And the counter argument is, do you really know there's only one? Yes. So trying to quantify what do we gain by doing that.

And then on that particular, is there only one more? Yes. But if there's only one in six states, because that's the example that I use, right? It's what you're saying 50 miles, six states, is that really still sole source and it's a slippery slope. But if we're advertising for it and only one person responds, then we're safe, too. So it's really then comes back to,

as

Chris is saying, it's a timing question. I agree with you on all of the topics. And we have in my company, we've got a few sole source like, when you have a crime scene cleanup, there's really not a lot of cleanup people who wouldn't do that. My question for you, though, really is what's the cure for this, just as a devil's advocate here? If if there is a a claim that it's a sole source and some other provider has appeared because they're like, hey.

There's no competition except this one guy, and we can do better, cheaper, faster. What's the cure for a situation where we had a sole source that may not remain in that category? How do you fix that? Is it just contract by contract? But if we have a list, if council's determined a list of preapproved, how do you get things on and off that list?

Vendor challenging the challenging the council and the city manager's actions consistent with the charter provision.

And I can we can add in language with it. It exists another places exist in the revised code, where there's a required finding by city council. So we would make it a finding that they are the this is the only sole source. It a recital would right, a whereas clause in the legislation. Whereas this is the only we find that this is you have to use that language to counsel fines. And that would be a

If that's covered in the state's bidding requirements, is that something that is necessary to be

It is not in the state bidding requirements. If it were in the state bidding requirements, we would be having this conversation. Okay.

Got it.

Tie it to Greg's question, like the time saved in doing sole source versus versus the time spent in writing that whereas like are they? Saving time, but we're spending time. Is it a wash?

Well, you've already you would expect as a practical matter that the administration has already done their homework, right? Our administration doesn't come to the city council and propose a contract if they haven't researched it. And then the oversight question then is from council. Well, Mr. Sheridan or Mr. Knoblauch or whoever, how much have you researched? Tell us more about why is a sole source or not?

I think my concern is in truth. We don't generally do that. So you're at a single point of failure. And I love Tom. Tom won't always be there and you don't know who you're going to have. Systemically forcing the bid is a The oversight makes it public. Not forcing it. I just put it back to Greg's statement of what are we gaining? Is it a balancing because it's maybe expedient, but with expedient, you lose transparency. I know I can speak on most accounts. Prefer transparency to Expedia, but we're

do it this way. Here's example. A hypothetical using Microsoft, let's say that we need to have Microsoft because they're that's the operating system. And we put out an RFP. RFP or an advertising for bids, and they don't respond. They're like, you know, we've already We've already got the quote. They don't formally respond. They don't They just email what they gave us before kind of a thing. Know. It's then what? Like, I because I don't have a mechanism here to unless it's now it's an emergency. And then, again, we can call it an emergency. But maybe that's the answer. It's an emergency.

What if I mean to tease it, like, I and I'm forgetting the name of it. What if Linux? Microsoft, you could go with Linux. Then it's it's different than it's not that there's single sole source. It's that we're trying to cover is that what staff's bringing up. We have preferred source.

That's where you go to the standard of bid award of lowest and meet the requirement.

We have always the

best in the not qualifying bidder because they don't meet the requirements of the

Maybe we can put a pin in there for now, and we'll do some more talking and come back and try to answer some of your questions.

I think it would it could be it could be

triggered

if the situation where it'd be required is if the manager was required to and had to go through the bidding process and didn't get any responses because, you know, there was only a sole source vendor that doesn't respond to bids because they're a sole source vendor. In that case, then it doesn't save any time, but it's a way of the city getting business done without trying to turn up an apple into an orange with a vendor that will not comply with the bidding process. Yeah. So maybe it's a it's you get to that point of award without that word, that position of having to do it a different way because you've tried and you can't do it the first way. But I'll add to the chart a 6.4 comment from mister Pitchford to suggest a his suggestion was to provide a rewrite of the section with respect to advertising sole source threshold approval.

So it'd be like a global rewrite of the whole section for order.

And I'll read a couple of different versions, right? One that doesn't have sole source and one that does have the reorganization, if you will?

Once he does it, we'll be able to have a discussion, which will be able to be more informed by looking at what he's proposed.

Because just the experience versus transparency, emergencies notwithstanding, right, let's take emergencies off the table. I would think that any expenditure over $25,000 has a modicum of planning to it. It's not something we need next week. So I would lean more towards the transparency than being able to get it done faster.

Mr. Sheridan, how long do we go out when we go out for bid, how long do bidders have to respond to our or is it different every time? Three weeks. So it's a lot longer than Right.

And honestly, the sole source in all my years, I used to run purchasing for another community. You got to watch because some staff will try to make a John Deere tractor with this the green. It has to be green. Well, Cat makes a tractor and everybody else does. So you got to watch this. Staff doesn't abuse it. But Mr. Pitchford brought this to my attention saying we don't currently have this. And we have people getting sole source. And as I said to Microsoft, we all said about planning. I agree. We do a really good job. I'm not worried about it. It probably comes up, Mr. Bandwig.

You've probably seen it, what, maybe once in a year. It is not something that comes up a lot, but it usually has a time frame to it because Microsoft, I'm picking on them. We don't use Apple. So we'd have to change everything here. So it's kind of that makes it a sole source in a sense. But they may say, we need a license approved and we need it approved by the March. And I can't even ask counsel to have three readings. I have to put it on consent. And again, there's no one else. I have to use that software once a year, twice a year maybe.

I'm with you, Mr. Ryan. I watch over sole sources. I also watch over state bids. Somebody will say, this Android phone is on a state bid and then they go buy an Apple phone and they call it a mobile phone. And that's got those are the things, the tricks you got to watch for. That's only because I had a purchasing background in a former job. So but here, I think with Mr. Pritchford is saying, we don't have it currently. We do use it and we really should have it at least addressed in our charter. So that's the whole reason I thought it was being brought up today. But Marshall, does that sound correct?

Thank you.

Have we beat section 6.4 to death? Yep.

All right.

Now moving on, item seven b, article seven. There are four sections in article seven, section seven point o one nominations. Mr. Trainer, would you like to read that for

us? Sure.

Section seven point o one, nominations. There shall be no primary election for municipal offices. Nominations for elective offices of the municipalities shall be made by petition only, signed by not less than 50 registered voters of the applicable area of the municipality for which the office is sought on the standard forms for the nomination of nonpartisan candidates for such office filed with the Board of Elections at least ninety days before the day of elections. Each candidate shall file a separate petition. Group petitions shall not be used.

Petitions may be in a number of parts, but each part shall be verified under oath by the circulator as required by law. It was amended in o five, twelve, and 20.

And we have received two, suggested changes to section seven point o one. These are on page three of the list, lines thirty four and thirty five. First is from mister Bandweg. This says election requirements for bodies that receive property levied that levied property tax dollars prioritized for the ballot. Taxpayers deserve the opportunity to have their voice heard particularly when the tack when their tax dollars are being used simply per the merit of their residency without requiring additional memberships.

The closer they can get to those decisions, the more it is likely to be transparent and aligned with the interest of the residents. I recommend that elections for any administrative body that is the recipient of tax revenue as a source of funding shall be required to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd years in a manner consistent with the public elections. In addition, counsel should be prohibited from placing a levy a tax levy on the ballot if the body of that entity is not elected by the board of elections or elected via the board of elections. The board of elections process supports the inclusion of affected voters aligned with federal and state laws supporting access to vote in matters directly affecting their taxes by absentee ballot or flexible in person scheduling. And mister, Foster's comment just after that, Elections for any administrative body that is the recipient of tax revenues as a source of their funding shall be required to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd years in a manner consistent with public elections.

Alternatively, counsel should be forbidden from placing a property tax levy on any ballot if the body that any is not elected via the board of elections process. Purpose, city council has permitted bodies to add a levy to ballots where the body holds elections that are not easily and openly available to all members of the community and do not provide for absentee or early voting in the given election. If the community is to vote on a levy, it should also vote on the officers of the organization being given control of those tax dollars. In the case of the library, only members can vote, but everyone pays via property taxes. So in between the lines, I believe both of these, the only entity that I know of that other than parks used to be separate, but the only entity that's separate that the council puts on the ballot is, I believe, the library library board.

Currently, yes. And as we I think we discussed it previously, libraries and association library, and they have their ways of, operating, which everyone has their opinions of some pros, some con, understandably. So based on what you saw with this section relates to nominations for elective offices, so I guess how this would since mister Bandweg is here is the suggestion more that anybody that's seeking tax doc dollars should have either elected an elected publicly elected Board or a Board that's appointed by the city. Is that am I reading between the lines?

So between the lines, I mean, could add the appointed by counsel. But what I have tried to say here is if you are going to be the recipient of tax dollars, your leadership the voting for your leadership should be in accordance with Board of Elections process and opportunity. And I think to your point, the direct example is the library has voting on one day for one hour for members only. But I and I can't remember off the top my head, 40% of their funding comes from tax levy. So it's essentially operating almost like a government entity.

I have heard proposals for other organizations to be funded in that way. And I believe that if we fund the police department, fire department, they're all accountable directly to the government who are elected by individuals. So if we're going to pass a levy between the lines is we should be electing the leadership of that organization in a public way that's consistent with the Board of Elections as opposed to a unique way that does not allow people who are being taxed to fund it to have a voice in their leadership.

And I'm correct, you did it like last Sunday. So on the weekends, especially on Sundays, is a hard day for a lot of people to make just for faith based reasons. It's not something some people do. So just

kind of

during the week, which seems a little bit weird, but

It's simply tight, right? And for voting in general for things relevant to your taxes with that single exception at this point, we have absentee voting, we have early voting, we have all day voting. And we already have the infrastructure to do that. So it's not an imposition. You're simply moving that choice onto a ballot in the voting process that's already in existence.

I have two questions. Am I recalling correctly that from one of our previous meetings, the distinction in our specific situation is that the formation of our library makes it an independent five zero one c three that we don't have the legal authority to say, and so you will allow us to appoint your leadership because that's that's a law that's an that's an issue. And then the sec so that's sort of a question just confirming my recollection. But the second question is, if if the city did not provide that, is the school board in a position to stand in the city's stead to authorize that levy?

I don't know the answer to that question.

Okay.

Can opine on the legal aspects of it. So my understanding, there's four different ways you can form a library in the state of Ohio. There could be a municipal library. So it's a it's an arm of the city. That's easy. Right. City. A county library, so it'd be an arm of the county government. A association library, which we have in it just happens to be the way that this was this was formed in whenever whenever the library was formed. It was at least it goes back to the fifties because that's when Tom Vince was hired.

For decades that the association was created. And the way that this so I would if it's a five zero one c three or if it's some other section of the revised code that creates it, they it it exists as a separate entity. And they decide in their charter or however they are set up how their board is is elected and created, and that's where the the procedures that are confusing to a lot of people happen. The library until, I wanna say, the nineties, the early nineties was I don't know how it was financed. But when the little library that's now the where the Morgan Foundation is on Aurora Street, Before merger, the library at that point, Hudson Library and Historical Society came to the village and they came to the township.

And they said, we want to build a new library. First, they want to build it on the site and they want to build it somewhere else. And at that point, there was a village, and then there was a town a township that included in our area, but it also included the the village. So because the township covered all of Hudson Village and Township, they went and if an association library wants property tax money, they have to the the verb, I think, is affiliating. They have to affiliate with an some entity. They could affiliate with the village. They could affiliate with the township. They could have affiliated with the school district. And that sorry. That's the fourth kind of library.

It's a library that's established by the school district for the community. They chose to try to affiliate with the township, and they came to a bunch of township trustee meetings, and they tried at that point to get the trustees put on the ballot. I can't really remember if they did or not, but it went on. And there were levies that were tried, and then merger happened, and then they came back and the original levy to build the new library around the time of 1st And Main, that went on the ballot, put on the ballot by the the city plus the the bond or whatever, and then the the operating levies came after that. So they chose and they chose to ask the city and the council, said yes.

The council could say, no. We're not gonna do it. And if the council said, no, the what library could ask the school district? And keep in mind, the school district covers not just Hudson, but also, parts of Boston Heights and Boston Township, which arguably they use the library as well, but aren't paying taxes for it currently because it's just coming from city tax resources. So they could do that, and the school district could say yes.

But that this section, none of this, in my opinion, relates to, this section because we're talking about the process for nominating elected officials of the municipality. But the the discussion about that issue of should the council put property tax levies on the ballot if it has some concerns with the organization that's asking for the property tax levies, that's a valid question. Whether that, whether that's a charter question, I don't know. If so, maybe it's under taxation or a standard for putting something on the ballot. But to what I'm and I don't wanna read between the lines.

When I when I read these cons the suggestions first, I saw if we're gonna put you put your levy on the ballot, then your organization should be accountable to the taxpayers who are voting for the levy, not just get the money and take the money and run kind of a thing. And I think that's a reasonable question. So if that's if that is a reasonable question and you think so, maybe we should give some thought to, number one, is that a charter question? And number two, if so if yes, then, how and where? I'm not sure it is, but I think that's

Can I

have question? Yeah. My understanding is the way it's been described in the past couple of meetings anyway, that the library board is selected by a group of people that volunteer and come in and say, yeah. I'll do this or I'll do that or whatever. It's not like they have an election, but they're receiving public money.

Does everybody in town qualify for a library card that they could come into that meeting and say, I want so and so to be the president or I want so and so to be but you have to have a card in order to get in to vote for those members. Is that right? We'll say people that are paying taxes, not everybody goes and uses that library.

There's nothing barring anyone from getting a library card if you're paying property taxes in Hudson, though.

But if we're paying to support the library, I mean, shouldn't the members of the library board be appointed by the city council like some of the other boards are?

I think that we lost To mister Kegler's point is that there is separate association as opposed to a minute, like they're not our city library. So the only relationship is we're giving them tax dollars as opposed to being formed by the city, which then the council might be appointing people. But I don't know the legal rent.

But do the residents of the city of Hudson who are the taxpayers understand that that's the relationship that we have with the library? Oh, I don't think that's clear at all.

Yeah. Nobody knows why. Here.

Yeah. Yeah. Well and miss McCoy, it sounds like there was a vote at the library.

Last week, I think, last Sunday at 2PM.

So it's funny. I'm in the library at least twice a month. I get all that. I had no idea.

I only knew my because my sister told me. I'm also in the library with bunch of my kids.

I had no idea.

No idea.

Do we know does the library get any other funding besides the so they get plenty from other places Not a 100% funded.

It's like private.

Right. But any

There's also shared intergovernmental revenue from the state. It's not that much, but library and local government revenue. City gets a piece of that. School district gets a piece of that. Library gets a piece of that. I don't know what it is, but it's probably not a big

But if there's a levy on the ballot, then it would only be from the the only way that the money would be raised would be from the Hudson taxpayers. It's not like it would be state funded somehow. Would It only be Hudson related. Levees. The levees on the ballots that we're talking about. Okay.

Yeah. I just have

a and I'm probably overthinking this, but just talking about the structure of our library, I would expect that there's some sort of kind of legal structure to that structure of our library. Are we even able to make this change, or would we be in kind of bumping against whatever the framework of our library is?

My opinion, I'm not a lawyer. But we could because with any levy, we can put requirements on the levy when it's brought to city council. So we could individually make this a requirement each time or if it's changed in the charter as a general requirement or the discussion of does it fit in the charter or not, it would become a consistent requirement for any organization that wants

tax dollars. It's less about

the library. It's more about the the levy itself. Okay.

I'll tell you the background is many people have been frustrated with, I didn't know there was a vote. I couldn't get there. I was out of town. And it's not a problem with the library.

It's

people want to vote. And if you look at the challenges, current leadership supports the process that got them elected, which doesn't open to the complaints of those people. So it's kind of a self serving cycle of and this just says, look, you know, it's a lot of taxpayer dollars as representatives of these residents. That's why I'm putting it out is to say, I'm getting these complaints from residents constantly. There is a way we can do it.

If if you put, some some I don't even know how. Let's say you put a section in the charter that accomplished that and said, counsel shall not put a levy on the ballot for an entity that is not either, governed by elected officials or appointed by elected officials. The offshoot of that, if you do like stack of dominoes, is that when the library comes in next time, and then if that charter amendment is approved and it's in the charter, library comes in and says, we'd like to put our levy on the ballot. The city holds up the charter and says, we can't. You have to basically, what it would do is it would basically say, in order for us to put this levy on the ballot, you need to change.

So either the, the library would have the option of changing its form to become a municipal library or something, a school district library. Or they could just say, go pound Sam. We're gonna go to the school district and see if the school board will put the the levy on, in front of the school board school district voters. In which case, that doesn't solve anything. It just has more taxpayers contributing to what some people, perceive as a confusing and nonrepresentative, process.

But, and that could be accomplished. Also, there's no requirement when the lebri comes to council now and asked to put something on the bell, there's no requirement, like, with an initiative for the council to say yes. The council could, as mister Bamweg said, simply say no or we will if you change. But as you said, that would be a a one off kind of thing. And in in response to that, the library could also just go to the school district and see if the school district put it on the ballot. Arguably, would a bigger be a bigger tax base. It would spread it out. It would cost less for everyone to raise the same amount of, same amount of money since the district has a larger tax base than the city, a larger valuation than the city.

So what efforts what have there been any efforts by city council to negotiate this with the library? I mean, have they come back and said, no. We like the way we do it?

No. It's not a negotiation with city council. It's a suggestion for the charter.

They're just coming to

to the council with

their handouts saying, can we please have this for our operating cost? And we need this much money.

Just the library is the point. Like there have been suggestions that other organizations funded by levies, other nonprofit type associations. So if that's going to yeah, if that's going to happen, we the point of this is that there is oversight and transparency. So that's why it's not an individual conversation. It's library. The

library is

an example. Gotcha. But if someone wants to add some other organization.

So what's at stake here from what I'm hearing is, do we agree that Citi funding should not be given to any organization that the Citi process is not overseeing. I think that's ultimately what we're talking about. If it's a nonelected official that we have had no say in who is running the organization, and yet our tax dollars are going to that organization, Do we think that's reasonable? I probably would say, I don't. I would say, so then how do you you could certainly try to get the library I don't think the library is the point, so back to that.

But you get the organization changed, you could say we're not giving any funding and we're not going to have levies for you because you're not under our Umbrella. Governance. It's, I think, fairly straightforward when it comes to that.

The city's the city's, answer in this is not to using the library as an example. The city's goal is not to change the library. The city's goal is to set a policy Mhmm. For how city generated tax funds should be should or should not be used.

It puts the accountability back on us to make sure there's transparency. Right? We create this rule for ourselves to say, we will not accept something under the standard of what I'm proposing, what the residents deserve, which is the same access to voting as any other election, the same transparency as any other bit of funding.

Sounds like there's not too many instances of this happening. So my question was just is would that create any resource strain if we said, hey, we do want to have some oversight. Not adding someone. Foresee it.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I think it is about transparency because the library is almost like an NGO where they get money from the government, but they're not accountable or there's no transparency required.

It's an association library is the only type of library in the state of Ohio that is not a taxing subdivision. It's not a taxable entity, so it must affiliate with a political subdivision that Well,

it's just so maybe to say it a little bit differently. Like, I love the library. I am a huge fan of the library. I would just like to know where you know, if we're giving them a portion of our tax dollars, I'd like to know where it's going.

I would just ask. So we're talking this section this section is nominations, elections, and qualifications of individuals. So either either we need to address that any organization that receives money needs to go through our election and nomination process and qualification process, or we need to whatever levies is dealt with, we need to maybe more more apropos for me would be you we don't we don't wherever levies. I don't know if levies is in our charter, but we should not allow a levy to be placed on a ballot without Yeah. Understanding that we voted in the leadership of that organization. Is that

Your point is well taken. And this is something I would probably bump it up to Section six, which is about finances. Yes. Don't have

Go back to

six. Going to be trying to move on, but you is like Well, look, if

it goes back to six, which I think could be a good place,

then it just says, right, and it has to follow everything in section seven.

May I ask the question, mister Pittsford, so as not to reinvent the wheel, do you know of any other place in the state of Ohio that has has dealt with this that we don't have

to start from scratch on? It doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'm not aware of

it. Okay.

But this is a new new concept for me. So I'll be I made some notes here. I'm gonna do some research, and I'll have to get back to you on the even even the

My suggestion would be I mean, it could be six. It could be some other It could 12. It could be under powers of taxation, some wherever that is or something like that. I would I would suggest that we note that the we ask the solicitor to

Yeah.

Research and draft something to be placed in a section to be determined.

Yeah. Maybe I would even

suggest address the issues.

I would I would would just I totally agree. I would just, if there's a suggestion of where we would add it Yeah. That would be helpful for us because I I think we could all come up with Well, yeah.

And so if I try to boil it down to the problem we're trying to solve, it's if a levy is to go on the ballot, there needs to be transparency around where and how those funds are

Basically putting putting something in the charter to set qualifications for entities that request placement of tax levy

Yeah. But

also we have to remember the library, and I'm just using the library as an example because if you think about, like, the police chief and the fire chief, they're nominated by the city manager who's hired by city council who are elected officials. So you kinda have to back it up that way. But every is it 3¢ to our dollar goes to the library as of now? So even if they don't have a levy, we're still paying taxes to them currently. So we don't need a levy to be like you know, it's not like we need a levy to be like, oh, well, now they're asking for money. They still get $3 to every dollar.

33% according to the last meeting that we discussed. 33% of our tax dollars, property taxes goes to the library.

And so that's even without a levy.

I think that's from a past levy.

But still But

I understand what you're saying.

About future levies versus should our funding going be going to an organization that we don't have a vote on how they use that money? I mean, because we don't. Right? I mean, if that's run, nobody nobody hates the library.

I think

that's Yeah.

In fairness, I haven't seen I haven't seen the document, but

if anything,

it wouldn't be 30% of of or whatever of your taxes. It would be 30% of that portion of your taxes that go that goes to the city. Because only a very small portion of your total property tax bill comes to the city of Hudson and this then the city Right. Sends it for fire, EMS Right. Right. General and

Yeah. I'm thinking about the chart from the steering committee where it's like the the school board has $0.70 to our dollar, this and it kind of staggers it that way. To your point,

that's the end of the dollar.

Not going to send out that way.

So it's

yes. Yes. But the rule, that's how was going ask. That's what the levy is. It's one third of what we what the city gets out of the property tax, which is generally 6% generally across

500 a house. I know that average, I don't know the specific percentages.

Can vary from community community, but it's not. It's, I mean, are you kind, sir?

Right. Okay.

So we'll ask solicitor to draft and suggest a section.

I had one question. I know we say it's not necessarily about the library, but would this affect any other body? I mean, because you think about the tax dollars that we pay right now, it also goes like Summit Metroparks and Summit County developmental disabilities. We don't have any say over their board or how they're running. I know we've had issues with the property by the YDC with this Metroparks, not really taking action on properties that we've waiting on forever. Do we have any sort of Recourse.

Recourse on that. Their levy isn't put on by City Council.

Is it just that the City Council has to shepherd in this levy

Under the when you think about the scope of this is under the authority of the City Council and the City Charter. That's why like the library affected, but the Summit County Metro Parks is a different levy, a different

wide.

So as of now though, if we made this change, it would only affect the library?

Or anything that may come into effect later.

Is it a permanent levy? Is that

a term? Think it's a term levy.

They'll do like a fixed term and then they do a renewal or a replacement or So

that makes it a more little complicated, but yes. Well, that's not permanent. But essentially, with the thought process is the levy as it is right now, we'll serve out, and then this would apply to the next Absolutely.

And the point isn't to be disruptive, like, for the nature of the chart. It's to set a standard for having had some those of questions about other organizations that want levies for tax.

But what's the

bar?

The bar today is not very high for oversight for tax dollars once it's passed. So that's where the idea came from.

Just so everyone knows, I'm gonna reference it at the end of the list. I'm not gonna associate it with a an article or section of the of the charter since since

it's gonna come back. Back

to section seven point o one, it related to the the signatures required the days before and the petitions. Does anyone have any suggested changes to that section?

I'm just gonna raise one, comment here. We heard information about ranked choice voting, And the fact that we don't have a primary election for a municipal office, like, let's just say, at large council persons, means that we end up with people who, with the plurality in every November that if we had a primary system, we would be able to make it for the top two vote getters if it's a new, ward, individuals. I don't know how we would fix it for citywide at larges, but I I just point that out because I'm always looking for all the different ways to skin the cat. And I'm I'm This this is sorry.

This section is specifically regarding nominations. I wanna there's lots of things we can discuss, but we're you know, this

is Right. But it says no primary election. That's that's my hook right there, mister Kiegler. Yeah.

No primary election.

Got it.

And so I'm not necessarily making a proposition for a change. I just wanna sort of highlight that for our future discussion when we come back to rank choice.

Okay. Okay. That's good.

Anyone have any suggested changes or concerns to the section the way it's currently drafted, absent what Ms. Norman just said? No. Okay. Move on to Section 7.02, balance. Ms. Griffith?

The names of all candidates nominated for elective office in the municipality shall be printed on the official ballot without party designation. The names of all candidates shall be rotated on the ballot as provided by the laws of the State of Ohio, except as otherwise provided in this charter. The laws of the State of Ohio shall govern the nomination and election of elective officers of this municipality.

And we received no suggestions regarding this section. Is there any comments or questions, concerns about this section? Okay. Section 7.03 Elections. Ms. McCoy?

The regular municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd numbered years. The council may be may by resolution order a special election at any time, the purpose of which shall be set forth in the resolution. Where the charter is silent, the provisions of the state election laws shall be followed.

We received no suggestions regarding this section. Does anyone have any we did change, Marshall, we changed gubernatorial to we changed municipal to gubernatorial and other situations, but this is specifically relating to municipal elections.

Yes. And this would be a municipal year and this is traditionally where you find municipal is an odd number of years. So this is the traditional format. Okay.

Any questions, comments, concerns about this section? No. Okay. Section 7.4, qualifications. Ms. Spitaleri.

Each elected officer of the municipality shall be a qualified elector of the municipality and shall have resided in the municipality or in territory annexed thereto or in the ward in which the candidate is seeking office for a period of at least two continuous years immediately preceding the date of election and shall continue to reside in the applicable area of the municipality for which the officer was elected during said term shall hold no incompatible office under the national state or county government, not have any financial interest in any contract to which the municipality is a party or in any expenditure of money by the municipality other than fixed compensation and traveling or other expenses incidental to the authorized furtherance of the interests of the municipality.

And we received no comments regarding this. I remember the question during the interviews about the two continuous years of residency, and I don't have any issues with it. That might have been more for Board and Commission members. But that's the only thing I can remember. Does anyone have any comments or questions, concerns with this section? Mr. Hoover?

I just had a question clarifying. It says that they should not have any financial interests. Is that just at the election or throughout the whole term? I'm assuming it's throughout the whole term, but is there any sort of safeguard against this? Or is it just hoping the elected officials recuse themselves that come upon something that they would have a conflict?

Or is this qualifications to run or qualifications to serve?

The comment that you're referring to, is specifically throughout the entire term, right? So that you do not you may not have a financial interest and that is in the charter, but it's also a matter of state law. I mean, there are criminal sanctions. You can be removed for off from off.

Okay. That's what I assumed. I just didn't know if it needed to spelled out.

Yes. I'm going have

to submit a report each year to research.

Oh, yeah.

So my whole four zero one k is in somebody's report. I

have a question that as many times as I've read this, it just hit me tonight. We are essentially making a requirement not just that someone who wants to run for office has lived in Hudson for two years, but if they want to run for a ward councilman, they need to have lived in that ward for two years as well. Do we really have a compelling interest? I mean, if you lived in Hudson, I'm not a person who would do this. If I'm gonna move, I'm really gonna move.

Okay? But there are some people who have moved from one ward to another. And even though they've lived in Hudson for a total of twenty years, they've lived in three different wards, and now they've moved to the 3rd Ward, and they they wouldn't be eligible to serve as ward I'm just gonna make up three because they've already lived in one and two. They wouldn't be eligible to serve as council person because they hadn't lived in that ward. They'd they'd be eligible for state for citywide at large. Right? But not for ward for the individual ward. Okay.

And if that large member moved, they could serve in any ward or lived in the entire city. True.

Okay. I just wanna make sure we intended to make that.

I think the intent is to have you live in the area that you intend to represent for two years prior to representing that area. Represent that

ward. It makes a lot more sense to me in a city the size of Cleveland, which has, like, 15 wards and covers vast amount. Different really, you're really different if you live on the lakeshore than if you live down the I 77 Corridor. Is Hudson I

know. Feel like somebody who know one just doesn't understand them.

Okay. Point noted, mister Beautiful.

East Side,

West Side. Yeah. Okay.

That's all. We live in Task 4 G. You're in the you're in the neighborhood that's up here. And I only live in Hudson Park Estates, and so I'm just down a notch.

Alright. And as long as we're comfortable with that, I just Yeah. See some

of them

some of us live like my only question here was just it seems very fixed. There's no there's no, clause here that says, hey. If I have a financial interest, but I don't manage that interest, can I go before counsel and say, hey? I do have a conflict with the qualification, but here's my, you know, kind of disposition as to why I'd like to still be approved and qualified to run. This doesn't allow anybody who has who who falls into conflict with this section to even argue for the right to run.

But it sounds like

if there's disclosures, then a determination could be made through the disclosure. Like, if you let's say, I'm making this up, right, The city pays a vendor who's in town and you work for that vendor. Now you're not the owner. You're an employee. Like, I wouldn't necessarily see a conflict there.

I think the answer is in a section we already removed or reviewed, which is 10.01, removal from office. It says, except as otherwise provided by the charter, any member of board or commission, it doesn't say elected officers, may be removed, and then it does include disqualification for office. So if I would marshal, if at any point during someone's term of office, if they were found to be disqualified, they could be subject to the removal clause. That's appointees. That's not elected officials.

Is the question what is a financial interest? Like what would disqualify you? Is it if I work part time at Hershey's ice cream place that probably doesn't qualify as a financial interest. Is the degree from a legal perspective?

I think though that you can get an opinion from the Ohio Attorney General on that topic. I'm thinking of a situation we had with one city board, city commission, where there was a question about a conflict of interest. And and getting that opinion mattered because the person could hang their hat on. Their participation as a citizen.

I forgot about that. You're right.

Yeah. So I I and I think those are different than the the section in 10, mister K.

Brooks. I just found

because it's appointees.

I just found 3.13 is removal of council members, and there's probably one for the mayor as well, which is, the council shall be the judge of the qualifications. Mhmm. And then there's reasons for removal, and one of them is disqualification for office. And that would be this we're reviewing now this where we are 7.3 is form is the qualifications for council member for elected officials. So I would say if council is the judge of its own members, if council finds that, in mister Bandwake's four zero one k, he has Microsoft and mister Sharon wants to purchase it, then he's gotta sell it or they're gonna have a reckoning with him.

That that would be my

In a very general way, yes. Okay. I realize majority shareholder.

There may

be a couple $100. I don't know.

I think I might stick with the

Microsoft. Yeah. I was a majority shareholder.

Would recuse myself from any votes on funding Microsoft. There you go.

Accidented two year, residency question in the area by Ward. Just what's the consensus concern or leave it the

way it is? I think it's appropriate.

Yeah. We're Alright. Any changes any other changes to that section or any changes to that section? No. No. Article seven down. There were a lot of changes to that section previously. Yep. Article five. It is eight fifty.

Article five is a very long section. It is the manager. It has six sections. Would you like to do any of them, or shall we defer till the next meeting? We went way past I I try to keep you out get you out at nine. So

I think we defer to keep it all

I think it'll stay fresh. Yeah. You'll see how yes. Much we gotta have to recall. Alright.

Motion to defer.

Yeah. Alright.

So we will stop after seven. And then at the next meeting, we will do five, eight, nine, and whatever whatever comes after that. Is there something else I was supposed to come back to before we move on or no? Everything else? Okay.

We do have another opportunity for public comment on the agenda. Ma'am, do you have any comments? Not by us. All right. No public comments under item eight. Action items. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday, April 2, which is four weeks from tonight. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Let me

just ask real quick. If you have anything for counsel too and maybe under public comments, if you have questions to shoot to counsel at the end of the meeting, let me know. I'll take them back to counsel.

Motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Trainer moves. Ms. Griffith seconds to adjourn. Roll call Ms. Griffith?

Yes.

Ms. McCoy? Yes. Ms. Fiddleri?

Yes.

Ms. Norman? Yes. Mister Hoover? Yes. Mister Ryan? Yes. Mister Kegler? Yes. And mister Hall? Yes. And mister Trainer? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. This meeting is adjourned at according to clock 08:52 or Mr. Pitchford's phone 08:49. Meeting adjourned.